|
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Got this off the DNR web page-
Biologists reviewing musky
management to assure trophy fishing opportunities
MADISON -- With Wisconsin musky populations at historical highs and anglers catching them with fewer casts than at any other time in at least 40 years, state fisheries biologists are focusing on assuring the fish are trophy quality, at least in those waters managed to provide trophy fish.
Department of Natural Resources fish biologists and researchers and propagation specialists are mid-way through a project to evaluate stocking rates on musky waters in light of increasing catch and release fishing for musky and studies showing that overstocking a lake can result in high musky populations that grow slowly.
The biologists on DNR's musky committee are evaluating the results of higher minimum size limits on a variety of lakes. They also are developing a plan to evaluate alternate strains of musky including allowing some fishing groups as soon as this fall to stock different strains of musky in Lake Wissota, the Petenwell and Castle Rock flowages, and Lake Monona.
The major effort this year is to fully evaluate Wisconsin's program for collecting the wild fish, or "broodstock," to produce the offspring raised in state hatcheries and stocked in Wisconsin waters.
"We've got several efforts underway to improve our musky management programs, including starting a long overdue evaluation of the way we select fish for obtaining eggs for our hatchery system, " says Tim Simonson, a fish biologist who leads DNR's musky committee.
Genetic strain is one of several factors that determines the growth and size structure of muskellunge populations, and the analytical tools now available to fish geneticists are a lot better than just a few years ago, he says.
"We want to make sure we're using the fish that's going to provide the best fishing by maximizing survival and growth rates because that's why we're stocking those waters in the first place," Simonson says.
Wisconsin manages musky as a trophy fish, meaning its size limits are higher and bag limits lower than for many other species that grow more quickly. Those size limits, combined with a growing catch and release ethic and a hatchery system hitting its stride, have helped musky populations recover from a near collapse after three world record fish caught in the 1950s touched off a fishing frenzy. Now, monster musky are again being caught in growing numbers: In 2004, for example, the Vilas County Musky Marathon reported 17 muskies caught that were 50 inches or greater, Simonson says.
The state has 711 lakes and some 80 river segments that support musky fishing; the majority sustain naturally reproducing populations of musky but 200-plus waters do not and are stocked to maintain fisheries.
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.
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."
Minnesota took a closer look at their broodstock a number of years ago and realized they were stocking a slow growing strain of fish. They switched to a faster growing strain native to Leech Lake, a lake in north central Minnesota where anglers pull in a greater number of fish exceeding 50 inches.
Simonson cautioned that regardless of what strains Wisconsin stocks, the results won’t be the same as Minnesota's. "We're never going to produce as many 50 inch fish as a state like Minnesota because of the smaller size of our lakes, the forage type and abundance, and the greater fishing pressure in Wisconsin," he says.
Wisconsin may have 15,000 lakes, but only 268 are 500 acres or greater. Lake of the Woods, a popular musky water straddling Minnesota and Ontario, covers 1 million surface acres -- the total surface area of all Wisconsin's inland lakes. Leech Lake is roughly equal in size to all Wisconsin's Class A1 trophy musky waters combined.
Angler fishing pressure and harvest also affect Wisconsin size structure. While catch and release has really caught on, anglers are still keeping fish once the fish reach mid-40 inches, and fish that are released may die from the stress of fighting and handling. In fact, anglers responding to a random mail survey conducted by UW-Stevens Point in 2000-2001 reported harvesting 37,000 musky.
“On a typical 1,000 acre lake anglers can expect to find about 300 adult muskies and even under the best of circumstances, only one or two of them will reach 50 inches or greater,” Simonson says. "It doesn't take harvesting many of the fish at 45 inches to really affect the trophy potential."
Simonson stresses that Wisconsin has been managing musky for trophy potential overall, and will continue that management philosophy in the future. But anglers must keep in mind the various factors that determine the trophy potential of musky waters, not just the genetic strain of fish stocked, and that Wisconsin cannot ignore the other, ultimately more important tools of musky management: protecting habitat and fishing regulations.
"The strain used for stocking is clearly important in those waters that need stocking," Simonson says. "But there are no short cuts when it comes to managing for trophy musky, and job #1 is to protect our naturally reproducing populations of musky.
"They don't cost us much compared to stocked fisheries, which cost a lot to maintain through stocking, and fishing is generally better in naturally reproducing waters."
More information on musky management in Wisconsin can be found on the DNR Web site.
| |
| | |
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | Simonson cautioned that regardless of what strains Wisconsin stocks, the results won’t be the same as Minnesota's. "We're never going to produce as many 50 inch fish as a state like Minnesota because of the smaller size of our lakes, the forage type and abundance, and the greater fishing pressure in Wisconsin," he says.
Excellent, but often forgotten point. Enough said.
Edited by woody 4/12/2005 5:55 PM
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | The fact that the spotted fish can reproduce with Pike in the same body of water should not be overlooked , if Wisconsin could get some more self sustaining musky populations the economic impact would be huge.
Why don't they take a lake that currently doesn't have any muskies and put the fish they currently stock in it with an equal amount of spots. Which strain would get bigger? Which strain would reproduce? Make the lake release only to take harvest out of the equation.
It sounds like they are catching BIG fish in small lakes in Minnesota. Would the WDNR let us know the biggest fish they have netted on Long lake, a small lake with the GL strain in it. IMHO we should at least be managing our big systems differently than we are. We need to develop new brood lakes. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The biologists on DNR's musky committee are evaluating the results of higher minimum size limits on a variety of lakes. They also are developing a plan to evaluate alternate strains of musky including allowing some fishing groups as soon as this fall to stock different strains of musky in Lake Wissota, the Petenwell and Castle Rock flowages, and Lake Monona. '
Add Green Bay and Winnebago, and you have several systems that will be stocked with 'spots'.
'The major effort this year is to fully evaluate Wisconsin's program for collecting the wild fish, or "broodstock," to produce the offspring raised in state hatcheries and stocked in Wisconsin waters.
'We've got several efforts underway to improve our musky management programs, including starting a long overdue evaluation of the way we select fish for obtaining eggs for our hatchery system, " says Tim Simonson, a fish biologist who leads DNR's musky committee. '
That will address the brood stock situation.
| |
| | |
Posts: 203
| If they try to concentrate on the bigger water masses it would allow in the future larger fish..waters like the winnebago system are a good place to start.. lots of water but relatively few muskies stocked in it compared to leech? I think that in time they will do the right thing.. Big Green lake in the southern part of the state has started to show some promise since they started putting the spots in. I have seen a few nice fish caught, its a big deep clear system but i'd bet over the next ten years some giants will be "caught and released"
Edited by johnson 4/13/2005 9:14 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I really like Tim Simonson.....I email that guy at least once a month and always get excellent replys. I wish him and the crew success with thier review. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I agree I think the WDNR is on the right track and all this information is great and it should make all of us happy.
However I can’t let the following die:
Simonson cautioned that regardless of what strains Wisconsin stocks, the results won’t be the same as Minnesota's. "We're never going to produce as many 50 inch fish as a state like Minnesota because of the smaller size of our lakes, the forage type and abundance, and the greater fishing pressure in Wisconsin," he says.
Let use the Muskies Inc. data as an example, which by the way the WDNR uses in it’s Muskellunge Management Update to “evaluate trends in the catches of “trophy” muskellunge in Wisconsin”.
Lots of people have said you can’t use the Muskies Inc. data to compare Mn to Wi because there are more Muskie Inc. members in Mn. reporting fish. Wi people are less likely to report trophy fish because of the smaller lakes. Ok I will agree to that but if you say that is happening now you have to agree that is has always been the case even 20 years ago when there was even more Mn Muskei Inc. members compared to Wi members as I believe it started in Mn.
Why is it 20 years ago Wi did out produce Mn as far as 50” fish. Mn has always had bigger lakes with less pressure. And when you look at just MI fishermen there had to be more MI members fishing Mn waters than WI waters, or am I wrong?
I don’t want to see people sell the Wisconsin lakes short, our lakes have a history of producing trophy fish and why shouldn’t we strive for an equitable trophy per acre. I say lets not start this out by saying we can’t compete with Mn. I say lets try and compete and see what happens. If everyone does the best we can, maybe our lakes can compete again, they did in the past.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Mike,
It may be a case of starting off with realistic goals, and hopefully the results will exceed expectations.
At least that is what my optimistic take on it is.
It is very good to see them attack this issue with a well thought out plan. I think we can all agree that there mission and current direction is one we can all support. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
Many Minnesota fisheries are just coming into their prime, and are being discovered by an ever growing and increasingly mobile muskie angling community. Big news travels well, and fast. The fact that the totals compare when talking 50" fish and total surface area of water here and in Minnesota indicates there has been a paradigm shift here in the Wisconsin North. I haven't reported a fish to MI since '88, I think.
As stated before, spearing and high harvest (37000 creeled in one recent year) plus the inevitable mortality have taken a toll here. It's at least a possibility high rates of stocking have effected some waters growth rate as well. Many Minnesota waters will suffer a similar fate, IMHO, if nothing is done to protect those fish. I again suggest you look at the numbers of fish remaining after only 10 years in the two Minnesota test lakes, and then add the pressure we have here. Pretty easy to draw a conclusion on what could happen with intense pressure. | |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | In response to Bytor-
We(Capital City Chapter of Muskies Inc. and the DNR) are going to be doing a study similar to what you are suggesting.
We are working closely with the DNR to do a 50/50 stocking of leech lake strain and WI strain muskies into lake monona this fall. We are working out the finer details but we will be using PIT tags in both lots to track these fish. PIT tags are internal and last the life of the fish and are unique to each fish...when a sampling is done a wand is waved over the fish and it reads the fishes number. We will be able to track growth rates for EACH FISH assuming it is regularly sampled and compare data across both strains. We will be doing this stocking over several years.
I know both Wissota and Petenwell/Castlerock are working at setting up similar stockings. I think right now our lake is the only lake that is going to be using PIT tags since they run $5 a piece! We are trying to work with the DNR to help off set some costs and to combined efforts where appropriate to aqquire/raise fish.
It will be VERY interesting to see how the Leechers do in monona. Monona is a very fertile lake that has an abundance of forage, large acreage, longer growning season then Northern WI, however, not, the leathal water temps that are experienced in IN and IL and a 45 inch size limit to protect the fish. The fish in monona right now are almost always very fat, all year long. As one arguement goes, WI stain grows out (girth) faster then the Leech strain. The leech strain grows long first...then out. So my thought is we won't be seeing the 40 inch footballs we normally see...but will see some decent build 40 inch leechers and then down the road some very long leechers that eat the abundant Monona forage and start looking like some of those Mill Lac slobs.
It will also be extremely interesting to see how these fish do on Wissota and Petenwell. On both lakes it has been documented that these fish just don't grow long. There is definately a lot of forage in both lakes. Being very different lakes then monona it will be a nice comparison.
Also, these projects are going to be very expensive. If you or your club is interesting in helping either of these projects contact the following folks. I know we have gotten some interest from outlying clubs that fish the madison chain. But at 5$ a pit tag and 10$ a fish it adds up!
Monona project : Cory Painter
Wissota Project: Mark Hintz
Petenwell Project: Jason Schillinger (reef Hawg)
The DNR are taking some very serious steps to improve our muskie fishery....and I think we will even see more change next year. This is good news for WI fisherman and businessmen!
Mike I agree with you...but also agree with the "under promise and over deliever" philosophy as well.
Cory
| |
| | |
Posts: 216
Location: Belleville, WI | Cory -
That is great news!!! Now this is something that I will enjoy putting my money behind!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | I've been following the WI Muskellunge Restoration debate for several weeks now. It seems to me that the group which includes Larry Ramsell has raised some good questions and pointed out some problems with current muskellunge management practices in WI. The recent response by the DNR also contains some interesting developments. I for one am willing to let the DNR do its job. It is encouraging to hear that they are taking a hard look at improving the current brood stock/egg collection practices, that there will be on-going experiments with Mississippi strain muskellunge in selected waters, and that the DNR will begin to scale back overstocking of certain waters containing naturally reproducing muskies. It makes sense to me that comparing WI waters to Minnesota waters is not a fair comparison, but that does not mean that the conclusions of the WI Muskellunge Restoration Team should be dismissed out of hand.
I think that name calling and pointing fingers will do nothing to improve the quality of the musky fishery in WI. Only dedicated musky anglers and musky clubs working together with the DNR to: protect habitat, strengthen regulations where necessary, solidify and/or improve funding sources, and improve current stocking practices will improve the fishery. If you've ever looked into a career in fisheries management you will realize that those dedicated folks who work for the DNR are not there because of the lucrative salaries. That does not mean that we should give them a free pass to do whatever they want, but it does mean that with dedicated individuals like Tim Simonson and dedicated angler groups like Muskies Inc and Muskellunge Club of WI et al. we should be able to find a way work together to move forward on managing our shared resouce.
I will continue to follow this issue closely and will work with my Muskies Inc chapter to support improvements to our fishery.
Tom Ramsey
member Milwaukee Chapter Muskies Inc | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Cory I recently joined your chapter and I look forward to learning more about your project and helping in any way that is possible.
I agree that the MS strain should thrive in Monona. People shouldn't compare a 40 inch MS fish to a 40 inch barred fish, the 40 inch MS fish would be younger. Can't wait to see how big these fish can get in Monona.
Attched is a picture of the "small" Wisconsin strain that I caught and released last fall in Monona. 47.75" by 23"
This fish is a DNR tagged fish. I hope somebody catches her in 2 or 3 years so we can see how big this "small" fish gets.
Troy
Edited by Bytor 4/13/2005 10:49 PM
Attachments
----------------
 47.75monona.JPG (64KB - 115 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Tom-
Great post....can't agree more. I don't think anyone will argue that the Restoration Team helped bring this to the front of everyones mind, including the DNR. I also don't agree that EVERYTHING the Restoration team talks about is being thrown out as well. There are some areas were I think (and possibly some fishery biologists) they are in the ball park. Bottom line, us as muskie fisherman need to work together to move the fishery forward....better fish (either selective WI strain or Leech or great lakes), better habitat, improved education of the general public, and stricter size limits.
Troy-
Welcome to the club...Look me up at our fundraiser on April 21!!!
Now that is a fine monona special there(bone lake stocked fish)....awesome fish....did you turn in the number to see how much it grew??? SOme of the tags we called in last year had some amazing growth!! Nice BSWilly sticker by the way!
Cory
Edited by C.Painter 4/13/2005 1:58 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Cory,
Thanks for the update, this sounds really fantastic. I am very pleased that the conversation has centered on action, and can't thank the DNR, you, the Restoration group and the others involved in this overall project/debate enough for the hard work! I also do not feel the Restoration group's entire effort should be dismissed, but I do feel there is a right way, and a not-so-right way to present a platform and allow ideas to be accepted and discussed. I was legitimately concerned that the debate could be steered in a manner that did not encourage open conversation with all parties involved. I sincerly hope the actions now underway (many of which, by the way, were already moving forward last year) will bring all Muskie anglers in Wisconsin to the table to find a way to fund/implement the actions we all would like to see. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Got a phone call and a letter from our fisheries biologist(Scot Ironside) today letting me know our club would be free to stock as we had asked to be permitted for. We are hoping the DNR will assist in our efforts, and we are in research mode right now, with Scot and others, in search of the hatchery in MN, means of transportation, and allocation of funds. We would like to get fry or 2-3"ers and raise them to fingerlings in the our local ponds here, as it would save some money. Even if we could only get 100 fish, it would be cool!!!! Will update all as process continues. We have been advised to fin clip before stocking.. That way, anglers too will know what they have as well(the ones who will do the majority of the sampling in the future). I think we will do alternate fins for alternate years. According to Scot, we should be able to be fairly accurate in the short term with age estimation that way.
That said, we do not plan on ceasing the raising and stocking of the WI strain in our local waters, and will continue to do so in the same quantities as in the past. We plan to utilize another pond currently in use for minnows if in fact we are able to obtain and even afford the Mississippi fish.
Any other suggestions would be great.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/13/2005 11:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Wow that is cool news Cory. Glad to see some of the "internet talk" has turned into action.
Grass, | |
| | |
| How old was the tagged fish? | |
| | |
Posts: 148
Location: Milwaukee, WI | After reading the stats on WMRP's website, I think I've been missing out on some hot musky fishing in MN !!!
 | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Musky_Slayer - 4/13/2005 5:31 PM
How old was the tagged fish?
Slayer-
The DNR did not know how old the fish was, they tagged it in April of 2004. She was 46.4 inches and weighed 31 pounds last spring. I was told she could have been anywhere between 8 and 15 years old. Once they reach this size they grow 1 1/2 to 2 inches a year and put on around 3 pounds each year. I caught her 10/24/04, the following weekend I lost a fish at the boat that appeared to be a little bigger. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | TTT
What happened on this thread, several posts are missing. | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| That information is available on the research board ( where it actually belongs when as involved as it was) in it's entirety, under the post locked at the top. | |
| |
|
