|
|
| Folks,
we will be soon unveiling our stunning new findings to the public. We work hard to make sure the public gets the facts, and want to make sure we have the proper documentation and references to back up our findings. We've always stated that our research documents are just the tip of the iceberg, and these new findings prove just that.
You'll find the new research at www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org as soon as we can get it assembled, and we'll be available here to discuss it with you!
On a related note - Our efforts to contact and work with the DNR to make Musky fishing the best it can be have not yet been answered. The Project team truly hopes that we can begin to make progress on a plan that benefits all areas of the state this spring.
Thanks and stay tuned!
Bob Benson
Wisconsin Musky Restoration Team
www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org
Editor's Note:
MuskieFIRST has acquired a copy of some of the communication between the DNR and the WMRT. We sincerly hope that the obvious rift between the WMRT and the DNR can be closed. Editing to this and other posts that do not serve that end goal might occur, but the base content and intent of every comment here will remain intact. We appreciate everyone's understanding and encourage you to watch this issue closely, as it will likely result in the average angler having a far better understanding of the efforts in Wisconsin to grow larger muskies. | |
| | |
| It shouldn't take very long to complete what Bob has aluded to. We have the data, just re-checking facts. In the meantime ADDITIONAL information information of, at the very least, a semi-staggering nature has just been received.
Some weeks ago I requested the hatchery stocking quota sheets from the Woodruff hatchery. There was no response, for whatever reason. I then followed that up with a WFOIA (Wisconsin Freedom Of Information Act) request. That request was forwarded to Madison. After I, again, explained to the gentleman in Madison what I was after, he told me that the information was kept at the hatchery, and sent the request back there to be fulfilled. Today, just a few days later, the sheets were received.
One of the constants that we have received from various DNR personal, was that they didn't want to do "cross-drainage" stocking, citing this as a primary reason to not allow "pure" Mississippi River strain muskies to be used. AGAIN, we find it to be a case of "we won't allow it" but if we do it is ok. One supervisor told me it was ok because it was within the state. We must ask, which is it? Is cross-drainage stocking ok or isn't it?
When I reviewed the sheets from the Spooner hatchery (Chippewa River drainage), I found that there were 6 waters in the Wisconsin River proper (2) and its drainage lakes to be stocked with mixed stock muskies from Bone Lake on the schedule for this year.
Now today, the information from the Woodruff hatchery shows the reverse is scheduled; the stocking of Woodruff hatchery muskies into many of the Chippewa River drainage lakes and river segments, and the Great Lakes drainage, and many more waters are involved!
A quick and cursory look shows that at least 3 Great Lakes waters are scheduled THIS YEAR with "unspecified strain" from the Woodruff hatchery, and 13 waters in the Chippewa River drainage, INCLUDING, AS HAS BEEN THE CASE "EVERY YEAR" EXCEPT ONE IN AT LEAST THE LAST FIVE YEARS (didn't get records any further back-one year it was in a connecting lake), THE TURTLE-FLAMBEAU FLOWAGE!! The TFF, is one of the remaining "true" trophy potential lakes left in the state, which has produced bonafide muskies over 50 pounds in the past. This is simply inexcusable! Stocking these "small strain" muskies from the Woodruff hatchery into that magnificent body of water MUST STOP!
The primary question that now comes to mind, is just WHO is monitoring what is going on? ANYONE?? If this is how the "experts" are managing YOUR waters, how can they expect us to trust them? They continually tell us something cannot be done, and then they go and do it themselves.
Is this a case of merely watching the dollar? They have brood lakes that are KNOWN to have small strain fish, but they are close to the hatcheries and they can get in, get their eggs and get out quick and cheap, regardless of the quality of the stock. Now it appears that they are stocking to the proximity of the distance from the hatcheries as well to save bucks there too.
This is WRONG, and it needs to be corrected!! At the very minimum, a "stocking moratorim" until this can get sorted out, is in order.
There's more coming; stay tuned!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 280
Location: Pewaukee WI | WOW. Very Sick. What will future generations say about this>? | |
| | |
| Still MORE!
Earlier, as I was reveiwing the Woodruff hatchery sheets, I missed one that was printed on two sides. I discovered that in 2000, the Woodruff hatchery stocked 2000 muskies into the Spooner hatchery BROOD STOCK LAKE, Bone Lake!
In addition, they stocked 1,014 into the Chippewa Flowage, among others!!
Is it any wonder our trophy fishing has declined? It is EXACTLY as we have maintained all along. Our muskie stocks are so mixed up, and with small strain stocks to boot, that there is no way to sort it all out. Overstocking with the only known pure Mississippi River strain left, as Minnesota did, is the only sure way to fix it! It has been extremely successful there, and it can be here in Wisconsin too.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 665
Location: Twin Cities, MN | It has been nothing less than terrifying to read through the mutiple postings on this topic the last few days in regards to how the WI DNR has been managing the WI fishery. I am in complete agreement with Larry, quit stocking the smaller strain in the trophy lakes.
If anyone from the WI department of tourism still has ears that can hear, and eyes that can read, it is topics like this that make me wonder WHY I continue to chase muskies in the state where I was born.
Pal | |
| | |
| Before you go jumping to conclusions, you need to verify that those fish were indeed separate broodstock from distinctly different collections and were not stocked from fry given from one hatchery to another. Maybe this never happens but if there is trouble collecting in one area would the fingerlings been farmed out to cover missing fingerlings at the other hatchery and then returned?
Also another question. Is not the woodruff hatchery dependent on WI river fish? Isn't that the drainage covered? And isn't Spooner's genetic base Couderay fish, via Bone Lake?
I am confused about your claims on Lake strain and river strain fish here.
The Couderay fish were Lake strain, were they not? | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | I have purposely stayed out of this for a couple of reasons. First, I do not live in (or anywhere near) Wisconsin and feel that it is really none of my business. Second, I am a professional fisheries biologist and have not felt like placing a target on myself or being labeled as just another player in some larger 'conspiracy theory' designed to undermine angling opportunity wherever I may roam.
I can, however shed some light on how some things are done here and possibly lend some explanation on why there appears to be 'inconsistencies' in the stocking protocol and alleged location of source fish. We have but one brood hatchery in Utah. It not only takes eggs from different strains, but even of different species. They are then shipped out to different hatcheries for rearing. Often strains and even species are raised in ajacent raceways. The hatchery personnel have thusfar been extremely effective in keeping track of what goes where and when they go there. I have no reason to question their competency. If someone requested records from any of our hatcheries, sure they will probably find out that Bonneville Cutthroats were raised next to rainbows or brook trout. That hatchery may be responsible for providing fish for up to 3 different drainages. We even have a hatchery that raises threatened and endangered species next to tiger muskies, hybrid striped bass and smallmouths. Do they head for the same waters? Of course not. The picture may indeed be bigger than the words appearing on the page. The whole culture system is a huge logistical jigsaw puzzle that I, thankfully have no direct influence on. Twelve to 13 hatcheries providing fish to hundreds of waters all year long and all the managers have to do is request species, strain, size, numbers and timing. It seems to get done right every year. Do mistakes occur? Probably, but I doubt there's some kind of determined action designed to insure it, or a subsequent cover-up designed to conceal it. They do a pretty good job for somewhere between 9 and 14 bucks an hour. You can call the Governor on me now...
K. | |
| | |
| Larry & Bob this is very disturbing will you be able to release these documents for review un edited so we can see for ourselves I personally do not see a problem with it maybe a $5.00 muskie stamp will sort out all the problems LOL there should be no problems posting facts if indeed they are facts thank you for your dedication to the fishery | |
| | |
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | I'm most certainly not trying to "inflame" anyone. I would just like to ask a question about this whole discussion. Wisconsin has grown big muskies and is growing them now, albeit maybe not at the rate of Minnesota. Everyone likes to catch bigger fish, but is stocking all Wisconsin waters with Minnesota strain fish in order to possibly gain a couple inches worth completely diluting the Wisconsin gene pool? Diversity is a great, important, and healthy thing, and Wisconsin's muskies are there for a reason. I enjoy traveling the country and catching fish of different strains in different places. I guess I would just be hesitant to support such a drastic shift when, although Wisconsins fisheries could always be improved, aren't in very bad shape overall.
Also, I would like to remind some of the folks who like to lay it on the WDNR that the dnr is quite often the last priority of the people in Madison, who tend to give too many orders without much background knowledge. The dnr is usually the first department to have its belt tightened when money gets scarce as it is now, too.
Elwood Brehmer | |
| | |
| FSF,...You ask this: And isn't Spooner's genetic base Couderay fish, via Bone Lake?
Good question! But before anyone answers this question I have something that needs to be said. Have you ever heard of Spider Lake in Sawyer Co.? If so you may know that it is not what I or most people would consider a trophy fishery. Why? This is why.
Of the documented catches from Spider Lake only 2% exceed 45 inches, and only 0.3% exceed 50 inches. Why do I bring this up? Because it is a documented FACT that Spider Lake fish were planted into Lac Courte Oreilles by the DNR. This was done PRIOR to the DNR taking fish from LCO and putting them into Bone Lake to create our current Brood stock lake for NW WI.
So now lets look at Bone lake. Of the documented catches from Bone Lake only 2% exceed 45 inches, and only 0.07% exceed 50 inches! See any similarities between Sider Lake and Bone Lake here? Nearly NO large fish! This is where our brood stock comes from people! Are they LCO fish? If not, then I must ask, why do we use them as brood stock if they DON"T GROW! If they are LCO fish, then I must ask why do we use them as brood stock if they DON"T GROW!
How about Lake Wissota. Wissota gets stocked with fish from the Spooner hatchery which raises fish from Bone lake progeny. Wissota is 6,300 acres with a maximum depth of over 40 ft, tons of forage and it is part of the Chippewa River system, just like the Chippewa Flowage. Of the documented catches from Lake Wissota, only 3% exceed 45 inches and only 0.2% exceed 50 inches. Anyone see any similarities here between Spider, LCO, and Wissota? Again,....Nearly NO large fish!
And the list goes on and on, lake after lake stocked with Bone Lake fish with the same miserable results.
So, maybe harvest is the problem? Lets take a look at that and see.
Spider Lake: 98% of all fish under 45 released. So where are the fish 45 to 50 inches?
Bone Lake: 98% of all fish under 45 inches released. So where are the fish 45 to 50 inches?
Lake Wissota: 99.9% of all fish under 45 inches released. So where are the fish 45 to 50 inches?
News flash! There are none!
By the way, did you know that the DNR has all 3 of these lakes, Spider, Bone & Wissota listed as class A waters? Yes, class A waters.
Class A = Trophy waters according to our DNR folks. This is pathetic!
So are they LCO fish or not? Who cares! They DO NOT GROW!.....or reproduce in nearly all our waters.
Why would we or the DNR want to continue to use Bone Lake fish as brood stock? Someone , PLEASE, explain to me the benefits of continuing to use Bone Lake fish as our brood stock.
EJohnson
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Eric, Bob, Larry etc. This, from several members of our local Musky club without computer access have been reading these threads on my pc here in central WI: Keep up the good work!!!!!!! We/I have not seen anything any more inflamatory coming from your group, than from people in opposition to believing the facts you provide. You guys should start a message board on your web site.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/27/2005 6:12 AM
| |
| | |
| I have been reading, talking and thinking about this thread way too much. I was wondering about the results of different musky tournaments that have been held in both states and was wondering what the percentage of 50"+ and 40"+ fish were caught and registered in these tournaments. Without going into great time consuming detail I found some interesting numbers. Between the years of 1998-2004 the Hayward area Muskies Inc. tournament has had a total of 392 fish registered by fishermen. Out of those 392 fish, only 1 has been 50"+ (0.003%). Out of those 392, only 95 have been 40"+ (24%). Now the results of the Frank Schneider tournament held up in the Cass Lake area in 2004 (would have averaged out previous years,but could not find information) had a total of 88 fish registered with 5 over 50"+ (0.06%) and out of those 88, 88 were 40"+ which comes out to 100%(none were registered under 40" because of size limit regulations). I know numbers can be misleading, but if you look at the number of 40"+ and 50"+ fish registered in just one year from the MN tournament, you will see that they almost caught as many 40"+ fish and more 50"+ fish than the Hayward tournament did in the last 7 years!
These are disturbing numbers no matter how you look at it. Even if you are not a scientist, you look at the results of all the various tournaments that are being held in the two states and you will see very similar outcomes. As mentioned earlier in one of the other posts, the state of Wisconsin's musky fishing is in crisis when it comes to bigger fish. People should be thankful that the gentlemen in the Musky Restoration group are bringing this to the attention of the DNR and fighting for the everyday musky fisherman that deserves better.
Brent | |
| | |
| Here are some more interesting stats from a popular "trophy" WI lake that might make you think about what the restoration group is trying to achieve. Over the past six years, 912 muskies had been caught and registered by fishermen. Out of those 912, only 341 (37%) were 40"+ and only 3 (0.003%) were 50"+.
These numbers are not made up numbers. These are posted on various websites for the public to see.
| |
| | |
| Believe me, I understand where you are coming from, and really do understand. I also know that there are a TON of dedicated, hard working DNR folks out there. What is mind boggeling to me, is that in the State Musky Committee meeting many of the "problems" noted were discussed and agreed to. Why can't someone from the DNR just step up to the plate and publically acknowledge these facts and say that things are going to change immediately, rather than let these types of wrongs and discussions go on? I'm mystified.
Muskiefool: If you are referring to the stocking sheets, they are public domain and a copy can be obtained from the hatcheries. I have no way to post them here. The muskie stamp is a separate matter entirely and I won't get into that here.
Woody: No one on the WMR Project Team has EVER suggested all state muskie waters be stocked with Mississippi River strain fish. We have spelled it out fully in the documents on our web site (www.WiscosinMuskyRestoration.org).
Eric, Reef Hawg and B. Hirsch. Thank you for your input.
Hope I have covered everything.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.Wisconsin Musky Restoration. org
| |
| | |
| Keep up the good work Larry. I better not say anymore than that. I've had two posts deleted over this subject. I guess my words are a little too harsh for some. Hopefully this post stays on the board.
Air | |
| | |
| Steve,
first of all I'd object to the statement that we've done a "couple months of research". For me it's been 20 years, for Larry a lifetime. We've spent a couple of months compiling the data into a presentable form. I don't claim to know more about fisheries Biology than anyone at the DNR (including the janitor) but I think I do know quite a bit about muskies, and their history in Wisconsin. Sometime's it's not rocket science. A biologist may want to grow a Shetland Pony into a Clydesdale, that's not necessarily smarter or cheaper than just going and getting a Clydesdale. Again , I've spent a lot of time talking with the DNR and I find them ALL to be very knowlegeable, proffessional people who care about the fisheries. At the same time, none of them seemed to know that Big Spider lake Muskies had been stocked into Bone Lake. I find this troubling, and something that can be corrected. The problems we have are because everyone assumed that our broodstock is based on the true giants of Wisconsin's past. Once you realize and accept that our broodstock is based on small slow growing fish from from Big Spider Lake - it changes things - does it not? My world changed this past year when that was discovered.......but nothing changes at the DNR.
The field and hatchery folks are exceptional people that are more than qualified to do their jobs, but have been given an impossible task trying to turn fish that don't grow big into a trophy fishery. We need a change in policy that starts at the top of the DNR.
Our group looked long and hard for lakes within Wisconsin that were part of the Mississippi drainage that had not been stocked with these fish before looking at a more drastic solution. We expanded our search to the entire Mississippi drainage (MN and Wis) and found that there was only a single lake that had not been stocked with the smaller strains of Muskies - Leech Lake.
I'd suggest that most biologists (and fisherman) agree with our thoughts on this subject. For 105 years and counting we see mixed Muskies (that are known not to grow large or reproduce) from one lake scatterred across lakes in all of our drainages. What good science is this based on?
You don't need a degree in Biology to recognize this. And it should not take more than a single phone call to stop it and start doing things better.
Bob | |
| | |
| Bob,
You stated "you don't need a degree in Biology to recognize this. And it should not take more than a single phone call to stop it and start doing things better." I AGREE COMPLETELY. IT'S A MATTER OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THE PROBLEM IN TRYING TO MAKE CHANGES IS THAT THERE IS ALWAYS A BUREAUCRACY TO CONTEND WITH.
Air | |
| | |
Posts: 1438
| Maybe the problem in "making the phone call" is that the people who have to deal with "the bureaucracy" had never before had to deal with "the bureaucracy". Until you walk a mile in someone elses shoes, don't assume how easy change is.
At this point in time, I'm on no ones side. I am, however, starting to get P.O.'d about the simplistic attitude WMRP is taking in making a change. Not THAT is needs to be done (that is still under my review) but rather HOW it should/could/would/or is expected to be done. Change is never that easy, especially if it is something worthwhile. Ask Dr M.L. King. Ask the European Jews. Ask the Lord (especially on Easter Sunday).
I do have more to say. However, because I know how my mouth tends to override my #$%^&*&, if/when I feel that I can control that tendency, I'll do so in a more PC worded response.
Scott | |
| | |
| For the record - Minnesota changed their stocking program overnight. The MN and Wis DNR both received a report in 1982 that told them that there were indeed two different animals that we call Muskies. One program changed that day, the other has changed nothing in 23 years since getting that study.
Again, even the DNR told us that stocking mixed strain muskies into the Great Lakes & st. Croix drainages is wrong. If we focus the discussion on those two drainages - why must we study something that we all agree(DNR included) is the right thing to do? There is no cost to changing the eggs used, and we have verified the eggs are available from different sources that meet DNR criteria. Many Muskie clubs would pick up the costs of obtaining/transporting eggs if required.
Doing nothing is better than doing something that is knowingly wrong.
Bob Benson | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Bob or whoever may have the answer, didn’t it take until 1987 for the Mn DNR to go completely to MR musky? I thought I read that someplace in all this information.
The body of work you guys put together is amazing and the powers that be should at least be reviewing all the studies and documents you have provided. Your group didn’t write these studies you just found them and are referencing them. Is this happening?
I understand we want change to happen overnight, but realistically it doesn’t work that way. The first step is to get the WDNR people in charge of stocking musky to review the data, especially that 1982 Post report. Is that available on the web for viewing? If not it should be?
I also believe that just because you don’t have a piece of paper hanging on the wall saying you are a biological expert, doesn’t mean you can’t think of a solution to a complex biological problem. Sometimes looking at a problem from a different perspective helps find a unique solution, or helps show the answer that is right under the experts noses, when they are two close to see it. I know this is the case in my field of engineering. If a bar stool biologist has 30+ years of on the water experience they just may know a thing or two about the fish they are pursuing.
There has been a lot of round and round in these threads, but what is really being done by the DNR, they must have had some reaction to the data? Is there people there interested in the data, if so who are they? How can we help them move that curiosity up the chain of command.
What do we need to do to get the ball rolling in the bureaucracy?
What are the next steps we need to get done to help this project?
Will the proposed musky stamp help this project? If so how do we insure it gets passed TWO WEEKS from tomorrow? Can we use the Project information to help get the stamp passed? Should we?
Steve or Slammer would it be possible to invite some of the powers that be in the DNR to have a civil discussion on your Pro Board where it could be fully moderated. I think it would be a great way to have a discussion and it may not frighten them off. That way everyone gets edited before the post goes live.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 3/27/2005 9:14 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe the DNR is preparing something this week. I'll see what I can find out.
Mike, I agree that sometimes someone from the otuside can observe and indicate a course of action that those close might not see. In this case, that's a possibility in some places, I suppose, but not where we fish. I spoke to the management folks here a couple times before the restoration group's work went public and once after. They are moving forward on several fronts and looking very much forward to the completion of the genetics work currently undeway that is truly groundbreaking stuff. It has been reported that work is not too far from complete. I think if the very first post on the 'breath of fresh air' indicates the folks in Madison managing that water have plans in place too.
| |
| | |
| Mike asked: "Bob or whoever may have the answer, didn't it take until 1987 for the Mn DNR to go completely to MR musky? I thought I read that someplace in all this information."
My reply: Yes, it took them some time to get all the bugs out of the change over, most primarily when to take their eggs. This fact makes that program even more amazing, as what has been done there has basically been done in an even shorter time frame.
Mike wrote: "The body of work you guys put together is amazing and the powers that be should at least be reviewing all the studies and documents you have provided. Your group didn't write these studies you just found them and are referencing them. Is this happening?"
My reply: Thank you, and I wish I could give you an answer. One thing that amazed us early on was the fact that neither a biologist in charge of the muskie waters in one section of the northern range nor his supervisor had seen or heard of the two studies done on two Wisconsin strains and two Minnesota strains. We attribute this to excessive work load for the most part, but the point is, that if the folks in charge aren't up on the current science, how is that affecting management?
Mike writes: "I understand we want change to happen overnight, but realistically it doesn't work that way. The first step is to get the WDNR people in charge of stocking musky to review the data, especially that 1982 Post report. Is that available on the web for viewing? If not it should be?"
My reply: I don't believe the Post study is on the web, but Bob can probably better answer that. There is more I could say about this, but in order to stay within Mr. Worrall's guidelines, I must pass. Suffice it to say, that this single study was enough to change Minnesota's program overnight, and today they are reaping HUGE benefits.
Mike says: I also believe that just because you don't have a piece of paper hanging on the wall saying you are a biological expert, doesn't mean you can't think of a solution to a complex biological problem. Sometimes looking at a problem from a different perspective helps find a unique solution, or helps show the answer that is right under the experts noses, when they are two close to see it. I know this is the case in my field of engineering. If a bar stool biologist has 30+ years of on the water experience they just may know a thing or two about the fish they are pursuing."
My reply: Mike, thank you for that. In my case, the "experience" is 50 years on the water and 45 years of collecting and researching anything I could get my hands on regarding muskies. My personal library of both popular and scientific literature is very large. I was the Research Chairman for Muskie's, Inc. at one time, and as such had much interaction with the scientific community. I have been Research Editor of Musky Hunter magazine since shortly after Joe Bucher started it. And perhaps most importantly, and a distinct advantage over our public servants, this isn't a "job" for me, it is a passion that burns 24-7. As I have pointed out before, this has been a tremendous and giant jigsaw puzzle. As much of the information we have presented, that I previously knew as individual pieces, once we put that puzzle all together in a usable form, we were totally astounded. We hoped the DNR would be as well, and take advantage of our over 2000 hours of work.
Mike says: "There has been a lot of round and round in these threads, but what is really being done by the DNR, they must have had some reaction to the data? Is there people there interested in the data, if so who are they? How can we help them move that curiosity up the chain of command."
My reply: Mike, as we have stated before, when we presented our findings and options at the State Musky Committee meeting in February, with some slight variations, there was general consensus to our work. Where the DNR is now, I cannot say.
Mike asks: "What do we need to do to get the ball rolling in the bureaucracy?"...and
What are the next steps we need to get done to help this project?"
My reply: Well, there is the 'ol tried and true; contact your DNR representative, your legislator, etc.
Mike asks: "Will the proposed musky stamp help this project? If so how do we insure it gets passed TWO WEEKS from tomorrow? Can we use the Project information to help get the stamp passed? Should we?"
My reply: It certainly cannot hurt.
NOW, STILL MORE "NEW" FINDINGS:
After I finally had time to figure out an acronym, I discovered yet another interesting stocking fact from 2004. In addition to the Woodruff hatchery doing some stocking in the Spooner hatchery waters of the Chippewa River drainage, there were 17 lakes in Lincoln, ONEIDA, and Vilas county that were stocked from the Spooner hatchery mixed small strain stock into the Wisconsin River drainage waters in 2004.
I know Mr. Worrall usually plays devils advocate, but this continual hatchery stock mixing across drainages, a seeming trend, leads to a logical question. Is the DNR intentionally trying to create one large homogeneous "hatchery strain" of muskies in Wisconsin, in order to close down one hatchery? Please don't take this as an accusation, rather just a simple question. If this is the plan to save additional budget dollars, the tax-payers have a right to know. Since muskie stocking was cut 50% two years ago and some are saying another 25% is in the works, it certainly makes one wonder.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
| From the MDNR website:
For decades, the DNR primarily stocked a strain of muskie originally from Shoepack Lake, located near International Falls. These fish were easier to obtain than muskies in other lakes and were considered the purest strain available for stocking.
When Shoepack muskies failed to reach sizes anglers had hoped for, Strand and other biologists began a genetic analysis of Shoepack muskies and muskies from Leech Lake and several Wisconsin lakes to learn if muskies from different waters really are different from each other.
Strand discovered that the fish were in fact genetically distinguishable, which confirmed the existence of different strains. And if muskies were indeed different, then wasn't it likely that one strain was better than another? To find out, the researchers put the different muskies in lakes and evaluated over several years how well they performed. The winner, says Strand, was the Leech Lake strain.
Because the Leech Lake strain had evolved with northern pike, it was better able to compete with its cousin. Moreover, the Leech Lake strain grew to a larger size, and survived better than the other muskies. As a result of the findings, the DNR began using Leech Lake muskies for its primary stocking strain in the mid-1980s and continues to do so today.
Also from the MDNR website:
Larger muskies
Muskie anglers are one group reaping the benefits of fisheries research, says Jack Wingate, DNR Fisheries Research Program supervisor. According to Wingate, Minnesota muskie anglers now have a far greater chance of catching a trophy-sized muskie than
before the DNR switched to stocking a larger-growing genetic strain in the mid-1980s. Wingate says. “Here we had all the pieces—studies of spawning habitat,fish movement, growth, genetics—that we put together to find the best strain to stock.”
In the late 1970s, Bob Strand began studying various strains of muskies used for stocking. The recently retired northwest regional fisheries supervisor learned that the Leech Lake–strain of muskie survived better and grew larger than other strains.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interesting that the Shoepack strain was considered the purest strain available for stocking, yet when they realized that they failed to reach sizes anglers had hoped for they stopped using the shoepac strain. WI uses mixed strains that fail to reach sizes nearly all anglers hope for and is going to keep doing it.
It also says that anglers now have a far greater chance of catching a trophy-sized muskie than before the DNR switched to stocking a larger-growing genetic strain. This tells me that changing to a larger growing strain is being credited for the success of MN's trophy muskie fishery.
They found that the Leech Lake–strain of muskie survived better and grew larger than other strains, including WI strains.
This change that MN made to its brood stock happened 20-25 years ago when anglers reported to the DNR that muskies were not reaching sizes they had hoped for.
Folks, anglers in WI have been reporting this same thing to the DNR for 30 years now. The result has been NO CHANGE! Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Folks, the WI DNR stocked the leech strain of muskie into a WI lake. The reason for this was,.....as is indicated in WDNR research report 175: The purpose of stocking muskellunge from Leech Lake into a Wisconsin lake was to determine if Leech Lake muskellunge could survive and successfully reproduce in a lake inhabited by northern pike. The secondary objective was to evaluate growth rates of Leech Lake muskellunge in Nancy Lake.
The report later on again states: The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival, growth, and reproduction of muskellunge progeny from Leech Lake, Minnesota in a Wisconsin lake with a northern pike population. This information will be used to assess the management potential of stocking Leech Lake muskellunge in Wisconsin.
Folks, remember the statement from this report that says this: "This information will be used to assess the management potential of stocking Leech Lake muskellunge in Wisconsin."
So did the results of this study that are listed below meet the stated objectives of this study? You decide.
Research report 175 from the Wi DNR states:
· Natural reproduction of muskellunge in Nancy Lake occurred in four of six years.
· Leech Lake muskellunge reproduced in Nancy Lake.
· Young-of-the-year (YOY) muskellunge were collected in four of the six years sampled.
· Relative density of YOY muskellunge was within the reported range for self sustaining populations in Wisconsin
· Growth rate of muskellunge in Nancy Lake was above average compared to Wisconsin growth rates.
· Linear growth of Nancy Lake muskellunge was faster than average growth rates reported for Wisconsin muskellunge.
· Growth in Nancy Lake was faster initially than muskellunge in Leech Lake.
· Nancy Lake muskellunge exceeded the growth standard for length, averaging 104%.
· Growth differences between Nancy Lake muskellunge and Wisconsin muskellunge were likely underestimated.
· Growth for Wisconsin muskellunge is likely slower than reported here.
· When compared to the growth standard for weight, Nancy Lake muskellunge exceeded the standard at 110.6%.
· Nancy Lake muskellunge attained greater lengths at age than Wisconsin muskellunge and this greater length was reflected in heavier fish at a given age.
More info:
· The Spooner hatchery successfully reared eggs from Leech Lake muskellunge in 1987.
· The Wi DNR successfully netted and stripped eggs from Nancy Lake muskellunge in 1990.
· The Spooner hatchery successfully reared eggs from Nancy Lake muskellunge in 1990.
Looks to me like it was a success.
Folks, if the information from this study was suppose to be used to assess the management potential of stocking Leech Lake muskellunge in Wisconsin,......then I ask this: Why were no attempts made to determine spawning location? Its stated in the report that no attempts were made to determine spawing location. Why????
If the DNR can dismiss using leech lake muskellunge for stocking in WI by saying in this report that : Muskellunge performance in Nancy Lake was difficult to assess because no muskellunge were present prior to this introduction. Hence, there was no evidence to suggest that Leech Lake muskellunge would perform better than Wisconsin muskellunge in Wisconsin waters,......then I must ask this: Why were they put in a lake with no WI muskellunge present if they really seriously were looking at the possibility of stocking Leech Lake muskellunge in Wisconsin? Why??????? Folks, by doing this, no matter what the findings were, they guaranteed themselves a reason not to change. They guaranteed themselves a reason to do more studies instead of changing.
Why did the DNR go through all the work and money needed to do this study which included, netting and stripping eggs from these fish, rearing them at our hatchery, and successfully I might add, if before the study was even started they already knew they could easily dissmiss the use of the leech strain in WI by simply saying that there was no evidence to suggest they would perform better than WI strains because there were no WI strain musky present in the lake. Why????
All the evidence that is available suggests to me that they would indeed perform better. They grow to larger sizes and reproduce in WI waters.
Folks, once again, its the FISH!
Who here wants to see more time and money spent on studies in which before the study even gets started, the results can simply be dismissed by the DNR because it was conducted in a manner that no matter what the results indicate, when the study is completed, it provides an excuse they can rely on to dismiss the findings, change nothing, and provide yet another reason to do more studies?
EJohnson
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One thing that worries me; if another 25% cut happens, there won't be any stocking of any sort of any strain. I sure hope the economy picks up. | |
| | |
| Mike,
On your reference to changing overnight. The MN DNR got the Post study in 1982. In that same year (need to check the references to be sure, I'm doing this off memory) the MN DNR changed to Wisconsin strain, while it tried to locate where Leech strain spawned. It took a while to get a handle on the Leech fish, so they stocked both Wisconsin strain and Leech strain while they worked out the bugs. Once they had both of the strains they tested them both and went with the one that grew largest and heaviest. (Leech strain.) At this point they went solely with the Leech strain.
I guess the point is the Minnesota DNR identified the goal of growing large Muskies, and at every point in time they used the existing evidnce to stock the largest fish they could. At one point in time they chose Wisconsin strain (I believe due to the World Records out of Hayward, but this is speculation on my part). All scientific evidence points to the Leech or Great Lakes strain growing the largest.
As far as I can tell there is no evidence that suggests different strains grow larger in different waters. Let me discuss this, because both moderators on this board as well as Biologists have said the opposite. There are two studies done in the Mississippi drainage that compared different strains in different lakes - IR 418 from MN DNR and RR 172 from Wisconsin DNR. In both of these studies the larger strain grew larger in EVERY lake. In IR 418, the Leech strain grew largest , Wisconsin 2nd, and Shoepac 3rd in both lakes.
In the Wisconsin study RR 172, they compared LCO and Mud Callahan strains in 4 lakes. In all 4 lakes including Mud Callahan, the LCO strain grew larger, although only 3 inches larger than the notoriously slow growing M/C strain. It did not matter that the M?C strain was "native" - the larger genetic strain grew larger.
I invite all to refer to actual studies on Muskies that indicate otherwise.
Bob Benson | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I never said that, I said that fhe Wisconsin strain here grows BIG in some situations I have personal experience with. I personally have no problem leaving a system to natural reproduction or restocking from the same strain present (if necessary) that is producing 35 to 40# 52" bronze beauties. In those situations, I would prefer those fish are left alone, no added strains from Minnesota.
Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but some portion of an average population of Leech Lake fish in any system might not grow as well or as fast as some portion of an average population of Wisconsin strain fish when looking at the same age fish in different waters ( what I mean is a 10 year old INDIVIDUAL Leecher in Cass might not be larger than a 10 year old wisconsin strain INDIVIDUAL in Pelican, it's averages, right?) , this is a matter of looking at the total population and the mean and maximum growth within both, right? Averages, and those include things like average mean temperatures in Spring, what the fish's first year on the planet was like, total biomass and predator/prey relationships, etc. I agree everything I have seen from the Minnesota studies referred to support that the Leech lake strain can reach better top size when stocked. I'd also agree that the Minocqua and Woodruff fish can and DO get into the 50" plus trophy class size. The fish on the lake I've been working over the last few years were identified in the same manner the experimental fish in the Minnesota study were, so the fact they are stocked is not in question. It appears that this lake will be on the 'do not stock' list for some time to come, I hope the fish are protected by CPR practices, or harvest will take a large toll when added to the TAC portion set aside for spearing.
It's going to get interesting with the harvest of large muskies in Minnesota inevitably rising quickly as pressure increases and the word gets out on the fish present from this initial program. As an example, look at the survival rate of all the strains in the Minnesota study. I was always impressed at the mortality of the total stocked population in any water. Imagine now that only a select few will make it to the size we want, as there will NOT be a huge number of fish left. Now harvest, say, 6 a year to anglers and 6 to spearing on one of the study lakes, as an example. If indeed the survival rates as lited are to remian constant with the study, after 6 years if 12 fish were harvested from the surviving population stocked initially, a harvest of 12 would represent 20% of that remaining year class. Such is the impact of spearing and existing harvest rates. Imagine the impact on a total population base in any particular lake here of 20 years of spearing mostly of larger females.
Also, doesn't overall fertility have a direct bearing on the health of the Muskie population in any waters we might discuss? In waters that are infertile, with poor forage and poor water quality, will muskies grow as large as in waters that have a near perfect environment? Don't variables in all environmental factors in any system effect the health of the Muskie population?
I have a question for anyone who fishes Cass. Some 50" plus Leechers in Cass are frequently very skinny. What is that about? Some aren't, but a good cross section are. For years, folks here when asked about Cass would say," Sure, longer fish over there, but really skinny!" Is that a forage issue, related to competition with Pike over prey, or another issue?
Regarding another totally unrelated issue, what is the deal with the other predator fish in Leech, specifically walleyes? I undestand there are problems there, anyone from that area have input? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I was going to post this, then I wasn’t but I think Steve’s question about Cass leads into it very well. So I will post it. I read through WDNR Research Report 172 last night and found it very interesting. I cut and pasted the conclusions into this post because I think they are very relavant to the discussion we have been having. If you have the time got to the link and read the entire report, if not just read the rest of this post.
Thanks
From WDNR Research Report 172, May 1996
Survival and Growth of Stocked Muskellunge: Effects of Genetic and Environmental Factors
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/publications/PUBL_RS_572_...
Management Implications
Koppelman and Philipp (1986) stress the need for
genetic conservation in management of muskel-lunge.
While conclusions from this study are lim-ited
in scope due to sample sizes in most lakes,
the case history information from Mud/Callahan
Lake stands alone in demonstrating the impor-tance
of stock management. Muskellunge in
Mud/Callahan Lake were size limited possibly by
food resources. As a result fish did not reach
large sizes. When M/C progeny were stocked
into other waters their growth rates improved, but
length at age was still less than LCO muskel-lunge.
Hence, growth (i.e., length at age for M/C
and LCO muskellunge) seemed to be influenced
by both environmental and genetic factors.
An alternative explanation for the observed
growth/size structure in Mud/Callahan and Lac
Courte Oreilles would implicate angler harvest.
Long-term harvest trends by anglers targeting
larger fish may cause a natural adaptive shift
toward earlier maturing (and slower growing) fish
in Mud/Callahan Lake. A similar selective pro-cess
would not be present in Lac Courte Oreilles
because selection (for egg collection) is artificial (by
hatchery workers) and often toward larger fish.
While growth is slow, the Mud/Callahan muskel-lunge
population was self-sustaining, suggesting
this population has adapted to the specific condi-tions,
i.e. low levels of forage or harvest conditions
in Mud/Callahan Lake.
Old age, slow growth populations such as the
one present in Mud/Callahan require special con-sideration
for management. Good growth and
subsequent large size are desired traits for muskel-lunge
management. Hence, even though the
Mud/Callahan population is well adapted to envi-ronmental
conditions in Mud/Callahan Lake, the
fishery is not desirable to anglers. Management
options for slow growth populations might consider
special size limits that would encourage harvest
of smaller individuals while offering protection to
larger fish in the population.
The higher survival of M/C muskellunge com-pared
to LCO muskellunge is of interest, and to
suggest a reason is speculative. Possibly, M/C
fish are somehow behaviorly different from LCO
fish, making them less vulnerable to predation. As
mentioned above, the Mud/Callahan population is
self-sustaining through natural reproduction, while
the Lac Courte Oreilles population is sustained
through stocking, and as such, artificial selection
acts on the early-life history stages. Differences
such as these should be looked at more in depth
in future research studies.
The low number of adult recaptures in most
study waters probably reflects low survival at early
ages. A loss of nearly 70% of the stocked fish
within the first several months following release
leaves few remaining fish to survive to maturity.
These encounters are inherently problematic when
dealing with a species that requires 5-7 years to
reach maturity. In future studies that require
muskellunge to reach maturity, several options are
available to increase chances of capturing adequate
numbers of fish. First, yearling muskellunge have
been shown to have higher survival and be more
cost-effective than typical fall fingerling stocking
(Margenau 1992). Using yearling fish for stocking
evaluations such as this one would increase the
chances of more fish reaching the adult population.
Second, standard fingerling stocking rates could
be increased. While this option may be costly, the
number of fish surviving short-term mortality may
be adequate to allow assessment at adult ages.
Age assessment of muskellunge using scale
samples has been suspect, especially for fish > 10
years of age (Casselman 1983). This situation
becomes more troublesome when dealing with
slow growth populations. Recovery of tagged
muskellunge in Mud/Callahan Lake after 8-9 years
at large indicated fish could be nearly 20 years
old and still < 30 inches. Interpretation of scale
samples from these fish was nearly 5 years less
than the partly known age.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
P.S. There seems to be a problem with this thread not all the post show up all the time. When viewed through the print friendly version it seems to be better.
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Mike, thanks for posting the link to research report 172.
Does anybody have a link to the Minnesota report, IR 418?
The search engines at the Wisconsin and Minnesota DNR's are not very user friendly. | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Bytor,
Go to the MN DNR web site, then...Site Map, Publications, Fisheries, Investigational Reports, 418.
Sean Murphy
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Here is a link to Investigational Report 418 from the Minnesota DNR:
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational...
Interesting stuff | |
| | |
| Steve,
with regards to Walleye on Leech lake, the folks in that area have told me there is a huge problem with Cormorants eating walleyes on Leech Lake. I'm not sure why this wouldn't also affect Muskies.
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nasty danged birds, and at one time an endangered critter. Studies were done, scientists assigned to rebuilding the populations, and now we have a Pest that begs control. Back to what HunterMD had to say, in part. | |
| | |
| Steve,
we agree again, More food equals bigger healthier muskies of any strain.
Any chance you can build a page that posts links to these different studies people are requesting? Would save your members a lot of time.
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 280
Location: Pewaukee WI | Good Job guys, Keep up the good work. Don't let someone saying that you are not qualified discourage you. The facts are the Facts!!! Period
Keep Diggin diggin diggin. No one else has, And I really appreciate all you've done.
Please Keep Posting the Links to Different studies
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No need to build a page for the links, thay can be hotlinked right from a post here in this thread. | |
| | |
| Can't post them all here, plus they get lost over time....
disappointed
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lost? MuskieFIRST isn't a pagefile that can be lost, it's an interactive database backed up every single day. Nothing here will get lost. you can post 150 links right here, if you want.We have a search function that will pinpoint any item you need. This thread is on the research board, and as a result threads don't move off the front page very quickly. I can pin this to the top, if that makes you happier. Post all the links you wish.
If you want, you can start another thread pinned to the top with nothing in it but links and what they are for. | |
| | |
Posts: 259
Location: Alexandria, MN | More on the Leech Lake Walleye issue.
Yes, they have a HUGE problem right now. Not a good year class in the last 7 years, between poor
springs and the Cormorants, the last 7 year classes are very low. The birds are eating fish up to 15"+
and the number of birds is going up every year. The problem is they are protected by the feds and
they nest and roost on Indian Property. The DNR has spent the last few years doing the studies to
prove to the feds that the birds are a problem and they have worked out issues with the tribe. 2005
will start the reduction of the flock and with the adding of a slot to protect the adults, there should be more
baby Walleye in the future.
I'm not sure what this has to do with a Muskie genetics discussion but the question was asked.
On the skinny Cass fish? I will have to do some digging to see if there are documented studies on this.
I would agree that in the past Cass had some skinny fish, but not today. I don't know how or why, but over
the past 5 years I have started to see girth on fish from Cass, Minnetonka, Forest and other lakes across
MN that used to have skinny fish? I will look further into this, because I have been wanting to figure
this out for myself. Once I have the answer, I will post it.
Thanks,
Steve Sedesky | |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | I sent an email to DNR secretary Scott Hassett today asking him to consider stocking Mississippi river Strain muskies in all of the Mississippi river and WI river drainage lakes.
Grass, | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Bob, I think it would be a good idea to create a links page on your web site with links to all the relevant studies, reports and websites. I feel it would also be a better place for the contacts, rather than the FAQ page. Call it Links and Contacts or something like that.
Also sign all your posts with your name and the website address and everyone should be able to find everything they need to get up to speed as best they can.
I’ll tell you I have spent a couple hours each night reading what I can find and it can make the head spin.
A couple of months ago I started a post asking for the biggest problems facing the Wisconsin Musky Fishery, and which are the easiest to fix.
There was many issues listed, but after all the reading I have done I really think the Genetics could be the easiest solution to one of many problems. It doesn’t mean harvest won’t still be a major concern, but fixing the harvest problems is more political because of the hearing process.
Before the 1982 Post study the Mn and Wi fisheries parrelled each other as far as musky output and size. They had a lot fewer lakes so Mn wasn’t talked about much. Mn biologist took a complex problem and tried a simple fix. They said musky fishermen want big fish lets stock the strain we have that grows the biggest. Now the whole musky world is talking about those few Mn musky waters.
Here is the question we musky fisherman need to answer do we want fat 45 inchers with a few 47-49 inch fish and rare 50+ inch fish or do we want more skinner 45 inchers with more 50+ inch fish. The MR strain has a higher percentage of fish that grow 50+ and they do it faster. Do we at least agree on that.
Here’s my theory: Harvest would be less of a problem with fish that have a better chance of growing big, because more fish would have that potential. . You have the same release percentage with a larger percentage of fish that can grow bigger you should end up with more big fish, correct? Also because they grow faster there is less of a chance that the fish is caught and kept before it reaches that 50” mark
Hope that make some sense.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
I've been reading that stuff since the early 80's as soon as it became available from the DNRs in print. Read the entire managing Muskies book as soon as it was printed, and re-read it sometimes just for kicks. Read Chapman and Hall, Behavior of Teliost Fishes is a great read, and similar to lots of other work out there easily obtained if you have 20 bucks, and if if you're a nut like I am. My next book ordered is Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Chioce, dynamics, and uncertainty. OK, I'm alittle weird.
I also talk alot. Have since the 80's, to fisheries folks, biologists, and scientists from folks like Jerry Bucholtz to fisheries folks all across the country.
I can tell you this:
Many I speak with caution that much we are discussing is not as simple as presented. Those who advise caution and careful FORWARD movement (like a stocking of GL muskies in Petenwell and the Mad Town chain, plus a few other systems) are very familiar with the dynamics of the 80's Minnesota application and STILL advise care be exercised.
There are dynamics involved with the Minnesota exercise that will play out in the future, too. Heck, I'm just a layman, but even I can see what they mean.
We are entering a new era in Muskie management in Wisconsin. It isn't going to be as a result of anything done here on this board and it will require the cooperation of the sportsmen and the DNR in a way never experienced before. We are about to see some very tough times here in Wisconsin with our DNR budget, and if change needs to be made, that is a great place to start.
There IS planning and execution in place and ready to rock, plus a couple fisheries already stocked and protected. Several area's fisheries folks are cooperating with the State and local entities to undertake a selection of waters into which it is intended to introduce more GL muskies. Those folks can read, too.
A very important genetics study that has already defined genetic Marker at the Mitochondrial level is in process, and the results of that study will have no less an impact on knowing for sure what we are dealing with than any work done anywhere to date.
Theedz has a few great points. He is very familiar with the inner workings of the State, and made a few excellent points about who we are and what we can expect as a result. Reality can sometimes be disappointing, but it's still reality.
I have said repeatedly that I respect this group's dedication and hard work. I, as a plain old muskie angler from Wisconsin, have no problems with the efforts to distribute information, nor with a healthy debate generated by that information. I don't think any one else does either.
Bottom line? We will see change, and see it this year in many areas. Some of that change quite frankly scares me, but it's happening for better or worse. No matter what is said,I learned a very long time ago that nothing is ever as easy, nor as hard, as it is presented by the extreme on both sides of the issue.
Now this is all my opinion, and I'm not a bit interested in a systematic psychological analysis of my particular take on this by the restoration group. What I AM interested in is more data, more ideas about how to implement good ideas, and more forward movement toward a brighter future for Wisconsin muskie anglers. Whether it's the fish, or it's the fish and a few other things, we have a very rough road ahead because of tight funding. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I agree with much of what you are saying Steve. I heard today there was an article on the front page of the Vilas County News Review last week. The following is what I could find, it’t not the complete article but what I read I liked.
http://www.vilascountynewsreview.com/default.html?-database=eagleri...
I cut and pasted the article because in the past I have found these disappear pretty fast from the web site. It is only part of the article.
Anglers claim DNR
damaged muskie genetics
By Kurt Krueger
News-Review Editor
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may have unintentionally damaged the size structure of the state's muskie population by using small-fish strains in hatchery operations the past century, a new report alleges.
The result has been a downturn in catch totals for trophy muskies 50 inches and larger, the report states, now causing “tremendous economic impacts for the tourism industry” as more anglers head to Minnesota and Canada.
A team of Muskies Inc. members who took a closer look at 105 years of DNR muskie management have concluded that the mixing of fast-growing and slow-growing strains has caused a major decline in the number of trophy fish.
Additionally, the report says state fisheries personnel have gathered muskellunge eggs mostly from fish with an average length of just 331/2 inches, instead of taking them from longer fish that had proven large-growth potential.
Mike Staggs, director of the DNR's Bureau of Fisheries, said he welcomes the push to study muskie genetics but isn't convinced that there is “one simple answer to such a complicated issue.”
Staggs said Muskies Inc. did a lot of research and has the department enthused about improving muskie brood-stock management.
“We've been interested in this topic for a long time, but haven't been able to muster the time and resources to tackle it,” said Staggs. “Now, we're going to take a comprehensive look at it, starting with genetic research this spring and summer.”
However, Staggs said the Mississippi River strain of muskie used in Minnesota and parts of Wisconsin “are not all that much better a fish.” He said quite often getting better growth means giving up other traits, such as good survival.
He said the department has been without a genetics expert for years, since they lost their last specialist to a job switch and never filled the position. Now, he said a geneticist at the UW-Stevens Point will do the work.
“I'm not convinced that just a change in fish strains would put 50-inch muskies all over the state. A lot of people in the scientific community think the same way. It's not that simple.” said Staggs.
However, he said the state's muskie committee has targeted spring 2006 for the start of improvements in brood-stock management, based on what the geneticist finds this year.
“Whatever improvements are made in the way we choose fish for taking eggs and milt, it will take 10 years to determine if it helped,” he said.
TO READ THE REST OF THIS STORY, SUBSCRIBE TO THE VILAS COUNTY NEWS-REVIEW.
3/22/2005
It is good to know the DNR is taking this information seriously and that they do have a plan, I think 2006 is reasonable considering how government works. There is stuff in this article that I am sure the Project team doesn’t like but consider this was on the front page of the major Vilas County paper I am sure people who are dependant on tourism took note of it.
It would be interesting to see the actual DNR plan, Steve do you have access to this information?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | I echo Mike's thought's on finding out what the DNR is planning.
Steve? Anybody?
Steve the DNR appears to have told you they plan on putting the Great Lakes strain in Madison, Petenwell and other waters. What are the other waters? I would think the first place to put the GL muskies should be the St. Louis river, a great lakes tributary. Why are they choosing the GL strain for Petenwell? Wouldn't it make more sense to put the Mississippi strain into this system?
Troy | |
| | |
Posts: 7039
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Steve is on vacation for the next week and a half. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I have been in talks with our local fisheries biologist(Scot Ironside) regarding Petenwell and the MS strain fish(no talks of GL strain as far as I know). He and I have discussed a plan for fish marking(fin clipping, implants, etc) for future age data gathering, and he has presented it to his supervisors. I will post details of all dfecisions once they are given to me. Scot has asked that we all be patient and not inundate him with emails and calls on the matter for the time being. The DNR is fully aware of public opinions and cases built on many fronts regarding the future of WI Musky management. Local biologists and fisheries personnal want to fully investigate all scenarios before taking steps in any direction, and I very much respect their doing so. They are doing so as we speak and not waiting. I am pleased that the DNR is looking into further experimental stocking of said MS fish into certain waters, and also am releived with their caution in moving forward. They deserve our respect and patience at this point, as they have heard our points, opinions, having talked to biologists and laymen alike, as well as reading alot of documentation supporting several methods of management improvement from many parties. As a representative of a club that raises and stocks the muskies into local waters, I am excited about the future possibilities an already approved higher size limit will offer, in addition to possible improvements in the fishery itself with introduction of a potentially more suitable, possibly one day self sustaining strain of fish.
That said, we could use a few volunteers to help put up signs on some of the stretches of river from below Dubay, down through and including Castle Rock, regarding the new 45" size limit. I talked to Scot Ironside about getting signs at the main boat landings, and told him we would put signs up but that the DNR would have to supply them for us. If anyone is interested in getting a few signs for your area, that you'd be willing to put at an access point that the DNR or I may miss, please contact me and I'll try to get you a few signs. This should eliminate any confusion amongst local anglers as the size limit changes this spring. Also, if you'd like information about joining the Consolidated Musky Club, I can get you an application. Cost is $5.00 per year to be a member, and we meet twice during the season and have two planned outings, with one in Minoqua area, and one on the WI River anywhere you choose to fish. Fishing is on the honor system, with door prizes and trophies awarded for each outing. Membership fees help with feeding the muskies we raise, and also go to scholarships, and local improvement ideas, such as habitat, boat landings, and rearing pond equipment.
Thanks,
Jason D. Schillinger
(715) 424-0513
[email protected]
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/31/2005 5:09 PM
| |
| | |
| Folks,
Progress is great news. I'd really like to see the DNR come forward with a plan and let the anglers and clubs help out. Right now I know that anglers and clubs across the state are scrambling on individual plans to get fish and start projects. It'd make things much easier if the DNR was coordinating these efforts and using the combined resources to make the right decisions both for the fisheries and for the finances of individual clubs. Everyone will be better off if we are working together and making our dollars go further. As it looks right now - it won't cost the DNR a thing, and they would surely get some badly needed PR out of it.
I took a look today and found out that in 1982 the same year the Post genetic study was done, Minnesota was already creating Brood lakes for both MS strain and Wisconsin strain fish. That way no matter what the later studies showed, their program would be off and running. I feel the DNR and Muskie clubs need to work on establishing brood lakes for the diffferent strains so that we can become self-sufficient. At the same time if a Mississippi strain will be used, we should have an ongoing relationship with the MN DNR.
One thing I want to clarify - some people characterize the WMRP as desiring radical change, sometimes stating we want to stock every lake in Wisconsin with Leech strain this spring. This is simply not the case - read the documentation on our website. We want to move forward with caution but we want to do all the right things immediately. Stocking Fish from Bone lake into every drainage in the state this year is not being careful or cautious - It's just plain wrong. We need to take some basic steps - the DNR will desire a drainage based plan as it's the only way to contain fish without mixing. The first basic step will to be to establish Mississippi strain as the strain of choice in the St. Croix River Basin - as it is the only Muskie strain native in the st.Croix river. Same thing with the Great Lakes basin and it's drainage waters on the North and East sides of the state.
The Wisconsin, Flambeau and Chippewa Basins are where we need to be most careful. Stocking more fish from the typical brood lakes even this year does not make a lot of sense, my hope is the DNR is heading to the Chippewa flowage on the Chippewa basin in search of brood stock. Over on the East side of the state, maybe Howie Meyer can take the DNR to some of his favorite Muskie haunts looking for those big spawners. The amazing thing I see and hear is the desire of people and clubs to make a difference. It'll be interesting to see how the growth of those big Wisconsin fish stack up against Great Lakes and Leech fish. Sounds like these tests may start this fall in the lower sections of the Chippewa and Wisconsin river drainages - I applaud all the hard work being done by the Muskie clubs in these areas to make this a reality. Hopefully soon the DNR will announce that they are stepping up to help out and minimize the clubs costs - I'll be the first to stand up and applaud them if they do. It cannot and must not end with a few test lakes however. I know for a fact that many of the local Biologists are already working with the clubs. Hopefully the DNR in Madison will remove the last remaining barriers to getting this launched.
If selective breeding works on the Chippewa & Wisconsin river drainages, I see the Wisconsin musky fishery shaping up with 50 lb Muskies of Leech, Great Lakes and Wisconsin strain fish available to anglers but in different drainages. No other state or province in North America will be able to match this. Wisconsin will return to it's rightful place as the leader in Muskie Fisheries. The important thing is that no area of the state should be left out in the fantastic muskie fisheries that will be created - I'm hoping we stick together and not fracture off into small groups after our favorite lake get's stocked.
I'm still disturbed a bit by the lack of announced plan by the DNR. Not just a "study" currently funded by local clubs, but a progressive management plan that will start yielding results by the end of this decade. I fear that just launching a "10 year study" will leave the actual results 20 years away. This was one of things that led to our nasty gram to the DNR a month ago. Why can't the Muskie fisherman of this state be involved in the plan? I'm also a bit disappointed that survival is going to a main part of the study, we have plenty of fish these days - survival is managed more by C&R these days than egg, fry and fingerling survival - I'd like to see us focus on growth first. We may find that one strain needs to be overwintered to survive best. Looking at past studies we already know that Mud/Callahan strain survives the best. (RR 172)Not sure we need to go there. There is so much we can start doing this spring, why not get a head start by working towards objectives this year? Maybe I'll be suprised and the DNR will announce this forward looking management plan soon, there is nothing I'd like better than to have the WMRP fade out of the picture, but until we see a plan that satisfies all areas of the state, we will stick it out.
There's also so much still to do after we get the strains and brood stock established. All the other factors the WMRP supposedly dismisses. Forage, size limits, densities yes we need to be looking at these too......Funny that the most important one is also the simplest to fix and the only one we can actually control - IT'S THE FISH!
Finally - It's interesting Steve mentioned the mtDNA study - did you know that a mtDNA study has already been done on Muskies and Walleye in Minnesota and Wisconsin? Steve - keep reading and looking even the WMRP team hasn't found it all - yet!!!!
The full stunning report on this is coming soon at www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org some will like it, others will hate it. We are not a completely politically correct group - and we aren't trying to be one.
We are working towards a common goal - something we will all be proud of.
Bob Benson | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/article.asp?aid=849 | |
| | |
| I especially like the latst paragraph...
"The Department is initiating a new effort to fully evaluate its hatchery broodstock program. This effort will scientifically address the broodstock strain trophy potential issue brought up in the report, and do so in a way that comprehensively incorporates all the other factors discussed above. It will also allow the Department to update its broodstock handling procedures and stocking policies to assure that the latest science is used. The Wisconsin muskellunge team, comprised of department and university fisheries biologists and representatives from the Conservation Congress and muskellunge fishing groups, will develop a comprehensive brood stock management plan for muskellunge that will be completed and implemented as part of the 2006 stocking year hatchery production cycle. The Department is also encouraging musky clubs who want to privately stock other strains to do so in 2005 in waters where the strain used is unlikely to harm native fish. Clubs interested in this option should contact their local DNR fisheries manager to obtain a list of candidate waters and information on how to obtain a stocking permit.""
...after all that has been said against 'non'native' strains, musky clubs can obtain permits to stock whatever they want? What in the heck is going on here? Also,..." to assure that the latest science is used" Could they be a bit more specific, please. What exactly is "the latest science"?
Heck...I just hope something gets. Seems a bit unfair to bash the WMRP Team. THey are the ones who got this ball rolling.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
The 'ball' was rolling already under the direction of the team the DNR described. The paragraph you read describes a potential cooperative effort that a couple MI chapters have already bugun in cooperation with the area biologist handling the waters they wish to stock. It will not be 'willy nilly', and stocking will require approval and permitting. I know of one system that might recieive a 50/50 Wisconsin/GL strain stocking. I know o another where the area biologist has rejected any stocking from outside sources. The key sentense is;
'The Department is also encouraging musky clubs who want to privately stock other strains to do so in 2005 in waters where the strain used is unlikely to harm native fish.'
There wasn't a single 'bash' of the Restoration group.
Most of the commentary about non native strains has come from the Restoration group. The Wisconsin DNR is using native strains in the waters they manage.
The 'latest science' they intend to use is in the literature, has been discussed here in several theads, and is covered to a degree in the release from the DNR. That is the core of the dabate here.
This release isn't 'new news', it is simply an overview of the programs in place and planned for '06. | |
| | |
Posts: 665
Location: Twin Cities, MN | I have a couple of questions.
"Scientific investigations clearly show that WI musky populations have the genetic potential to reach trophy size "
How come they do not ? What is the missing piece of the puzzle ? If forage base, pressure, regulations, and density all contribute to how big they grow, what needs to change for them to attain tropy size ? Any why has it not been done yet.
"MN has a history of having higher muskellunge minimum size limits. WI waters can and do produce trophy fish but our smaller inland lakes will never produce the numbers that much larger lakes in MN or the great lakes will produce"
Does this quote mean we just live with what we have ? Is what we have the best it can be. If so, why did so many large fish historically come from WI, how come we could compete in the past? Or does it just seem like we were competing.
The above quote speaks volumes for why the best known and least known fisherman head to MN versus WI as a first choice of trophy fishing. The trend has been going on for some time. What is is going to take to reverse this, or can't it be done.
Thanks for any input.
Pal | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe the rsponse from the DNR DOES address what they intend to do to increase the number of trophy fish here. IMHO, that includes increased size limits, decreased stocking in some waters, management of waters like Winnebago and Bay of Green Bay, etc. Here are relevant statements from the DNR document, in context, as printed:
'All of Wisconsin's Class A1 (trophy) musky waters combined roughly equal the surface area of Leech Lake (112,000 acres), and the number of 50" fish reported from these two sources are comparable.'
'For example, in 2004 there were more 50" and larger muskies reported in the Vilas county Musky Marathon (17) than were reported in the Muskies Inc. log for the entire state of Wisconsin. And there were no muskies ever reported from Nancy Lake (Washburn County) which was cited by the report as the prime example of the success of the Minnesota Leech Lake "strain." In fact, there has never been a 50" musky reported from Washburn County. Clearly, anglers are very reluctant to report catches of 50" muskies, particularly from small lakes'
Add Mille Lacs to the total acreage, and you will have more than TWICE the available Class A acreage in Wisconsin. Now add Minnetonka. And Cass.
'Dedicated musky anglers do release large numbers of fish, but many are still harvested (a 2001 UW survey showed an annual harvest of 37,000) and many others die of handling mortality. Our creel surveys often project total catches that exceed the estimated abundance of muskellunge, showing that fish are often caught more than once a year.'
'The Department has several efforts currently underway to improve its muskellunge management programs. Recent studies have shown that overstocking a lake can result in high populations that grow slowly - presumably because of insufficient food. Also, stocking into lakes that have adequate natural reproduction may not increase the population and may actually depress the number of natural fish. The Department is entering year 5 of a major long-term evaluation of stocking rates. Stocking rates have been systematically adjusted on 118 waters statewide depending on the level of existing natural reproduction, and follow up fish surveys are being conducted. Initial results confirm the recent studies and subsequent changes in stocking practices will be made over the next 5-10 years as the results are finalized.'
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Note: This is not a direct reply to the DNR letter of thursday although parts apply. That direct response will follow later today:
"Omission" or "Mis-Information" OR "Dis-Information?":
Disclaimer: This is NOT intended to be anything more than some statements and hard facts regarding information being put forth by the WDNR and certain fisheries biologist's, both WDNR and non-WDNR employed. If "mis-information" or "incomplete" information is being proffered, it should be corrected. If "omission" or "dis-information" is being disseminated, quite simply, it is wrong and should be stopped. I am making no accusations, just stating the facts.
First: The DNR's person charged with responding to email inquiry's, is either under-informed, putting forth partial information, omitting information or...
When an Outdoor Writer recently wrote to the DNR in part: "My complaint originated because of information...which I am enclosing here ('The WDNR 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,...). Please respond as to its truthfulness, and if it IS true, WHY are you stocking small fish? It would seem that muskie fishermen would not want to continue to fish Wisconsin waters if there isn't much of a chance to catch a trophy."
Part of DNR Reply that is of concern: "Bone lake fish originated from Lac Courte Oreilles, and when first introduced, had better growth than fish in LCO. Now, because they are at a density of 1/acre, some people are concerned that they don't have the genetic potential to grow large, but they are ignoring the other factors that affect growth and size-structure."
My comments after the following:
Related directly to the above: On Monday April 4th, 2005, a fisheries biologist spoke to a Muskie club. After his talk, he was asked some pointed questions. Once he realized that the questions related to information gleaned from the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project, he immediately became very defensive. He claimed that because those asking weren't "trained" fisheries biologist's, they didn't know what they were talking about. He claimed that he wasn't "buying" the fact that the Bone Lake brood stock were anything except "pure LCO (Lac Court Oreilles) strain." He moved on in a huff. When again questioned by another, he went thru the same spiel. However, when this "questioner" told him that he was indeed educated in fisheries biology, he again moved on in a huff, refusing to acknowledge that he could be mistaken.
My comments: First of all folks, we didn't just pull this stuff out of thin air. When we wrote our synopsis, we provided all reference's that pertained, over 275 of them, including the very important Bone Lake and Lac Court Oreilles information. I would think first of all, that WDNR employees working with muskies or disseminating information about muskies to the press, as well as students training in fisheries biology and/or doing a research project that is Wisconsin muskie related, would be "required" to read ALL past work done by WDNR Research Scientist's. Were this the case, more accurate information would be the result unless omission is intentional.
We know that the above WDNR person has read our synopsis, but he either hasn't read the reference material; has forgotten what he read, or...
First of all, even though Bone Lake has one fish per acre, it apparently isn't too many, as it is again on the stocking schedule for 2500 fish in 2005. Also, although a study there showed a decline in average weight at length in Bone Lake, the fish were still "heavier" than the statewide average for weight at length. The mixed stock now being used for hatchery propagation from Bone Lake has almost no natural reproduction where ever stocked, with rare exception. Why does the WDNR continue to use them?
Following I will state the FACTS, and this time I will use the exact quotes from some of the scientific reference material that we used, proving that neither Lac Court Oreilles nor Bone Lake has a "pure" stock of fish. LCO was "mixed" when it was the sole western Wisconsin brood stock lake, and Bone Lake subsequently too was "mixed" when it was created. After LCO's "mixed" stock was transferred to Bone Lake, both lakes were yet again "mixed" in 1956, when known small growing strain muskies from Big Spider Lake were used in the hatchery operation. In addition, in 2000, both lakes were stocked from fish from the Woodruff hatchery further mixing stocks, and among different river drainage’s at that!
While I am not a fisheries scientist, nor a fisheries biologist, I am a trained hatchery technician, past Research Chairman for Muskie's, Inc., Research Editor for Musky Hunter magazine since the second issue, have raised thousands of dollars for muskie research and contributed as well in many other ways, and have worked shoulder to shoulder with research scientists and biologists during an entire field season. I am no stranger to research. Having said the above, I found, as I believe you will, that the language quoted below is not scientific mumbo-jumbo, but rather plain "Kings English" easily interpreted by anyone that can read. Being a "trained scientist or biologist" is not required. The "facts" speak for themselves. See if you don't agree:
From:
Johnson, L., S. Nehls, Editor. 1971. Growth of known-age muskellunge in Wisconsin and validation of age and growth determination methods. Technical bulletin Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Number 49, Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1971. 24 pgs.:
"AGE-LENGTH. Essentially, the known-age muskellunge in the three lakes were derived from Lac Court Oreilles brood fish. Even muskellunge spawned from Bone Lake in later years were from this strain, because the initial introductions had been from Lac Court Oreilles. THE SINGLE EXCEPTION occurred in 1956 when most of the fingerling’s stocked were derived from a SLOW GROWING population of muskellunge from Big Spider Lake...The 1956 year class of muskellunge fingerling’s stocked in Lac Court Oreilles grew slower than all other year classes...The fact that Big Spider Lake muskellunge stocked in Lac Court Oreilles, a lake with adequate forage, still exhibited slow growth, indicates that some unknown hereditary factor may be inhibiting the growth of Big Spider Lake muskellunge."
NOTE: Big Spider Lake is an allopatric muskellunge lake containing no pike.
Johnson, L.D. (WI DNR Research Scientist). 1971. 4th Annual Interstate Muskellunge Workshop, Trees for Tomorrow Camp, Eagle River, Wisconsin, September 13-15, 1971. pg. 16:
"In Lac Court Oreilles we have information on the survival of a number of stocked year classes. The highest survival ever obtained was a 1956 year class which may have been somewhat of a different strain of muskellunge. This particular variety of muskies was very slow growing and did not obtain legal 30-inch length until they were seven to eight years old. Some of them did not even become legal after 11 years. .."
Johnson, L.D. (WI DNR Research Scientist). Documented in 1976 and presented at a special Muskie's, Inc. Board Meeting with Minnesota DNR Fisheries Chief, Chuck Burrows on February 12, 1977. Pers. comm. with Larry Ramsell on growth:
"We have fish in Lac Court Oreilles today from the 1956 stocking (of Big Spider Lake strain muskellunge) that are 19 years old and are 35 inches long maximum. Although limited growth is attained, these fish are our longest lived fish. These Spider Lake fish were also stocked in Bone Lake (Polk, County) in 1956 and have exhibited slow growth there also." Asked about a 31 pound 50 inch muskie caught in Big Spider Lake on 6/24/71', bearing tag number 4794, he commented; "This fish was from a stocking of Lac Court Oreilles fish in Big Spider Lake. This fish had slower growth in Big Spider than it would have had in Lac Court Oreilles, but was still able to attain trophy size due to the fact it was from the strain of fish that (used to) inhabit Lac Court Oreilles."
Additional quotes from scientific research:
Johnson, L.D. (WI DNR Research Scientist). 1977. Pers. comm. with Larry Ramsell regarding natural recruitment. "Of the 26 or so lakes that I work with directly, there is almost zero natural recruitment; even in the natural muskie lakes...I consider stocking necessary even in most natural muskie lakes; even then stocking survival is poor." January 18, 1977.
NOTE: This begs the question of why hasn't different brood stock been tried to obtain natural reproduction as happened with Mississippi River strain muskies in Nancy Lake? 50 years of using brood stock that does not reproduce is beyond reason.
Margenau, T.L., J.B. Petchenik. 2004. Social Aspects of Muskellunge Management in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 82-93. 2004:
From abstract: "...Muskellunge anglers considered a trophy muskellunge to be at least 40 in long, with a preferred length of 50 in or longer..."
Simonson, Tim. 2005. Jan. 21 email to Larry Ramsell:
"...The old Conservation Department (founded in about 1933) did not hire any fisheries biologist until about 1940's, so what happened prior is somewhat of a mystery. As I understand it, the old Fish Commissioners distributed fry by rail car to citizens, who stocked fish where they saw fit..."
NOTE: To tie into the above, is a quote from a letter written by John H. Klingbeil, Supervisor Fish Production WDNR, Nov. 8, 1977 to Dr. Wm. H. Pivar:
"...Included also, is a photocopy of the old fish car which was utilized for distributing fish throughout the state for many years. Apparently it was acquired in 1893 and the picture was taken from the Commissioner's report of that year..." and ..."All the musky stocking done from 1874-1914 was with fry..."
Verkuiln, D. Muskie magazine Feb. 1992. Trophy Lake Study; a presentation by Duke Andrews and Steve Avelallamant WDNR:
..."There is an effort by the DNR to use spawn from bigger or faster growing fish lakes. Genetic defects or genes in some lakes in the western part of the state only allow the fish to grow to 32 inches..."
Wisconsin DNR. Hatchery 2005 quota sheets: Spooner hatchery (Chippewa River drainage) 5 lakes to be stocked in the Wisconsin River drainage. Woodruff hatchery (Wisconsin River drainage) 11 lakes to be stocked in the Chippewa River drainage AND 6 lakes to be stocked with "UNSPECIFIED STRAIN" in the Great Lakes drainage! NOTE: The Woodruff hatchery will also raise 15,112 Great Lakes strain muskellunge to be stocked in 2 lakes and 2 rivers in the Lake Michigan drainage.
NOTE: THE PUBLICATION MENTIONED IN THE FOLLOWING INCORRECTLY STATED THAT MUSKIE'S INC. "OFFICIALS" WERE HEADING THE WISCONSIN MUSKELLUNGE RESTORATION TEAM. THIS IS "NOT" TRUE! MUSKIE'S INC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WMRP DIRECTLY AND SUCH DISCLAIMER IS ON OUR WEBSITE. WE DO HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM WISCONSIN MI CHAPTERS, BUT THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
More: In a recent outdoor publication, a WDNR biologist was quoted, and made several statements that were interesting, indicating that it was unlikely he had read our complete synopsis, or only responded to parts he had a problem with. In so doing he put words in our mouth and attacked things he said we suggested, but failed to address that the DNR was doing the very things he criticized...every year! A quote:
"...in our more than 100-year history of fish management, we do know that the worst thing you can do is try to select for size and growth rates. If you target size and growth rates, you are immediately suspect from a genetic standpoint. If we really do have different strains, and that has not yet been determined, if you take a strain from one watershed to another in trying to improve that stock, you won't do it. That will lead to a decline in that stock's ability to sustain itself. That is biologically and ecologically unsound."
Let us look at these statements: He has made our case for us. In our WMRP document we suggested that "egg selection" be made to "assure" large native strains were being used for egg taking for hatchery production from trophy lakes with mixed stocks. This should not be "suspect", but rather good genetic "farming" to assure use of large strain vs. small strain genetics. It didn't end there, as we also suggested developing a new brood stock lake assuring future egg sources of native large strain fish.
His statement that it "has not yet been determined" that there are different strains, takes us back once again to the review above of WDNR Research Scientist's findings to the contrary. We need only to refer to the above research quotations to prove his statement incorrect. One again must ask, why does the WDNR want "more" studies, when it is very evident that they are unfamiliar with those already done or refuses to use them? We realize that fisheries scientist's must "study" to survive, but at what cost? To continually duplicate or slightly alter existing studies and never acting on results is simply wrong.
And what about the "decline in that stock's ability to sustain itself." After 50 years of virtually NO natural reproduction from current hatchery stock in northwestern Wisconsin, one would think that it should be realized that what has been "created" by the DNR isn't able to sustain itself, and something must be done! It is not rocket science folks!!
As for his comments about taking strains from one watershed to another not being a good thing, we must again ask WHY does the WDNR continually do this very thing on an annual basis? He states; " if you take a strain from one watershed to another in trying to improve that stock, you won't do it. That will lead to a decline in that stock's ability to sustain itself. That is biologically and ecologically unsound." We agree and have requested that the WDNR discontinue such practice. The stocking quota sheets for 2004 and prior indicate that they did do what they profess to be incorrect, and the stocking quota sheets for 2005 indicate that they will not change this practice!
Another quote: This "biologist" also said that; "he thinks Wisconsin's big muskies are learning to avoid pressure" and that we "singled out Lac Court Oreilles in Sawyer County as one lake that contains only small muskies." He further stated that; "last year he handled one 56- and one 58-inch fish from Lac Court Oreilles during a survey. They were both in the same net. The big fish are out there; anglers just aren't catching them."
Wow!: Interesting quantum leap. First of all, we did NOT say LCO was one lake that contained only small muskies. However, the Upper Chippewa Basin Cooperative Musky Angler Fish Size Report; DNR angler survey from LCO for 2004 certainly could be interpreted for that to be the case, as it took 76.3 hours to catch a 32.3 inch average muskie! Just over a year ago, I wrote about a 67 inch muskie that had been netted in LCO by the DNR in the early 50's. We have always maintained that there IS a "remnant" population of BIG fish left in LCO. That is why we suggested "selective egg taking" there! This biologist, whose memory is slightly errant as it was more like three years ago that he sampled those fish and the sizes have varied with subsequent telling’s, who admitted in January of this year that he did not see a 50 inch Wisconsin muskie in his first 30 years on the job, would now have us make the "quantum leap" that just because he "finally" got a couple of big fish in his net, that all of the lakes are FULL of BIG muskies, but us angler's just can't catch them because "pressure" has made them "learn" to "avoid" us! Ya, right. What excuse will they come up with next? Meanwhile, more and more anglers bypass Wisconsin for Minnesota and Canada for trophy muskies that ARE there and ARE being caught on a regular basis!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell, Proud Member
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/10/2005 1:06 PM
| |
| | |
| I have read your last post about ten times now. With all due respect your tone, most of the comments and the obvious trying to be inflammatory is shameful.
To me, the information quoted in your post is fragmented, incomplete, and misleading. You attack several unknown DNR people and refer to them in an insulting way. That isn't debate, that's rude.
Stick to what you can find as fact, stay to a clear debate of the facts as you see them, and leave all the attacks out, and people like me will be more likely to listen to your information. This was by far the worst post I've seen from your group anywhere. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi
While I don't like unregistared posts I've got to agree with this one. Larry its time for you to let someone else do the talking for the WMRP. Your constant degrading of the folks at the DNR office is going to kill any chance we may have at voiceing the organizations views.
Thanks
Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Let me start by saying that my "passion" for the WMRP has at times reached a frustration level that has caused me to perhaps go a bit overboard. For that I apologize to the DNR, Muskie's, Inc. and all musky anglers that love to fish muskies in Wisconsin. In my defense, I must state that most making comments have not been in all of the meetings and exchanges that have taken place, and therefore cannot know all of the reasons for what has transpired. My goal has merely been the betterment of Wisconsin's muskellunge fisheries, even though any changes made will not affect me in the future at my age. I have been involved because I believe it is the right thing to do for the future musky anglers that fish in Wisconsin. Having said this, I will continue to be involved and give my input, which is based on over 50 years of pursuing our beloved "beast" the MUSKY, and a thorough knowledge of the history of our sport and the management thereof via an intensive study of the scientific and popular angling literature as it pertains to the muskellunge. Following is a partial response of mine to the "official" DNR letter of April 7:
The "Core" Problem:
According to the official word from the WDNR on April 7, 2005;
"The Department is initiating a new effort to fully evaluate its hatchery brood stock program. This effort will scientifically address the brood stock strain trophy potential issue brought up in the (WMRP) report, and do so in a way that comprehensively incorporates all the factors discussed...It will allow the Department to update its brood stock handling procedures and stocking policies to assure that the latest science is used. the Wisconsin Muskellunge Team (State Musky Committee), comprised of department and university fisheries biologists and representatives from the Conservation Congress and muskellunge fishing groups, will develop a comprehensive brood stock management plan for muskellunge that will be completed and implemented as part of the 2006 stocking year hatchery production cycle."
Earlier in that same official statement the following was said;
"Most importantly, the (WMRP) report erroneously concludes that Wisconsin is stocking an 'inferior strain' of muskellunge. Unfortunately the authors have incorrectly interpreted existing scientific data and relied on an evolutionary theory that has been debunked by virtually all agency and university researchers. The truth is that Wisconsin uses only wild fish for brood stock in its hatchery program, and all of these fish are native to the river drainage’s in Wisconsin."
Yes, it is "unfortunate" that the "Department" not the WMRP that has totally mis-interpreted what was contained in the WMRP documents. It is "their" (DNR's) incorrect assessment of that, as well as their refusal to accept current peer reviewed and published science that is the "core problem" and a "mind-set" that will doom the proposed revision of the State hatchery brood stock program before it begins unless that thinking is modified.
First of all, in that latter statement, what the "Department" is referring to as having been "debunked" is a "two musky species" theory. NOWHERE in the WMRP documents did we ever expound the theory of two-species. We fully understand that geneticist’s are currently in agreement that the muskellunge is of a single species. That was not, and is not the issue or the "Core Problem." What has NOT been debunked, and is fully backed up in the scientific literature, and more importantly, THE WAY ALL MAJOR MUSKY STATES AND PROVINCES, "EXCEPT WISCONSIN", MANAGE'S THEIR MUSKIES, is indeed related to an "evolutionary theory" SUPPORTED, not "debunked" by science. If the "Department" and the "Wisconsin Muskellunge Team" (State Musky Committee) continues to refuse to acknowledge these facts, there will be no hope of success in future brood stock management in Wisconsin.
Central to the WMRP theme has been the resounding success of the Minnesota muskellunge management program. Their success goes right to the "core" of this issue. When then Minnesota Research Scientist Bob Strand led the Minnesota program to fame and glory (and a HUGE piece of the Wisconsin muskie Tourism pie), he did so based on some of the above noted "science" and so indicated in a letter in October of 1982, to then Wisconsin DNR Research Scientist David A. Hanson as follows:
"I have reviewed the final report on electrophoretic analysis of muskellunge from Wisconsin and Minnesota waters. In my opinion the objective of this study was met and I am pleased with the results.
I realize that all of our questions were not answered and that in terms of growth biology, genetic differences observed at this time do not clearly indicate a genetic basis for a slow growth rate in certain muskellunge populations. I do feel that progress has been made and through additional work more of our questions will be answered.
The following comments pertain only to the two Minnesota strains which were analyzed in the study, the Shoepac and Mississippi (Leech) strains.
In Minnesota, muskellunge propagation has utilized the Shoepac strain because that was the only egg source available until recently. After many years of management with that strain, it became apparent that the introduced Shoepac populations were not attaining the size expected of muskies.
This observation was supported by a summary of the statewide sportfishing catch for an eleven year period which emphasized the lack of large fish from the Shoepac populations. Additional evaluation of the Shoepac populations indicated the problem was not slow growth, but rather one of maximum size attained. Growth of Shoepac fish is normal up to maturity, and approximated growth of natural populations up to maturity.
This raised the question of whether the observed size difference was due to genetics or habitat. In view of the diversity exhibited in lakes supporting Shoepac populations, and on comparisons of these lakes with lakes supporting the natural populations, habitat did not seem to be a plausible explanation.
This resulted in a decision to pursue a genetic evaluation of the two strains of muskellunge in Minnesota. The electrophoretic analysis completed by Dr. Post has shown that the Shoepac and Mississippi (Leech) strains of muskellunge in Minnesota are genetically TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS. That finding, in addition to previous data compiled, has led to a decision by Minnesota DNR to switch over completely to the Mississippi (Leech) strain in its management efforts.
Sincerely,
Bob Strand, Research Biologist"
The results of the above noted change by Minnesota is well know and heralded through out the muskie range. They changed their hatchery stocking program because of "the fish." Wisconsin, since 1982, from that same study, has refused to make the same acknowledgments with regard to the Wisconsin muskie strains, and the results are obvious. Yes, the "Department's" statement; "Wisconsin uses only wild fish for brood stock in its hatchery program, and all of these fish are native to the river drainage’s in Wisconsin." is true and has never been disputed by the WMRP Team. It is the "mixing" of the various large and small growing "strains" in Wisconsin that IS the ISSUE, and their use in the State's hatchery system. Until this is recognized and acknowledged, the rhetoric currently being put forth will result in little change or success in the production of trophy muskies in the State of Wisconsin...period. The DNR would have us "wait" another 10 years after changes are implemented in 2006, to find out if any of these proposed changes will bear fruit. Minnesota made the correct change IMMEDIATELY, and the results have been amazing. Wisconsin "can" do the same, but it will first take a change in "mind-set." Wisconsin Tourism and muskie anglers cannot afford the wrong decisions!
There is a fairly large body of additional science that goes further along the lines of "two different animals" and all are noted at the end of the WMRP "Addendum" on our web site: www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org under the banner "What is the WRMP". Of particular importance in this theme is the scientifically proven difference in reproductive strategies. Several papers go into "multiple spawning," a trait of the large strains of muskellunge throughout North America. Additional scientific papers delve into various "strains" and their ability, or lack thereof, to grow to large sizes, and other scientific papers get into the ability of the larger riverine (sympatric) strains to co-exist with pike and some get into the devastation created when pike invade or are introduced into lacustrine (allopatric) muskellunge populations. Fascinating reading all, and all very important and central to our work. Many of these scientific research papers were done by Wisconsin fisheries scientists and have not been acted upon.
We sincerely hope that the people charged with the responsibility of managing Wisconsin's Muskellunge fisheries put aside their pride, read or re-read the existing science, and do the right things. I mean no disrespect to the hard working folks of the DNR, but until change is embraced, Wisconsin musky anglers and Tourism will continue to be affected.
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
| from the heading of "What is the WMRP?" on the WMRP website:
Robert Benson, 1st Wisconsin Chapter, Muskie's, Inc.
Larry Ramsell, Past President and Past Research Chairman, Muskie's, Inc. International and Research Editor, Musky Hunter Magazine
Eric Johnson, Board of Director's, 1st Wisconsin Chapter, Muskie's, Inc.
from L.Ramsell post:
NOTE: THE PUBLICATION MENTIONED IN THE FOLLOWING INCORRECTLY STATED THAT MUSKIE'S INC. "OFFICIALS" WERE HEADING THE WISCONSIN MUSKELLUNGE RESTORATION TEAM. THIS IS "NOT" TRUE! MUSKIE'S INC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WMRP DIRECTLY AND SUCH DISCLAIMER IS ON OUR WEBSITE. WE DO HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM WISCONSIN MI CHAPTERS, BUT THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
one might see how it's an easy thing to confuse. especially when the disclaimer is so difficult to locate on the WMRP website...
why the surprise that the group is seen as being lead by Muskies Inc. officials, when that's exactly what is published on your own website? you list yourselves as Muskies Inc. officials!!! the WMRP might not be an effort of Muskies Inc. itself, but you using MI titles to build legitimacy.
again, an example of how professional image management might be helpful. | |
| | |
Posts: 665
Location: Twin Cities, MN | If anyone remembers, it pretty much took an Executive Order from the President of the United States, just to change a few lakes to have minimum size limits a couple years ago. I cannot imagine the frustration you must endure to get the WI DNR to review how stocking is being done, let alone what type of fish to stock. Remember, that few people like to admit problems or mistakes at your job.
I commend Larry and those others willing to stand up and say something, take the heat, and have everyone one else micro-manage how it should be done, as if some miracle is going to occur overnight and the WI DNR is going to make changes.
How much longer do those of us who fish in WI, want the status quo from our fishery ? Are we content with our fishery ? Why not make changes to improve it and make it even better. The status quo has not done much for us over the last 20 years. I myself am concerned how the WI fishery will be when my two daughters are fishing with me in a few years.
Pal | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I am going to go back to the comments about Mn lake vs Wi lakes and the constant reference to the difference in size.
Steve quotes the WDNR letter:
'All of Wisconsin's Class A1 (trophy) musky waters combined roughly equal the surface area of Leech Lake (112,000 acres), and the number of 50" fish reported from these two sources are comparable.'
Then adds
“Add Mille Lacs to the total acreage, and you will have more than TWICE the available Class A acreage in Wisconsin. Now add Minnetonka. And Cass.”
The above is all true, but why didn’t those natural musky lakes consistently outproduce Wisconsin’s smaller musky waters back though the beginning of time. Considering also they have consistently seen less pressure. The big fish should have always been there and always been easier to catch.
I will admit Leech, Mil Lacs and Vermillion are extremely large lakes. But lets remove them from the equation.
How about:
Minnetonka metro lake at 14,000 acres.
Cass Lake at 15,500 acres.
Lake Miltona at 5,800 acres.
Lake Bemidji at 6,420 acres.
Pelican at 3,990 acres
Plantagent at 2,530 acres.
White Beer Lake 2,400 acres. I believe also a metro Lake
If you where after a trophy fish which would you fish the above lakes or one of the following Wisconsin Trophy waters.
Chippewa Flowage 15,300 acres
Turtle-Flambeau 13,500 acres
Lake Wissota 6,300 acres
Lac Courte Oreilles 5,039 acres (50” limit since 92 +/-)
Lac Vieux Desert 4,300 acres. (40” Limit)
Trout Lake 3,816 acres
Pelican 3,585 acres
Twin North&South 3,400 acres.
Lake Tomahawk 3,392 acres
Lake Namekagon 3,227 acres (50” limit since 92 +/-)
Grindstone Lake 3,111 acres (50” limit since 92 +/-)
Round Lake 3,054 acres
All the above Wisconsin waters are considered trophy waters or have a history as being trophy waters. Why did these lakes out produce (for trophy fish) the limited Mn waters (including the big waters of Mill Lax and Leech) until the mid 80s and now they can’t hold a stick to the smaller Mn waters. Some of these Wi waters even have trophy limits and they still can’t compete. On the lakes listed I don’t think you can say the Mn waters receive far less pressure. I will concede that there are far more active Muskies Inc, members in Mn, so they will report more fish but to me that isn’t the deciding factor.
By reading the musky rags and watching the big fish reported on the internet there is more than enough anecdotal evidence for me to believe that if I want a trophy fish I am better off going to Mn even if I choose to fish a smaller lake.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pal,
You are railing against the Conservation Congress when you speak of the failed size limit proposal. That was the democratically chosen directive of the public who showed up to vote, not the DNR. Also, read the release by the DNR, change is already underway and has been for nearly 5 years. It may not be what some folks are asking for, but it is at least here in Oneida what the fisheries folks feel will help our trophy potential dramatically.
Mike,
You list many of the 'jewels' of Minnesota which are undeniably at their peak production of big fish at this moment in time. You listed some waters the same basic size, but DRAMATICALLY different in attributes, pressure, and 'age' of the muskie fishery ( attributes that go hand in hand, IMHO). Will anyone deny that the program that created many of the fisheries in MN is fairly new, and that the fisheries matured recently after the CPR ethic was already strong? That the fisheries are just recently being 'discovered' by a continually growing and increasingly mobile muskie angling community? I ask again, what will happen when this water is exploited as ours here in Oneida County has been for over 100 years(if MN chooses to not protect those fish), and what would be the effect of the intense spearing we have on our waters on those lakes similar in size to Pelican? I watched the potential for a trophy in my favorite fishery decline as trophy hunting/harvest pressure increased and spearing became a yearly reality. I was as guilty as anyone, but didn't know any better at the time. It's the fish? Well, IMHO not in this case, the fish as far as trophy potential growth in Pelican are just fine. Pelican used to hand me an average of ten over 48" per year before the harvest pressure and spearing, and I caught 50's there with reasonable expectation. I think she's coming back from a bad time with a yearly increasing average, but not as fast as she would without the spring annual harvest of large fish and with a 48 or 50" minimum. Some would have you believe that the fishery has declined because of stocking the wrong fish, but the fish stocked there are fish that are wild, native to the watershed, and grow up as big girls if left to do so just fine.
I have fished Canada for 30 years, not looking for a 50" fish because I can catch that class fish here. Remember, I was fishing Pelican when there was ONE 'full time' guide out there, me. There was a couple guys from Summit Lake, and a few from Antigo that were known as the 'Suick guys'. Then came the guys from Rockford and Chicago, then the anglers from Green Bay and the valley. Then the traveling anglers from all over came and HWY G was packed every weekend; many took home their 48" or better trophy. I was in Canada looking for a 50 POUNDER, a creature that isn't very common anywhere. I will probably fish Mille Lacs if the fish continue to get even bigger there, but in my very humble opinion that too shall pass unless they are protected. Again, I am guilty as anyone. I've seen this happen, not just once, either. What's the HOT destination now? Sabaskong, Wabigoon, Sioux Narrows, Lac Suel? No, the hot destination is now the NW Angle. And Mille Lacs. More guides, more pressure, more mortality. Can a fishery of that size with the protected size limits there decline as a result?
Minaki is a popular destination, and for awhile was THE PLACE like was Wabigoon, Eagle, LOTW Whiefish Bay, Sabaskong, etc. I fished Minaki when the road was dirt and gravel, and don't think it was a whole lot better then than it is now for TOP END (a really big fish there is in the high 30# class to MAYBE 40#), but certainly was for numbers of fish in the 4' class. That will change, as the minimum size limit was changed, but darned few if any 50# fish will be caught there.
Many lakes and rivers in Canada were under what the Ministry felt was trophy hunting mentality 'over harvest'. What did they do to stop that? They applied a 54" minimum size limit to the lakes they felt have trophy potential. They were also worried about the overharvest of big Pike. They put a slot in place, and dropped the bag limit. Big Pike are now becoming more abundant. The pressure on those HUGE waters is SO MUCH LESS than it is on a 2000 acre lake in Oneida County, it's difficult to describe.
I can't help but continue to point out that the issues here are far more complicated than just stocking a 'different fish'. That, in my opinion, indeed might be part of the key we seek on some waters, but not on all or necessarily most.
Just some ramblings. | |
| | |
Posts: 665
Location: Twin Cities, MN | Hi Steve,
You are correct, I suppose I am railing against the Conversation Congress, but this is the same body that for some reason took up the issue of shooting cats this year (and no I am not a cat lover), so I am having problems putting much faith in their decisions over the last couple years, especially related to muskie fishing issues.
Why decsions/issues so important as this obviously is, are left up to a referendum of people who show up once a year, and not the DNR frustrates me. The public decides size limits, but only on certain lakes with DNR approval, and the DNR decides where and what to stock. I remain confused why some decisions are put to a vote and others are not. Why does this occur in WI ? Or have I just been living in the neighboring state to the West too long ?
I will say it was nice to see the Chippewa river higher limit go through.
If I am missing something about how this works, please educate me.
Pal
Edited by Pal 4/12/2005 12:14 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Pal,
I could not agree with you more. From the WDNR..." You should be aware that there is a proposal (conservation congress not WDNR) on the statewide spring hearing to allow trolling with one line while casting on all waters of the state. This is question 74 and will be voted on at the April 11 hearings. This is an attempt by musky anglers to allow them to drag a sucker behind the boat while casting another line in parts of the state (including Vilas County) where it is currently not legal to do so. Based on your comments below you may want to get folks that feel the same way you do to show up and vote. You can get a copy of the questionnaire from any WDNR office and it also list the hearing locations in each county.
Question 73 may also be of interest to you since it deals with establishing a musky stamp. Again, this is a conservation congress question, not WDNR."
Did this vote , which was yesterday (I do not know the outcome), appear on anyone's radar? Who decided to even vote on these issues?
My reply to the WDNR was: "That's all we need is yet another way to kill muskies. Who in particular pioneered this vote? I am assuming that this does not allow the use of a gas motor, but would legalize a sucker being dragged with the use of am electric trolling motor or a natural drift?
Musky Stamp is a great idea..who pioneered that for vote?"
WDNR Reply: Both questions came from conservation congress committees (independent organization of citizens) and are advisory questions. The trolling question, as written, does not limit the type of motor.
I am not sure what to think here other than there are certan groups that have the ear of the conservative congress. So, while there is a very big debate with the WDNR concerning stocking and the future of WI musky fishery, the conservative congreess is busy putting votes to allowing sucker sto be dragged/trolled? I don't get it. I know I don't like it.
Sean Murphy
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, I believe anyone from Wisconsin can ask for a proposal to be added to the CC agenda. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | From what I understood as it was explained last night, the trolling issue was placed on the ballot at the request of DNR wardens to clarify the position fishing rule. Don’t know if this was a resolution brought by citizens last year. I do believe the Musky Stamp was brought in the form of a resolution last year at the some of the county hearings.
My understanding of the way it works, bring a resolution to the meeting, have it voted on. If it gets enough votes it is on the official ballot as an advisory question the following year. I believe that the CC committees can also place advisory questions on the ballot as a result of there meetings, if an organization wants a question voted on it would pay to know people.
After the advisory question passes the natural resource board can place the question on the official rule change ballot for the next years meeting. DNR personnel can also petition the natural resources board to place questions on the rule change ballot if they feel they are needed. After the rule change is voted yes it may be inacted the following year, or if it is of great importance it could take effect as soon as the paper work is completed.
If I am wrong in the process please enlighten us.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I understand your ramblings but for discussion sake lets say there are only three variable that determine the size structure in any given musky water. Lets also assume that they are of equal importance, in no particular order:
1. Environment
2. Harvest (whether it’s actual or increased delayed as a result of increased pressure)
3. Genetics
First, in my opinion, there isn’t much we can do about environment; we are blessed with the lakes God has given us. We should do what we can to protect them and keep them clean, but honestly I don’t see an environmental problem with our lakes. Lakes that produced numbers of trophy fish 50 years ago should be able to do it today.
Second harvest, this is an issue that still needs to be dealt with but frankly what can we do about it in the short term. Spearing is here to stay and all the whining in the world isn’t going to make it go away, right now. The spring hearing have once again proven that in the north part of the state any more restrictive regulation is a bad regulation, so the battle to reduce harvest through increased minimum length limits is ongoing and far from being implemented. We need to not give up, but realize we may need to take other steps to try and better the Wisconsin Musky fishery.
So that leaves Genetics I believe that this is an area that can be addressed immediately, and by immediately I mean I the next year or so, not necessarily the next month. I think we need to take Mr. Simonson for his word in the April 8th letter and figure out what we can do to “privately stock other strains in waters where the strain used is unlikely to harm native fish.” We need to get off the pot (or in this case the internet) and try and get something done. If there are musky Inc, chapters that support what the WMRP is trying to accomplish then they should put up some money to stock Mississippi Strain muskies in DNR approved waters in northern Wisconsin. At least something will be getting done as the DNR is completing their research. These first waters could serve as excellent test waters and the sooner the stocking start the faster we will have some answers.
Everyone needs to start working together as a team, sometimes there will be disagreements but the common goal is more and bigger muskies in the state of Wisconsin.
When I leave work today I plan to stop by the DNR office and ask our fisheries biologist what waters in Oneida county could be candidates for MR muskies. It’s the first step, I can do.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
What I was trying to say, and think the DNR said it in the post on the main board Cory Painter put up today, is that we HAVE great genetics in most waters here, and that the fish stocked in them are perfectly capable of reaching trophy class in an acceptable timeframe. Read the piece and see what I'm talking about, this is what I've been attempting to inject into the debate since the beginning when we were discussing Accelerated Evolution. I was aware of the work underway from the gentleman from Stevens Point, and the intention to plant MR fish in some additional waters.
I firmly disagree with the premise that Wisconsin fish will not grow fast or big under proper circumstances. I've seen them do exactly that. I've also seen Cass Lake year classes that are skinny and anemic looking. I think I've seen some barred fish in Minnesota waters get pretty big, too.
Interestingly, overstocking and the effects are discussed in some detail.
I think that waters where there isn't natural reproduction, do not have a large muskie population present, have decent prey species for the Muskies, and are fertile enough will be the acceptable candidates for stocking spotted muskies at this point ( like the Petenwell). I don't think the DNR will risk planting them in waters with good natural reproduction from the fish native to that water at this point.
I'm not 'whining' about the spearing issue, I'm pointing out that it's a real issue here and if a dozen fish over 45" are speared a year in Pelican, that is a VERY significant portion of the representative trophy potential there. Wouldn't matter if they were spots or barred, they'd still be gone. Read the survival stats from the MN study again; look at the numbers stocked ( thousands down to a very few) and the numbers alive 10 years later WITH NO ANGLING ALLOWED. Then apply that average to natural reproduction and angling mortality from heavily pressured Wisconsin water, and add spearing, and you have a tough environment to grow any numbers of 55" fish.
I wish we had shad in some of our waters. Kentucky is planting fish up to 5 per acre densities a a 'put and take' fishery, and when the shad are in good shape, the muskies grow fast and burn very brightly. Unfortunately, shad and warm wtaer go together, and with that comes a dead fish of old age at 12 or 13. | |
| | |
| Steve's right,
Steve your one of the few that keep telling it like it is when it comes to the spearing issue.I think maybe the DNR are hesitant about implementing a change of stocking practices as long as the spearing continues.A change in the North where theirs spearing may be a waste of time no matter what strain is planted.Many people still don't believe spearing is that bad!people I'm here to tell you, on some of the best waters in Wisconsin and especially Pelican the spearing is devastating.It's a snowball effect because now you have people say why release it, if it's going to be speared anyway. I know of another trophy lake just north of their that has a very high release rate and a high spearing rate,the spearing takes it's toll.Maybe the best policy for now would be to just not stock any more lakes period for a determined time frame and find out which lakes hold their own. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve,
I know your not whining about spearing and I didn’t mean that post to sound like I was talking about you specifically. It was general statement, there are many people throughout the north woods that whine daily about spearing and use it as an excuse to continually shoot down progressive management. Every time a size limit issue came up at the spring hearing regarding musky and walleye there was comments about spearing from the crowd. Even the rule change to get Pelican back to a 15” minimum on walleye. This passed overwhelmingly, but there was a group of 4 or 5 guys sitting around me that where grumbling why raise the minimum they will only get speared.
I am trying to say lets not give up that fight, but it isn’t going to change anytime soon. So lets put some effort forth on thing that can be done without going through the CC.
There are things regarding Genetics that can be done immediately. MR fish can be stocked in some waters exactly as you have described. Also why not try and get some eggs from these big Wisconsin musky with good genetics and use them for stocking rather than the small fish from lakes they have been harvesting eggs from for years.
I think Dick Pearsons quote which he applies to fishing also could apply here to stocking. “If you always do, what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got”
I also agree that on some lakes stocking should just be stopped. But if harvest really is a major problem are we risking a bunch of really poor year classes on some bodies of water that have had stocking suspended.
Using Pelican as an example which is very close to my heart and Steve’s heart, yes lots of big fish showing up both to anglers but also to spearers, it makes me sick every year. But I do have some worry that natural reproduction wont be able to keep up with harvest. A couple years ago Norm and I tried to keep a running total of fish over 45 inches that he heard where killed (by spear and angler) I believe it ended at 9 with a couple of those over 50. There has been no stocking on Pelican since ’98. Here is what was stocked in the last 20 years.
Year Species Strain AgeClass Avg.Length NumberStocked
1985 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.0 2,500
1986 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,176
1988 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,500
1988 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 1,000
1989 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 210
1989 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,000
1991 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 10.0 1,750
1992 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,500
1993 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.4 2,500
1996 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 10.8 2,500
1996 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FRY .5 100,000
1998 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 12.0 1,250
1998 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 12.7 1,250
I think if stocking is going to be suspended on a body of water that sees that kind of harvesting pressure something should be done with size limits, and lets not forget about delayed mortality. It was stated, by our fisheries biologist, at this years CC meeting that pelican sees the highest angling hour in the area and the area is already extremely high. But as I stated the DNR doesn’t control this, Federal Judges and the “People” do.
Musky Man, what do you do if you find out after 10 year that a Lake can’t hold it own with just natural reproduction? Is it worth the risk? Would you want to risk it on your favorite lake, a lake you maybe plan to retire to.
All I am trying to say is lets do something. Stock some MR fish, where we can, try and harvest some of these big Wisconsin genetics, but lets not do what we always did, because it obviously isn’t working. Unless you want to concede that a 45 incher in Wisconsin is a trophy fish and that’s just the way it is.
The WDNR is on the right track, as avid musky fishermen lets do what we can to help them.
By the way I missed Steve A. (area Biologist) at the office yesterday and he will be in the field for a month doing research so I will email him to try and get a list of lakes in Oneida county that can be stocked with MR Fish.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | MRobets,
I don't have the latest copy in front of me, but am I mistaken, or did I read in the Musky Hunter article about the success in MN, that the MNDNR uses only 12 females to stock the entire state? Again, I am not sure if I am correct on that...but if I am..then your idea of stocking some giant WI musky genetics could be right on. Why not spend soem time trying to get som eof these big girls captured and useed as brood?
Sean Murphy | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
I agree that things are not as we would like, but all the reasons listed are the 'why' of it. As I said, it doesn't matter if the fish is a spot or a fish from Woodruff, if it's harvested, it's gone. Great post and comments, let us know what 'Ave' has to say. Maybe we can raise enough money to help stock a couple lakes up here.
I think that Pelican isn't all that unique to the area, other than the undeniable pressure there and the surface area. I kept track as best I could last year, and knew personally of 12 fish over 45" harvested. Two were because the fish plain didn't make it. One was a floater I found, a 50" fish.
As you said, Pelican is not currently stocked. I think as density falls, opportunity will fall with it for numbers, but quality will rise dramatically. As a result, the pressure will drop because the fishing isn't as hot as it was when the lake was stocked heavily, and mortality will drop as a result. The spearing will continue, but that should just keep pace with what used to be the harvest by anglers alone before CPR. Maybe Pelican will return to what I experienced in the early 70's to the 80's, high quality, lower density, in other words, a 'trophy' fishery. I sure hope so.
As was posted on the main board, the DNR is evaluating the collection of muskie roe right now. Should be interesting to see what they come up with. | |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Steve,
When you say the DNR is evaluating the collection of roe, do you know specifically what they are looking at? What do they anticipate to change?
Just wondering,
Grass | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Grass & all:
I too would like to know the answer to your question. I pointed out in my post above about the "core problem" and would like to share with you all a bit more to go along with that. At the State Musky Committee meeting, the MN DNR Research Biologist/Scientist made it very clear to all present that the larger strain fish, the Mississippi River strain, that they are now using, spawn at higher water temperatures that those small strain fish that eggs had been taken from previously. Until they delayed their egg taking to 50 degree water temps, they had no success in the hatchery with eggs taken at the colder temps. Once they made the change to taking them in warmer water temps as noted, they were immediately successful. We felt that this was very profound.
When we talked with the Spooner hatchery foreman, he told us that they were getting into Bone Lake at 38 degrees and out by 42 degrees. The thought immediately occurred that this could be a contributing factor to why we no longer have many big fish, especially in northwestern Wisconsin, as only the small strain fish were ripe for egg taking.
I did some more digging, and I found that this thought does have much merit. In the proceedings of the 4th Annual Interstate Muskellunge Workshop in 1971, I found the following:
1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..."
WOW...fits right in with MN and BIG strain fish, and is a likely explanation as to why Wisconsin used to have many more big fish than now. If in "normal" years back then only 30 to 40% of the females were ripe at 48-52 degrees (and remember it was only 16% in 1971), how many large strain muskies do you think are ripe at the 38 to 42 degree temps that they take eggs in currently?
In eastern Wisconsin, the hatchery egg taking crews used to rotate 20 different lakes for egg taking in the 1960's, including some lakes that did have large strain fish with the "average" female being 44+ inches. Unfortunatly that wound down to taking eggs that only gave good egg and fry survival in the hatchery (assumed to be due to unripe large strain eggs taken too early), i.e. small strains where the "average female was 33.9 inches. Currently only four lakes are used.
In northwestern Wisconsin eggs used to be taken only from Lac Court Oreilles, stocked since 1933 with "mixed strains, then LCO fish were transferrred to Bone Lake (a non-native musky lake) and for many years they took eggs from both lakes. Currently they take eggs from Bone Lake only.
That this temperature thing should be looked at was concurred with very recently by a local fisheries biologist in NW Wisconsin. We certainly hope that it is.
Are they now taking eggs at these colder water temps because they have learned that since the Big Spider Lake slow-growing, limited maximum growth strain of muskies were planted in LCO and Bone lakes that they can now get "mature" fish in the nets earlier which makes it easier to "time" their hatchery operation to the taking of sucker eggs and thereby perpetrating the propagation of this small strain? Certainly food for thought isn't it?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMusktyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/14/2005 9:32 AM
| |
| | |
|
Edited by lambeau 4/14/2005 8:45 AM
| |
| | |
| Larry Ramsell - 4/14/2005 8:27 AM
Are they now taking eggs at these colder water temps because they have learned that since the Big Spider Lake slow-growing, limited maximum growth strain of muskies were planted in LCO and Bone lakes that they can now get "mature" fish in the nets earlier which makes it easier to "time" their hatchery operation to the taking of sucker eggs and thereby perpetrating the propagation of this small strain? Certainly food for thought isn't it?
Larry,
are you suggesting that the DNR has been PURPOSEFULLY breeding smaller fish because it makes it easier for them to collect the eggs??? | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I do not beleive that Mr Ramsell is saying that the WDNR's intent is to grow smaller muskies. I think he is saying that by making the process easier for themselves, the result is smaller muskies.
Sean Murphy | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau asked: "Larry, are you suggesting that the DNR has been PURPOSEFULLY breeding smaller fish because it makes it easier for them to collect the eggs???"
My reply: No, not at all. Sean's comment; "I do not beleive that Mr Ramsell is saying that the WDNR's intent is to grow smaller muskies. I think he is saying that by making the process easier for themselves, the result is smaller muskies." is pretty much right on target. We have maintained right from the start that we believe that the things that have changed were done with the best of intentions, and obviously budget constraints have come into play as well. We believe that our "findings," which continue (note: I edited the above post and added a bit of additional info), do provide indicator's that we feel play a significant part in the decline of our trophy fishieries and should indeed be considered during the DNR's "review" of brood stock and egg taking practices.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I have kept awfully quiet on this matter I felt that my arguements for slots along with this was alot to deal with by the d.n.r. with this being project being put to them.
Remember its the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Tthe project has brought alot of attention to the muskie fishery in the state. I take my hat off to them for the all the work they put into it.
Just a note on the slot issue. Several biologist now agree with me that it could be a valuable tool in musky management and wish they had in the rules to use now on some lakes. I am still working on it but have decided to keep it off the boards. I will post if anything is about to happen in that direction. Please don't turn this thread into anything about slots. If you have a ? on it or want to know what is being done you can e-mail me. [email protected]
Pfeiff | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the comparison and combined not too successful to then successful propagation of Leech Lake fish from the MN DNR compare spawning temperatures and depth, not to mention spawning as many as two times a year using the MN Strains they had previously stocked and those they wished to stock: Shoepac and Leech Lake fish? Didn't that information also indicate that the Leech Lake fish had an 'interesting' adaptation to Northern Pike competition that included spawning later and deeper, so it would lead to be correct that one must wait longer for warmer temps before stripping those particualr fish? Also, another thing that has been bothering me, doesn't the fact that Leech Lake fish mature 1 or more years later than Shoepac and LCO and Minocqua/Woodruff raised fish indicate that:
1) They have another year or more of growth before maturity?
2) Of course as a result they will be 'larger' at maturity?
3) That being larger at maturity is not a comparison of length and weight at a specific age between any two or more strains?
Also, does that necessarily mean that large Wisconsin fish spawn at warmer temps than Shoepac or smaller Wisconsin fish? Didn't the DNR state that all fish stocked in Wisconsin are wild, and have never been 'mixed' with other strains? What you are suggesting indicates, unless I am reading your post wrong, that there are distinct strains that are small in Wisconsin Lakes that are ready to spawn earlier in colder water than other, larger strains present in the same waters. OR, you are simply saying that large fish spawn at warmer temps than smaller fish. OR, you are saying that the lakes used to strip spawn are populated exclusively with the smaller strain muskies, that will not grow to trophy size regardless of any other factors. I'm pretty sure that is where this whole debate begins to show wear.
The statement also somewhat disregards natural reproduction and the age/size structure available in those waters. It also seems to conflict with success stocking those same fish in waters that are for all intents and purposes 'put and take', and having a good representative sample reach 50" or more.
It also would directly conflict with the idea that the lake I have mentioned here in my area got it's stocked fish from some lucky collection of natural larger muskies, because that, by this premise would not be probable in several year classes as present in that lake, especially since the roe is taken from a handful of local lakes here every year.
Test nets are placed in waters where there are good numbers of Suckers as of this week looking for them to begin the spawning run. I am told that some muskie spawn collection is still ongoing here in May. I am told that different crews take the spawn for suckers and muskies, and that there are waters where sucker spawn is taken where no muskies are stripped. Of course, spawn form both suckers and Muskies cannot be mixed, so that makes sense. It would seem that the way the fish are netted and roe taken would indicate no advantage for early collection as alluded to in the last paragraph of your post, as a somewhat more than casual observation.
'1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." '
Nothing there states the water temps that year (1971), perhaps there was a late iceout, or a very cool Spring. I've seen water temps in the 60's by the third week April, and in extremes like that, temps in the 40's. Water temps are not stable and predictable by calendar, best as I know.
It will be interesting to see what the DNR comes up with on the temperature/stripping question. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I may be wrong but what I take away from all the stuff I have read from Larry and others about the two strain theory is that Yes the really big fish in Wisconsin are of a similar strain to Leech Lake fish. It’s the whole evolved in the presence of pike vs. evolved not in the presence of pike. That 1982 study showed that the small slow growing muskies from Wisconsin, they sampled, where similar in genetics to the Shopac strain. I don’t know if it was studied but wouldn’t it make sense that if they sampled a big fast growing musky from Wisconsin it may be genetically similar to Leech Lake fish.
You asked “Didn't the DNR state that all fish stocked in Wisconsin are wild, and have never been 'mixed' with other strains?” I believe that the DNR did make that statement, but the question to ask is what are they talking about by strains and how do the know with over 100 years of stocking history? If muskies are taken from a land locked lake(that doesn’t have pike) and placed in a lake with natural muskies (that does have pike) and then fish are taken from that lake and placed back into a different land locked system with no muskie, isn’t it possible that if two different strains existed in the two different lakes, fish of both strains could end up in the third lake.
I think it is also correct to state that calendar date doesn’t dictate water temps. I have seen surface temps on Pelican at 60 degrees less than two weeks after ice out. If this is the case all the fish could be spawning at the same time. It’s all about averages, if the water is colder on average when they take eggs, then over the long term they will end up with more eggs from the fish that spawn when it’s colder. It doesn’t mean they wont end up with SOME eggs from the fish that spawn in warmer water.
These are the things I hope the DNR is trying to figure out. Did we have the same two type of strains here in Wisconsin? Do we still have some of these fish? How do we ensure the right fish are in the right spot? Does it matter if Pike now inhabit a lake where they weren’t originally located?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's an interesting read. Make sure you take any information there in context by reading the reference material for each subject, if you are inclined to. There is an abundance of information here about the programs in each area, and the perception of each agency about the program in their area.
http://www.fw.umn.edu/ncdafs/final.pdf | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
I know the MNR in Ontario was working on that issue with a scale sample genetics study, can someone point me to the results, if that is complete? I believe that study was to begin in 2000.
http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol12.html
I can't locate anything that shows the results, yet there are references to a study done in that timeframe elsewhere in the literature, but again, no specific place to find the info.
Also, this shows in a couple places, but I can't find results. I'll check with Kentucky to see if they have the results. Anyone have anything on this one? Page 5 of:
http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/AnnualReport2003.pdf
The Shoepac example is an interesting adaptation to a system to which the fish would, if none were present, seem to be poorly suited by today's standards. Those fish adapted to a system unique since the Ice Age. They, like the M/C fish from Wisconsin, do better in waters other than home, but not as well as other strains. Given enough time, would those fish adapt to better environments, and grow faster and larger? | |
| | |
| Steve
you said "The Shoepac example is an interesting adaptation to a system to which the fish would, if none were present, seem to be poorly suited by today's standards. Those fish adapted to a system unique since the Ice Age. They, like the M/C fish from Wisconsin, do better in waters other than home, but not as well as other strains. Given enough time, would those fish adapt to better environments, and grow faster and larger?"
Spider Lake fish were taken from Spider Lake (a lake with no pike and a lake where the muskies do not grow) and put into LCO in 1956 (a lake with better environments and a history of producing extremely large fish) and 19 years later they found 19 year old Spider Lake fish in LCO that were still in the low 30 inch size. 33 inches if I remember correctly. Then fish were taken from LCO and put into Bone Lake. What fish were taken from LCO and put into Bone lake? Pure LCO strain? Spider Lake strain? Or a mixed breed of the two? Or possibly a combination of all three? Based on the size structure of the fish in Bone lake, I know what my guess would be.
Another thing is this. The DNR needs to explain to the WI public what thier definition is of "mixing". They have told us directly to our faces that they do not know what we have for a muskie strain in WI due to the mixing of strains over the years. Now they turn around and say there has been no mixing?
Also they say that they are using "wild fish". This doesn't mean squat! The MDNR could have kept using its "wild strain" of Shoepack fish and still be in the same situation WI is in. The DNR needs to explain what thier definition is of "wild fish" to the WI public. Even if they are "wild fish",....why would we want "Wild fish" that do not grow large or naturally reproduce? I don't. I'll take a pure strain thats been proven to grow large and has successfull naturall reproducion over the "wild fish" that we are using everytime single time. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
You have been and are making a point for me that I expressed to the other WMRP Team members over 2 months ago. I stated then, after a combined over 2000 hours of our research, that this problem was so complex that it was going to be near impossible to communicate it in a manner that many could follow and understand, including the biologists/scientists, unless the time was taken to do what we had done. I sincerely doubt that there is ANYONE that has tried to follow what we have published or researched more thoroughly than you have. You have always had a passion for these kinds of things and it shows. However, having said that, some of the questions you ask in some of your posts are either rhetorical or your lack of understanding
is sincere. I will proceed on the basis of the latter.
This post is going to get long, but to make it easier for all to follow, I will repeat your questions and then reply.
Worrall: "Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the comparison and combined not too successful to then successful propagation of Leech Lake fish from the MN DNR compare spawning temperatures and depth, not to mention spawning as many as two times a year using the MN Strains they had previously stocked and those they wished to stock: Shoepac and Leech Lake fish?"
Ramsell: I find this question somewhat confusing, so I will break it down into parts: The first part of this appears to combine a MN study and MN Research Biologist information given at the State Musky Committee meeting. Spawning temps and depths were studied (Younk et al. 1992). Quote: "Although temporal spawning periods tended to overlap, Mississippi strain spawned at significantly higher water temperatures than the Shoepac strain." This study was done AFTER the delay of Mississippi River strain egg taking to warmer temps during hatchery operations in the early 1980's. This study confirmed what he had "discovered" for the hatchery success.
The "multiple spawning" was done ONLY by the Mississippi River strain (sympatric) vs. the single spawning of the Shoepac strain (allopatric). There is considerable published science with regard to this evolutionary development.
Worrall: "Didn't that information also indicate that the Leech Lake fish had an 'interesting' adaptation to Northern Pike competition that included spawning later and deeper, so it would lead to be correct that one must wait longer for warmer temps before stripping those particular fish?"
Ramsell: One would assume that this little known (at the time) information would have been a contributing factor in the decision to wait for warmer water temps. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the FACT that Wisconsin "used" to take eggs at similar warmer temps (at least in the NW) and do not now, could be a plausible explanation in the size decline here.
Worrall: "Also, another thing that has been bothering me, doesn't the fact that Leech Lake fish mature 1 or more years later than Shoepac and LCO and Minocqua/Woodruff raised fish indicate that:
1) They have another year or more of growth before maturity?
2) Of course as a result they will be 'larger' at maturity?
3) That being larger at maturity is not a comparison of length and weight at a specific age between any two or more strains?"
Ramsell: 1) This is not necessarily so. Mississippi River strain spawned at 5-6 years of age; LCO spawned at 5 years; Shoepac spawned at 4-5 years and Minocqua spawned at 5 years of age, so all could be mature at the same time.
2) Yes, INCLUDING at the same AGE.
3) To be CLEAR. ALL studies have shown that the Mississippi River strain muskellunge are LONGER at the same age as the others, "and" HEAVIER at length at the same age as the others.
Worrall: "Also, does that necessarily mean that large Wisconsin fish spawn at warmer temps than Shoepac or smaller Wisconsin fish?
Ramsell: Is there any indicator that they don't? Does not the maturation of up to 4 times the number of eggs in the multiple spawners dictate more time which also equals warmer water temps? Doesn't the decline of trophy size fish in NW Wisconsin, despite the prevalence of catch and release, and taking into consideration that egg taking was changed to colder water temps provide logical indication that there is indeed a problem, and the identified parameters are likely the reason?
Worrall: "Didn't the DNR state that all fish stocked in Wisconsin are wild, and have never been 'mixed' with other strains?"
Ramsell: Yes they did, and that has been a major point of contention throughout these past months. That they are "wild" is a given. However, the DNR's own Research Scientists studies have on multiple occasions indicated that they have indeed been "mixed" in BOTH hatchery systems. There was mixing within LCO "before" they moved some fish to Bone Lake and created a musky population there and, again, in 1956 they stocked the KNOWN (again DNR Research Scientists studies) small growing stain muskies from the "allopatric" stock in Big Spider Lake into both LCO and Bone. In addition, DNR hatchery stocking records indicate that fish from the Woodruff hatchery in the Wisconsin River drainage have ALSO been "mixed" with Bone and LCO fish in 2000 (as far back as we obtained records). YES, they have indeed been "mixed!" If they "meant" to say that they have never been mixed with fish from outside of Wisconsin, that may or may not be true. We are still following up on information in that regard. Unfortunately our neighbors cannot say we have not mixed "our" fish with theirs.
Worrall: "What you are suggesting indicates, unless I am reading your post wrong, that there are distinct strains that are small in Wisconsin Lakes that are ready to spawn earlier in colder water than other, larger strains present in the same waters. OR, you are simply saying that large fish spawn at warmer temps than smaller fish."
Ramsell: Yes on both counts. Where "mixed" on the first count. To clarify the second count, large "strains" spawn at warmer temps, but as noted above, there can be overlap, which could create a "hatchery strain" hybrid cross between the two strains, accounting for the stocked fisheries that produce a fair number of high 40 inch class fish, but topping out under 50 inches.
Worrall: "OR, you are saying that the lakes used to strip spawn are populated exclusively with the smaller strain muskies, that will not grow to trophy size regardless of any other factors. I'm pretty sure that is where this whole debate begins to show wear."
Ramsell: I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that egg taking at water temperatures that favor the earlier spawning small strains of muskies, merely perpetuates the propagation of the smaller strain, while the "remnant" large strains continue to be harvested and underutilized in the hatchery, and getting fewer with each passing year. The current 40 inch size limit on Bone Lake protects the small strain Big Spider Lake fish for their ENTIRE LIFE, because they indeed do not grow large "regardless of any other factors", while remaining large original LCO strain fish get harvested. As pointed out a couple of weeks ago, it is becoming a "crisis situation."
Worrall: "The statement also somewhat disregards natural reproduction and the age/size structure available in those waters. It also seems to conflict with success stocking those same fish in waters that are for all intents and purposes 'put and take', and having a good representative sample reach 50" or more."
Ramsell: "Natural reproduction" that is NOT happening to any degree, and certainly far from sufficient to maintain that fishery, hence the continued stocking of high numbers of hatchery fish, is certainly not "disregarding" anything. Age/size structure has been discussed before, for both hatchery lakes as well as other waters. Temporal overlap during egg taking easily accounts for some larger fish showing up. Years of fast warming could find a fairly significant number of the larger strain (which produce up to 4 times the number of eggs) contributing to that years production, and the explanation of some large fish showing up and being caught, and yes, "lucky" lakes get a good number of the large strain eggs during those years. "Conflict?" I don't think so.
Worrall: "It also would directly conflict with the idea that the lake I have mentioned here in my area got it's stocked fish from some lucky collection of natural larger muskies, because that, by this premise would not be probable in several year classes as present in that lake, especially since the roe is taken from a handful of local lakes here every year."
Ramsell: This discussion has been primarily about the Spooner hatchery and the lakes in NW Wisconsin. It is entirely possible that egg taking from the Woodruff hatchery is being done at higher water temps and some of the mixed large strain fish are contributing to fisheries in eastern Wisconsin. Information from there for recent years has been scarce.
Worrall: "Test nets are placed in waters where there are good numbers of Suckers as of this week looking for them to begin the spawning run. I am told that some muskie spawn collection is still ongoing here in May. I am told that different crews take the spawn for suckers and muskies, and that there are waters where sucker spawn is taken where no muskies are stripped. Of course, spawn form both suckers and Muskies cannot be mixed, so that makes sense. It would seem that the way the fish are netted and roe taken would indicate no advantage for early collection as alluded to in the last paragraph of your post, as a somewhat more than casual observation."
Ramsell: Egg collection in May indicates that Woodruff does indeed take eggs at higher temps. At Bone Lake, they start at 38 degrees and are DONE by 42 degrees! My last paragraph is indeed accurate as pertains to the Spooner hatchery, and was so indicated by the Spooner hatchery manager in the State Musky Committee meeting.
From my previous post: "'1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." '
Worrall: "Nothing there states the water temps that year (1971), perhaps there was a late ice out, or a very cool Spring. I've seen water temps in the 60's by the third week April, and in extremes like that, temps in the 40's. Water temps are not stable and predictable by calendar, best as I know."
Ramsell: I beg to differ. It quite clearly states that they took eggs from 48 to 52 degrees, and that happened from April 25 to May 7 in 1971. Has nothing to do with calendar period.
Worrall: "It will be interesting to see what the DNR comes up with on the temperature/stripping question."
Ramsell: It will indeed!
Mike Roberts:
I believe you have been doing your "homework" quite well and have an excellent grasp of what we have been trying to convey.
Mike, they DID study LCO fish in the 1982 genetic study and "grouped" them with the Leech Lake fish, however, examination of the data suggests that they were more likely a 50-50 hybrid cross of small and large strains, as there were equal or better indicators that were similar to the grouping of Shoepac, Squirrel and Minocqua strains.
Your comment about the 100 year stocking history actually could go back 130 years, as stocking has been going on since 1874. In the early years the DNR and the Forest Service used to transport fish in milk cans on rail cars, give them to "citizens" to stock "wherever!" There of course are no records of these stockings, so it is impossible to even know what lakes were native muskie lakes prior to man's intervention. This also muddies further the "mixing" that took place, as there are no records prior to 1933 in NW Wisconsin, and very limited information for the eastern side of the state.
I covered your "allopatric" reference...Big Spider Lake's KNOWN small strain allopatric muskies WERE stocked in LCO and Bone lakes with pike.
Mike, we are CONFIDENT that there are indeed two strains of muskies in Wisconsin, but the larger strains are getting closer and closer to extinction. There are only two ways to overcome total loss; selectively take eggs from the larger fish or replace them with the only known pure native large strain stock left on the planet...the Mississippi River strain muskie that inhabited the major Wisconsin river systems in the first place. It is not too late for the former, but the longer we wait, the more the latter will be the only cure.
And YES, it does matter if pike now exist where once there were none if a self-sustaining population is the goal.
Mr. Worrall. Your later post (#143194). That Esocid Technical Committee paper is basically a determination based on the INHS genetic study of 1996. As you may have noted, the genetic "zones of confidence" indicated basically a "hatchery strain" system that has been created. The "zones" basically circle each hatchery and its river system; Woodruff hatchery/Wisconsin River and Spooner hatchery/Chippewa and St. Croix River drainage's.
In your following post, your first link refers to the genetic work of Michael Butler. His paper will be presented at the Muskie's, Inc. Symposium in October. The "abstract" for that paper is in the current issue of MUSKIE magazine.
Your second link I was unable to download and read.
Your Shoepac reference was interesting, but not Germain. FYI, M/C (Mud/Callahan) USED to have some BIG fish in it (one study had four OVER 48"). What happened there is a mystery we are also still pursuing. The latter part/question is, of course, an unknown.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sirs,
First off, I was referring to the results of about a dozen studies, referring to the evolutionary intricasies that created the Shoepac fish, and wasn't talking 19 years. I was looking at the timeframe it took since the Ice Age, what hapened in Shoepac, and interesting observations that M/C and Shoepac DO grow faster in some waters. Certainly not as fast as we all would like, so that's not what I am saying; but it is interesting none the less, and germain to the points I was making. Many of us here might make an observation from time to time that isn't part of your core argument, but is an aside or comment to another poster here.
You have taken the information supplied in the DNR release out of context, and misrepresent what was said.
You say:
"Another thing is this. The DNR needs to explain to the WI public what thier definition is of "mixing". They have told us directly to our faces that they do not know what we have for a muskie strain in WI due to the mixing of strains over the years. Now they turn around and say there has been no mixing? "
What the release said was this:
'Wisconsin stocks fish hatched from eggs collected from wild fish every spring, Simonson says. The fish are native to the Upper Chippewa, Upper Wisconsin and Great Lake basins of Wisconsin, and have never been mixed with any strains from outside the area, Simonson says.
Then you say:
'Also they say that they are using "wild fish". This doesn't mean squat! The MDNR could have kept using its "wild strain" of Shoepack fish and still be in the same situation WI is in. The DNR needs to explain what thier definition is of "wild fish" to the WI public. Even if they are "wild fish",....why would we want "Wild fish" that do not grow large or naturally reproduce? I don't. I'll take a pure strain thats been proven to grow large and has successfull natural reproducion over the "wild fish" that we are using everytime single time.'
The release from the DNR says:
Brian Sloss, a University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point fisheries professor will be conducting the genetic studies, including identifying the genetic structure of Wisconsin's naturally reproducing populations, and where specific strains should be stocked to preserve the genetic integrity of the fish.
"One of the key questions, is, how many brood sources are needed in Wisconsin?" Simonson says. "Within the appropriate geographic areas, we'll use the most appropriate brood source lakes, based on the strain's population traits such as survival, growth, and trophy potential." '
Read that statement again, and keep it in context, please. The DNR appears to be doing exactly what you have asked for, and began that process some time ago.
They are cooperating with private groups in efforts to stock spotted muskies THIS YEAR in waters that will support such an effort. They are working with the Scientist from Stevens Point to determine what fish should be stocked where, and are identifying the state's naturally reproducing populations, and have halted stocking on many waters completely where natural reproduction occurs because of concerns listed in the release.
Larry, specifically:
'From my previous post: "'1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." '
Worrall: "Nothing there states the water temps that year (1971), perhaps there was a late ice out, or a very cool Spring. I've seen water temps in the 60's by the third week April, and in extremes like that, temps in the 40's. Water temps are not stable and predictable by calendar, best as I know."
Ramsell: I beg to differ. It quite clearly states that they took eggs from 48 to 52 degrees, and that happened from April 25 to May 7 in 1971. Has nothing to do with calendar period.'
I beg to differ as well. The statement says, and I quote:
" Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees."
That's 'spawning'. Doesn't say 'collection' or 'stripping'. That is a confusing statement if it was meant to say collection. Many references by the DNR I have seen talk about collection, stripping, etc. when discussing the collection process.
Here are a couple statements from MN DNR and neighboring states:
'Muskies spawn when the water temperature reaches 48-59 degrees, about two weeks after northern pike.'
'Muskie spawning generally occurs when water temperatures are in the 50’s (oF), and a 40 pound female can produce about 200,000 eggs.'
You can see where the statement you posted could mean either what you infer, or what I infer.
Natural reproduction IS occuring in many lakes and rivers in Wisconsin. See the above statement. Stocking has been used to supplement those systems in some cases, which is currently under scrutiny, and as mentioned, stocking has halted on many of those waters.
I am aware of the context and content of the works I posted links for, and hope that everyone interested in this subject will read that material and source documents carefully, so they may see the basis of the debate. I didn't just decide to look this material up, most I read some time ago out of interest in the fish. In other words, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either, but I'm still just a layman. Rhetorical indeed, that is exactly what I was shooting for, and you can choose to 'proceed' under whatever pretense you choose, but I rrespectfully request you choose your words more carefully so as not ot potentially create a misunderstanding or diminish the desire others might have to enter this conversation.
In some cases I strongly disagree with the tendency to 'group' allegations and accusations in with concepts ( albeit potentially absolutely correct, still at this point conceptually based) that are presented as concrete fact.
If indeed statements made apply to some waters in the NW of Wisconsin and may not apply Statewide, that should be carefully verbalized, should it not?
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
Worrall: "First off, I was referring to the results of about a dozen studies, referring to the evolutionary intricasies that created the Shoepac fish, and wasn't talking 19 years. I was looking at the timeframe it took since the Ice Age, what hapened in Shoepac, and interesting observations that M/C and Shoepac DO grow faster in some waters. Certainly not as fast as we all would like, so that's not what I am saying; but it is interesting none the less, and germain to the points I was making. Many of us here might make an observation from time to time that isn't part of your core argument, but is an aside or comment to another poster here."
Ramsell: I have no problem with your comment. Bottom line IS the FACT that regardless of where stocked, Shoepac and M/C fish DO NOT GROW LARGE. A 20 pounder is a MONSTER; a 25 pounder the equivalent of a World Record.
Worrall: "You have taken the information supplied in the DNR release out of context, and misrepresent what was said. You say:
'Another thing is this. The DNR needs to explain to the WI public what their definition is of "mixing". They have told us directly to our faces that they do not know what we have for a muskie strain in WI due to the mixing of strains over the years. Now they turn around and say there has been no mixing?"
What the release said was this:
'Wisconsin stocks fish hatched from eggs collected from wild fish every spring, Simonson says. The fish are native to the Upper Chippewa, Upper Wisconsin and Great Lake basins of Wisconsin, and have never been mixed with any strains from outside the area, Simonson says."
Ramsell: Mr. Worrall can you define "from outside the area?" The DNR has not.
Worrall: "Then you say:
'Also they say that they are using "wild fish". This doesn't mean squat! The MDNR could have kept using its "wild strain" of Shoepack fish and still be in the same situation WI is in. The DNR needs to explain what their definition is of "wild fish" to the WI public. Even if they are "wild fish",....why would we want "Wild fish" that do not grow large or naturally reproduce? I don't. I'll take a pure strain thats been proven to grow large and has successfull natural reproducion over the "wild fish" that we are using everytime single time.'
The release from the DNR says:
Brian Sloss, a University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point fisheries professor will be conducting the genetic studies, including identifying the genetic structure of Wisconsin's naturally reproducing populations, and where specific strains should be stocked to preserve the genetic integrity of the fish."
Ramsell: This"new genetic" science can only tell what is in a lake. It cannot tell what was there first nor if a strain has been eliminated, nor whether or not is was a native muskie lake. Dr. Sloss' lab was developed to do genetic testing for the WDNR. Budget cuts created a problem. Scientists must study and Professor's need work for their students. Studying bullheads in New Mexico was not what was desired.
Worrall:"One of the key questions, is, how many brood sources are needed in Wisconsin?" Simonson says. "Within the appropriate geographic areas, we'll use the most appropriate brood source lakes, based on the strain's population traits such as survival, growth, and trophy potential." '
Read that statement again, and keep it in context, please. The DNR appears to be doing exactly what you have asked for, and began that process some time ago."
Ramsell: Mr. Worrall, allow me to take you back to the genetics discussion of 3/6/05 and use a brief quote from WDNR Fisheries Supervisor, Dave Neuswanger: "...As I understand it, with some funding from organized musky anglers and others, Brian contracted with a lab in California to create a 'library' so to speak, of ~50 microsatellite DNR markers -- the latest technology in genetic stock characterization. Armed with this library of reference markers, Brian is now prepared to begin analyzing the DNA of muskellunge from various stocks of interest in an attempt to define similarities and differences, and to eventually delineate those stocks. If organized musky anglers and others will fund Brian's work and take advantage of his lab's capabilities, we will know in a few short years (2-4) much of what we need to know to manage our stocks and our hatchery propagation system more effectively than ever before. We will likely be able to answer at least some of the questions regarding stock purity. WE WILL STILL BE A LONG WAY FROM KNOWING WHICH GENES GOVERN INDIVIDUAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES IMPORTANT TO REPRODUCTION, GROWTH AND BEHAVIOR."
Ramsell: Isn't that last statement in direct conflict with what Simonson said, AND, isn't that last statement WHAT THIS WHOLE EXERCISE IS ALL ABOUT???
Neuswanger continues: "But we will at least be able to identify fish of similar genetic composition so that we do not continue to inadvertently (or intentionally in the case of those who promote stocking Leech Lake strain fish in Wisconsin) mix stocks at the risk of causing outbreeding depression."
Ramsell: It is this "outbreeding depression" that we maintain has ALREADY taken place and created, using Neuswanger terminology, a hatchery strain of muskies! After over 100 years of mixing, no amount of genetic testing will resolve it other than to identify which "current" strains "may" be different. Do we really want to wait another 2-4 years to still NOT KNOW the important genetic things? And do we really want to wait another year to see what the "committee" decides to do with broodstock and then, according to Fisheries Chief Mike Staggs, wait another 10 years to see if it made any difference? Why go to all this bother and COST and still not know the most important things, when a PURE, NATIVE stock of Mississippi River strain muskies (Which by WDNR statement, and many other scientific studies are the fish that originally inhabited the Chippewa and Wisconsin River drainage's) are available?
Let's get it back to simplicity; MN recognized in 1982 that there were two different animals out there and made the change immediately. The results have been nothing short of amazing. Say what you will about what "might" happen there in the future, but I'll wager that many of you will be heading over there this summer to get in on the bonanza!!
Worrall: "They are cooperating with private groups in efforts to stock spotted muskies THIS YEAR in waters that will support such an effort. They are working with the Scientist from Stevens Point to determine what fish should be stocked where, and are identifying the state's naturally reproducing populations, and have halted stocking on many waters completely where natural reproduction occurs because of concerns listed in the release."
Ramsell: This is great for the non-native muskie waters of the southern portion of the state, but it will only serve to further damage Tourism in the northern native range of Wisconsin on top of what damage has already been done by our loss to Minnesota.
Worrall: "Larry, specifically:"
'From my previous post: "'1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." '
Worrall: "Nothing there states the water temps that year (1971), perhaps there was a late ice out, or a very cool Spring. I've seen water temps in the 60's by the third week April, and in extremes like that, temps in the 40's. Water temps are not stable and predictable by calendar, best as I know."
Ramsell: I beg to differ. It quite clearly states that they took eggs from 48 to 52 degrees, and that happened from April 25 to May 7 in 1971. Has nothing to do with calendar period.'
Worrall: "I beg to differ as well. The statement says, and I quote:
" Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees."
That's 'spawning'. Doesn't say 'collection' or 'stripping'. That is a confusing statement if it was meant to say collection. Many references by the DNR I have seen talk about collection, stripping, etc. when discussing the collection process."
Ramsell: Your "belaboring" this point, is, well, pointless. I believe everyone understands and accepts the DNR statement in the manner it was intended.
Worrall: "Here are a couple statements from MN DNR and neighboring states:
'Muskies spawn when the water temperature reaches 48-59 degrees, about two weeks after northern pike.'
'Muskie spawning generally occurs when water temperatures are in the 50's (oF), and a 40 pound female can produce about 200,000 eggs.'
You can see where the statement you posted could mean either what you infer, or what I infer."
Ramsell: Totally disagree.
Worrall: "Natural reproduction IS occuring in many lakes and rivers in Wisconsin. See the above statement. Stocking has been used to supplement those systems in some cases, which is currently under scrutiny, and as mentioned, stocking has halted on many of those waters."
Ramsell: We never said it wasn't. We did say however, that if a native muskie water MUST be stocked, using inferior hatchery fish isn't the proper thing to do. Likewise for non-native waters IF, as stated by the DNR, muskies are to be "managed as a trophy fishery."
Worrall: "I am aware of the context and content of the works I posted links for, and hope that everyone interested in this subject will read that material and source documents carefully, so they may see the basis of the debate. I didn't just decide to look this material up, most I read some time ago out of interest in the fish. In other words, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either, but I'm still just a layman. Rhetorical indeed, that is exactly what I was shooting for, and you can choose to 'proceed' under whatever pretense you choose, but I rrespectfully request you choose your words more carefully so as not ot potentially create a misunderstanding or diminish the desire others might have to enter this conversation."
Ramsell: We too wish and hope that everyone interested, especially the DNR, would read and/or re-read the vast amount of references that we cited in our work. Only in that manner can one begin to fully understand the vast complexity of this matter. Picking and choosing which part of our findings that is responded to, while completely ignoring the rest to date, is an unacceptable tactic by the DNR. Why haven't they answered the hard question regarding stocking/mixing, especially in the Great Lakes??
Worrall: "In some cases I strongly disagree with the tendency to 'group' allegations and accusations in with concepts ( albeit potentially absolutely correct, still at this point conceptually based) that are presented as concrete fact."
Ramsell: You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and have this forum to so express them. We respect that and have no problem with you, the DNR or anyone else questioning anything we proffer. We are totally confident in our information, knowledge and back-up data, and will not dodge ANY questions put forth.
Worrall: "If indeed statements made apply to some waters in the NW of Wisconsin and may not apply Statewide, that should be carefully verbalized, should it not?"
Ramsell: I tried to be careful to do just that very thing in the last post and so noted on more than one occasion.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/15/2005 8:19 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Ramsell: This"new genetic" science can only tell what is in a lake. It cannot tell what was there first nor if a strain has been eliminated, nor whether or not is was a native muskie lake. Dr. Sloss' lab was developed to do genetic testing for the WDNR. Budget cuts created a problem. Scientists must study and Professor's need work for their students. Studying bullheads in New Mexico was not what was desired. '
The statement I received from the DNR regarding the genetic work being during a phone call done is this:
" We are very excited about the work being done in the labratory. The scientists would be doing genetic research in that lab no matter, and we are delighted to have them working on Wisconsin's Muskie as we continue to address the state wide program."
I am also excited about this work. The results will do exactly as described in the recent statement, and will provide additional critical information about our muskies here in Wisconsin, perhaps helping to end much of the debate here. I feel it is not acceptable to insinuate this is 'busy work', or in any other way attempt to diminish the effort. I didn't see anywhere that the object of current study was to identify what was in our lakes over 100 years ago. What WILL be available is a considerable new knowledge base about the very fish you identify as the ones we want to stock, their availability HERE in Wisconsin to our crews who are responsible for collection of roe, and identification of the best possible fish to stock. The DNR statement clearly addresses that.
All who read the studies and conversations between the scientists state to state and here in Wisconsin will repeatedly read about the very serious need for caution when considering actions such are being demanded by the Restoration group.
Guys, I didn't say you dodge questions. I said and I believe the DNR said that much of the Restoration group material is studied opinion collected by concerned anglers, and until proven out will continue to be just that. Whether one likes it or not, that is the situation. I personally will continue to believe that the scientists working on these issues here in Wisconsin are doing so in the best interest of the fishery, and they've stated as much. I also believe that the Restoration group has accelerated that process, which is a good thing.
I don't think there is any conspiracy here in Wisconsin's Muskie program past or present. I do note the tone and delivery of almost every single release the Restoration group has published has at the very least insinuated that there is. You and the DNR disagree on what to do, you based on your data, and they on theirs. Again, I suspect the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle, and I am willing to allow our scientists to do the work necessary to prove that. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for all the great replies and more information.
Here’s some more info I have been thinking about. I think it is very important to look at the Eastern half of the State compared to the Western half of the state, and I am starting to under stand Larry’s higher concern I believe the Eastern half may be in far worse shape than what we have over here. The following are some of the reasons I came to this conclusion.
First thing that comes to mind is the lakes over there that are continually stocked and have a 50” size limit. The only lake that I could find that showed any significant improvement was Namekagon when sampled before the 50” limit the average size was 38” a couple of years ago it when sampled it was around 43”. After I think 9 years shouldn’t a lot more really big fish be showing up if they had to potential to grow that big. It will be interesting to see what happens on the Chip.
In the East we only have Clear at 50” and Trout and Little Saint at 45” other wise there are some with 40 and most with 34’. Trout and Clear have had the 45 for as long as the 50” lakes in the west. I would be nice to protect some more of our trophy waters in the west but we saw how that went three years ago.
The second item that would lead me to this conclusion is the WDNR stocking suspension list in the Musky Management Update.
There are 13 lakes from the western half of the state on that list, with none of them recognized trophy waters. The largest lake on the list is Nancy at 772 acres and the EF Chippewa River (Blaisdel, Hunter, Barker) at 804 acres and the Flambeau River(big falls) at 1240 acres. Side Note: Isn’t it interesting that Nancy is the lake that was stocked with MR fish back in the 80s.
There are 28 lakes from the eastern half of the lake with a few recognized trophy waters including; Tomahawk Chain, Pelican, Plum, Rhinelander Flowage (Boom). I noticed the three lakes with the trophy limits are not on this list. Boy I would really like to see a 50” limit on the lakes listed above that have had stocking suspended. If they are naturally reproducing let them grow.
Anyway, interesting information I think.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Response from Mr. Painter from the messageboard:
C.Painter
Posted 4/14/2005 1:23 PM (#143131 - in reply to #142872)
Subject: RE: WI DNR news-Biologists reviewing musky management...
Posts: 577
Location: Madtown, WI
(63.80.251.75) Larry-
An interesting perspective...you have come to a fair conclusion based on the info you have....not saying its right or wrong...definately good food for thought. Hopefully the DNR will take the temperature factor into consideration when they look into the whole picture on stocking and determine whether or not its critical. On the surface it sounds like there is probably something there.
Cory
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) Worrall: "The statement also somewhat disregards natural reproduction and the age/size structure available in those waters. It also seems to conflict with success stocking those same fish in waters that are for all intents and purposes 'put and take', and having a good representative sample reach 50" or more."
Ramsell: "Natural reproduction" that is NOT happening to any degree, and certainly far from sufficient to maintain that fishery, hence the continued stocking of high numbers of hatchery fish, is certainly not "disregarding" anything. Age/size structure has been discussed before, for both hatchery lakes as well as other waters. Temporal overlap during egg taking easily accounts for some larger fish showing up. Years of fast warming could find a fairly significant number of the larger strain (which produce up to 4 times the number of eggs) contributing to that years production, and the explanation of some large fish showing up and being caught, and yes, "lucky" lakes get a good number of the large strain eggs during those years. "Conflict?" I don't think so.
2) Worrall: "It also would directly conflict with the idea that the lake I have mentioned here in my area got it's stocked fish from some lucky collection of natural larger muskies, because that, by this premise would not be probable in several year classes as present in that lake, especially since the roe is taken from a handful of local lakes here every year."
Ramsell: This discussion has been primarily about the Spooner hatchery and the lakes in NW Wisconsin. It is entirely possible that egg taking from the Woodruff hatchery is being done at higher water temps and some of the mixed large strain fish are contributing to fisheries in eastern Wisconsin. Information from there for recent years has been scarce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, let's look at 1. My suggestion that the statement somewhat disregards Natural Reproduction wasn't intended to only deal with waters where that is occuring. Your answer that it is NOT occuring and the insinuation that it WILL not, leads one possible question I was placing there.
A) If no natural reproduction is taking place, ("Natural reproduction" that is NOT happening to any degree, and certainly far from sufficient to maintain that fishery") then the stocking results will be basically put and take. The inference of your statement is that these fish do not reproduce successfully, no matter where they are stocked. If that is so, then these fish will provide angling opportunity until they die, and then that's that, right? ( there is the opening Don P needs for his slot proposal) Therefore, the inferior 'strains' you are discussing should not propagate, will not crossbreed with other stocks natural or introduced if they cannot even reproduce within thier classification, and are no threat other than competition to those fish that ARE reproducing in waters across the State, which supports the move to cease stocking in those waters. Is that a fair statement? Therefore, if the DNR genetic work undeway identifies the Wisconsin source of fish that ARE reproducing and are not 'mixed' so as to ruin the fish's ability to grow as you discuss ( in other words, are the fish you describe as the 'large strain' we have here in Oneida County), and are, by your commentary the then proper fish to strip and stock, and those fish are stocked in the waters they came from (Wisconsin) would that not be what almost every study I have read suggests would be the best for our management program here? The fish I am referring to are living happily in lakes around here. I have seen them reach low to mid 50" class, and they are heavy of body and healthy as can be. I know of a couple relatively recently that reached mid fifty inch class.
There is a group of lakes in Wisconsin in which stocking was halted some time ago where there is sustainable natural reproduction. I think the reasons behind the move are several, but one focus was potential overstocking, which caused in theory depression of growth and overall quality. This move was undertaken to improve trophy opportunity on those waters. Is that a fair statement? If indeed Pelican, for example, will hold it's own against the harvest there, then the stocked fish should be gone in a few years, leaving the fishing as it was when I first fished the lake. Density was fairly low ( Most muskie anglers called Pelican the Dead Sea) but quality was high. However, those natural river based muskies that existed there RARELY got to 54", almost NEVER exceeded 40#, and have been there from the start. I think that is the result of the environment, not the fish. Those same fish in the Wisconsin River do better, enough better to allow Roger Sabota to soundly beat my heaviest and longest fish from Pelican almost every year with a trophy from Boom Lake.
Your last statement might suggest that if spawn was collected later in warmer waters in the NW part of the state the fish spawning later would provide better genetic attributes toward large size. If there are no large fish IN NW Wisconsin brood lakes and those fish available CANNOT get big, and the strain used there is as bad as you say it is, then wouldn't that point be potentially moot?
Do larger Leech Lake females spawn in warmer water than the mature, but younger females in Leech Lake? I honestly don't know, so can anyone provide data for that?
Also, I was making a clear reference to the Leech Lake strain's propensity to spawn deeper and later, and asking if that has been indicated in any strain located in Wisconsin. If it has, I cannot find the reference in the literature, hence the question and the comment that it will be interesting to see what the WI Dnr comes up with there. My personal observation on waters here, and those of friends who actually work those waters for the DNR during the spawn is that the Muskie population here seem to spawn wholesale in a timeframe and water temp that doesn't seem to be indicative of size of the female. In other words, when the muskies in Pelican are spawning, I see under 40" and over 50" females spawning at the same time. Since that spawning timeframe is a few days most years, I cannot see how the premise that the big fish wait until later will apply, as later most Springs is a couple days, unless the water turns cold again due to weather, which effects ALL the spawning fish. This is an interesting idea, Larry, and I will be interested to see if a later, big fish stripping will be available here.
"Ramsell: This is great for the non-native muskie waters of the southern portion of the state, but it will only serve to further damage Tourism in the northern native range of Wisconsin on top of what damage has already been done by our loss to Minnesota. "
More like Central Wisconsin, and in the case of one system dead level exactly the same distance North as our fair city of Rhinelander, considered the 'North Woods' here, not 'southern'. Are there other possible waters IN the Northwoods that might qualify for stocking of Leech Lake or Lake St Claire fish under the current system? I think Mike is looking into that here.
Mike:
'First thing that comes to mind is the lakes over there that are continually stocked and have a 50” size limit. The only lake that I could find that showed any significant improvement was Namekagon when sampled before the 50” limit the average size was 38” a couple of years ago it when sampled it was around 43”. After I think 9 years shouldn’t a lot more really big fish be showing up if they had to potential to grow that big. It will be interesting to see what happens on the Chip.'
The answer to that is complicated and has to do with recruitment, year class availability and much more. Again, look at the number of surviving fish in the Minnesota closed to fishing 4 strain experiment after only 6 years, and what was proposed to be surviving after 10 or more. Also, keep in mind it's a average you are looking at (and it increased 5" in 9 years), not 'top end' of the fish there. It took over 20 years to get many Minnesota Waters where they are now with not as much pressure as many Hayward area and other N Wisconsin lakes, and protecting the big fish in the waters of Minnesota should be paramount. Does Namekagon get any spearing pressure, by the way? I haven't looked that up, perhaps you already know.
| |
| | |
| Guy's - where did you get the data on Namekagon? I have not been able to locate it. I'd love to see the raw data instead of just averages.
And something for everyone: (Steve, you seem to be talking with the DNR on a regular basis, maybe you can help)
The biggest thing that frustrates me is that we all can't seem to get real answers from the DNR.
We get fed useless thing like - "we use wild fish in our hatcheries".
I'm sure we'd all benefit from having the DNR give us direct answers to the following questions(I'm sure there are many more):
1. Does the DNR acknowledge that Big Spider Lake Muskies were stocked into Bone and LCO in 1956 as indicated in WDNR TB 49?
2. Does the WDNR Recognize that the strain in Big Spider Lake and Mud Callahan exhibit inferior growth potential?
3. Will the DNR be using Great Lakes Strain Muskies in all great Lakes drainages by 2005 or 2006? If not what strains are acceptable to mix within the great lakes drainage?
4. Knowing that Minnesota stocks the St. Croix drainage with Mississippi strain muskies and that the Wisconsin lakes that are part of this drainage are not native Muskie lakes, what strain of Muskies will be used in this drainage in 2005 and 2006? Is the DNR concerned about outbreeding depression in the St. Croix river drainage?
5. If it is an acceptable DNR practice to mix strains in the Great Lakes and St. Croix drainages, is it acceptable to mix strains in the Chippewa and Wisconsin River drainages?
6. If Leech strain Muskies are found to grow larger than the Wisconsin strains in Monona, Wissota and Petenwell, will Leech strain be used in other parts of the state? If not, Why? If not, why should anglers in other areas consider these studies "progress"?
7. Why were no changes made after the 1982, and 1996 genetic studies, and why will this new study be different?
8. If the new genetic study finds that almost all of the lakes in NW Wisconsin are comprised of fish thatt are genetically the same as fish in Bone lake, what changes will be made in the Brood stock program of NW Wisconsin?
9. While the DNR is planning to allow MI clubs to stock Leech strain fish in the South and Central parts of Wisconsin(Monona Petenwell & Wissota), and the East side of the state is receiving Great Lakes fish in many waters (Green Bay, Winnebago, etc) what do the good folks of NW Wisconsin have to look forward to in 2005 and 2006 in terms of change in the Muskie program?
I would like to put my effort and financial support behind the DNR and the new "plan". I need answers to some basic questions before I can do this. I would appreciate anyone's help in getting answers to these questions. I spent 39 years as a blind follower in support of the WDNR, now I want to know what is going on. At least I know they are using WILD FISH.
(I'd prefer big Domestic Muskies myself - anyone have any? I'm OK with cloning large Muskies too, for the record)
And Steve - I'd like to see what your answers would be to the questions above. Just curious.....
Regards
Bob Benson
(I missed you guys the last couple weeks, I love the debate on whether the water temp was 48 or 52 in may of 1971 - LOL I read every word!!!!. I love the details as much as you guy's, but big basic questions need to be addressed)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
I will make a fairly brief and simple reply to your complex post. With rare exception there is no natural reproduction in the non-native muskie lakes in NW Wisconsin, and since most are in the St. Croix river drainage, there is absolutely NO reason not to stock Mississippi River strain fish in those lakes to compliment Minnesota's restoration of that strain in the St. Croix River. In the natural native muskie lakes in the Chippewa River drainage, I did not say there was no natural reproduction, rather insufficient natural reproduction to sustain/maintain the fishery in most trophy class lakes there. They did ok before man's intervention which was "at least" by 1933. Why not thereafter? Is it due to the "mixing?" I also did not say there were no native large strain fish left. There is, but very few and getting fewer. Selective egg taking is the ONLY way to save them, with the exception of stocking "pure" native Mississippi River large strain fish in them! Why are these options not being considered?
Mr. Worrall: As Bob has indicated, it appears you have an open line to the DNR. To add to the list of questions he made for you to get answers to, that have not been forthcoming to date, add the above about "selective egg taking from the 'remnant' large strain fish", and also add the following:
1) How does the DNR justify stocking the 2500 mixed stock from Bone Lake (Mississippi River drainage) into Lake Superior (GREAT LAKES drainage) just last fall?
2) Why are Chippewa River drainage waters on the Woodruff hatchery stocking list for 2005, and Wisconsin River drainage waters on the Spooner hatchery stocking list for 2005?
3) Why, if the Woodruff hatchery is rearing Great Lakes strain muskies scheduled for stocking into four GL drainage waters, is there seven additional Great Lakes drainage waters scheduled from there to receive "Unspecified strain" muskies?
A final note (or question if you will). Will the proposed genetic testing "isolate" the "original native large strain muskies" (not created "mixes" or the small Big Spider Lake strain) in the upper Chippewa basin lakes, especially LCO and the Chippewa flowage and compare "those" to the Mississippi River strain? Based on the 1982 genetic study, there certainly "used" to be some genetic compatibility between the two and if found to be the same (we have contended from the start that they were "historically" the same fish), it could certainly speed up Restoration by using the only known pure Mississippi River strain fish left!
We have literally beaten the rest to death, how about some answers to the "hard" questions please?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/16/2005 6:15 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Regarding question number 4; the St Croix, here is some information:
'45. Esox masquinongy—The first specimens of muskellunge in Minnesota waters of the St. Croix River drainage were captured in July 1996. They were taken from the St. Croix River in Pine County downstream of Wisconsin’s Clam River by members of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Becker (1983) considered this species common in the St. Croix River north to the Trego Dam. Fago (1992) considered the early St. Croix records uncertain, and Fago and Hatch (1993) listed this species as introduced in the St. Croix River drainage. Lyons et al (2000) implied an historical occurrence in the drainage citing the work of LeBeau (1992) but did identify it as native there. No Minnesota authors recognize this species from the St. Croix River drainage and no authenticated Wisconsin records exist prior to stocking efforts. We consider the present St. Croix population to be the result of introductions. This species also has been introduced into the Otter Tail River system of Red River of the North drainage.' (Minnesota Academy of Science Journal)
This should reduce any concerns about outbreeding depression, according to what the Restoration group has wiitten; that the Mississsippi strain will, when stocked 'over' other stocked populations do better, grow faster, and obtain dominant status over other strains. Since all fish in that water are considered to be introduced and the restoration group has said that the fish introduced from the Spooner hatchery do not reproduce effectively there should be no concern.
Regarding question number 6-- my answer as an observer:
Your question as posed tends to try to answer; assumes that the Leech Lake fish will adapt to the waters mentioned and thrive there, and assumes that the fish in 'other areas of the state' are markedly inferior ( which I would contest/question in my area), assumes that the Mississippi strain would perform in 'other areas of the state' as they might in Monona,Petenwell, Wissota and where ever else application and acceptance allows privately assisted stocking, and assumes that other undertakings that were listed in the DNR response and in previous and subsequent writings will not have the desired effect in improving our trophy fishery elsewhere in the state using strains native to those areas. (In other words, your question is leading and implies that your assumptions, opinions, and stated feelings about the DNR and Wisconsin Muskie management are correct and any others are probably not.) The answer to this question will be provided as the fish are/are not successful in test stocking across the state. Why else would the area managers encourage this venture? If successful, and the stocking of 'spots' in Bay of Green Bay and the Winnebago system continues to take off, we will very significantly increase the areas where this particular strain of fish will be available in Wisconsin.
3,7, and 8-
All could be answered from the DNR's response, as those subjects were addressed although not in the detail you request. I will see what responses I get from the folks in charge. Given they are in the field right now I would expect that will take some time.
9-
I believe that the DNR is looking at the ENTIRE state's Muskie management program. I believe that there already were/are changes being made, though admittedly not in step with the Restortation groups demands. I expect that the good folks of NW Wisconsin can look forward to a progressive management overview and resulting plan that will accomplish what the DNR hopes to, and that the largest threat to accomplishing the stated goals is not some shadowy 'conspiracy theory' malarkey, but reduced funding and a nasty case of budget shortfalls. I believe that we, as Muskie anglers, need to support, supplement, and work within the structure of the DNR with the enthusiastic cooperation of the biologists and scientists working there. I've talked to many of the people working on this, and can tell you they ARE enthusiastic and excited about progress towards a better trophy fishery. I believe that NON MUSKIE anglers (who far outnumber us fanatics) could give a tin plated #*^@ what we want, and that has a dampening affect on obtaining larger size limits, new muskie stocking efforts, and other efforts we would like to undertake. I believe that the negaitve and sensationalized tone in almost every single release the Restoration group has printed has been to date counter productive and has created an atmosphere in which it is HARDER, ( no matter what the intent was) not easier to accomplish the goals stated. I believe that this is a result of good intentioned folk who are not experienced with this sort of thing becoming reactionary and intentionally conflicting with political and social structures in acedemia and in State governmental structures in an effort to FORCE an agenda (in the 'court of public opinion', a fickle and unpredictable place to play) and acquire a strong PR platform as an US against THEM sort of thing. I believe that if one truly wants to improve the fishery here in Wisconsin statewide, one needs to focus statewide, and work just as hard locally towards one's main area of interest. I believe that folks lke Cory Painter and Mark Hinz and Mike Roberts will accomplish more working with their local DNR scientists and finding the way to get done what everyone wants than any post here on MuskieFIRST ever will. And, I believe I am cranky because it's raining and cold, and I wanted to go crappie fishing today.
To the last statement, I wouldn't discount or dismiss any debate over the use of a excerpt and it's actual context from a scientific document to draw an untested conclusion then stated as if it is fact or in the very least should be considered fact. But then again, that's me...
 | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
'Brian Sloss, a University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point fisheries professor will be conducting the genetic studies, including identifying the genetic structure of Wisconsin's naturally reproducing populations, and where specific strains should be stocked to preserve the genetic integrity of the fish.
"One of the key questions, is, how many brood sources are needed in Wisconsin?" Simonson says. "Within the appropriate geographic areas, we'll use the most appropriate brood source lakes, based on the strain's population traits such as survival, growth, and trophy potential." '
From the DNR page Cory posted. Self explanatory; the results should be what both you and the State are looking for. I'll see what I can do to get answers to the numbered questions from all involved. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
Your response to Bob starts out with incorrect St. Croix information, Minnesota Academy of Science Journal notwithstanding (I have been in contact with them regarding that some time ago). I can cite you references to muskies being NATIVE to the St. Croix as far back as 1886, and can refer you to photo's that appeared in the Mpls. paper in the time frame circa 1920 and reprinted in two different muskellunge books of musky caught from the St. Croix. Another book has an additional reference for muskies in the St. Croix long ago as well. They ARE native there, and are being "restored" with Mississippi River strain by the MN DNR, and Wisconsin should compliment that effort, not hinder it. AND, as for the fish from Bone Lake not reproducing in the "non-native" western Wisconsin lakes that they have been stocked in has absolutely NO BEARING on their ability to reproduce in the"natural-native" muskie water of the St. Croix! A Minnesota DNR Research biologist, too, has a different opinion regarding muskies being native there than the MN Academy, but I'll not drag him into it.
Besides, I don't think the Minnesota boys, nor the guys from western Wisconsin fishing the St. Croix want our runts in there taking up space better filled with fast, large growing Mississippi River fish any more than the Canadian guys want our runts stocked in Lake Superior making the relatively short swim to Sault St. Marie and straight into the North Channel and Georgian Bay!
The rest of your post, while elequent regarding our questions, they were not answered completely or satisfactorily by the DNR, and we request that you not speak for them, rather let them fully and completely address each question posed themselves.
Thank you,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/16/2005 10:29 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was speaking to a request by Bob on those issues. Here's what he asked:
'And Steve - I'd like to see what your answers would be to the questions above. Just curious..... '
Bob asked my opinion, and I gave it best as I could for the topics I was ready to muse about. I even prefaced that with this comment:
"Regarding question number 6-- my answer as an observer:
You posted one post later than Bob:
'Mr. Worrall: As Bob has indicated, it appears you have an open line to the DNR. To add to the list of questions he made for you to get answers to, that have not been forthcoming to date, add the above about "selective egg taking from the 'remnant' large strain fish" and so on.
I answered that the folks I need to talk with are currently in the field, but will do my best, and you then post this:
'The rest of your post, while elequent regarding our questions, they were not answered completely or satisfactorily by the DNR, and we request that you not speak for them, rather let them fully and completely address each question posed themselves.'
Man, what a flip flop.
I believe I outlined my reasoning (which was formed in conversation with others involved in this overall effort) why you can about forget anyone from the DNR 'fully and completely addressing each question posed themselves.' in this thread at this time. This IS something I know a little about, you might accept that I have a 1" group in the bulls eye at 400 yards on this one. I'll keep pointing that out until the behavior changes so it is no longer an issue strangling some lines of communication.
You scold repeatedly about using anecdotal evidence that is CURRENT and my own, but use it from the past from more than 100 years ago at will to vaildate your position. A picture in a book or newspaper from that era, even three or four pictures claiming a fish came from a specific water doesn't make that water a viable muskie fishery or indicate a presence of a population in 1970, for example. There is considerable question right now as to whether many fish were as big as represented in the far more recent past, and indeed if the water listed with the catch was accurate. There have been several big fish already dismissed, and those fish were in multiple books and newspapers. If fish were present there in the 1800's or early 1900's they certainly didn't do well enough for whatever reasons to show up in sampling in later decades, which I am reasonably sure is why that paragraph I posted was printed. I'm NOT saying it's one way or the other, I'm just posting what experts in that field from that area conclude, in their own words. And, by the way, I specifically stated that the issue posted there should REDUCE concern about out breeding depression, by definition. Note also that one mention in that statement DID list Muskies as Native there.
'AND, as for the fish from Bone Lake not reproducing in the "non-native" western Wisconsin lakes that they have been stocked in has absolutely NO BEARING on their ability to reproduce in the"natural-native" muskie water of the St. Croix! '
So, by that you mean that fish stocked from Bone Lake would perform completely differently in the St. Croix or perhaps another river system where muskies are/were naturally occuring than in say, a drainage lake that is actually part of that drainage or another lake where there were no muskies before introduction?
With all due respect, as far as posting answers I might acquire in interviews and conversations with folks from the DNR or anyone else I choose to speak with on the record on this or ANY other issue, I will do so without worrying about approval, permission, or request from the restoration committee.
The entire content of your second paragraph is, in my opinion, part and parcel to this debate.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | It is refreshing to see that others share our point of view. Check out this article from the Vilas County News Review:
KRUEGER
On muskie genetics,
DNR must accept blame
By Kurt Krueger
In The Outdoors
MANY PEOPLE believe the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is too stubborn or too all-knowing — or both — to admit that the agency has unintentionally damaged muskie genetics toward small-strain fish.
Using what Minnesota discovered about its muskie genetics some 20 years ago and the results of their sweeping change in hatchery operations, a small team of Muskies Inc. members is calling for a major restoration effort in Wisconsin.
The new research shows the DNR mixed large-growth and small-growth strains, causing a major decline in the number of trophy fish 50 inches and larger. It also alleges that for the sake of convenience, fisheries personnel have gathered muskellunge eggs mostly from fish with an average length of just 331/2 inches, instead of taking them from longer fish that had proven large-growth potential.
Top DNR officials have both praised and discounted the new research. While they call more emphasis on muskie brood-stock management a great idea, they say the team's proposed restoration plan is overly simplistic.
The scribbler certainly doesn't have the answers, but I think the public would like to hear, just once, an admission from the DNR that they fell asleep at the fisheries biology wheel. Don't hold your breath.
What we got a couple of weeks ago from Mike Staggs, director of the DNR's Bureau of Fisheries, was only that the new research has the department enthused about improving its work.
Stagg didn't even give us a hint of possible wrongdoing — even unintentional — but instead offered excuses about how they've been without a geneticist, low on funds and not pushed by the public to make the issue any sort of priority.
That attitude, I'll tell you, more than anything else, is what bothers people about the DNR. When the public wants accountability, they hear excuses.
As a concerned sportsperson, I pay attention to every idea the department comes up with for improving our fisheries, our hatcheries and our fishing regulations. When push comes to shove, I have always trusted the professionals, the so-called experts, to guide us down the right path.
But not once in recent decades did I ever read where the DNR realized there was a problem with muskie genetics — that many of our lakes are filled with slow-growing fish, many of which aren't genetically capable of hitting 40 inches, let alone 50 inches.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember them trying to convince us of the need for more funding for muskie research, a geneticist, more technicians with which to safely strip eggs from trophy fish, or the purchase of forage minnows for hatchery operations.
The truth is, the agency we entrust to keep pace with the best science and biology for fisheries enhancement had fallen asleep. None of this came up until a group of muskie anglers said “Hey, you've damaged muskie genetics and it's time to reverse it.”
It's very hard to argue with the cold, hard facts. Minnesota noticed the genetics problem in 1982, and made sweeping changes in its hatchery operations.
Data collected through the Muskies Inc. members' fishing contest shows that from 1986 to 1995, Wisconsin anglers reported taking 51 muskies of 50 inches and larger, while Minnesota anglers caught just 38.
But from 1996 to 2003, members reported catching 65 trophies in Wisconsin and a whopping 438 trophy muskies from Minnesota waters. And last year alone, club members in Wisconsin took 15 muskies of 50 inches and larger, while Minnesota waters gave up 163 trophy fish.
It is that disparity that prompted the latest push by Wisconsin anglers to begin a joint program with the DNR to immediately begin a restoratiion project “to isolate and reintroduce the larger muskie that once inhabited the major river-drainage waters.”
What I hear most from the public is an absolute disbelief that fisheries personnel have been stripping eggs for hatchery brood stock from females that averaged a mere 331/2 inches. That is something they see as the most readily recognized agency goof up, and the one easiest to reverse.
I've got a problem with the small-growing muskie strain the department has purposely selected because of its high survival rate in the hatcheries. What we've ended up with in many lakes is an overpopulation of little muskies — too many big predator fish that anglers just keep throwing back.
It's just a theory, but too many moderate-sized muskies puts a strain on available food supplies, which may prevent any of the fish from becoming true trophies.
(Just look at the 10-year history of northern pike management in Butternut and Franklin lakes. A 32-inch size limit increased the number of moderate-sized pike, but hurt other species and didn't produce any more trophy pike than under the previous rules with no size limit).
While muskies prefer to eat rough fish such as suckers and ciscoes, I'm not convinced this overpopulation of moderate-sized muskies isn't taking quite a toll on walleyes, perch and crappies. As an angler who chases other species, I'd prefer a muskie program where there are fewer, larger fish.
It might be a simplistic viewpoint, but the scribbler shares the concerns of muskie guide George Langley and others who believe the DNR's stealing of forage food is hurting the fisheries in many lakes.
Common sense says that taking 13,400 pounds of minnows from 30 lakes in one year is going to have an affect on the forage base and fishery growth rates. Ditto for stripping eggs from hundreds of suckers and returning no hatched fry to the lake.
And when the agency steals that forage year after year, they are hurting our fisheries for the sake of saving some money to feed hatchery muskies. It's got to stop.
As several muskie groups and individual anglers have suggested, it's time for a muskie stamp that generates funds that are used specifically for improving management of muskie brood stock. That is where the money should come from to purchase the fry and minnows needed to feed hatchery muskies.
There are people who criticize the DNR as an agency that won't adopt an idea that isn't their own. They say it took the department 10 years to implement slot size limits that had already been proven successful in other states.
It sure seems they are reluctant to give any credit for the genetics enhancement made by Minnesota's DNR some 23 years ago. By calling the issue “more complicated,” it appears the Wisconsin DNR would prefer that they at least make it look like they reinvent the wheel.
The DNR may never own up to it, but they've damaged muskie genetics by things they've done, and by things they haven't done.
I for one support the concept of improved muskie genetics and also a push toward fewer, larger muskies. Keeping the DNR away from natural forage bases is a no-brainer that will help more than just muskies. | |
| | |
| Steve - you stated
"Regarding question number 6-- my answer as an observer:
Your question as posed tends to try to answer; assumes that the Leech Lake fish will adapt to the waters mentioned and thrive there, and assumes that the fish in 'other areas of the state' are markedly inferior ( which I would contest/question in my area), assumes that the Mississippi strain would perform in 'other areas of the state' as they might in Monona,Petenwell, Wissota and where ever else application and acceptance allows privately"
I simply want to know if when the DNR tests growth of two strains, if they will stock the one that grows largest. If not, why study it. If I assume anything, I base the assumption on all available science comparing the growth of Mississippi strains vs. Wisconsin strains in the same waters. (IR418)
Of course the whole study is the DNR reinventing the wheel once again, which simply delays better fishing for another 10 years. As someone who lives in NW Wisconsin, I'm trying to decide if I should support these studies in our Southern and Central waters with a financial contribution. So I ask the question, will one strain growing faster in these lakes trigger changes in Muskie strains used up North? If not ,these studies down South
Do Nothing Really for the people who live in the Northern part of the state.
Secondly, please don't pick and choose what questions you ask the DNR if you truly want to be impartial. Wording of questions is important - otherwise you get answer like "We use wild fish".
Thanks,
Bob Benson
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, I agree, asking the right questions is important. Am I allowed to now? (joke, that was a joke) I'll do my best to get at the facts, that's what we are both interested in anyway.
Larry,
Mr. Krueger is using the same rhetoric covering points belabored here over and over, with some added attack verbage and added innuendo. Is Mr. Kreuger a biologist? Would he understand the technical answers if he was to take the time to discuss each area's current condition with each area's biologists, or have even the slightest grasp on the issues of which he is so critical? Where is the interview with the biologist who is in charge of the Franklin Lake study? Where is the interview, in it's entirety, with Simonson or Avelallemant or Mr. Stagg?
Mr. Ramsell claims this issue is far too complicated for most to understand, and claims the restoration group cooperatively has put in 50 WEEKS of research, (thats FULL TIME at 40 hours a week for a year) to get the information they have. I assure you, it isn't just the Wisconsin based scientists who disagree with some ( and I stress, some, not all) of the groups conclusions, so there, as I have again repeatedly said, must be a middle point there where the facts reside. Mr. Krueger makes statements IMHO that clearly show his understanding of the subject is based on one viewpoint entirely, and his desire in the article is obviously not to discuss the facts of the situation, but to take a good solid swing at the DNR. That's not an unpopular passtime in the papers around here. I get a kick out of the Wisconsin public, he says we need a muskie stamp, yet the muskie stamp was voted down by the very public he attempts to inflame, and the blame for that will go where??? Where was the article before the CC vote that descibed why that stamp was needed, what it would accomplish, and how that might benefit the public? I didn't see that one. Does he have a copy of the internal or public record 'hatchery wish list' on his desk so he knows what the DNR has asked for? He criticizes the process the DNR must use to make changes that will effect the public, yet revells in the fact that system exists. He makes statements about forage that are not supported by what is actually fact. He talks about a Pike management study on a couple lakes in the area, a study I am very familiar with, and arbitrarily draws conclusions he then applies to muskies; but they are in the paper, so they are fact, right? He is critical of a practice the DNR DID admit they need to adjust (they DID say they were wrong there), overstocking, one with which they've already taken action.
Why say all this? To again make a point. When an area biologist publically gives answers that are accurate and factual based upon his work that some folks don't agree with or like, and those folks then out of anger and misplaced bias twist what is said, abuse scientific principle to attempt to discredit, and abuse the biologist publically JUST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE, the spirit of cooperation will exit stage left in one heck of a hurry. This is a State agency. They have Public Relations folks who handle that sort of thing, and the folks in the trenches don't need to or have to expose thier flank to public abuse.
I'm not saying I disagree with all or even most of the Restoration Committee's points. I don't believe that most of the scientists would totally disagree either. I question the assumptions made by them to FIND OUT HOW THE GROUP REACHED THOSE CONCLUSIONS, as I have NO compelling reason to accept Mr. Ramsell's ideas as concrete fact any more than he has to accept mine. We are both laymen, neither of us are scientists, and as a result, we both are going to make some monumental quantum leaps when trying to apply the scientific literature that is available. I am saying, as loud as I can, that if a minority* of the fishing public wants changes made the public will not care about much or necessarily support, we had better work WITH the folks in the trenches to get that done. Beating them up in public won't get ANYTHING done, and is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
*(MINORITY-----BIG LETTERS. Lots of folks don't like or care about muskies. Look at the large issue CC votes over the years)
As an aside, look at the huge argument over the Minnesota DNR's handling of the Leech Lake Walleye program, and the angry rhetoric there, read it. It might sound a bit familiar. | |
| | |
| Steve,
I find it very interesting that both you and the DNR will not address or even acknoweledge that questions 1 and 2 on my list even exist.
Let me ask just two questions this time:
1. Does the DNR acknowledge that Big Spider Lake Muskies were stocked into NW Wisconsin brood lakes Bone and LCO in 1956 as indicated in WDNR TB 49?
2. Does the WDNR Recognize that the strain in Big Spider Lake and Mud Callahan exhibit inferior growth potential?
Thanks,
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I find it interesting you don't read my posts very well, and then accuse me of dodging an issue about which I have no information. It's the weekend. I know at least two of the biologists I need to talk to are working on the water today, through the night tonight. In fact, I know of one crew that will put in about 15 hours today.
Note: 8 PM same day:
Looking at the study you are referring to, I see that most of the study fish were LCO brood except for the year you mention, 1956. The document says that LCO fish were used primarily until and after 1956. Big Spider fish were the primary brood stocked in that single year class in LCO and Big Spider, and actually created an anomoly in the study in LCO because of their 'slow growth and exceptional survival'. I do not see any reference to Bone Lake stocked in 1956 with Big Spider fish at that juncture or in any other part of that study. I do see Bone Lake fish stocked in Big Spider did very poorly as did LCO fish, yet Big Spider fish grew slowly with no noticable difference in growth or age at maturity in Big Spider or LCO. I'll read it again tomorrow to see if I can glean anything else from it, and ask several sources what that 1956 year class might mean for the LCO big picture from 1956 to present. If I was to venture a guess,(BIG guess, I'm no expert on this) I'd say the very slow maturation of those fish and the very high mortality of legal muskies at that time, listed in the Methods Evaluation section on page 18 to be at an average age of 9 years, and considering the numbers, the effect would be minimal or moot, but that's just an educated guess. I'll ask the experts as soon as I can, and ask them from three states to get responses from more than one geographical area.
I noticed one other thing, that the Big Spider fish matured as much as 3 years later than the Bone Lake and LCO female fish(average), yet grew much more slowly. That seems to conflict with the concept forwarded earlier in this conversation that early maturation leads to poor growth and smaller fish in a declining spiral, yet the Bone Lake fish matured at about the same rate as the LCO, but grew the fastest of all three.
What are we trying to get at here, Bob? Are we looking at this study and trying to find a smoking gun made in 1956 for slowing growth rates in LCO as of now? Are the growth rates in LCO slower now than before this study? Can you provide me with the literature in it's entirety ( email [email protected]) to show that is the case? I'd appreciate it if you have it on hand; otherwise I'll look around. I need to be sure what questions I'm supposed to ask. | |
| | |
| Steve,
I read your post above about Mr. Krueger real well, and found it the most abusive, mean spirited post I've seen in a long time. Your continued abuse of every single person that questions the DNR is becoming very tiresome (IMHO).
Mr Krueger is a proffessional doing his job, and he does it quite well in my opinion. I think you owe him an apology.
Why must you abuse everyone who tells the truth, while never questioning the folks who dodge the truth.
Have a great Sunday afternoon,
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Define 'the truth', Bob. Just because you believe something to be so, doesn't make it truth, and that applies to both sides of this debate. WHAT IF some of what you believe, for example the accelerated evolution some of your group so strongly suggested was our Big Muskie problem a few short weeks ago, or perhaps the idea that taking spawn from fish later in Oneida County will lead to larger growing fish being stocked turns out in the bright light of good applied science to be less than applicable? This debate has moved from accelerated evolution to the genetics of several strains of muskies, to when and where fish are stocked by whom, when and where and why fish are introduced if they were to specific bodies of water, to when spawn is collected, and then to where ever it is destined to travel next. That's alot of ground, I think. In almost every case, I asked very direct questions, tried to supply good basis in fact where I made personal observations, and did so with a clear view that this is a published document, and I am personally responsible for my commentary. I ask nothing more in return than the same courtesy from the Restoration Committee.
Mr. Krueger may well be correct in some of his published ideas, but might be wrong in some as well. To behave as a 'school yard bully' to make a point is not acceptable journalistic behavior to me unless the article was printed as editorial either supported by the paper or personal. If that article was opinion of the author then the author must accept and expect that there will be editorial viewpoits that conflict.
I didn't abuse the content of that article or the Author, I questioned it. If questions equal abuse that's news to me.
I was observing what IMHO any reasonable person who has no strong opinion one way or another might see written and then posted here by your group as a supporting article, not an op-ed or opinion piece. You can't seriously say the article wasn't a direct attack on the DNR's integrity, perceived honesty, and competence, can you? Do you honestly think that is the atmosphere in which change and cooperation will occur?
Obviouly, the article by Mr. Kreuger is his personal opinion, and my response to it, (which I must say I am entitled to since it was published on this media) was mine. You agree with his tone and commentary, I don't. I did not say if he was correct or incorrect in the context of the statements challenging other's honesty and integrity, I asked associated questions of statements made there about the WHY of his accusations. I asked questions, made observations, and called a spade a spade. It's OK when you the restoration committee publishes like and far more direct commentary, but not OK for me? I don't understand why that would be so. | |
| | |
| Steve,
I didn't say you are not entitled to an opinion. I just thought your post was abusive and mean spirited. If you want people to work together you need to present your opinions in a more tactful manner, and not continually attack those who do not agree with you.
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read that piece by Mr. Krueger again, and then my answer please. I didn't call him a liar, accuse him of stealing, didn't infer he is incompetent or avoiding responsibility, taking irresponsible shortcuts or call him self serving. I wasn't critical of his skills or technique.
I simply pointed out he wrote the entire piece based upon information and statements the truth of which could well be what either side of the issue claims; it's a leap. That's pretty tenuous ground for that strong a rebuke. While doing so, he applied every single facet of my first paragraph here to the DNR. I objected to that. The DNR is not a machine or equasion, it is a group of people who individually deserve the same respect as any other. In this case it's not a matter of anyone agreeing/disagreeing with me, it's a matter of the protocol here at MuskieFIRST and posting permissions. I decided to leave that piece up despite the fact it breaks MuskieFIRST permissions, and posted a rebuttal instead of deleting that post. Sorry if my objection offended you, Bob, but I stand by it.
This is politics, plain and simple, Bob. You and I sound like a Republican and Democratic candidate for Mayor of Mudsville with our back and forth over the last couple days. From this point forward, I'll stick to factual discussion and debate and leave the politics at the door if you folks agree to the same.
I'll get to trying to acquire answers to some of the posted questions this week.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Bob, the Namekagon data I was speaking about came from Mike Vogelsang(sp?). I had heard about two graphs the DNR had been showing at meetings when they where trying to get the 50” limit passed. I had never saw them so I contacted Mike and he mailed me copies of the netting data from pre 50” limit and netting data I think 8 or 9 years after the 50” limit. We moved a year ago and I appeared to have lost the original graphs, I scanned them and posted them either here or on Musky hunter 3 years ago but I can’t find the files either. If I do find them I will try and post them. Otherwise either contact Mike or Bayfield county’s fisheries guy and I bet you can get them. They are just numbers and size from field surveys of the lake.
Here is the response I received from Mr. Avelallemant regarding private stocking of MR or Great Lake muskies in Vilas or Oneida lakes.
“Mississippi or Great lakes strain muskies might be considered outside the native range of muskie in WI at this point. That does NOT include waters in Vilas and Oneida Co. which are in historical musky range. It could potentially include waters in the St. Croix drainage and waters in the central and southern part of the state. I believe there may be some stocking of Miss. strain fish already being considered for Wissota, Petenwell and Monona with plans to develop a studied stocking of these fish in these and possibly a few other waters next year.”
I am not going to consider this issue dead and try and get at least one lake up here stocked with these fish. We need to find the lake. I have a couple in mind. Anybody else have a lake or two that we could maybe make a case for. Steve, Larry, Bob anybody? The way I see it, it needs to be a lake with plenty of forage, pretty much land locked and stocked annually so as not to cause issues with a possible natural population.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Mike,
The largest musky to ever come out of Vilas County, was a 53 lb spotted musky out of North Twin. Big, deep, plenty of forage.....
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
Below is part of your post:
"Here is the response I received from Mr. Avelallemant regarding private stocking of MR or Great Lake muskies in Vilas or Oneida lakes."
'Mississippi or Great lakes strain muskies might be considered outside the native range of muskie in WI at this point. That does NOT include waters in Vilas and Oneida Co. which are in historical musky range.'
Mike, if I understand what you want and are trying to do, Mr. Avelallemant's statement is not fully addressing your question. GREAT LAKES strain muskies WERE native to part of the "natural" muskie range in Wisconsin. Check a map. ANY lakes in the northeastern part of Wisconsin that are in the Lake Superior DRAINAGE (eventually drain into Lake Superior) or that drain eventually into Lake Michigan were originally inhabitited with Great Lakes strain fish...unless the lakes were "created" with the indiscriminate stocking that took place from 1874 to 1901 via "milk can" stocking, or were "created" after the Woodruff hatchery was built and in operation since 1901.
Talk to any of the old guides for some of those waters, and see what they have to say about what those lakes "used" to have, and what they have now!
As I noted in a previous post, the Woodruff hatchery is scheduled to raise and stock GREAT LAKES strain muskies in four Lake Michigan drainages this year, as well as seven other lakes in those two drainages...again...with "Unspecified Strain" muskies. And again we ask, WHY aren't ALL Great Lakes drainage waters being stocked with Great Lakes strain muskies?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/18/2005 10:24 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Sean, I agree I think it is possible that there where some spotted or similar ski in this area to begin with. Many don’t agree with that.
Larry I think Steve was pretty clear as things stand right now no lakes in Vilas/Oneida county will be stocked with MR or GL ski. I will still plan to try and convince them one or two lakes should be tried.
What he said is where the problem is, the WDNR personnel are not convinced that the MR fish are the same fish that where native here, hopefully it can be proven they where. It is possible they where not. Either way they may still work for stocking here even if they are not specifically native, because the lakes are so integrated with foreign fish already. Again I am not advocating stocking only MR fish just some in systems where it makes sense.
Check out the following for all the Wisconsin watershed management you can stand go to the following web site:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/gmu/sidebar/whatis.htm
I have attached a couple maps that are interesting, remember this is direct watershed mapping it is based on drainage not anything else.
For more detail on the above web page go to the State of the Basin Reports under Reports.
Then click on the basin you are interested in on the map.
Under the headwaters basin you can then go to Appendix 6 Watershed Maps and see all the watersheds in detail that contribute to the basin.
Interesting stuff if you are a geek like me. Of course being a civil engineer this stuff is right up my ally considering storm water management is becoming more and more apart of my job.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
(Wisconsin Drainage Basins.jpg)
(GeographicManagementUnits.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Wisconsin Drainage Basins.jpg (20KB - 289 downloads)
GeographicManagementUnits.jpg (27KB - 339 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
My previous post was about GREAT LAKES strains in lakes that drain into the Great Lakes, not Mississippi River strains in those lakes...Larry | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I am one of those 'old guides' and can relate directly to a couple lakes here in Oneida County that drain into either the Pelican or a tributary. The fishing there for big muskies is as good or better than it was from my conversations with anglers who fished those waters for Muskies in in the 40's to the 70's and my experience in the 70's to date. Yes, things have changed, spearing, heavier pressure and harvest, and a stocking program set at the same time a Red Rusty Crayfish infestation wiped out the weed cover and much of the natural reproduction of many species there caused a different approach to catch fish, but I have not seen a decline in the big fish or numbers of big fish. I have seen a larger number of fish from the 30" class to upper 40" class, all matching up with year classes stocked and successful natural reproduction. Are there 50" fish coming out of those waters? Yes. In huge nembers? No, but in numbers that equal or surpass those in 1974 when I first started guiding that water.
The largest fish I can actually PROVE was caught out of Pelican was well under 50#. Enterprise had one speared in a creek during the spawn in the 40's that was pretty big, I'd say from the old photo Gabby (Garner) Ball showed me in about 1974 of that fish it was about 45#. There were several in the 40# class caught scattered across the 90's to date, and a bunch in the lower to mid 30# class. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Bob,
From the begining I've supported the work you guys are doing and I still think it can be worth while. If WMRP changes its public attacks on the DNR. Now instead of lightening up you are attacking a whole new group the everyday musky angler. You are suppose to be one of the group leaders and instead you consistently make false claims and lambaste anyone who might have a question regarding your groups findings. You sir, have just lost a supporter and if I were you I would learn to keep your comments to professional level. You sir, are driving what ever creditbilty the WMRP had right into the crapper.
Thanks
Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike;
I've never seen any record or picture of a spotted fish in any of the waters from this area. Can't say there never was such an animal here, but if there was, there were precious few pictures taken. So I'm guessing that the GL strain the Restoration group wants stocked is the native strain here in Oneida County that has evolved after the Ice Age. I would say the 'naturals' in Pelican or the Wisconsin River would qualify, if that's the case. When Mr. Sloss is finsihed with his work, we should be able to ask him to test a tiny piece of skin from a mount from the 30's and be able to positively identify if it is the same genetic stain as fish caught today. I'd like to test a mount I have in Lakeview Inn and another I have at home to see how those line up, I'm betting they will be identical despite one being a 1984
52" fish that had markings that the 'native' fish seem not to exhibit and the other a 1974 53" fish which is by all probability a native, and a relatively old one at that. Pelican is a class A2 2 lake, indicating an 'action' lake with some natural reproduction supplemented by stocking. | |
| | |
| Guys,
If ever a lake in Vilas county qualifies for MR strain fish, it has to be Lac View Desert! After all is it not the headwaters of the Wisconsin River. Back not to long ago this lake was the premier lake to go to.The fish in that lake grew very long in length.I've seen a number of mounts that where in the 55-57" range.The strain that was in there also produced the biggest Tigers in the world when crossed naturally with a northern pike.Something drastically happened with this lake,because of the weed growth in the summer many people avoided this lake during that time and the fish had a refuge.
As for Oneida county,what about all the flowages connected to the Wisconsin River,their use to be some huge fish in all those waters.
The Willow Flowage has to be mentioned,here's a self sustaining strain that spawns at the mouth of Cedar Falls.What strain is this?Does the DNR have a handle on this body of water,perhaps this might be a strain worth looking into!
Then we have the Peshtigo River systems-Caldron Falls,High Falls and others,they all drain to Green Bay.
Shawano Lake I believe drains into the famous Wolf River,which feeds the Winnebago system which feeds Green Bay.What strain are they putting in Shawano Lake?
There are many many bodies of water that I think qualify for MR or GL strain muskys, were just at the tip of the ice berg! | |
| | |
| Hunter4
I'm confused about your post. Could you please direct me to what exactly you are refering to here? Can you provide a post #? I'm not able to find what it is your talking about.
Thanks for your help
EJohnson | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, the fish that people commonly talk about as possibly being a spotted is the 53-12 caught by Mryl McFaul 9/22/53 from North Twin Lake. There is a picture of the beast in Larry’s Compendium 2nd edition on page 353. The tail looks spotted, definitive proof no but something to think about.
I think it makes perfect sense to stock only Great Lakes muskies in waters in the two great lakes basins. If I had to guess this is what we will first see, I hope. As they continue to stock GL fish in the far eastern part of the state and start stocking the extreme northwestern part of the state, and stock MR fish in the southern part of the state, I don’t want the powers to be to forget about the Wisconsin Headwaters and Upper Chippewa basins. Muskies and walleyea where the bread and butter of the tourism industry in these two areas.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Avelallemant's answer to Mike's question was very clear, and wasn't in any way incomplete. Mike asked to stock GL strain here in this area in what is described as the natural range, and Mr. Avelallemant answered no, not at this time, but there were other waters in the state now receiving those fish. Mike intends to convince Mr. Avelallemant to look at a couple waters here. I have immense respect for both of these gentlemen.
Bob,
I spoke to two scientists today about the idea that a single stocking of a year class that exhibited the late maturation/slow growth/exceptional survival of the 1956 Big Spider fish, introduced specifically into the LCO system might cause out breeding depression or other effects as you mention in your LCO, and the 'chain reaction' in your Bone Lake reference. One gentleman agreed to locate and forward more information, and email it to me asap, and offered the same opinion as an out of state fisheries research scientist; that in all probability, there was no outbreeding depression effect. There IS a remote possibility that some effect might be traced and proven in genetic testing/new science that Mr. Sloss at Stevens Point is undertaking. I know you don't want to wait for that data to become available, but when complete this work will allow testing current fish and those mounted years ago, and see if they are indeed the same fish, or somehow different. I'm afraid that we might just have to wait for that data to put this issue to final rest. I intend to do an interview with Mr. Sloss, and will post it in it's entirety in the article section when complete. This is groundbreaking and important work, and I intend for the Muskie community to hear about what this means for management of Muskies here and elsewhere in the future.
Mike,
I assure you, the fisheries managers in Rhinelader and in Woodruff won't forget us here, were too noisy. The statement from Mr. Simonson included our area, and work is already underway to obtain the results desired. Keep after Mr.Avelallemant and see if we can sneak a lake or two in there with some test fish, maybe we can find one out there that is acceptable. If not, then the genetic selection of the very best brood stock from the new scientific work being done should get that job done anyway.
I've seen that picture, it's a stretch, I think, to call that fish a spot. I've had over 100 spotted muskies in the net over my lifetime from different waters, and a number of barred fish as well. I wouldn't say there isn't ANY chance that fish had some GL traits in it's coloration and markings, but as I said, I feel it's a stretch. It will be interesting to see what Mr. Sloss finds in his future testing! | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
McFaul's fish is definately spotted! However, it would, if a "true" spot, be Mississippi River strain, rather than a Great Lakes strain.
Mr. Worrall:
Your reply to Bob regarding "outbreeding depression" is intersting. We have heard that elsewhere also. However, what those gentlemen need to consider, is that ever since those Big Spider Lake fish were stocked in LCO and Bone Lake and became mature, they have been spawning those fish, raising them at the hatchery and stocking them right back into Bone and LCO. They didn't "disappear" as some have suggested. We contend that those fish are the ONLY fish they are getting viable eggs from during years they take eggs at 38-42 degrees.
As for the genetic study, we discussed the checking of skin from mounts with Dr. Sloss at the meeting. To TRULY find out what was native, he would HAVE to go back BEFORE "any" stocking was done...an impossibility. The fish from the 30's etc. could easily be mixed or small or large strain fish from hatchery operations. And since most fishermen lie about where they caugh thier fish, what % of "confidence" would be obtained, and finally, how many folks that do have "old" mounts are going to let someone take a piece off of it? To do it for all "presumed" native muskie lakes is an impossible task. Again we maintain, all that the genetic testing will prove is what is there now...and has already been done. And not to beat a dead horse, Dave Neuswanger's march 6th post went contrary to what Simonson said last week. "After 2-4 years of testing, we still won't know about growth, reproduction and behavior," and folks, THAT is what this is all about!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
There are several factors to be considered when making a statement like that.
1) The Big Spider fish that were stocked into LCO in '56, because of the late maturity of that fish, the professed average mortality at 9 years in that study, and the point of the next statement may not have interbred at all.
2) There is an excellent chance those fish did 'disappear'. The LCO fish and Bone Lake fish matured earlier, grew faster, got bigger, and did so because of their genetic adaptation to LCO. The scientific literature describing that scenario and competition between what is unquestionably a strain adapted to the water from which it was taken and a slower growing, later maturing strain that was not suggests that the Big Spider fish would not be successful in transferring the necessary genetic information to cause the LCO fish to indicate the traits the Big Spider fish indicate through interbreeding to the LCO and Bone Lake fish, and in effect, would simply die off. There are many many examples of this scenario out there with many species of fresh water fish, where a strain of fish was planted 'over' another strain and was not successful. There are a number of reports where the stocked strain was successful, but did not interbreed to any extent. There are also a couple reports showing the interbreeding of two strains of bass that caused a collapse in the fishery because of the combination of genetic code of the two fish.
3) The scientists I spoke with would not state that some interbreeding didn't happen, they stated that it was less than likely a single stocking of those fish would create the situation the WMRT suggests. Would it not be just as possible the genetic makeup of the 1956 LCO fish would be dominant and the opposite be true?
4) Since the scientists I spoke with would not completely rule out ANY scenario, it might be suggested that the WMRT theory is no more or less compelling than the opinion of two esteemed scientists.
5) The amount of tissue needed off a mount is very small, and would not damage the front of the fish. It can be taken off the back, see the photo attached. No one said it would be done to determine every single origin of every single fish. The statement about fishermenr lying about their fish is probably true, and I've made that point more than one time.
5) The WMRT needs to revisit information from Dave Neuswanger or others who clearly understand the study of genetic material and the application of findings to actual behavior and adaptation, and gain a better understanding as to how this information might be discussed and applied. If two fish test out with identical genetic 'coding', and there are a number of fish that also match up exactly, and those fish all exhibit by physical measure strong growth, large size, and good survival, it is then possible to extrapolate that data and stock the 'right' fish. What Mr. Simonson meant, if I am correct, is that by simply looking at the genetic coding in the labratory, one is not able to determine what the adaptation might be of the matching genetics in those fish in the field. One CAN determine the genetic 'origin' by comparison and match of that fish to a population of existing muskies or by the fact 'markers' from an older genetic sample fail to match an existing population, and by exercising some field work which will be in process as a matter of course in Wisconsin anyway, then apply the new scientific information to select the best fish available for each area, to a T. The work that will be done in Stevens Point is not the same as has been done before, as there have been numerous recent advances in genetics research technology and methodology. This work also will create the most comprehensive library of genetic information ever assembled for Muskies.
Attachments
----------------
DSCF0003.JPG (49KB - 295 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
You missed my point completely. I was NOT referring necessarily to cross-breeding, although it IS known to happen. My point was that once the Big Spider Lake fish got mature, about 1960 or 1961, it is entirely reasonable to assume that in the egg taking process, especially in Bone Lake, a NON-native lake, they did in fact continuously take eggs from BSL fish, raise them in the hatchery and stock them back into Bone Lake (and LCO) EVERY YEAR. Pretty hard for them to "disappear" when they are continuously propagated!
Even New Jersey gets it, as indicated in the following email I received:
Hello Larry,
"I was talking with Al from Pastika's last Friday and began talking with him about the Wisconsin Muskie Restoration Project. I found it to be some very interesting data to look over. In fact I shared this with an acquaintance of mine from when I lived in New Jersey. Al thought this might be of interest to you, though at the time I wasn't completely certain of the facts.
His name is Ed Washuta and he works for the New Jersey Fisheries department at their freshwater hatchery at Hackettstown. He is their principal biologist and found it very interesting to read. In his reply email he mentioned that they prefer Leech Lake Strain when available. Muskies, Inc. stocked the leech lake strain in Echo Lake and it is the only lake with that strain in it. I believe their state record musky came from that lake. I know it was caught ice fishing. But essentially Ed concluded that what they do in the hatchery may very well have greater impact on the size of the musky in the state as opposed to fishing regulations. Evidently Muskies, Inc. wants to go to a statewide 40" size limit.
Here is a clipping of the email from his response.
Frank --
Thanks for the interesting information. We have had in-house
discussions about muskellunge management recently. Muskies Inc. had
requested a statewide 40-inch minimum in order to foster larger fish.
Our biologists felt that our current regs were providing a lot of 40+
and even a few 50+ muskies, and that a higher size limit was
unnecessary. Reading about the Wisconsin Restoration Project leads me
to believe that it is what we are doing at the hatchery, rather than
regulations, that make the difference.
Muskies Inc had stocked "Leech Lake" stain muskies in one of our lakes
(Echo) a number of years ago, and we prefer to use them rather than our
mixed (NY-PA-MN) brood stocks, when they are available. Echo is the
only lake that has a "pure" stain of the Leech Lake muskies. Muskies
Inc as well as our division, has stocked other lakes with other strains
and we have ended up with mixed brood stocks in most other lakes."
Folks, it IS the FISH. Genetic studies will not change that. The tourism folks I spoke to this morning understand that Wisconsin is losing massive amounts of tourism dollars to Minnesota, and more studies will only further compound the problem.
Again, we contend that the proposed genetic studies, mounts included, will only tell what was or is there...all most likely "milk can stocking (1874-1901) or "hatchery created (1901-present)!"
Hopefully later today or tomorrow we will have our reply to the DNR letter of April 12.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/19/2005 2:15 PM
| |
| | |
| The Big Spider fish that were stocked into LCO in 1956 were still showing up 19 YEARS LATER and still in the low 30 inch size range! This is documented and pretty much proves they did not die off in 9 years. Also, as Larry mentioned, it does not matter if these fish were capable of sustaining themselves through natural reproduction or not if man is raising and stocking them. This ensures thier survival. These fish could have very easily survived and grew in numbers in our lakes, including our broodstock lakes, and most likely did just that, thanks to the help of man stripping eggs and milt from them, raising them in our hatchery, and then stocking them back into our lakes year after year after year and on and on........ Afterall, we have gotten to be experts at raising fish in our hatcheries that when stocked back into our waters show extremely poor natural reproduction. Why else would we continously have to stock our broodstock lakes? Without mans help, these undesireable fish probably would have died off in most waters, especially those with northern pike. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. We need to stop raising and stocking a man-made species of fish that eats all the forage, offer anglers an opportunity for numbers and not quality, take up valuable space in our waters that could be better utilized, and remain protected under current size limits for all or most of thier lives because they do not grow.
If we are in fact raising and stocking fish that are capable of growing to large sizes, then why do they not grow when stocked back into LCO under a 50-inch size limit? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I did not read anywhere in that study where BSL fish were stocked directly into Bone Lake in 1956. Please provide the page number and paragraph for my reference on that issue, I'm somehow missing it. If you are inferring that BSL Lake fish were crossed with LCO fish and then planted in Bone, then you are referring to cross breeding. If you are inferring that there was a sustained population of BSL fish in LCO after the '56 stocking that spawns earlier than the LCO fish, and ALL spawn taken from LCO is actually BSL fish ( that couldn't have occured until a minimum period of average at 7 years past the stocking of BSL fish in LCO and then in a theoretical 1st year class in LCO almost 14 years), that's a heck of a stretch. If you are inferring that the BSL fish are taken, and only males from BSL fish are used to fertilize the roe keeping that strain intact then it becomes even more of a stretch, considering that the males and females matured several years later than Bone and LCO fish from BSL, and a large percentage were less than 22"and 30" respectively at that point. That would indicate that competition would be pretty tough on those fish, one might speculate. The laws of averages and probability are strongly against what you're saying. If you are saying that these fish are now taken in a BSL dominant strain every year from Bone Lake, then the numbers begin to stack up against that possibility in comparison to a Power Ball win. Possible, but very unlikely. The genetics research work you continually (and IMHO mistakenly) dismiss will show us if you are correct there, wouldn't you agree?
About 1400 between 20 and 43" fish were collected and studied according to the report from the three bodies of water, the majority of which were reported to be LCO fish. Look at the Minnesota study of four strains, and expected survival at maturation, and then look at the numbers here. As I said, I hope to have more information very soon.
What are the current growth rates of the LCO and Bone Lake fish right now? Do they take as many as 7 years to mature, or as you claimed in previous posts, do Bone Lake Muskies mature much younger and are less desirable to the WMRT as a result? Isn't one of the genetic adaptive traits of the BSL fish slow maturation coupled with slow growth? Isn't one of the traits of the Bone Lake fish the opposite? Would you agree that the LCO fish that were studied in the 50's were at 43" as a maximum in 9 years according to that material? Is there any indication that those fish grew much faster in Bone? Is there a record of LCO native fish growing faster beofre the 50's?
Here's an excerpt from another board about the fish in Bone:
'Bone Lake fish are a inferior strain?. LOL, Do not buy it, and I will tell you why. I have caught more fat fish over 45 inches out of Bone than any other lake in Wi. I stopped counting years ago. I have not found a 1100 acre lake in Wi. that puts out as many LARGE fish per acre. I have at least 5 fish over 48 inches that go 30+ pounds with 1 50 incher. I Have fished the Chip for Muskies just as much in the last 30 years with one 50" also...the average size has been bigger out of Bone. Yes it may have been over stocked (in the past) for the forage base, but there is a huge harvest issue on the lake also. There are many variables that come into play when talking about fish potential. I am with Shane when it comes to the harvest issue. Hard for a fish to get to 50" when its kept at 40" to 45". Guys are cleaning Muskies right at the launch when you pull in.'
The statement from the biologist in New Jersey is interesting and says they like the Leech Lake strain in Echo Lake. It would appear that there are fast growing mixed strain fish in other waters there in New Jersey, and that spawn was taken from them for hatchery use last year. Not too long ago it was insisted one cannot apply reference material or anecdotal material in other than very general terms from biologists from say, Kentucky (or New Jersey?) to the equasion in Wisconsin. I was scolded thouroughly about quoting a Kentucky biologist who I was actually sitting with while I asked questions. Can't have it both ways.
I think we may find we like the Leech Lake strain in Monona, at least that is my hope. Maybe we'll like Leech Lake fish in the Petenwell and other waters where they will be introduced, too, but then again, we don't know for sure. The WMRT has suggested several times we use native strains that grow fast and get big, and the work underway will ensure we do just that and from our own naturally reproducing fish. Let's find out where they are and use them since it wouldn't be proper to use MR fish in the waters in my area. I will have to travel to fish for Leech Lake fish no matter what, but only have to travel a mile to fish for a decent shot at a 50" plus and 40# class muskie from right here in Wisconsin. Those are dandies by any score, and maybe we have a genetic source for the fish we need right down the road from my house. Of course, I am claiming those fish are stocked, and strongly believe that to be the case, but waves on the water sometimes DO make the wind blow, you know.
Showing up in what numbers 19 years later, EO? Can you direct me to the data you are using? What data are you using for growth rates and maximums on Bone for the last decade? Could you please provide a link to that as well? WAS there any inbreeding of the BSL and LCO fish, or is the contention that some of the stocked fish in Bone are BSL and others LCO, which might account for the anecdotal comments from the angler who catches nice fish on Bone regularly? Thanks!
| |
| | |
Posts: 7039
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Folks, it IS the FISH. Genetic studies will not change that.
Larry,
You said your group has done "many months of reading" up on the subject, and now you're ready to tell the DNR the changes they need to make. The DNR wants to actually SCIENTIFICALLY STUDY the subject, find out new, focused research in order to guide their decision making. How can you be against that?
Not to be too blunt, but if you really think that the DNR is going to make changes based soley upon your recommendations that come from the studying of past research (especially when some of that research comes from the MI Lunge log: at tool, but definitely not one that can be used in a scientific study) you're deluding yourself. No government agency anywhere is going to work that way. You're talking about making wholesale changes to a program that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, to think that the DNR is going to turn on a dime because the WRMP says they should is a bit delusional. You say that the MN DNR did this, and if that is so, then so be it. Face it, the WI. DNR isnt the MN DNR.
Right or wrong, the DNR is going to put scientific study the theories that you propose. Saying that something is so because you read X# of studies from the past, and because of what you've seen, what others say, and what you believe just is NOT going to be enough to persuade the DNR or any other government agency that you would choose to lobby in this way.
I could say that Holocaust didnt happen, or Elvis is still alive, or that Bigfoot exits, and that aliens landed at Roswell, NM. in 1947 too, because I read alot of material that said these things did or didnt occur. Does that necessarily make them so, well I can say that they did because I read that they did, but it really doesnt make it so. You're doing basically the same thing here, and now you're saying that a LARGE amount of money should be spent differently because you believe it should be.
Being against further study into the problem just doesnt make sense, it only shows that you folks believe that you're right, and there is no debate on your findings.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
Your ramblings and hypothesis serve only to "muddy the water and make some quantum leaps to claims we have not made. We NEVER "inferred" that BSL and LCO fish were intentionally crossed. There is more than one DNR Study that talks about the 1956 stocking of BSL fish into BOTH LCO and Bone Lake in 1956, yet the DNR still will not acknowledge it. One I have readily at hand is Technical Bulletin #49 by DNR Research Scientist Leon Johnson, page 14 paragraph 2. All of our references are listed in our Addendum to our first Restoration document and presented at the state musky committee meeting in February and can be found on our website.
Also, your assumption that it would take 14 years for a second year class is incorrect. Once the first year class is mature (far less than seven years as you indicated), that class is again able to spawn EVERY YEAR thereafter! Same study referenced above, page 15 2nd full paragraph, it states that; "Some males in all lakes (BSL, LCO and Bone) were mature at age IV (4)....The smallest mature male was 19.5 inches long and the smallest mature female was 22.0, both from Big Spider Lake." It was "7 years" before they reached LEGAL LENGTH (then 30"), not maturity! And in FACT, (page 14 table 10) 24% of the BSL females WERE MATURE at age IV (4)!! That's 1960 by my calculation, and available for spawing EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER until death, by which time the first year class progeny will have also spawned several times!
Enough. Your WMRT "glass half empty" and DNR "glass half full" is wearing thin. You seem to be somewhat confused with the data. Our documents synopsize the findings, the references will get you to the full details. Your invoking the "laws of probablity" based on your hypothesis is but a weak attempt to discredit what we have worked far longer than you to find.
And again, the genetic study will only confirm what is there and has been "created." And un-intentional "cross-breeding" will likely be a part of that.
As for the lakes south of the native range that will get LL fish, it will do nothing to restore the fisheries in the tourism dependant north.
Slamr: Why more studies? The DNR did little or nothing with past studies. And now some are trying to discredit the ones that support our position. Why?
This will be my last post until we are ready (soon) to post our response to the DNR's April 12 release. Along with that will be a considerable list of questions (more than above) that have to date still not been answered. Until then...
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/19/2005 6:47 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Mr, Johnson
Larrys last post perfectly illustrates my point about the WMRP I don't like what you said MR. Sworall so I'm taking my ball and going home. This is not the way to handle things on a public forum and yet Larry and Bob continue make your organization look really bad, with the childish chest thumping that they continue to display. You folks need to stop and regroup.
Thanks
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 4/20/2005 6:14 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Larry I hope you continue to post there are still lots of questions I have and though the last few post have been confusing I think nuggets can still be gleaned from them. I liked Steve’s idea of trying to keep politics out of it, but he feels one way, you feel one way and that is the nature of politics. There are lots of questions on the table and I agree it doesn’t pay to belabor them but I will add a few more with some additional comment. I hope both you and Steve can find time to answer with your opinions.
First the research being done by Mr. Sloss sounds very fascinating and could have profound affects throughout Wisconsin. It is important to continue doing research as science evolves. Yes there are lots of studies already done, but new studies using new technology can only help get a better understanding of the big picture.
Steve once you post your article describing Mr. Sloss’s, (is it Mr. Dr.?) work I think you should see if he would participate in a question answer discussion on your Pro Board where it could be fully moderated.
1st Group of question:
From what you know Steve will it be possible for Mr. Sloss to determine if some of our big fish from the past are closely related to the Leech Lake, Mississippi River fish.
There is a 60” musky that was found dead on Lac Vieux Desert in 1984 hanging on the wall in a restaurant in Land O’ Lakes, I would love to no how the genes relate. If they closely resembled MR fish from Leech Lake could this open the gate to stock MR fish in the entire Wisconsin River Basin.
How about existing fish, could the DNR net your lake X and take samples to be classified?
Can anglers take samples to be classified?
Will the new genetics show if there has been cross breeding?
If these type of questions can be answered the study is awesome and will serve to clarify many questions. There of course will still be some.
I believe however that there is enough data already available to come to some conclusions. Such as Great Lakes fish should be stocked into direct Great Lakes systems, and considering MN is stocking the St. Croix with MR fish Wisconsin should do the same or not stock at all.
I also believe it would be a good P.R. move for the DNR to allow the stocking of MR fish in a couple of test waters in the Headwaters and Upper Chippewa Basins. The Central and Southern part of the state are getting some of these fish, why not spread some good will.
Petenwell is part of the Wisconsin River and has had Musky in it since before any dams where built. Is that correct? It has currently been rebuilt after much pollution, also the Madison chain currently has a very healthy musky population. I will try to find answers to why those bodies of water are being targeted, but no similar waters in the northern part of the state make the cut. There are many waters that have musky population that are sustained though heavy stocking. I would think any of these waters could potential be a target. I will try to find answers on this.
One more questions for the WMRT.
I know the long answer is on your website but short term what will make you happy. I guess I have lost focus on what you are after in say the 2005 season. Other than stopping the stocking of any but MR into the St. Croix and GL fish into Superior.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I re-read the paragraph you mention, and it doesn't mention any stocking or introduction of BSL fish into Bone, nor does any graph from the report. The report mentions in print and graphically:
"Muskies from LCO stocked in LCO
Muskies from BSL stocked in LCO
Muskies From BSL stocked in BSL
Muskies other lakes stocked in BSL"
All other references I see are referring to fish in LCO from LCO, fish in Bone from Bone, and fish in BSL from BSL.
A paragraph from that same paper says:
"Rates of growth seem to be closely related to the age of which muskellunge in each of the three lakes mature. In Big Spider Lake where Muskies exhibited slow growth maturity was delayed several years after the onset of maturity in Bone Lake Muskellunge. Some males in all lakes were mature spawners at age 3 and some females were mature at age 5 (refer to Table 10, no mention of ANY BSL stocking in Bone). In Bone Lake, more males were mature at 3 and more females at 4 than any other lake." It was the second sentence that I was trying to get at. I applied a figure to 'several years' I thought I had seen elsewhere in the report of 3 to 4, but may have seen that elsewhere. I don't know what the reference means by 'several years' in the BSL sentense in the context it is printed. It does say in Bone Lake all male fish were mature by 4 and all females by 5 which should indicate year classes from Bone Lake fish would be earlier, stronger because of the number of mature fish, and would compete with the BSL fish at last partially on that basis. The smallest study male at maturity was a 19.5" BSL fish and smallest female at maturity was 22", also a BSL fish. I stand corrected. Now, on the issue of a reproductive class available for stripping that might have genetic charactistics from crossbreeding would be approximately 8 years later, not 14, at 24% of the females from the initial stocking of BSL fish in 1956. Since I could not find a reference to BSL fish being stocked in Bone, and still can't from the Technical Bulletin #49 by DNR Research Scientist Leon Johnson, I was looking in my last post at how those genetics would end up in Bone Lake, as the WMRT says. It's evident that the Bone Lake stock was from LCO, and that LCO mature fish were stripped and that spawn used to raise the fish stocked into Bone. If the study tracks the fish in Bone from 1957 (Figure 10, page 14) as they reached 1 year of age, then there have been some misconceptions from the beginning about BSL and Bone fish. If the fish in Bone, as described by the study, were derived from stocks in LCO, there is no way there were any mature BSL fish available to be stripped from LCO at that time, as Bob claims here:
FSF,...You ask this: And isn't Spooner's genetic base Couderay fish, via Bone Lake?
Good question! But before anyone answers this question I have something that needs to be said. Have you ever heard of Spider Lake in Sawyer Co.? If so you may know that it is not what I or most people would consider a trophy fishery. Why? This is why.
Of the documented catches from Spider Lake only 2% exceed 45 inches, and only 0.3% exceed 50 inches. Why do I bring this up? Because it is a documented FACT that Spider Lake fish were planted into Lac Courte Oreilles by the DNR. This was done PRIOR to the DNR taking fish from LCO and putting them into Bone Lake to create our current Brood stock lake for NW WI. ' End of Bob's previous post--------
Now he's in a literal sense correct by the timeline of this study, but the inference is that the LCO fish stocked in Bone could have been BSL strain.
The report says 'Even the muskies spawned from Bone Lake in later years were from this strain ( LCO) because the initial intorductions had been from LCO.' The report then goes on to describe the BSL '56 fish stocked in BSL and LCO, and effect on the LCO data later, graphically depicting those fish and where they were studied. No mentioon of BSL in Bone. It would be 1960 before the first percentage of BSL fish in LCO would be viable.
"And again, the genetic study will only confirm what is there and has been "created." And un-intentional "cross-breeding" will likely be a part of that."
Now to the Wisconsin fish the WMRT said in earlier discussions we should selectively strip and breed. There are several references to this in the genetics thread begin about here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread--view.asp?tid=1... which lead into the 'stunning' thread. -- The WMRT is recanting that and saying the only way to gain ground is to introduce Leech Lake fish over in the NW and GL fish here in my area? Are you now saying existing stocks of what you claimed before to be superior fish do NOT exist in any of our Wisconsin waters and those fish can't be identified as genetically superior, stripped and reared in brood lakes proving the WMRT correct?
Darn it, guys, I have questions. There's no reason to get crabby when I ask them. You posted this stuff and called it 'stunning', I am reacting by asking you to prove it. So knock off the insults and prove it, and all will be well! You expected that a bunch of guys could simply walk in, slam their collective fist on the table, make a couple statements and everyone would bow to the East? I sure wouldn't have expected YOU accept that sort of thing from ME if the tables were turned here. In other words, stand behind your work, answer questions and challenges when offered, and let the test of science and time prove this out.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
The short answer to your questions from what I understand about the new genetic study proposed is yes! I would love to see the fish in Lake X looked at scientifically, and see if those fish match fish from the Great Lakes basins across the Muskie's range ( meaning the ENTIRE natural range of the muskie) to any degree, and if they match the OTHER big fish here, like those in Boom, the flowage in Tomahawk, Two Sisters, Pelican, and other lakes associated with the Pelican River drainage. It only takes a very small amount of material to get what is needed, so your big fish mount idea would work.
I will ask the Professors at the University at Point if they are interested in providing an interview, asap. Tomorrow I'm off to work the road a bit and cover the PWT on the Fox Chain, so this will have to wait until next week.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Hunter4: "Mr, Johnson Larrys last post perfectly illustrates my point about the WMRP I don't like what you said MR. Sworall so I'm taking my ball and going home. This is not the way to handle things on a public forum and yet Larry and Bob continue make your organization look really bad, with the childish chest thumping that they continue to display. You folks need to stop and regroup. Thanks Dave"
Hunter4 (Dave): I did not say I was going away, just that I would not post further until we had completed our reply to the DNR. That is now done and I'm back.
"MRoberts Larry I hope you continue to post there are still lots of questions I have and though the last few post have been confusing I think nuggets can still be gleaned from them. I liked Steve's idea of trying to keep politics out of it, but he feels one way, you feel one way and that is the nature of politics. There are lots of questions on the table and I agree it doesn't pay to belabor them but I will add a few more with some additional comment. I hope both you and Steve can find time to answer with your opinions."
Mike: As noted above, my absence was temporary.
Mike: "First the research being done by MR. Sloss sounds very fascinating and could have profound affects throughout Wisconsin. It is important to continue doing research as science evolves. Yes there are lots of studies already done, but new studies using new technology can only help get a better understanding of the big picture."
My reply: Mike, new science is great, but current science should not be ignored. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Dr. Sloss' "new science" still can ONLY show what is currently present. As an example of what I am saying, let me relate to you what we were told by a MN Research Scientist regarding the genetic study done in MN in 1996. Due to the "samples obtained" by the study group, some of the NATIVE Mississippi River strain lakes that had been overstocked by Shoepac strain fish for over 30 years, put those lakes in the Shoepac genetic grouping. This again, was because THAT IS WHAT WAS SAMPLED and was most prevalent in the sampling. This new genetic sampling proposal will do exactly the same thing with the Wisconsin stocks that have been created and mixed, as well as stocked into native-natural muskie lakes in Wisconsin over the past 130 years!
Mike: "There is a 60" musky that was found dead on Lac Vieux Desert in 1984 hanging on the wall in a restaurant in Land O' Lakes, I would love to no how the genes relate. If they closely resembled MR fish from Leech Lake could this open the gate to stock MR fish in the entire Wisconsin River Basin."
My reply: Mike, I too would love to know the answer to that question. Now it is my turn to "muddy the water." It is entirely possible, that LVD has/had both Mississippi River strain muskies as well as Great Lakes strain muskies in it WAY back in time, due to the possible ingress there during the retreat of the last glacier. By the way, LVD did/does? drain into both the Mississippi River via the Wisconsin, AND Lake Superior via the connecting waterway to the north.
Mike: "Can anglers take samples to be classified? Will the new genetics show if there has been cross breeding?"
My reply: Mike, anglers can take scale samples, but they have to be taken properly. Dr. Sloss will have to answer you latter question, but I should think it possible.
Mike: "If these type of questions can be answered the study is awesome and will serve to clarify many questions. There of course will still be some."
My reply: As stated by DNR Fisheries Supervisor, Dave Neuswanger, those "some" will be the most important, growth and reproduction, and NO this genetic study WILL NOT answer them.
Mike: "I believe however that there is enough data already available to come to some conclusions. Such as Great Lakes fish should be stocked into direct Great Lakes systems, and considering MN is stocking the St. Croix with MR fish Wisconsin should do the same or not stock at all."
My reply: Mike, thank you for again making our points in this regard. One would think that it is a "no brainer."
Mike: "I also believe it would be a good P.R. move for the DNR to allow the stocking of MR fish in a couple of test waters in the Headwaters and Upper Chippewa Basins. The Central and Southern part of the state are getting some of these fish, why not spread some good will."
My reply: Mike, we concur. The other option so far dismissed, is selective egg taking from large native fish. This was dismissed by Dr. Sloss without even knowing how many could be captured. We believe that there are still enough remnant native large strain fish left to assure genetic diversity, I "assume" his only concern as a "genetic conservationist."
Mike: "Petenwell is part of the Wisconsin River and has had Musky in it since before any dams where built. Is that correct? It has currently been rebuilt after much pollution, also the Madison chain currently has a very healthy musky population. I will try to find answers to why those bodies of water are being targeted, but no similar waters in the northern part of the state make the cut. There are many waters that have musky population that are sustained though heavy stocking. I would think any of these waters could potential be a target. I will try to find answers on this."
Mike: You perseverance is to be lauded. Those waters are being targeted because the DNR has basically said that since they are not considered native waters in need of protection and MUST be stocked, they will allow the Clubs to stock them with whatever strain they wish to purchase.
Mike: "One more questions for the WMRT. I know the long answer is on your web site but short term what will make you happy. I guess I have lost focus on what you are after in say the 2005 season. Other than stopping the stocking of any but MR into the St. Croix and GL fish into Superior."
My (our) reply: Doing the RIGHT things with regard to stocking. You have named two of the most important, both of which have yet to be responded to by DNR decision makers. We also would like to see immediate action with regard to the brood stock situation. In lakes that MUST be stocked, there is NO REASON not to use fish that grow big and fast, either by using the only known pure stock of Mississippi River muskies left, or via selective egg taking. The native muskie range, PARTICULARLY in the NW part of the state is losing tourism at an alarming rate! Further studies will only further decimate the muskie populations of trophy potential fish and further damage tourism.
sworrall: "I re-read the paragraph you mention, and it doesn't mention any stocking or introduction of BSL fish into Bone, nor does any graph from the report. The report mentions in print and graphically:
"Muskies from LCO stocked in LCO
Muskies from BSL stocked in LCO
Muskies From BSL stocked in BSL
Muskies other lakes stocked in BSL"
All other references I see are referring to fish in LCO from LCO, fish in Bone from Bone, and fish in BSL from BSL."
My reply: Again we get into "interpretation." Rather then go there, I again refer you to my 1976 phone conservation with Leon Johnson that was documented and presented to the Special Muskie's, Inc. Board Meeting on February 12, 1977: "We have fish in Lac Court Oreilles today from the 1956 stocking (of Big Spider Lake strain muskellunge) that are 19 years old and are 35 inches long maximum. Although limited growth is attained, these fish are our longest lived fish. These Spider Lake fish were also stocked in Bone Lake in 1956 and have exhibited slow growth there also."
Worrall: "Now to the Wisconsin fish the WMRT said in earlier discussions we should selectively strip and breed. There are several references to this in the genetics thread begin about here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread--view.asp?tid=1... which lead into the 'stunning' thread. -- The WMRT is recanting that and saying the only way to gain ground is to introduce Leech Lake fish over in the NW and GL fish here in my area? Are you now saying existing stocks of what you claimed before to be superior fish do NOT exist in any of our Wisconsin waters and those fish can't be identified as genetically superior, stripped and reared in brood lakes proving the WMRT correct?"
My reply: I have answered this in my response to Mike above.
Worrall: "Darn it, guys, I have questions. There's no reason to get crabby when I ask them. You posted this stuff and called it 'stunning', I am reacting by asking you to prove it. So knock off the insults and prove it, and all will be well!"
My reply: We welcome your questions. What is unwelcome is your constant "defense" of the DNR and like the DNR, not responding to the "hard" questions. Also, we don't mind being questioned, but when our facts are "changed" and your hypothesis gets interjected, it does, as I previously indicated, "muddy the water." Also, we now know, after about a dozen or more posts from you about it, that you are "happy" with the situation in your part of the state, but yet for more and bigger fish you will still go to Wabigoon and Minnesota. Are the tourism folks in your part of the state happy with the DNR proposals? How about the muskie fishermen in Eagle River or the Presque Isle area. Are they happy? We HAVE constantly proved and stand by what we wrote in our Project documents.
Worrall: "You expected that a bunch of guys could simply walk in, slam their collective fist on the table, make a couple statements and everyone would bow to the East? I sure wouldn't have expected YOU accept that sort of thing from ME if the tables were turned here. In other words, stand behind your work, answer questions and challenges when offered, and let the test of science and time prove this out."
My reply: We did NOT do what you suggest. As we have stated many times, we worked "behind the scenes" for several months with the DNR and were rebuffed. We expect NO ONE to "bow to the East." We simply have identified some serious problems with muskie propagation in Wisconsin and would like to see them corrected. Is that too much to ask? There is no need to wait another 11 years for more studies that still won't answer the most important questions. It really IS rather simple to fix. Why try and make it complicated?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I want to get something cleared up that I think Steve may have confused.
Steve you state you think the WMRTs goal is to “…introduce Leech Lake fish over in the NW and GL fish here in my area?”
I will let those guys deal with the perceived shift of thought from sorting out our existing big fish and trying to rear them.
I do believe that from everything I have seen the goal is MR fish in the Mississippi River Drainage and Great lakes fish in the Great Lakes drainage. If you look at the drainage maps I posted you can see that all the Wisconsin Headwaters Drainage Basin is part of the Mississippi River Drainage basin.
I would agree with the WDNR and say it doesn’t make biological sense to stock GL fish in to waters of the Wisconsin River Drainage basin. However Leech Lake’s pure Mississippi River fish could be a totally different argument, especially if the genetics shows significant similarities between the big fish from the Wisconsin Drainage Basin and Leech Lake fish. The benefit of using Leech Lake fish is they are pure Mississippi River fish untouched by mans unintentional interbreeding which may have happened though out Wisconsin over the last 100+ years.
For example lets say the genetics show the two fish are significantly similar, but there will still be differences. The differences could be attributed to all the stocking and mixing throughout Wisconsin. If they are close enough it may be easier to go back to the pure fish. Doesn’t it seem likely that fish in the Upper Wisconsin would develop similarly to fish in the Upper Mississippi.
While waiting for the new genetic data I think it would make since for the DNR to try and selectively harvest eggs from only big Wisconsin fish. If they only have to do it for a couple of years while waiting for the study, I don’t think it would cause some of the problems some people brought up on the genetics thread regarding this. It may turn out it’s best for the Wisconsin fishery to continue doing this, it may not but we wont be farther behind. The genetics should be able to answer those questions, correct?
If cost is an issue for this then that is what should have been addressed immediately by private clubs help pay for the extra cost. My guess is, it is already to late to affect this in 2005, but we should start working on it for next year.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I misread one of the statements about what fish were suggested where, Mike, sorry. One of my posts was tongue in cheek.
This one:
'Let's find out where they are and use them since it wouldn't be proper to use MR fish in the waters in my area. I will have to travel to fish for Leech Lake fish no matter what, but only have to travel a mile to fish for a decent shot at a 50" plus and 40# class muskie from right here in Wisconsin.' ---was a reaction to Ave's comment to you, and those of other managers about introducing Leech Lake fish in Oneida county lakes that are part of the Natural Range. Sorry for the confusion.
I still don't see where there were any BSL fish listed as stocked in Bone. The graphs from the referenced study tracked fish from introduction to the end of the study and didn't once mention BSL slow growth fish in Bone as was mentioned in LCO. Sorry, I just don't see the reference, 1970's phone call conversations aside. Larry referred to that study as concrete evidence that BSL fish were stocked in Bone, and I asked him to point out where that was referenced. I wasn't 'muddying the waters', I was asking for clarification and reference, page and paragraph, page and graphic illustration. I am really sorry the WMRT finds questioning and direct debate offensive, that is what is their failing, IMHO. If one looks at most of my statements here, one will actually find support for the effort, and a true desire to reach a based in fact middle ground all can embrace.
Larry,
'My reply: We welcome your questions. What is unwelcome is your constant "defense" of the DNR and like the DNR, not responding to the "hard" questions. Also, we don't mind being questioned, but when our facts are "changed" and your hypothesis gets interjected, it does, as I previously indicated, "muddy the water." Also, we now know, after about a dozen or more posts from you about it, that you are "happy" with the situation in your part of the state, but yet for more and bigger fish you will still go to Wabigoon and Minnesota. Are the tourism folks in your part of the state happy with the DNR proposals? How about the muskie fishermen in Eagle River or the Presque Isle area. Are they happy? We HAVE constantly proved and stand by what we wrote in our Project documents'
Unwelcome. Sheesh. No worries, I respond to hard questions, and will continue to as I get the facts from the experts. Those would be biologists, scientists, genetics experts, fisheries managers; you know, those guys. I fish Wisconsin waters all year, and vacation on Wabigoon. I'm not there for more, or bigger, I'm there for the ONE. I don't fish Minnesota much at all, in fact I haven't in......two years, I think, and then I was there for a couple days.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
With meetings, etc. I haven't had time to dig further regarding the stocking of BSL fish in Bone Lake. Are you "dismissing" my phone conservation with Leon Johnson? I didn't find your questioning "offensive", just that it had been explained before. If you choose to read something different into the study statement, that is your prerogative. I didn't manufacture the phone conversation with Leon Johnson. It was, again, documented and was tape recorded in 1977.
Since I have it handy, let's go back again to the statement in TB #49 (I know it is not included in the graphs there, as that study didn't get specifically into that aspect. However, I believe the statement: "Essentially, the known-age muskellunge in the three lakes (LCO, Bone, Big Spider) were derived from Lac Court Oreilles brood fish. Even muskellunge spawned from BONE LAKE in later years were from this strain, because the initial introductions had been from Lac Court Oreilles. THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OCCURRED IN 1956 WHEN MOST OF THE FINGERLINGS STOCKED WERE DERIVED FROM A SLOW-GROWING POPULATION OF MUSKELLUNGE FROM BIG SPIDER LAKE."
The sentence preceding that last sentence in the quote refers directly to Bone Lake ONLY. That, combined with my phone conversation with Leon Johnson leaves NO doubt that BSL fish WERE stocked into Bone Lake (and LCO along with many other lakes). When time permits, I will search for additional supporting data.
I did not mean to infer that you fish much in Minnesota, but in one of your earlier posts you commented you would likely go to Minnesota this year. Don't blame you. Along with the three weeks I spent in Canada last year, I made four trips to Minnesota totaling about 10 days. The reason? Big fish and LOTS of them! I had the time to do these things because I lost 30 guide days last year due to clients NOT returning to fish with me in Wisconsin because, as they told me, they were going to Minnesota, where they too could catch BIG fish and LOTS of them!! Don't blame them either.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My point, Larry, was that the study followed the stocking of those BSL fish, and accounted for them in LCO clearly. If they were planted in Bone, then there would have been 'slow growth' data there too, as the study tracked Bone Lake fish from 56 on. There isn't. Just obeserving what I read there.
No, I'm not discounting your phone call, but scientific conclusions based on a research project shouldn't be supported by a phone conversation comment that isn't supported in the published work. It's entirely possible that the statement was made, and the fish stocked as suggested, but I can't find anything out there that confirms that. If I we do find supporting evidence, the next step is to conclude what happened after 1956. Was there inbreeding of those and the LCO fish? Did the growth rate of those fish with combined genetics change? What fish exhibited dominance in what genetic traits in the 'new' strain? Since the BSL fish didn't grow in LCO either, and the LCO based Bone Lake fish seem to be currently growing at rates listed in the 50's and 60's during that study paralleling the mentioned resarch documents, what does that mean? | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Waded through all these pages today and have to admit it is a confusing format to try and read multiple he said, he said, they said postings.
Have to ask Larry and Bob if your goal is more about being right or about bringing change. To me, you guys epitomize the old saw, "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
How on earth is any one going to react to your contentious, accusatory, demanding style in any way shape or form, other than defensively? Basically you come out and accuse the WI DNR, which even on a current basis offers MORE and varied waters than any other state to pursue the musky bight, you accuse them of missmanagement and negligence. Then you try and bring it to a personal level by accusing them of deceit, a cover up, and continuing missmanagement because they don't immediately jump up and bend to YOUR opinions(opinions in many cases, too rarely are we talking fact here). It appears to this interested observer that you hope to achieve your goals using a confrontational style, ambush tactics and putting out monkey boy editorials from some of your accolytes, publicly accusing and then throwing in some half truths to help churn the mix. So, what's the deal, you trying to be right or actually attain your goals? I am confused.
If Larry and Bob are unable to come across in any manner other than the hostile pissing match style, which thus far seems to be the main directive for change, I would suggest you find a mild mannered front man that can push forward, represent your viewpoint with a great deal more tact, present your research, and PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS, because at this point in time, I believe you two are doing as much to damage the musky fishery as you are to help it. The long term implications of an ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE DNR is extremely distasteful to me, and think it would be to many others who pursue musky on a regular and religious/mystic basis. I see too many groups out there willing to close boat landings, "No More Muskys", Condo builders, lake associations, walleye fisherman, other needs for funding, manpower squeezes, etc., that can adversely affect our sport in short order. I DON'T WANT THE DNR TO TAKE THEIR BALL AND GO HOME AND FOR YOU GUYS TO GO AROUND GLOATING ABOUT HOW RIGHT YOU WERE ABOUT ALL THIS, with the net result being 10 years down the road a musky resource which has deteriorated from what it is now(best in the last 50 years in my opinion).
I have not viewed any of the data sources you guys reference. I have the highest respect and gratitude for Larry for some of the work he has done in the past in terms of documentation of the historical fishery, but some of the assumptions listed here are really tentative. May be correct but there is still no definitive research to back them up. Do we need research? Yes. Do we have it? Some. Do we want to go off half cocked? Not me. Lots of stuff like "riverine/lacustrine" makes a good and interesting, perhaps thought provoking article, but is it scientific fact or conjecture? I think that native genetic stocks are extremely interesting in terms of fish and not just musky, down here they are trying to establish the river run walleye strain that once roamed the Cumberland River, and even down to the minnow strains, it is interesting stuff if you like fish in general. But supposing something and knowing something are two completely different entities and the difference could be described as how we got to this point.
So all in all, would prefer you guys used a carrot rather than a stick in your ongoing interaction with anyone from the DNR. Perhaps you should simply hand your research off to them and drum up another group to work with them for ongoing changes. May not be the way you anticipated going forward but I can't help but think your faces and your rhetoric are beginning to work against your goals.
Edited by firstsixfeet 4/21/2005 10:17 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | here, here .... well said .... great ideas without a good delivery equals the current state and a detrimental future for cooperation. i hear so much from the condo/lake associations, walleye fisherman etc ... and they spend a whole lot more money than the musky fishing community when it's all said and done. if we are represented negatively, you might as well buy a jetski and join the people who will win in the end.
i'll never forget the best advice i got as a young engineer (a long time ago) .... "you're an incredibly smart kid .... just don't beat the crap out of people with it!"
| |
| | |
| firstsixfeet.....you came late to the game. It did not start out like this. The Restoration group went to the DNR , behind the scenes, showed them what they had found, much of it from DNR research and records.
Along the way there have been posts by people who have not read the stuff on the website....link is in one of these threads. Others have taken bits and pieces to back up their stance. Had the DNR gone along with or taken the Restoration people seriously, or perhaps asked for some time to review the material, this might have happened differently. When a government agency just dismisses you without seriously looking at info taken from their own research and records....you have to call 'em on it. Or continue to accept whatever they feel you deserve.
Look at the material on their site, read it several times. Some of it is from records over 100 years old, lots of material, LOTS of it. Some of it is from recent research. Very confusing, which is why it is so easy to cloud the issue with lots of verbage.
Just check out the info, closely, several times....it ain't easy but if you look at it with an open mind, you might find it interesting. | |
| | |
| I think it isnt the stuff they have at the website, which I agree is hard to read its the conclusions they have. Read the couple posts from Dave Neuswanger on the genetics posts and the posts other guys put there I think they're supporters or members of the WMRT. These guys might be wrong with some of the stuff they are trying to make the DNR do, and they arent listening coutresly to anyone else unless that person agrees with them. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Guest - 4/22/2005 7:41 AM
firstsixfeet.....you came late to the game. It did not start out like this. The Restoration group went to the DNR , behind the scenes, showed them what they had found, much of it from DNR research and records.
Along the way there have been posts by people who have not read the stuff on the website....link is in one of these threads. Others have taken bits and pieces to back up their stance. Had the DNR gone along with or taken the Restoration people seriously, or perhaps asked for some time to review the material, this might have happened differently. When a government agency just dismisses you without seriously looking at info taken from their own research and records....you have to call 'em on it. Or continue to accept whatever they feel you deserve.
Look at the material on their site, read it several times. Some of it is from records over 100 years old, lots of material, LOTS of it. Some of it is from recent research. Very confusing, which is why it is so easy to cloud the issue with lots of verbage.
Just check out the info, closely, several times....it ain't easy but if you look at it with an open mind, you might find it interesting.
Oh, I don't think I came late to the game.
Their problem is not THEIR RESEARCH, or their hypothetical conclusions, nor the historical record, it is their inability to find a path of cooperation. It is their inability to understand blunt force trauma, and that such things may cause unanticipated negative outcomes. | |
| | |
| Folks,
let me try to explain some of the frustration which may explain why our tone is sometimes perceived as a problem.
The number one thing the WMRT wants is change for the better in our trophy muskie fishing. From our first meeting with the DNR in Madison back in January, the response we got from the DNR is essentially that it's hopeless. "Our lakes are too small, there is too much fishing pressure, harvest, etc. We have to lower our expectations...." That kind of thinking is what started the "tone" we get called to task for. Some may think being quiet and peaceful works, but let's see what that has gotten us since 1982? 50 inch size limits on 3 lakes? WOW! Sometimes the squeaky wheels get the grease.
The WMRT feels that Wisconsin can beat Minnesota at the trophy Muskie game and we want to start now. We won't get there by doing the same things the same way. I sincerely hope the DNR proves me wrong on everything I feel on this subject as it would mean they turn the fishery around based on it's current brood stock. BUT WHAT IF THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE?
I'd really like to back off and let the DNR do their thing, but apparently we are going into another year of the same old things. This is what I have a problem with. There are so many things that could have gotten done this year to get this turned around one year earlier, but instead we are doing next to nothing. This is what get's me riled up. I'd feel a lot better if the DNR would tell us what their plans are....not just state they are doing a genetic study, but let us know what they will do if they find that the mount of Myrl Mcfaul's fish tests out strikingly similar to a Leech strain Muskie? Will they switch over to Leech strain? or study it more? If they are doing the study now, what are they studying? Did they net Muskies? How many? How big? Can we tell anything we ant to know without studying big fish? These are not difficult questions to answer.
Why should someone who lives in NW Wisconsin care about stocking Leech Muskies in Monona? In NW Wisconsin, we found that stocking MS strain Muskies into a lake in the St. Croix drainage resulted in Muskies growing faster than Wisconsin strain in Wisconsin and faster than Leech strain in Leech Lake - why can't we use that data to change the brood stock in a drainage where Wisconsin strain fish are not native? This is what is maddening.
Personally, I'm very frustrated by the lack of communication from the Wisconsin DNR - but they told us in February "we'll let you know something in August". They are being true to their word.
Not speaking for the rest of the team, but what will make me happy is when the DNR creates a drainage based plan that will give people across the state a chance at big fish no matter who is right(or wrong) on the subject. Simply stocking Great Lakes Muskies in the Great Lakes drainage and Mississippi strain in the St Croix while pursuing side by side studies in the Central and Southern parts of the states would be a great start and suggest to me that theDNR is serious about doing something.
I'm particularly excited about the prospects for Petenwell, a lake that is bigger than all but 5 or six of the Minnesota lakes while having arguably better forage and likely better growth rates being just a bit further south. It's also a lake that has been stocked as long as Lake Vermilion without producing any numbers of truly large Muskies - likely because of the strain planted(IMHO).I'd love to see the DNRmake a concerted effort there to try and make a trophy Muskie lake using the Mississippi river strain. I'd like to see them stock 7500 MS strain fish per year in this large lake and forgo the side by side studies. We should have a handle on growth rates of our existing strain there and side by sides should not be necessary. This is something I would applaud, and the central location makes it accessible to all the people of Wisconsin. This would be progress. Allowing a Musky club in that area to stock 100 Leech strain muskies into a 20,000 acre lake is not what I call progress. They clearly won't be able to do it alone without significant DNR assistance. I do support them 100% however and applaud their efforts.
Why is it that no one asks about the tone of the DNR? Why do they not provide answers to all of us? Why when area Muskie anglers ask to use a different Muskie strain in area lakes up north do they deny it? Why are they not being friendly and working with the people? I can't wait to get behind the DNR and support them but I must ask - support what?
The silence is deafening and maddening.
Bob Benson
| |
| | |
| Steve and Larry,
It sure would be nice if the DNR would comment on the Big Spider Lake fish being stcoked into Bone Lake. In my opinion looking through the studies and the documented communication (from 1977) is that all 3 lakes were part of the study and all three lakes received the same fish throughout the study (incliding bsl fish in 1956). The graphs that Steve refers to were done to investigate cause for the slow growth and exceptional survival of the 1956 BSL year class in LCO, BONE and Big Spider Lake. They tried fin clipping the fish to see if they could reproduce the slow growth, and then they also did side by sides in BSL. I find it very interesting that when they took fish from other lakes (Bone and LCO?) and planted them back in BSL that they grew at the exact same rate as BSL fish!!! Seems like proof they were netting and breeding those fish in the hatchery. (I'm comparing the squares in Figure 7). there are less years in Big Spider lake tests because they sought out a reason for slow growth afte realizing they weren't growing elsewhere.
In all likelihood every lake in NW Wisconsin that was stocked in 1956 received Big Spider lake Muskies. (I'd like the DNR to comment on that also.) Since LCO was still a brood lake, these BSL fish undoubtedly left LCO to be stocked all over the state in later years in any case.
As for these fish not surviving and reproducing - here are some things to think about:
1. The Big spider lake fish are part of the same drainage as the Tiger cat and Mud Callahan lakes that also have these small Muskies.
2. When planted in the same lakes with the LCO strain these Smaller Muskies showed significantly better survival than LCO strain Muskies. In fact Wisconsin DNR biologist Leon Johnson called the survival of the small strain "exceptional" in LCO. See also RR 172 where WDNR biologists studied and documented this in the 1980's. To be clear - they survived (performed according to WDNR) better than LCO strain in LCO.
3. This strain is very good at reproducing - M/C Tigercat and Spider lake seldom(probably never) need stocking. (Is this because they are "pure strain"?)
4. Once in these lakes they would show better survival, be subject to less harvest and (theoretically) be better at reproducing. All of these things would make them MORE LIKELY to be netted and used for hatchery Brood stock. This would also make them more likely to survive, reproduce and resist harvest in all the other lakes and rivers they are stocked into.
As for one stocking of these fish not having any effect on the Muskies of these waters, I'll go for the one stocking of known large growing Muskies everywhere in the state while we wait for the genetic studies to be completed.
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Additional “Stunning Findings.”:
While doing additional research regarding the stocking of Big Spider Lake muskies into Bone Lake in addition to the two references already present, I came up with several new and interesting pieces of information. No “mixing” indeed! Pure “wild stock” yes, but cross-mixing between drainage’s was (and still is) a common practice.
According to Johnson (1981), Lac Court Oreilles was stocked annually from 1933 to 1966, and again from 1971 to the date of this research paper. According to Oehmcke (1989), stocking records for the Woodruff hatchery prior to 1938 were poor, as fish were distributed by train in milk cans for indiscriminate stocking at every station and “whistle stop” and no one was required to sign for them, hence no record of where they were stocked. Since Johnson noted that Lac Court Oreilles had been stocked every year since 1933, the muskies of unknown origin had to come from the lakes of the Wisconsin River drainage and the Woodruff hatchery from 1933 thru 1938! In 1939, muskellunge propagation began at the Spooner hatchery (Johnson 1958).
Since Bone Lake has “been managed for muskellunge since 1935.” (Cornelius & Margenau 1999), if there were any stockings into Bone Lake in 1935 thru 1938, they would have had to have come from direct transfers of netted fish from Lac Court Oreilles (there is no “direct” mention of the Bone Lake population being established this way in any literature we have reviewed to date. Johnson did say in TB #49 that the initial “introductions” in Bone Lake were from LCO). After the initial stocking, Bone Lake could have also received muskies from Wisconsin River drainage stock via the Woodruff hatchery as well. Due to the poor stocking records of that period, we will likely never know. What we do know though, is that the LCO stock was NOT pure in 1935, and if fish were netted from LCO for stocking into Bone, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of those fish were fish of the Wisconsin River drainage after “at least” two years of stocking LCO from the Woodruff Hatchery!
Of course that is not the only time Wisconsin River drainage muskies were stocked into LCO, or Bone Lake for that matter. And conversely, Chippewa River drainage muskies into Wisconsin River drainage waters, INCLUDING some Big Spider Lake strain muskies on three different occasions (1958, 1961, 1963). We now know that the small growing Big Spider Lake strain of muskies have unfortunately been stocked into NE Wisconsin waters as well. Proof? Allow me to quote Oehmcke (1989):
“Intermittent mortalities of muskellunge fry besieged the old Woodruff Hatchery between years of good musky production from 1950 to 1964 (actually 1943 to 1964, i.e., 1943, 1948, 1958, 1961 and 1963). This necessitated THE TRANSFER OF BACK-UP FRY AND EGGS FROM SPOONER to assure a continuing production from Woodruff ponds. Conversely, several bad years at Spooner REQUIRED TRANSFERS OF WOODRUFF SURPLUSES (to Spooner).”
From 1941 to 1964, over 2 million fingerling muskies were stocked from the Woodruff hatchery, plus 43,000 twelve inch yearlings that were stocked in NATIVE musky waters in Oneida, Price (Chippewa River drainage) and Vilas Counties that had been overrun by northern pike!
In the Epilogue of his book, Oehmcke (1989) is dismayed by the degredation of the northern lakes, and feels that stocking is far more important now than it was in 1900. Perhaps it is best to quote directly:
“Fortuitously, the initial mission - stocking - perceived by the early fish commissioners, is of higher priority today than it was in 1900. Present day anglers would have slim pickings were it not for that early decision and for the DNR’s current fish planting program.”
We are indeed fortunate that the catch and release ethic took hold in the latter 1900's, especially with the 50% reduction in muskellunge stocking due to budget cuts in 2004, and more cuts may be forthcoming!
We feel strongly that the current state of our brood stock MUST be corrected IMMEDIATELY! To return to the “glory days,” the Wisconsin DNR “decision makers” must acknowledge that over 100 years of stock “mixing” has indeed created a statewide “hatchery strain” of muskies. Only “selective egg taking” from remnant large growth potential native stocks, or an immediate switch to the only known pure stock of large strain muskies left in existence, the Mississippi River strain, can return Wisconsin to its rightful place in the muskie world. We MUST begin NOW. Wisconsin Musky Tourism and future trophy muskie fishing depends on it!!
I’m off to continue the search for the truth, and newly found information will result in future additional “stunning findings,” including additional information on "two animals"/strains, etc.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
References:
Johnson, L.D. 1958. Pond Culture of Muskellunge In Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin Number 17
Johnson, L.D., S. Nels Editor. 1971. Growth of Known-Age Muskellunge in Wisconsin and Validation of Age and Growth Determination Methods. Technical Bulletin Number 49
Johnson, L.D. 1981. Comparison of muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) populations in a stocked lake and unstocked lake in Wisconsin with notes on the occurrance of northern pike (Esox lucius). Fisheries Research Report 110. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin
Oehmcke, A. 1989. The Woodruff Hatchery Story
Cornelius, R.R., T.L. Margenau. 1999. Effects of Length Limits on Muskellunge in Bone Lake, Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:300-308, 1999 | |
| | |
| Larry,
This may sound a bit overwelming but you should really write a historical book. Showing pictures and locations of different haterchies and watersheds to allow the layman to understand. I applaud your effort on Muskiefirst, but getting rebuttles from people with no facts, is annoying to say the least, and not informing the majority.
Just a thought | |
| | |
Posts: 259
Location: Alexandria, MN | I can't believe the WDNR would say that they can't compete with the BIG lakes in MN.
Here is a list of well known lakes that provide a "REAL" shot at a trophy muskie in MN;
Lake Name Size (acres)
Cedar -------------- 169
Beers --------------- 195
Phalen -------------- 198
Elmo ---------------- 206 (current state record holder for Hybrid)
Eagle --------------- 291 (documented catch in 2003 @ 46" and 2004 @48" - same fish)
Harriet -------------- 335
Owasso ------------- 384
Calhoun ------------ 401 (former holder of the state record Hybrid)
Clear --------------- 424
French -------------- 816
Independence ----- 844
Bald Eagle ---------- 1268
Lobster -------------- 1308
Little Boy ------------ 1372
Shamineau ---------- 1626
Forest --------------- 2251
White Bear --------- 2416
Total size about 15,000 acres of water. These are mostly lakes that are full of panfish and bullheads.
MN created a fishery where people can catch a trophy in the cities or the north woods. You can spend your
time on a big deep clear lake or a small green pond and still contact trophy fish. The stocking
of Hybrids and Pure MS Strain (from Leech) into smaller lakes closer to the cities has opened the
world of Muskie Fishing to more people and taken the heat off the "premier" lakes up north. Now
people don't have to wait in line for their turn at the weed bed or get in line to troll with others.
MN has found that the MS Strain of fish grows and reproduces in every type of lake they are stocked into.
The arguement that Wisconsin doesn't have Leech, MilleLacs, Cass and Vermillion to work with is
BS! Compare your 400 +/-acre lakes to what MN has. The MS Strain worked in Lake Nancy and they
will work across the Mississippi River Drainage.
Please take another look at the WMRP ideas and keep an open mind. They are not asking the WDNR to start
dumping MSStrain in every lake across the state. These fish are the same ones that were in a big part of
NW Wisconsin and should be brought back.
I have 20+ years of Muskie fishing in MN, I have gone to school for Wildlife and Fisheries Management.
MN spent the time and money to learn the differences between Showpac, Wisconsin and MS Strains. They made
their choice and it seems to be a good one. These fish are proven to grow in Iowa and Illinois, so I would
think the lakes of Wisconsin would prove a huge success!
Good Fishing!
Steve Sedesky | |
| | |
| Fish-N-Freak
Thanks for the post. Nice to hear from someone else who realizes what we have been saying all along, which is that MS fish grow large in all size lakes with all types of forage. We have not and do not compare the number of trophy fish from large lakes in MN to small lakes in WI as the DNR claims we have. This is simply NOT TRUE and its a shame they do this.
Maybe we should ask the WI and MN DNR's if they would be willing to provide netting and shocking survey results on waters of equal size from each state to compare and show the differences between the two in numbers of large muskies. | |
| | |
| Thank you Steve Sedesky,
Thank's for going to bat for us!
We've had too many people trying to be politically correct on this subject and all it did was create more useless questions.It's one thing to be politically correct and another to be just correct.
Hopefully some good old fashion Common Sense will prevail!
The term [ Layman] was being used way too much, when a person did their homework presented it professionally and then was shot down because that wasn't his profession.
I'm neither an Astronomer,Engineer or Psychologist-I know the Earth is round,theirs a sun and moon, I can put a gas grill together as long as I have a manual and for sure I must be crazy, fishing for the mighty Musky.
,
| |
| | |
Posts: 80
| Does someone have the Cliff's Notes for this topic, or better yet, can I get it on tape so I can listen to it on my way to work in the morning?
I can't keep up with the WMRT threads on this board...
| |
| | |
| Sorry if I am only rehashing old issues and comments here. Much of this has probably been said before, so please stop reading as soon as my comments become redundant.
I'm not a regular poster. I'm an avid musky guy, but pretty much a bystander and only occasional frequenter of the muskie boards. But I guess I am starting to get a bit tired of hearing over and over and over again how much greater MN is to WI. The proof that MN is much better than WI has to be gleaned from comparing lakes of similar size and forage capabilities. With that said, as I understand it, the WMRP has supposedly provided "irrefutable" proof that the genetics of MN are superior to WI. This has been "proven" basically through past Muskies Inc records as well as "genetic research" and "conclusions" by persons not possessing a scientific background or similar qualifications. Moreover, much of the genetic research and theory, upon which these conclusions are based, has been widely dismissed by the scientific community...(you know, those obviously crazy, ignorant people who have Ph.D. behind their names and do actual scientific research for a living).
Sorry, but this so-called "proof" from the Muskies Inc records is anecdotal at best, and is subject to many different interpretations. For instance and to illustrate, according to the MI records, in 2000 to 2004 there were 34 muskies caught out of Wildcat lake in Vilas County, WI. With Big Kitten, the lake is approx 400 acres. Only 6 fish caught in 2004. Meanwhile, during this same timeframe, there were 343 fish reported out of Independence in MN, an 800 acre lake. Huge difference!! Right? Conclusion: Independence is "irrefutably" a far, far better action lake than Wildcat. In fact, it is more than 10 times the better action lake than Wildcat.
It's obvious that this is not proper conclusion to draw. Anyone who has been to Wildcat knows that it is pretty tough to beat as an action lake. And it’s obvious that there are numerous other explanations and conclusions to draw from this basic, number-of-fish-reported, data. Is Independence a better action lake? Maybe. But is that conclusion "irrefutable"? Of course not. Want a more likely and logical conclusion? From 2000 to 2004, more muskies inc members are fishing and/or reporting from Independence than Wildcat.
Sorry folks, but the comparisons and conclusions from 50" fish coming out of any specific MN waters as compared to WI waters, from muskies inc data, are subject to the EXACT SAME logical shortcomings. There are numerous plausible explanations as to why more 50" fish have been reported to Muskies Inc. from MN versus WI during the past several years. Genetics certainly is one of those plausible explanations. But so is fishing pressure. So is percentage of harvested trophy fish. So is percentage of muskies inc members targeting MN waters versus WI. So is tribal spearing. So are forage differences. Perhaps the more sophisticated anglers are targeting MN, leading to better results. Perhaps an increased flocking of muskie guides to MN waters has lead to better numbers. Etc., etc., and so on, and so on.
I am not saying that the WMRP is necessarily wrong with their conclusions. They may actually be right.
The problem is that the data and research that they are using is nowhere near "conclusive" and "irrefutable". And therefore, I have grown very tired and actually quite cynical of the "holier than thou", "we are all right" and "the WDNR is all wrong", stance being taken. It's really a shame, since if presented in a more tactful manner, their ideas could create a much more meaningful and productive discourse.
As the WDNR has indicated, there are a myriad of contributing factors that affect growth and quantity of trophy fish in any given lake. WDNR efforts are now underway to evaluate this genetic issue. So, obviously the WDNR believes that genetics could be contributing factor. I applaud the WMRP for pushing their ideas, but the condescending attitude and over-reliance on flawed data leaves a very bad taste in my mouth....
Matt DeVos
[email protected]
| |
| | |
| Matt,
Let us not forget that the Minnesota DNR studied the Leech Lake strain and Wisconsin strain Muskies in the same lakes and the Leech strain grew larger and faster. These guy's have PHd's behind their names too.
Did I mention the WDNR found that Leech Lake muskies grew faster than Wisconsin(LCO) muskies in Wisconsin. The Leech strain also grew faster in Wisconsin than Leech strain in Leech Lake. This study was done by the Wisconsin DNR.
The WMRP didn't create these studies that were done. The studies have done by biologists over and over. We just want the WDNR to act on what has been studied. We've spent the last 70 years studying small muskies, we need to start stocking some big ones.
My opinion is NO MORE STUDIES until we start acting on the studies that have already been done. If it was only Muskies Inc. data, I'd say we'd have to study it. The MN DNR BIOLOGISTS PROVED IT WORK. WISCONSIN DNR BIOLOGISTS HAVE PROVED IT WORKS in Green Bay and Lake Nancy. Why do they keep ignoring it everywhere else?
We aren't saying their studies are wrong ! We are saying their studies are right! Wisconsin DNR RR175 states Leech fish grow faster than LCO fish in Wisconsin - They DID THE STUDY, now use it. Do they want bigger muskies or not? Every study creates 10 new studies. Do Somethining Now. Why wait?
Bob Benson
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Bob,
Who is going to pay for the changes that the WRMP wants to start?
Thanks
Dave | |
| | |
| Graet post Fish-n-Freak, I couldn't agree more. I caught my first muskie 20 years ago in Crab lake in Northern Vilas County and have fished that lake a ton since then being my parents own a cabin on the lake. I can say this, after living in Minnetonka the last ten years and fishing the city lakes hard, if someone goes to Vilas county in search of a trophy muskie rather than fish in the Minneapolis metro they are a fool!!!!!!!!!
There may be other reasons to fish in the area but putting the odds in your favor for catching a trophy is not one of them. | |
| | |
Posts: 4
| to take this a step further
I can't believe the WDNR would say that they can't compete with the BIG lakes in MN.
Here is a list of well known lakes that provide a "REAL" shot at a trophy muskie in MN;
Lake Name Size (acres)
Cedar -------------- 169
Beers --------------- 195
Phalen -------------- 198
Elmo ---------------- 206 (current state record holder for Hybrid)
Eagle --------------- 291 (puts out at least 4 lower 50's each year lost 2 personally and saw the pics of 4 last year alone also was originally stocked with the shoepack strain
Harriet -------------- 335 puts out many upper 40 low 50's every year
Owasso ------------- 384
Calhoun ------------ 401 (saw 2 last year in the high 40's maybe 50 in my two trips and saw a guy club a 52" thinking he had the new state record tiger.)
Clear --------------- 424
French -------------- 816
Independence ----- 844 lots of 50" class fish in here someone catches one in the metro musky tournamen almost every year
Bald Eagle ---------- 1268 see independence
Lobster -------------- 1308 shhh no fish in here!!!
Little Boy ------------ 1372 a good buddy fished it last year for the first time and lost two 48" class fish on a jackpot
Shamineau ---------- 1626 see lobster lake
Forest --------------- 2251 one of the best early season lakes in the state. ill bet 4 fish 50" and larger get caught this June
White Bear --------- 2416 just an awesome fishery
Crystal---------------under 100 acres personally have caught tigers to 44" they seem to average about 38" know of a 48" fish taken was told about a 50" lake has tons of Small panfish, goldfish, carp and pike in there for forage.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You gents MISSED the entire point in your zeal to prove a point, the subject was total surface area AND several very large lakes and impoundments in Minnesota. Before you go off, read that reference again from the DNR, please. We do compete in many small waters here. I know of LOTS of small lakes over here putting out 45 to 54" fish pretty regular, one was a 56 not too long ago. I got a 40# class fish myself, and another in the mid thirties, and a friend of mine a low 30# class fish recently, all off small water that was stocked. THESE WERE STOCKED FISH!!!!!!! I know what a recent survey showed on a couple small lakes over here, and all I can say is WOW, I need to spend more time on that water.
Sheesh. | |
| | |
| Larry Ramsell
Your findings that I read in the Badger Sportsman Magazine by: Scott Keiper were to say the least, very important. I'm new to the muskie fishing world compared to most and I been reading as much information I can. I've mainly been a walleye fanatic and through the years (30+ years of fishing) I've noticed an increase in both walleye AND muskie. The walleye's are of smaller size in the areas of more abundance of them. However, my true "honeyholes" produce ones of largers sizes with a mix of size variances. Which is really good to see. I "see" more muskie in areas of the state that local clubs have stocked also. River systems in the state hold more too. Because I have been seeing the muskie's more and more while out catching walleye it got me to think that there has to more(muskie) of them. Is the problem not muskie of larger size or is the problem that their are to many in smaller areas? Strain of muskie? Has the food source declined? Is human population growth around are northern lakes affected the shorelines and water for fish habitat. According to the Masinaigan(Native American) magazine, native spearing in the last couple years have taken 200-300 muskie form northern lakes, does this really affect the growth rate? Also I would like to add that 4 tribes do stock also in our northern lakes. But what strain of muskie do they staock that I haven't found out yet. What do you think? | |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | With the information at this site I have to ask. Why not push for slot limits as it would help to harvest these smaller fish and let the bigger ones, (a better strain) there to spawn. If you leave the inferior fish there they will spawn more inferior fish. The restoration project really needs to get behind slot limits as part of the program. The more tools you have available to correct this the better,slots are just another tool.
Pfeiff
| |
| |
|
