|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The reply is from the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project TEAM. We would ask in fairness that this be posted on the Home Page of Muskie First, as was the DNR's reply to us:
Introduction: Recently the Wisconsin DNR issued a “response to the "Wisconsin Muskie Restoration Project". As members of this project we thought it would be important to make the public aware of our thoughts on this response. First of all we’d like to make sure that the public understands that the Project Team entered a meeting with the DNR on Feb 22nd with the full backing of all of the Muskies Inc. clubs of Wisconsin as well as the Wisconsin Musky Clubs Alliance. At that meeting the DNR made it clear that they would not follow or implement a plan presented by the WMRP and strongly supported by the Muskie Clubs and fisherman throughout the state, but unilaterally impose their own plan to be started off with numerous “studies” that will take eleven years to complete. This made us unhappy, and we let the DNR know it. The saddest thing about the entire situation is that the officials that lead the DNR in Madison continue to tell the fisherman of Wisconsin that we cannot and should not expect to have the same quality of fisheries that the state of Minnesota enjoys today. The Wisconsin DNR asks us to lower our expectations and suggests that the situation is essentially hopeless, because of how complicated the issues are. The WMRP team would like the DNR to do everything in it’s power to make Wisconsin the greatest place to fish Muskies in the country, but it is clear that is not possible if they continue to refuse to believe it themselves.
We now have the first official response from the Wisconsin DNR and we believe it must be addressed. We wanted to address it immediately, but thought it best to take some time before responding. In this response the Wisconsin DNR has consistently misrepresented what the plan and information offered by the WMRP has suggested, and it needs to be cleared up to reduce the confusion it has created among many. Most glaringly the WDNR response avoids all the major issues addressed by the WMRP documents, including the documented strain mixing that occurred in the NW Wisconsin brood lakes. In the DNR response it claims:
“Most importantly, the report erroneously concludes that Wisconsin is stocking an "inferior strain" of muskellunge.” And later it states:
“They have never been mixed with any strains from outside the area.”
This needs to be clarified by the WDNR in order to be taken seriously. A quick look through Wisconsin DNR documents proves that the WDNR is indeed stocking an inferior strain. In WDNR Research Report 172 it shows that there are different strains with different growth potential in Wisconsin. In WDNR Technical Bulletin 49 it clearly shows that the inferior strain was stocked into both of NW Wisconsin’s brood lakes (Bone and Lac Court Oreilles) before being distributed across all of the states drainage’s. Size limit records clearly show that the WDNR protected the inferior strain while allowing the large growing strain to be harvested. After these inferior strains were stocked in these lakes they continued to be propagated through the states hatchery system and stocked into all the major river drainage’s and directly into the Great Lakes. Many of the same things occurred at the Woodruff hatchery as documented by the hatchery personnel in that area. WDNR officials can access and review these reports on their own web site or contact the WMRP to obtain a copy. These FACTS can no longer be ignored.
Throughout the document the WDNR claims we base our arguments on “ an evolutionary theory that has been debunked by virtually all agency and university researchers”. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we have based our argument on the fantastic fishery created by the Minnesota DNR by simply changing their brood stock from a small growing strain to a pure large growing Muskie strain that is native to the Mississippi River drainage. This fishery is one that Wisconsin regularly out-produced with our smaller lakes before our hatcheries focused on survivability and cost reduction over ultimate size and quality of the fish and Minnesota changed to the large strain fish. We believe making the same change Minnesota did will have the same effect on our fishery and allow Wisconsin’s state hatchery system and DNR personnel to create the best Muskie fishery in the United States. The WMRP believes that we have the best DNR hatchery and field personnel in the United States, and should the DNR officials in Madison make the right policy decision, we will also have the best Muskie fishery. The fisherman and businesses of this state and our children deserve these changes be made immediately. These changes are the only ones proven to work, while the changes currently suggested by Madison have not been proven. Recently a DNR official stated that in ten years we still won’t know.
There are many statements throughout the DNR response that seem quite bizarre when coming from an agency that claims to base its decisions on science. One of our favorites is “ The truth is that Wisconsin uses only wild fish for brood stock in its hatchery program”. One wonders what the alternative is for Wild Muskies. Why does this need to be clarified as the “truth”? Has someone suggested they were using Domesticated Muskies? Or cloned Muskies? Another statement that truly needs to be addressed is that the Muskies used in the stocking program “are native to the river drainage’s in Wisconsin.” They may be native to the river drainage’s of Wisconsin, but native to which river drainage may be a better question. The Big Spider Lake strain that was stocked into our brood lakes is certainly not native to Lake Superior where they were stocked last fall. Currently the DNR is stocking lakes and streams in every muskellunge river drainage in the state with muskies raised at the Tommy Thompson State Fish Hatchery in Spooner, with known mixed, slow growing strain muskies with limited ultimate growth potential, from a single lake, Bone Lake in Polk County, and is doing likewise with a known, small growth strain of muskies from Squirrel Lake (and lakes with Squirrel Lake stock) from the Art Oehmcke State Fish Hatchery in Woodruff. This goes against all genetic principals of stock diversity and cross-drainage stocking. This practice has likely resulted in out breeding depression across our native and non-native Muskie waters which is shown in the documented lack of reproduction and lack of large Muskies in our waters.
The Wisconsin DNR continues to try to cloud the issue by saying there are many factors in determining the maximum size of fish. The WMRP agrees that there are many factors and we support higher size limits, limiting harvest and increasing the availability of forage. However the fact remains that there are some Muskie strains that are proven to grow larger than others and Wisconsin is not using one of the larger strains in our hatchery system. We can find this documented in the research studies conducted in Wisconsin and Minnesota. We agree that all of the above factors contribute to the size of the fish, yet the DNR of many other states in this country have proven that when these factors remain constant, certain strains grow larger than others. WDNR Research Report 172 clearly shows that in all waters studied, the “LCO” mixed strain grows approximately 10% longer than the known slow growing “Mud Callahan strain” that has been stocked in the LCO and Bone brood lakes. A similar study done in Minnesota (Investigational Report 418) showed that the Mississippi strain Muskie grows 10% larger than the mixed “LCO” strain. 10% in growth is equal to 5 inches in length at the 50-inch mark. EVERY FISH COULD BE 5 INCHES LONGER JUST BY CHANGING THE BROOD SOURCE.
The WMRP is not suggesting changes that would damage native reproducing or self-sustaining populations. In fact quite the opposite is true. The most important and immediate change that must be undertaken is the protection of the pure native muskie strains that live in the Great Lakes and Mississippi drainage’s. We are asking the DNR to stock only Great Lakes strain Muskellunge in all Great Lakes drainage’s. This is already being done with walleyes and is actually required by an International agreement known as The Great Lakes Charter. This agreement states:
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHARTER, THE GOVERNORS AND PREMIERS OF THE GREAT LAKES STATES AND PROVINCES AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:
Principle I
Integrity of the Great Lakes Basin
The planning and management of the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin should recognize and be founded upon the integrity of the natural resources and ecosystem of the Great Lakes Basin. The water resources of the Basin transcend political boundaries within the Basin, and should be recognized and treated as a single hydrologic system. In managing Great Lakes Basin waters, the natural resources and ecosystem of the Basin should be considered as a unified whole.
In addition we are asking that the pure Mississippi Strain Muskies native to the Lower St. Croix no longer be threatened by the WDNR stocking of mixed strain Muskies, which has been going on for 70 years and that are not native to the St. Croix drainage! This can and should be changed immediately. The people of Wisconsin will benefit from stocking pure large growing Muskies in the St. Croix drainage as well as the people of Minnesota who are actively working to restore Muskies in the lower St. Croix.
In the remaining drainage’s in the central part of the state, the DNR should either find and locate the native large growing strains that inhabited that part of the Mississippi drainage, or look to the last remaining pure and native population of large growing strains in the Mississippi drainage as Brood stock - Leech Lake. When the Wisconsin DNR wanted to restore the Green Bay Muskie fishery, they went hundreds of miles away within the same drainage to get pure large growing Muskies. Why then can’t they do the same for the people of Northern Wisconsin that rely on tourism to make a living?
All other states that manage for muskies have been investigating muskie strains for many years. Our sister state of Minnesota started their studies and changes in 1982 - TWENTY-THREE YEARS AGO! Minnesota anglers and related businesses are now reaping the benefits of these changes. Now the Wisconsin Government which calls the Muskie our State fish, wants us to wait longer before we "possibly" make make changes. They are asking us to wait before they strat making changes so that they can duplicate and repeat studies that have proven to be effective. Many of us will no longer be around when even immediate changes could be producing numerous large fish 20 plus years from now. Why must we wait even one season longer? Do the people of Wisconsin have a say in this? The Muskie clubs and fishermen of Wisconsin are eager to work with the Wisconsin DNR on these changes immediately. Will the DNR management in Madison work with the People, is the question.
Wisconsin DNR response to the "Wisconsin Muskie Restoration Project" and the WMRP reply:
Tim Simonson - 4/8/2005
DNR: The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has received several inquiries about a report entitled "Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project" which was prepared by several concerned musky anglers and has been distributed on the internet. While the authors raise important issues and are to be commended for their enthusiasm for improving Wisconsin's musky fishery, this report contains some serious scientific flaws and makes some recommendations which if implemented could seriously damage Wisconsin's already outstanding and popular musky fishery.
WMRP: How could stocking great lakes strain muskies into great lakes drainage’s and Mississippi River strain muskies into Mississippi River drainage’s be damaging? The DNR is suddenly now doing this exact same thing with walleyes after a genetic study was done and the results were submitted to the WDNR. Please explain why doing this would be damaging to muskie populations and apparently not walleye populations? Also, if a muskie lake MUST be continuously stocked to maintain a fishable population, how can stocking fish that grow large fast and have a better chance at developing a "self-sustaining population" be "damaging?" In addition, why doesn’t the the DNR decision makers recognize that tourists are bypassing Wisconsin for Minnesota and Canada now for trophy muskies as one DNR Supervisor has been quoted in print as saying?
DNR: Most importantly, the 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.
WMRP: The WDNR Research Report 172 shows that there are different strains with different growth potential in Wisconsin. The WDNR Technical Bulletin 49 clearly shows that the inferior strain was stocked into both of NW Wisconsin’s brood lakes. Since that time, they have been continually part of the egg taking stock, AND re-stocked back into the brood stock lakes every year since they became mature, and distributed across all of the states drainage’s. Size limit records clearly show that the WDNR protected the inferior strain in the brood stock lakes, while allowing the large growing strain to be harvested. WDNR officials can access these reports on their web site or contact the WMRP to obtain a copy.
Why is it "erroneous" to read and understand plain English in the studies done by past a WDNR Research Scientist? Those "facts" are being confused with the "fact" that there are two different animals within a single species and is NOT "debunked," only work regarding two distinct "species" has found "general" (not total) agreement that there is a single species. Reproductive strategy is another matter entirely and is fully supported by "peer reviewed and published SCIENCE! The WDNR Research Report 172 shows that there are different strains with different growth potential in Wisconsin. The WDNR Technical Bulletin 49 clearly shows that the inferior strain was stocked into both of NW Wisconsin’s brood lakes.
Please explain what you mean by “wild fish”? Does the WDNR call wild fish - fish that are incapable of breeding outside of a hatchery? And why do you not address the cross-drainage "mixing" within Wisconsin that you "infer" isn't happening? Why also do you not admit to the use of "known" small strain muskies being mixed with the hatchery brood stock? Since that time, they have been continually part of the egg taking stock, AND re-stocked back into the brood stock lakes every year since they became mature, and distributed across all of the states drainage’s.
Size limit records clearly show that the WDNR protected the inferior strain in the NW brood stock lakes, while allowing the large growing strain to be harvested. WDNR officials can access these reports on their web site or contact the WMRP to obtain a copy. Why does the WDNR find it necessary to stock “wild fish” brood lakes with 2500 fingerling’s every year (or every other year now since budget cuts)? Why are these “ wild” fish incapable of creating self-sustaining populations? Are these the same “wild fish” that consisted of mixing different strains as described in RR172 and TB49 on the DNR web site. Will the WDNR please explain to the people of Wisconsin what strain Muskies are “native” to the St. Croix River drainage? Will the WDR please explain to the people of Wisconsin what strain Muskies are “native” to the Presque Isle River drainage? The Menominee river drainage? The Fox River drainage - that the WDNR went 1000 miles away to obtain brood stock for?
DNR: They have never been mixed with any strains from outside the area.
WMRP: Please define “outside the area” for us. Does this mean WI? Does this mean specific drainage’s? Does this mean that it’s OK to mix Mud Callahan Strain with Chippewa Flowage or LCO strain, because it’s “within the area”. Isn’t this what’s wrong with our walleyes as the 1997 Illinois Natural History Survey study indicated? WDNR hatchery records clearly indicate cross-drainage mixing has and does take place from both major Wisconsin musky hatcheries, and is scheduled again in 2005.
DNR: There is simply no credible scientific evidence that these fish are genetically different from what occurred here historically, or that they exhibit inferior growth or survival characteristics.
WMRP: Is there any credible scientific evidence that these fish ARE genetically THE SAME as what occurred here historically? Please tell us where we can see this evidence for ourselves. Why are our fish so much smaller now than they were years ago? Does not the DNR recognize the mixing of allopatric and sympatric stocks of muskellunge as problematic? Does not DNR studies prove that when allopatric muskellunge are mixed with pike that the muskies loose out? Survival indeed! The DNR’s continued fascination with hatchery survival at the expense of growth potential is clearly a major problem that needs to be addressed.
DNR: In fact, there are numerous examples of lakes where fish from our hatchery system perform very well, confirming that environmental conditions are at least as important as stain in determining growth and size-structure of muskellunge.
WMRP: Please name the lakes where fish from our hatchery system perform “very well”. Also please define “very well” for us. Studies and current biologists state that survival from Spooner hatchery stockings is good but REPRODUCTION is nearly non-existent. We consider 50 years of that NOT "performing very well!"
DNR: Immediately discontinuing stocking of these fish would jeopardize the fisheries of all of Wisconsin's stocked musky waters.
WMRP: Yes, the MUST "put and take" fisheries, which is the case with no natural reproduction with current Bone Lake brood stock. Our interpretation of "good fisheries management" is developing a self-sustaining population of muskies, or at least using those that can grow large.
DNR: While the strain used for stocking is one of many important factors, there are no short cuts when it comes to managing for trophy muskellunge. Scientific investigations clearly show that Wisconsin musky populations have the genetic potential to reach trophy sizes.
WMRP: Please tell us where we can see the results of these scientific investigations that clearly show that WI muskie populations do have the genetic potential to reach trophy sizes. Also please define “trophy” for us. There ARE shortcuts to "decreasing" the abundance of trophy muskies...use hatchery brood stock "mixed" with known small maximum growth muskies as has been done for nearly 50 years now!
DNR: However, the trophy potential of a particular water body is dependent on its size, forage base, angling pressure, angling regulations, and musky population density. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has a comprehensive muskellunge management program that continually evaluates all of these factors and strives to produce the best musky fishing possible in our state.
WMRP: Yes, Wisconsin is a great place to catch numbers of small muskies, if just catching a muskie is the goal. For the thousands bypassing Wisconsin for Minnesota and Canada, it isn't good enough. We agree that all of the above factors contribute to the size of the fish, yet many of the DNR’s in this country have proven that when these factors remain constant, certain strains grow larger than others. WDNR Research Report 172 clearly shows that in every water, the “LCO” mixed strain grows approximately 10% longer than the known slow growing “Mud Callahan strain” that has been stocked in the LCO and Bone brood lakes. A similar study done in Minnesota (Investigational Report 418) showed that the Mississippi strain Muskie grows 10% larger than the mixed “LCO” strain. 10% in growth is equal to 5 inches in length at the 50 inch mark. EVERY FISH COULD BE 5 INCHES LONGER JUST BY CHANGING THE BROOD SOURCE.
DNR: Contrary to assertions in the report, Wisconsin's musky fishery is well managed and provides excellent fishing. Musky populations are at historical highs. They are found in 711 lakes and 80 rivers across the state, anglers catch 300,000 muskies each year, catch rates average about 25 hours/fish, harvest has declined considerably over the last decade, due largely to voluntary catch-and-release, and, as a result, the average size of muskies has increased.
WMRP: We have never claimed that the number of, or population of muskies in WI was poor or low. What did the average size of muskie in WI increase from and increase to because of catch & release? From 37-inches to 38-inches? Please be specific. We applaud the anglers of Wisconsin for doing everything in their power to improve Musky fishing the state of Wisconsin. We would like the WDNR to make the same effort that anglers have made. The Muskie anglers of Wisconsin recognized that their harvest practices were wrong and have changed. The WDNR needs to recognize their stocking practices are wrong and change them. The WMRP has never claimed that the NUMBER of, or population of muskies in WI was poor or low.
DNR: And the musky fishery, along with Wisconsin's other outstanding fisheries, continues to be extremely popular with anglers. Wisconsin's 1.4 million anglers (6th highest in the nation) fish 1.1 million days each year for muskies. Wisconsin ranks 2nd in the nation in the total number of fishing days by non-residents. For a more in-depth discussion of Wisconsin's musky fishery, please see an article "Long Live the King" in the December, 2002 issue of the Wisconsin Natural Resources magazine (http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2002/dec02/musky.htm) .
WMRP: A survey of just the number of muskie anglers in say 2000, compared to what 2005 will bring would certainly be an interesting comparison. Too bad those figures aren't available. The "proof of the pudding" IS known to those towns and business' affected however. None we know are happy about what is happening.
DNR: The authors cite evidence from the Muskies Inc. 'Lunge Log program in which voluntarily submitted catch reports suggest that Wisconsin lags behind Minnesota in the number of 50" and larger fish reported. This database however contains only muskies self reported by anglers and there can be large discrepancies among various sources of information, which calls into question the utility of voluntary data for making management decisions.
WMRP: The WDNR has cited evidence from the Muskies Inc. Lunge Log in its own studies and research reports, and according to the DNR "Muskellunge Management Update" October 2004, this same Muskie's, Inc. data IS USED to measure the trophy musky catches for Wisconsin. Why is it OK for the DNR to use and cite Muskies Inc. stats in its reports and not anyone else? It is the best know data base available!
DNR: 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. 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.
WMRP: Wow! 17 muskies over 50 inches from 202 musky waters in Vilas County. That means that the odds of the thousands of anglers fishing muskies in Vilas County are pretty slim! Less than ONE water in 10 produced a 50 inch fish. And, more intentional misinformation from the WDNR. The WMRP has provided names of anglers and photographs of Muskies caught in Nancy Lake and registered with MI as Lake “Unspecified”. Other catches of note include:
The Lucky 13 Contest fishing results for 1996 and 1997, which covered over 200 musky lakes a rivers in NW Wisconsin, for 18 weeks each summer listed-in 1996 the largest and fourth-largest muskies reported were Leech Lake strain muskies from Nancy Lake, Wisconsin. In 1997, the second largest musky captured in NW Wisconsin was a Leech Lake strain musky from Nancy Lake, Wisconsin.
· In 2000, the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame listed one fly fishing world record of 52 inches as being caught from of Nancy Lake, Wisconsin, from the Leech Lake strain.
· In 2001, the two largest muskies caught and registered (lake not specified) by Muskie's, Inc. anglers in Wisconsin, were both Leech Lake strain muskies caught from Nancy Lake, Wisconsin.
· In 2001, twenty-eight percent of the 50 inch muskies reported to Muskie's, Inc. from Wisconsin, were Leech Lake strain muskies from Nancy Lake, Wisconsin.
DNR: It is unrealistic to compare Wisconsin muskellunge waters with Minnesota waters. Wisconsin lakes are much smaller, and Minnesota's larger lakes have a greater carrying capacity that can produce more large fish. Wisconsin also has much higher angling pressure on its smaller lakes. 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. And finally, Minnesota has a history of having higher muskellunge minimum size limits. Wisconsin waters can and do produce trophy fish but our smaller inland lakes will never produce the numbers that much larger lakes in Minnesota or the Great Lakes will produce.
WMRP: The WMRP has compared numerous lakes from both WI and MN of the SAME SIZE and the results clearly show that WI severely lags behind MN for 50-inch muskies in lakes of equal size. We do not compare small lakes in WI to large lakes in MN as is being suggested here by the DNR because we realize this would not be a fair comparison. The reason for the higher size limit in MN is because the pure strain brood stock fish they use in their muskie stocking program mature later and at larger sizes than the WI brood stock fish. If anyone disputes this we ask that you contact the MDNR and find out for yourselves. In addition, there are MANY more lakes in Wisconsin with HIGHER size limits than Minnesota's statewide 40 inch size limit. The WMRP is very saddened that The Wisconsin DNR believes that Wisconsin can not possibly have as high a quality Muskie fishery as the state of Minnesota. We wish that the DNR had people in charge that believed it possible to make Wisconsin the greatest place to fish for Muskies. We find it interesting also, that the DNR now refers back to a 2001 survey for muskie harvest numbers, when in the October 2004 "Muskellunge Management Update" the estimated total of the tremendous continuing decline in harvest due to catch and release for ALL class A lakes (356 of 711) was only 1488 for 2003. Are we to believe the other half of the lesser quality, including all non-native muskie lakes provide harvest of an additional 35,022 muskies?
DNR: 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.
WMRP: We think its great that the WDNR is evaluating stocking rates but what does this have to do with the brood stock issue that when researching DNR studies and reports, the WMRP clearly identified our brood stock as the most likely problem with our fish not reaching trophy sizes? In addition, budget cuts have had more to do with stocking reduction than has management changes, such as the 50% reduction in muskie stocking due to budget cuts in 2004. Why must we wait another 5 -10 years to make changes? Is there any scientific evidence available that shows reducing stocking rates increases the number of 50 inch fish in Wisconsin?
DNR: The Department is also actively evaluating the results of increases in minimum size limits. Muskies are a long-lived species, so it takes many years to see results from such studies, but there have been significant increases in the number of 40-50" muskies on lakes such as Namekagon in Bayfield County which received a 50" minimum size limit in 1996. We have seen similar results in 40" size limit lakes that are being studied.
WMRP: Yes there was an increase in the number of muskies over 40 inches on Namekagon. There was also an increase in the number of muskies under 40 inches as well. These increases are most likely the result of the DNR stocking this lake starting in 1983 and by the late 1980’s stocking it with large numbers of muskie. There are no stocking records prior to 1983. In the last 8 years since 1996 when the 50-inch size limit went into effect, there has been only two 50-inch muskies reported by M.I. members from Namekagon. Prior to this there were four 50-inch muskies reported by M.I. members from Namekagon within a 7 year period and all four of these were caught before the DNR stocked fish that have been incapable of reaching 50-inches. Hmmm….more 50’s caught before the stocked fish were old enough to reach 50”, and fewer 50’s caught after the stocked fish would have been old enough to reach 50” and even with a 50-inch size limit to protect them. Does anyone else wonder why this could be? Further, what about the other lakes with 50 inch size limits? Why no mention of them? "Forced" catch and release hasn't worked there that is why!
DNR: 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.
WMRP: We are pleased to see that our efforts have produced some positive results. We will be interested in the developed "brood stock management plan."
DNR: 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.
WMRP: We would trust that consideration will be given to "native fish" DOWNSTREAM, especially those waters of our neighbors. Once again we ask the Wisconsin DNR to state in writing what are the native fish in the St. Croix and Great Lakes drainage’s? | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| OutdoorsFIRST Media posts links to articles and press releases that are submitted to us in advance of posting or are sought out by our editors. If one wishes to have an article or release posted on the front page of MuskieFIRST, one should submit the article with the request to [email protected] before posting to any of the MuskieFIRST boards so the piece may be formatted and placed in the proper forum.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Muskie First:
Thank you for telling us the rules of the game after we have made our posting. Fair Play? No matter, it is posted for all to read. Interesting that you removed it from the General Discussion board.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Larry,
How about "Thanks Muskie First for even letting us post our postion in the first place". This kind of irritating thread that just makes me sick. Please less sarcasim and more polite and interesting disscusion.
Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Whoa, I missed this one yesterday. The accepted protocol anywhere in the media is to request publication, and that is what we require. Usually, articles that are unsolicited are immediately deleted if the content is political, agenda driven and posted to inflame or cause duress to another party....you get the idea.
Allow me to discuss an aspect you probably have not thought about. This is a moderated forum and is therefore subject to Internet Protocol and Law that says essentially this:
MuskieFIRST is a publisher. We publish every single letter typed here, and as a result of that publication, all information here is considered to be OUR opinion. By law.
If, as an example, someone insults another here, and we leave that obvious insult up, and knew it was there and knew the printed matter was an uncalled for, rude, defamatory or libelous; MuskieFIRST is 100% liable for that content. That's why we are so careful not to leave offensive material posted if we find it, and that is why we prefer to have a bit of time to request editing of material posted as an article here, before we post and link it as such.
We DO feel this is a very important subject, and allow that there are good points to be made about much of the debate subject matter. MuskieFIRST will continue to encourage a fair, open, reasonable discussion on the subject, and in order to serve our user base well will place that discussion where it belongs in our editorial structure.
| |
| |
|
WMRT response to DNR Reply