|
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | WMRP Questions for the WDNR:
1) Were known small growing Big Spider lake muskies planted into Lac Court Oreilles (LCO) and Bone Lake in 1956?
2) Why does Bone lake need to be stocked?
3) What percent of native waters stocked with Bone lake muskies have natural reproduction?
4) What percent of non-native waters stocked with Bone lake muskies have natural reproduction?
5) Can the DNR provide any data that shows there has been an increase in the number of muskies 50 inches or larger in Lake Namekagon, Lac Courte Oreilles, and Grindstone lakes since the 50 inch size limits went into effect.
6) Has there been any mixing of strains of muskies from different drainages, states, or other geographical locations within WI by either the DNR or other any sources in the last 130 years?
7) Were the Muskies in Nancy Lake found to be longer and heavier at THE SAME AGE than WI strain muskies?
8) Why did the DNR recently start stocking Great Lakes strain walleyes into Great Lakes drainage waters and Upper Mississippi River strain walleyes into Wisconsin's Upper Chippewa River/Mississippi River drainage waters, but have not done the same thing with muskies and refuse to do so?
9) What is the average length female being stripped for eggs from Bone Lake?
10) What water temp does the DNR target for collecting muskie eggs from Bone Lake?
11) How many 50-inch muskies has the DNR netted in Bone Lake in the last 10 years?
12) What is the WDNR’s opinion on why LCO is not producing the numbers of trophy size (50-inch +) muskies of the past even though there has been a huge increase in catch and release, a 50” size limit on the lake since 1996 and an abundance of the type of forage supposedly needed to produce large trophies?
13) Is there an agreement between WI and bordering states about what strains of fish are to be stocked into border waters, especially the Great Lakes?
14) Is the WDNR violating the Great Lakes Charter agreement with regard to fish management?
15) Has the WDNR used Muskies Inc. data in any research reports?
16) Is the WDNR collecting eggs from a "single" known "pure native strain" of muskie for its hatcheries?
17) What strain of Muskie is native to Great Lakes drainage waters?
18) What strain of muskie is native to Mississippi River drainage waters?
19) If studies are done on some lakes in WI the results indicate that the Mississippi River strain grows larger than other strains in the same waters, will the DNR then change and use this strain in its hatcheries as its primary brood stock?
20) Please tell us when the WDNR muskie committee was formed?
21) Please tell us how many times the WDNR's muskie committee members have actually met with each other to discuss WI muskie management and trophy management before Feb. 22nd 2005?
22) What specific plans or studies, if any, were already in the works by the WDNR muskie committee to better the WI trophy muskellunge fishery prior to January of 2005?
23) Is there any credible scientific evidence that Bone Lake muskies are genetically THE SAME as what occurred in NW WI rivers historically? If yes, please tell us where we can see this evidence for ourselves.
24) What did the average size of muskie in WI increase from and increase to because of catch & release? Could you please provide this data to the public?
25) Could you please provide data that shows that the number of muskies from 40 to 50 inches has increased from Lake Namekagon since the 50 inch size limit was imposed and also on the other lakes in WI with either a 40 inch or larger size limit?
26) Why beginning in 1984 did the WDNR choose to put the Leech Lake strain muskies you got from the MDNR into a lake with out other strains from WI to study and compare with if you were seriously considering the Leech Lake strain as a new broodstock source for WI?
27) Do the people on Nancy Lake want the DNR to start stocking it with Leech Lake muskies again?
28) Why do WI’s large lakes with an abundance of forage not even come close to producing the number and size muskies lakes of similar size in MN produce?
29) Why did the WI strain muskies not grow as large as the Mississippi River strain muskies in the same lakes with the same forage available when the MDNR did studies comparing them over 20 years ago?
30) How many years will it take of studying different strains of muskie in WI waters before the DNR would make the decision to change its broodstock to a different large growing strain?
31) Will the DNR change the strain used as broodstock if it finds that a particular strain grows larger than our current strain being used in WI?
32) How many studies will need to be done and how many years will it take before the DNR would change the strain being used as its broodstock for the entire NW part of the state of WI or all the waters being stocked with Bone lake muskies now?
33) How many studies were done and how many years did it take before the DNR to decided to use only Bone Lake muskies as broodstock for all of NW WI and can we see the results of these studies?
34) Why does the DNR not acknowledge past genetic science instead of wanting to re-invent the wheel?
35) Why does some in the DNR now want to dis-credit the studies done by Leon Johnson, DNR Research Scientist?
36) Why does the DNR not acknowledge that there are differences in reproductive strategy within the muskellunge species? | |
| | |
| That is an awesome set of questions Larry. My favorites are #25, 31,and 34.
Edited by DJS 4/20/2005 7:56 AM
| |
| | |
| some of these questions are things that the answers are already known to or that the WMRT knows full well that the DNR does not know/doesn't have data about - ie., the answers are in documents/reports published by the DNR themselves and widely quoted by the WMRT.
what is your goal in asking the DNR those sorts of questions?
Edited by lambeau 4/20/2005 8:02 AM
| |
| | |
| Good questions but, you folks at the "WMRT" are going to have to tone it down a bit. If I was the one who received that letter, I'd tell you to go pee up a rope.
Just out of curiosity, how many times has someone from the WMRT had face-to-face discussions with the WNDR staff? I'm talking about a scheduled meeting...not at a hearing or a town hall meeting, etc., just you and them?
B.S.
| |
| | |
Posts: 89
| great questions - perhaps, and only perhaps, is there even a hint of a "bite" to these questions, however, I think, they are good, interesting questions. Certainly not inappropriate. In fact, since we as sportsman and taxpayers pay the salaries etc....of the WDNR I'd like to know the answers - if the answers are out there - just share/or tell us were to find 'um. | |
| | |
Posts: 354
| I tend to agree with the last couple of posts. Honey attracts more bees. Rationale? Objective? Concern for the resource as a whole? Or just your desire to catch big fish? Who would you rather work with? Someone who backs you into a corner? The DNR gets kicked around every day. More of the same probably won't work really well.
I hope you guys succeed. I'm not against your goals. I just wonder about your tactics sometimes........ | |
| | |
Location: Athens, Ohio | Ben, I was thinking the same thing, along the lines of, "I wouldn't wanna be the state worker who gets THAT put on his desk!" You did leave out the question about Do you still beat your wife? but maybe that's covered as a followup to some of the other leading questions. Why not just tell them straight out what the problem is instead of playing 20, well, 40 questions? Remember, these guys are on our side. m | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| I agree with BenR here, might be time to put the guns away. I have been pretty much in agreement with WMRT from the start but this line of questioning is starting to look more like a vendetta. There is a lot more to gain going forward than going back and fighting out what happened in the past.  | |
| | |
| Why?
Why?
Why?
Constant bickering.
Stupidity. Like Muskies hunting in packs.
| |
| | |
| not that this post will further the thread but, it's interesting to see the differences in replies to the topic between MF and MH...
hmmmmm
bs | |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I noticed that too, Brian.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | I've HAD lists of demands similar to that dropped on my desk before, maybe not quite as caustic or accusatory...it's all part of the job; you learn to live w/ it.
K. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi,
I've been telling you Larry and Mr Benson right from your first nasty e-mail that you folks were going about this the wrong way and now look your not only pissing the DNR off the majority of the folks you are trying to get support from are starting to questions your motives. I think you need to take a new approach with some new people at the helm if we want anything to get done. My first suggestions be Mr Sworall and Mr. Roberts if for any reason as a reasonable mouth piece for WMRT and the common Wisconsin musky angler.
Thanks
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 4/20/2005 3:26 PM
| |
| | |
| I can't believe the negative comments some of you are posting,all though not too harsh!I give Larry credit for sticking his neck out,he's only trying to help us catch bigger and badder muskys,that's not so bad!I'm not offended one bit by his appraoch,in fact his straight forward-forthright style is the only way to go.If he tryed to sugar coat his appraoch the public would see right through. | |
| | |
Posts: 89
| right on muskie man! | |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I personally dont think anyone on this board, or any muskie board would speak out against what Mr. Ramsell is overall trying to accomplish (more and bigger muskies), I believe more people are judging Mr. Ramsell negatively about the the tone that he projects to his intended audience, the DNR.
| |
| | |
| personally, i want this effort to succeed. bigger muskies = GOOD.
i'm excited about the possibility of seeing Great Lakes and Leech strain fish in waters near where i live.
i'm excited about the possibility of better/bigger WI strain muskies being used for brood stock further north.
however, i'm concerned that going about it in a passive-aggressive fashion will result in defensiveness on the part of decision-makers (the DNR) rather than engagement in dialog and cooperative efforts.
in my opinion, asking questions intended to embarrass the DNR by focusing on the negatives of the past is likely to receive a negative response, or at best, no response.
i can empathize with the frustration experienced by the WMRT on this. they're very clearly as passionate about improving the fishery as anyone out there. i'm no defender of the DNR, but i am willing to believe that the DNR fishery employees are passionate as well.
i'm just asking that someone who's willing to take on a visible role to be a change agent, do so in the best possible way to receive results...and i believe cooperation is more effective than confrontation.
i know the WMRT says that they tried a cooperative approach "behind closed doors" - meaning that they didn't attempt to publicly challenge the DNR at that time. a few months of frustration is not enough of a reason to throw that approach away and start taking shots at them.
i hope it works, but i don't believe it will.
alot of free "advice" has been sent the WMRT's way...which they've generally ignored. that's their prerogative. however, when you start losing your support base, you start losing the war. words have power, and LOTS of people read them and form opinions based as much on the style as on the content.
don't lose the message! this is why change groups hire professional lobbyists and spokespersons. it allows the information gatherers to focus on what they're good at, and let's the talkers do what they're good at.
take it for what it's worth. i'm not a fisheries scientist and i'm not a famous muskie personality, but i am a state employee who knows a thing or two about systems and human behavior in the social environment. | |
| | |
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | Right on, Lambeau.
Most everyone would like to see more big muskies in Wisconsin, and I'm glad an organization is looking into how that can be accomplished. However, the way many of those questions are phrased seems to try to place some kind of blame on the WDNR (rightfully or not). The folks working in the Department have always had the best interest of the fisheries' in mind, they just may have not been able to execute their desired plans to as hoped because of outside pressure, mainly from Madison in the form of budget squeezing. It's hard to make drastic changes when money is being taken away from the DNR at the rate it is.
As far as the Bone Lake questions, particularly #11, Bone will not produce astounding numbers of 50+ inch "trophy" fish. It's not even 2000 acres and has a forage base of mainly panfish and sucker. However, while fishing it heavily over the past for years I have seen, seen caught, and helped land many fish in the 46-48 inch class along with roughly a half-dozen 48-50+ inch fish. Bone Lake grows large muskies and would seem to be a viable lake to produce brood stock with it's dense population as well.
Elwood Brehmer
Edited by woody 4/20/2005 6:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 676
Location: Twin Cities, MN | Based on the reactions people's comments got on a string under genetics with this topic, I am not sure why some people are surprised with the lack of postings on this issue on MF.
I have re-posted my comments from the genetics string below as I think they are still relevant.
"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 | |
| | |
| I wouldn't answer these questions if I were running the DNR. Larry's group has already published data from MI without permission in an attempt to justify their goal. If I were the DNR I would be very skeptical any data given to Larry's group would be used in an appropriate context and that they would get permission prior to publishing anything. | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I want to first say that I absolutely respect all of the passion the gentlemen of the WMRT have shown to the betterment of our musky fishery. I also think that there is validity to a whole lot of what they have to say.
Larry, I am 100% behind improving the fishery in Wisconsin. I run a guide business too, the more people coming here to fish, the more clients we both get.
Now comes the critique part.
The DNR, like them or not, is a govermental agency. With any gov't agency, change comes about very slowly, and that is when every thing is done right, and the people working there are 100% behind the effort. Right now, the fisheries guys are behind bettering musky fishing in Wisconsin. They have indicated that they want to better it and have announced a plan to work toward that. Your group should be very proud of itself for that fact. It may have happened without your prodding, but it is happening now, partially because of it.
I am very fearful that continually smacking the hornet's nest now is not going to help our chances of advancement. If we are going to get anything done we need these people on our side, not as enemies. Let me put it to you this way, if you have a client that continually questions and critiques your methods of guiding and outright tells you that you are doing it wrong, how hard are you going to work for them? Probably not as hard as you would for the client that always throws an extra couple bucks in the pay at the end of the day and sings your praises.
Right now the DNR is working for us. I really don't think we need to alienate our small group of fishermen from them. I am on your side, and I can feel the animosity you have toward them. Can you imagine how the fisheries biologist sitting in Madison that doesn't musky fish at all feels? I do think we need to hold them on task, but without a doubt a gentler tone would keep them on our side. My biggest fear is that we alienate them to the point where they want nothing to do with the musky fishermen of Wisconsin. | |
| | |
| Larry and Crew,
Keep up the good work. | |
| | |
Posts: 373
Location: Huber Heights, Ohio | I am getting tired of seeing this on the General Discussion forum. There have been times where the same post has been posted at both of these forums at the same time. This discussion should be confined on the Muskie Research forum. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pal,
It wasn't the DNR who stopped the proposal cold for the 50" limit here, it was the public. It was voted down resoundingly. The frustration can't be placed at the DNR's doorstep there, or with other issues defeated, like the Muskie stamp. I'm not defending anyone here, I'm simply offering the facts of the matter.
Larry asks this:
1) Were known small growing Big Spider lake muskies planted into Lac Court Oreilles (LCO) and Bone Lake in 1956?
In the study he references, the people conducting the research were surprised at the slow growth of the BSL fish. It created an anomoly in the growth rates in LCO portion of the work, and is clearly noted. It's apparent, at least to me, that the researchers were surprised by the BSL fish's progress. Keep in mind this was 1956, and the science wasn't what it is today. Larry's question makes it look like the fish were known to be inferior, and the researchers planted them anyway. From what I can tell, they were 'known' to be slow growing fish because of some unidentified hereditary trait AFTER the research. There also is an inference that these fish stocked in 1956 are creating a situation where all the fish stocked from LCO and Bone today will exhibit the genetic traits of the BSL fish, which is questionable.
Like the WMRT says 'It's the fish', I respond that if they want to get a spirit of cooperation from most folks and especially the State of Wisconsin, they need understand why it's not working. 'It's the attitude.'
I suggest moderation and patience, and at leat a rudimentary attempt form EVERYONE involved to understand and accept the position of the bologists that are working with the Muskies in Wisconsin. Mike Roberts is doing exactly that, there's a good model of how this can go!
| |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i was going to post on the musky hunter board consistent with the sentiments here, why i didn't who knows, who cares? fundamentally whether it's business, personal or political ... a negotiation requires good faith, honesty and a potential of a win-win finish by both parties. you'll never get what you want no matter how much you may "deserve" it by starting out with disrespect of the other party no matter what is perceived right and wrong. the questions to me look like the have a foundation of logic with the unfortunate twist of a personal self-righteous agenda. this actually makes sense because it's obvious by the time and effort that it's very important to the key players; however it would make sense to me for this process to include a professional negotiator to apply some strategy to it and take it away from the "heart" of people who might be too close to be able to differentiate anger from strategy. | |
| | |
| Everyone,
Please remember that the DNR works for us, the citizens of WI. Their salaries are paid by us. Just because they are employees of the government, does that grant them the right to refuse to answer any and all legitimate questions when asked? I sure hope not. Shouldn't it be just the opposite? I don't think these questions are taking shots at the DNR at all. They are questions that are of great importance and should be to everyone. Why wouldn't you want to know the answers to these questions if you really care about our resources and how they are managed? The DNR works for us. Is it unfair for any of you to be asked questions about the work you have done or are doing from your employer? Wouldn't you expect to be asked by your employer from time to time about what you are doing or have done or results from your work? The answers to these questions can tell us a lot about our fishery. Whether the WMRP already knows the answers to some of these questions or not does not matter. What matters is that everyone knows the answers and gets the answers directly from the DNR. Without the DNR themselves answering or acknowledging these questions and concerns there will always be some doubt in some peoples minds about what the real answers are. If someone who does not have a biology degree reads a document written by a biologist and then passes that information on to others, they get slammed by some people because they are not a biologist themself and then the info is tossed aside as if it is not accurate or unreliable. We have seen this happen over and over for the past few months now. These questions are not intended to offend the DNR or take shots at them. They are intended to get the FACTS out to the public and straight from the horses mouth. Many issues and/or answers will continue to be unaccepted as reality by some folks until the DNR themselves provides the answers to the public. Making very vague and general statements such as "we use only wild fish" or "we do not use fish from outside the area" does not answer the questions and only begs more questions in my opinion. Everyone deserves the right to ask questions such as these and to get answers directly from those who work for us and are responsible for managing our resources. Again, this is not an attempt to slam the DNR. It is intended to get the facts out to the public and directly from the experts themselves. I would think that there are for more people out there that would like to see the DNR address and answer these questions and provide the data that supports thier answers rather than remain silent or beat around the bush when answering to the public or making statements to the public.
EJohnson | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Mr. Johnson,
Again I want to mention the tone of which you ask these questions and refer to the DNR. It shows up again in your latest post.
I quote you,
"Please remember that the DNR works for us, the citizens of WI. Their salaries are paid by us."
Law enforcement officers also work for us with salaries paid by the citizens. Try that rhetoric with them and see where it gets you. The people at the DNR will likely react the same when confronted with this attitude.
I don't think there is a person that has participated in any of this discussion that is not at least in partial agreement with your cause. I think the cause is noble. The path you are taking to get to the end result, however, needs some work. The current methods and attitudes, in fact, could be quite destructive to the end goal. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Norm,
That is a perfect response to the above post as far as I'm concerned. People are people and to have their integruity questioned is going to get the WMRP nowhere. I hope they change their tatics or it will be the big goose egg for all of us musky fisherman and women.
Thanks
Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJ
I would add that you are using this forum for the campaign the WMRT has begun with permission of the publisher. Sure, this is a busy place, but this isn't a State Agency or the DNR.
If one is not a biologist or scientist, and wants to present scientific documents for review and possible application to a scientist or biologist, that has to be done without the layman drawing and announcing as fact preconceived notions.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1438
| Thank you Norm....
| |
| | |
|
It's quite obvious to me that some people just don't GET IT!
Minnesota didn't waste alot of time with studies and red tape,they figured it out and fixed it Quickly! | |
| | |
Posts: 2754
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Wow- Now that the problems/percieved problems have been well posted in this forum and others. Why don't we let the WDNR biologist's do their job's? Everyone seems to forget that's exactly what Minnisota did, i.e., the muskie anglers expressed a desire for trophy fish, the MDNR biologist's looked at the problem and came up with a solution from a fisheries biology management perspective. The people of Minnestota let the biologists make the decisions!
Sure we know MN Leech Lake fish get big, however, I don't think it's right to dump them in every muskie lake /river in WI. Norm said it very well- thanks Norm. As for me I'm tired of seeing the WMRT trying to slam something up the WDNR's behind.
We cannot/should not ask the present day WDNR staff to accept full responsibility for the mistakes off the past. Should they care about what happened in the last 130 Years- sure. But that is background research to figure out why we are at the point we are at with our present day fisheries. I see the WMRT folks have done a very good job of finding some of the past error's. However, I liken this to a cancer patient dictating his own treatment to his doctor. "I know that smoking a pack a day gave me cancer. Now I want a prescription for these drugs" What's your doctor's response?
I also see positive signs that the present day WDNR staff recognize both our desire for trophy fishing oportunities and that there may be some very easy solutions to specific past problems. However, if I were a WI DNR fisheries biologist given the current climate/awareness of the issues, I would proceed with extreme caution. Why, because if I make a mistake, the holy'r-than-thou non-scientist's out here will try to crucify me.
So-Let's stop whipping on the folks at the WDNR.
To all of your relief- I've decided to stop posting on this subject and to proactively work with the local WDNR biologist and the WI Rapids Muskie club to help improve the local fisheries here on the WI River and surrounding area. I think you would be smart if you did the same for your own local fisheries.
Have fun!
Al
| |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Eric, I would not take offense to your tone if I was the one being asked the questions. To be honest with you, I don't think many in the DNR take offense to your questions either. I feel that many people have this fear that the hammer of God will come down if we question anything that is or or is of the DNR. Hawg wash. Though proffessionals in their fields, they still invite the likes of you and I to approve of the job they do, bring forth rule change ideas, and vote for change. But, there will always be some that feel it is a sin to question any policy brought forth by state agency, and you need not even address them here. I feel you guys have improved your tone in the past months, and are doing a good service to all Musky fishermen in WI, whether we agree with your base objective or not. Please contintue, for without your efforts thus far, we wouldn't have gotten the commitment from the DNR to get to work immediately on this situation. There is no doubt that the steps being taken right now would have been initiated, without a little prodding from a group like yours, no matter how radical it may be.
That said, I want to say how greatful I am to have a local biologist with the positive ideals and non stop work ethic to go along with it. I have gained a great working relationship with our biologist, and thankfully have the go ahead to take part in the study here on Petenwell. Scot likes to hear from us, and invites questions and change for better. He is very respected locally in the private sector, and by his peers as well. He also puts me in my place quite often, but asks that I continue to bring forth ideas, and invites the same from others, as long as proper research and planning adhere. Scot realizes that an opinion on management does not need to be predicated by a biology degree to hold water, hence his respect and approval for resolutions on higher size limits written by local groups like ours. Likewise, many of our local and state biologists read these pages and do not take offense to questions being asked by certain groups, and quite often invite these difficult questions.
I am not saying that I agree with everything that the restoration group proposes, but I am thankful for their commitment in getting answers to some pressing questions that many in the WI Musky community have had for some time. Though the tone is a bit overly pressing at times, it is this tone that is getting notice, and results as we speak. Questioning policy of our state agencies is a right each of us have. Before condemning the tone of the restoration group(in this particular thread), look through an issue or two of the Wisconsin Outdoor News, and peruse the editorial letters from other high profile special interest groups accross Wisconsin, addressing the DNR's policy, rules, and changes which the group does not agree with.
Finally, it would be of interest to those(like myself) still interested in making changes for higher size limits in WI to start lobbying the DNR for rule change questions to appear on ballot forms at spring hearings consistantly without you or I having to introduce a local resolution. The DNR has the power/obligation to at least help us get the ball rolling that far, and eliminate a few years in the process. It may take some tone raising, but lets hope for more than one Muskellunge size limit change(as was seen this spring) on the ballots next spring and the support from the DNR to go along with it. With the DNR stating they want to improve the Muskellunge size structure in WI in other means than a widespread introduction of another strain, why not begin with an effort to protect the fish we have in the trophy waters of our state to go along with their genetic studies. Couldn't a private indvidual introduce a resolution, which would allow local fisheries biologists to raise and lower size limits per their own recomendation and professional biology background? Thanks to Aldo Leopold, the citizen in WI has a voice as to the direction our resource management is headed. This can be good, but in many cases is a hinderance, as local managers are not allowed to manage as they should be. It couldn't hurt to give our local managers more free reign in their own jurisdictions, could it?
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/24/2005 9:05 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'But, there will always be some that feel it is a sin to question any policy brought forth by state agency, and you need not even address them here.'
Don't lump me in with THAT group and if you are, you'd be mistaken, for certain. I DO think it's fine to ask questions to individuals in the DNR, that happens all the time on MuskieFIRST. However, absolutely NO desired end results will ever be justified by unreasonable means here. Spade a spade, the line was crossed, and the usual response by the moderators here is immediate deletion. That didn't happen in this case because we felt the debate was too important.
OK, spade a spade again. I think that the folks from the WMRT, especially Bob amd EJ, are well motivated, passionate folks, who are legitimately concerned about the muskie fishery here. Here's where I fell off the track of support, and was compelled to call out instances of this PR tactic:
If one has an issue one wants rammed into action right or wrong and the 'opposing party' is not showing signs of doing what is demanded, the first thing one must do as an activist if there is not clear, actionable support for one's demands by the public is to degrade and diminish the opposing party's image, or otherwise alienate the public from the opposing party's statements and actions. In other words, create the image that the opposing party is the 'enemy', inflaming public anger and perhaps gaining the best kind of support folks acting in this manner can look for: LOUD and directed negativism. Innuendo, suggestion, and barely unsaid accusation is the weapon, and the internet a tremendously powerful delivery tool. That's not debate, that's not research, and that's not reasonable action, it's political activism, and can be called absolutely nothing more or less. If the instances of this have been a coincedence, then the coincedence was well orchestrated.
Read the posts by Dave on the genetics thread, this is a very highly respected biologist who was involved in direct management of Missouri's muskie program. He's worked in Wisconsin for several years, and exhibits a clear and refreshing understanding of the overall 'big picture'. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Read the responses to his posts, and his responses.
Mr. Sloss is a respected scientist, and the attempt by one poster to diminish his work and attack his motives is nothing more than political negative spin which I found to be almost beyond the pale.
Yes, this topic is being discussed by the fisheries folks all across the muskie range, and the reaction has been measured, to say the least.
I have been involved in seeking change with the DNR several times over the years (proposed law to ban certain sonars, controlled drift with a trolling motor, trolling laws in the north, the muzzle loader season for deer, etc), and have found that the best interests of the public and the folks working on both sides of any issue is served by mutual respect as a constant no matter the subject matter or perceived situation. I've been on the phone and in the offices asking questions, getting cooperation and reasonable answers, too. I agree, the people at the DNR don't mind questions and comments, in fact, as Reef Hawg said, questions and comments are welcomed.
The difference between an editorial page commentary in a newspaper or news magazine placed in the editorial section and blasting away here on the main message board is pretty dramatic, and I too feel most everyone is moving toward center as a result of the fallout. I sure hope so!!
Editorials are published as personal opinion, not the opinion of the media or anyone else; personal. I addressed this in another post on the 'questions' thread. The problem with this lengthy presentation right from the start since this last summer has been the attempt to associate one side of the debate as one representing the public interest 'for us all' and the other as 'against us all'.
I spoke with Frank Friday afternoon about the muskies and muskie management in the Fox Chain, (the biologist working with the release crews at the PWT in Antioch, IL this week). He's truly excited about working with the muskie fishery there, as has been every single biologist I've talked to in seven states now. Interesting stuff, the walleye anglers found the little muskies they haven't been able to pin down, in pretty good numbers, and in places no one thought to look. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | No Steve, I was not referring to you at all. I was referring in general to those on this particular thread that feel the questions posted were so abrasive as to alienate the DNR. Some of them may be rhetorical, but most are really great questions, that I feel will help the DNR as they study to get answers no matter their stance on the Miss. strain dilema. That is all I am saying. I was also referring to those that felt Erics post was of a sour tone, which I just reread and do not feel was out of place. I think he hit the nail on the head witout slamming. I agree that certain aspects of the Groups arguments in other threads, as well as those opposed, need taming, hence my abstenance from posting on other threads. I was referring to this thread only. I have said before that I appreciate you even allowing this debate to take place, considering its often caustic nature. You, as owner of the site, would not have to.
How about my last paragraph? Couldn't we use the C.C. as a venue to raise a question, allowing our managers more latitude?
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/24/2005 9:08 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg,
As you are aware, the last time a 50" size limit proposal was proposed and run through the Conservation Congress, it was supported by many of the fishery managers for waters in their management unit. There was an effort by a group of anglers wanting badly to see this implemented which was laudable, but the public voted it down. Here in Rhinelander, there was organized opposition from folks I know have the area's interest in mind. They won.
I was speaking with Dave Neuswanger last week about this issue, which is of great interest to me. Read this, and let me know what you think:
Wisconsin has managed much of our hunting and fishing resources for a very long time with what I'll call public 'fire control' methodology. Lakes are managed for what the DNR thinks the public wants, serving the best perceived public interest in the process. Of course, managing for what seems to be majority desire at the time causes some pretty interesting public debates, because what the public seems to want is usually dictated by the Conservation Congress meetings, lake associations, and other folks speaking out at the proper times and places. An example of this would be the heavy stocking of Perch by the Lake Association in Pelican, right on top of a couple unbelievably strong year classes, essentially creating a possible problem or at the least performing an action that wasn't necessary or in the best interest of the overall fishery, but that's what the Lake Association wanted, so that's what the Lake Association did. The reason for that stocking was the fishing for perch was tough for a couple years.
Dave said it well in our conversation, so I'll try to paraphrase some of the ideas we discussed. Let's take this in context with the WMRT efforts of late.
Dave says he'd like to see more goal oriented management. Fisheries management is always a delayed impact action, because of the delayed effect of stocking or deciding to not stock.
Let's take your example of the Petenwell. What ARE the long term goals for management on that water from the public who use it regularly, who live on or near that water, and who are fishing there? Is it to create a muskie fishery that allows good fishing for muskies in reasonable numbers and a reasonable chance at a trophy so as to draw muskie anglers there, or is it to manage for the opprtunity for a true monster and lower density, drawing the trophy hunters, is there resistance to any muskie stocking from the majority, minority, or any percentage of the above mentioned anglers and residents, what will be the impact of either of thsoe management strategies, and how will those strategies effect the management of the other species in that water, and public opinion as a result? Also, what will the various public factions out there THINK the effects will be, causing a possible fire control scenario a couple Springs later at a CC meeting?
Are the muskie anglers in the minority there? What are the OVERALL goals, long term, for that water? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? What do the people want there in a decade? Are the walleye anglers looking for management that will dovetail with what the panfish anglers want and what the Muskie anglers and the pike anglers and the ice fishermen want? Walleye stocking in big numbers effects bass, pike and muskie populations, heavy pressure on crappies effects the bluegill populations, etc. It's a cause/effect relationship that is constantly looking into a crystal ball trying to guess what the folks here in Wisconsin want.
Written surveys don't work well, because they don't get returned, and the questions can confuse or redirect. The Conservation Congress is more or less an exercise for the activist oriented sportsmen and women, and the meetings are largely ignored by the general angling public. If less that a few percent show up to voice opinions, and then mostly over a single issue or two that might not even be fishing oriented, what wll be the results when those same folks, say cat lovers/haters vote on a muskie stamp they know absolutey nothing about?
Reef Hawg, I feel your last paragraph hits close to the bulls eye. One very effective way for what you suggest to begin to become reality would be complete public and State support, in concert and full understanding of the future effects, for long term goal oriented management programs LIKE the raising of size limits and introduction of Mississippi strain muskies there.
If the fisheries manager for this district had a clear, unwavering goal oriented publically supported OVERALL plan for the individual waters in the management area and was therefore more able to execute long term management strategies, your last sentence would be more of a reality.
That would be cool.
Just my Sunday opinion.
 | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Sounds like the Lake association on Pelican wasted a bit of money. I have never been a fan of lake associations working on their own, in attempts at ‘fixing’ out of emotion, or outcry from property owners, or local fishermen. Far too often, I’ve seen a local lake association have a negative impact on a fishery that they thought they had the knowledge to manage. Often the Lake associations do a great service though, when working hand in hand with local fish managers, who can direct their efforts and $ to the proper cause.
Sworral: ‘What ARE the long term goals for management on that water from the public who use it regularly, who live on or near that water, and who are fishing there? Is it to create a muskie fishery that allows good fishing for muskies in reasonable numbers and a reasonable chance at a trophy so as to draw muskie anglers there, or is it to manage for the opprtunity for a true monster and lower density, drawing the trophy hunters’
Our club began stocking Petenwell flowage back in the early 1980’s. We typically stock around 300 fish per year into the 23,000 acre flowage. A local tournament also stocks the flowage, as well as some fingerlings, and fry from the DNR on a varying years based on availability. Without the numbers in front of me, I would estimate high and say the water gets 3,500 fingerlings, or 1 fish per 7 acres(.15 fish per acre) per year on average over the past 10 years(far fewer fish than what would be needed to create a destination coveted by Musky anglers). Please don't quote me on those numbers, as I am surely off by a margin. The goal of our club, as well as the DNR’s from the start has been to create a Musky population in fishable numbers, with hopes of a chance at a trophy. The population has not really responded as much as we wished, with marginal fishing opportunities at any given time of the season, save for the hot summer months when a few more fish are caught in certain areas where they are concentrated, making some think the population is in better shape than it rweally is. A good example of the health of the population is looking at records of the Petenwell challenge tournament, where 3-8 legal Muskies are caught for 60 contestant boats fishing 2 a two day event. The trophy opportunity has been less than stellar in Pete as well, where a shot at a 50”er has proven nearly impossible. There have been a couple undocumented reports of fish at or over the 50” mark, and none ever sampled in DNR studies. What we as resident anglers have seen, is a fast growing stocky fish(showing optimal forage opportunity), reaching 45-47”, then disappearing. This is perplexing for sure, with known forage levels of rough fish, and other species at a rate at or above even the great lakes themselves. There is also absolutely no known natural reproduction of Muskies in Petenwell(though we definately see them going through the motions). Much of this is due to constant fluctuations in water levels during the spring months. I feel that Petenwell could be both of the fishing opportunity types you mention above. There is no reason why a flowage of this size, with its forage base, could not support a very fishable population, as well as a good chance at a trophy. Work needs to be done, in order to do so. With state stocking cap. Levels where they are in regards to stocking, and limited funds coming from our club and local tournaments(we don’t make enough money to adequetly stock the flowage holding 2 brat frys and a boat raffle each year…LOL), we don’t see the flowage improving in numbers or size at our current pace. It has been at a near static low population level for the past decade, and catch rates of most Musky anglers show that it is still as tough to catch a musky from Pete as it was in 1995(last summer seemed even tougher…LOL).
That is why we(local anglers interviewed, along with our local fisheries experts) are so excited about the prospects of trying the Mississippi Strain in both Petenwell and Castle Rock(a similarily sparse populated system). One of the reasons that we are so excited about the study, is the prospect of the M.S. fish having a chance to reproduce in the flowage, taking some of the burden off of our club and the DNR in completely sustaining the fishery there on a put and take basis through stocking. A riverine strain known to spawn at later dates, and in deeper water, could prove(hopefully) to overcome the hurdle of the reservoir effect(lowering and raising levels due to spring flows and winter drawdowns). This, coupled with the prospect of a strain known to grow to trophy sizes, as opposed to the currently stocked Bone Lake fish that we raise in our ponds, is exciting for all involved. We would also like to raise some of the M.S. fish in ponds side by side with other ponds with Bone fish(fish that we are stocking in other local river stretches) to see which strain shows better survival in our rearing situation. This would only be possible if we are able to get fish from MN this year to raise for stocking in fall 2005.
Not to sound selfish, I would love to see the flowages start to produce fish in a size range encouraging locals to keep their boats in our home county on weekends, so we don’t have to travel long distances for an expected sighting or hookup with said fish. The results probably won’t be known for about a decade(first we have to get the fish to even stock), but it is the hope that drives us.
Sworral: ‘ how will those strategies effect the management of the other species in that water, and public opinion as a result? Also, what will the various public factions out there THINK the effects will be, causing a possible fire control scenario a couple Springs later at a CC meeting?’
Right now, I don’t see any change in how other species are managed in the near term, or long term. The walleye population is probably at its’ highest(fish per acre) that it has ever been on the flowage, though this is due to a severe downshift in size structure over the past couple decades. This has been due to angler harvest, and hopefully slot limits in place will help this situation.
Sworral: ‘Are the muskie anglers in the minority there?’
Definitely. The walleye and general multi species anglers outnumber the Musky anglers by quite a large margin.
Sworral: ‘What are the OVERALL goals, long term, for that water? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? What do the people want there in a decade?’
Again, I am just one person, and cannot answer for our fisheries managers or other anglers. I would like to see an upturn in size structure in the flowage, which the increased size limits going into effect should give us over time. This size limit increase has been well received by locals, indicating a general attitude inviting protection of the species, giving better opportunities for fish of all sizes. I hope people here realize that higher size limits will give everyone a better chance at catching ‘a’ Musky, not just a trophy. Hopefully some of the other locals will chime in on this topic(Handyman, Musky Maniac, T. Forcier, Erik Hanson Lambeau, etc) and give their opinions to the above questions.
Our local biologist made the decision to conduct this study, per his professional opinion of there being a potentially positive outcome. The main thing to remember is, stocking Muskies that are known to have the potential to grow big will be done in the near future in addition to the fish we get from the WI hatchery in Spooner(we will continue to raise them as well), that are also some healthy quick growing critters. That encourages me.
Sworral:'If the fisheries manager for this district had a clear, unwavering goal oriented publically supported OVERALL plan for the individual waters in the management area and was therefore more able to execute long term management strategies, your last sentence would be more of a reality.'
I agree. However, public approval has been the thorn in the DNR's side on many fishery issues. In my opinion, a local biologist should be given more latitude in decision making than currently available. Should public support be of concern? Of course. However, the public in general just does not have access to population, size structure, and overall management modeling at their fingertips as the local manager does on any given day. These guys should be allowed to manage. Right now, they are not. If the managers in the northern counties had their way, and did not have to answer to a public vote(where special interests often prevail as you stated), many of the size limits that we push for today would already be in place. Public input is good, though should not be the deciding factor as to how our resources are managed. Well trained, highly accredited biologists are hired to do so, and should. example: Our local biologist would like to see a 40" size limit on Pike on certain local waters in need of protection. He wanted me to bring it up as a resolution along with the Musky size limit a couple years ago. I chose not to. Too much work for me in addition to the Musky res. I do feel though, that it is something that he should be able to immediately impose without you or I telling him he can or cannot, knowing how strongly he feels for it as a professional biologist. He has conducted the Pike studies, and has the data to prove his theories.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/24/2005 4:00 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg,
Thanks, sir, that's what I was trying to get to. Much of our management philosophies are directed to what the people seem to want in the here and now and dictated by those people to an extent because of our CC system and the influence and additional micro management by Lake Associations. Long term expressed goal management would be, in the future, a great path to try treading upon in this old fart's opinion.
Also, there is VERY much said in your first paragraph. | |
| | |
| Reef Hawg - Great posts. Every bit of it.
For the folks who like to question the tone of the WMRT - we want desperately to work with the DNR. Do they want to work with us?
One question above asked how many meetings the WMRT had with the DNR. We had two sitdown meetings with folks from Madison, one in Madison and one in the state capitol, and one in Stevens point. Beyond that we have had several other sitdowns with area biologists and at the hatchery.
When we met with the DNR, we offered fiinancial and public backing of making some changes. We had plenty of "honey". We were essentially told "thanks - but we are the biologists, you don't understand how complex it is". That is what created "the tone." It takes two sides to work together on this. Some say you catch more bees with honey, others say the squeaky wheel get's the grease. We've tried it both ways - what did we get? More Bone Lake fish for everyone in 2005!!!!! Some say we need to wait, - We've been waiting since 1982. That's the year Minnesota and Wisconsin's DNR got the first genetic study. Minnesota moved immediately, while we start another study in 2006.
I'm very excited about the Petenwel project, but I still want to see some evidence of the DNR providing real support for change statewide. Ten year studies on a few lakes means I will see no real change in NW Wisconsin until 25 years from now.
Steve, you keep talking about all your efforts, and I applaud and appreciate those efforts more people should get involved as you do. Maybe I should ask more questions before I say this but - I don't think your efforts have done one bit of good in bringing change. If anything they have just caused more problems in encouraging the DNR to take things slow. Your position on the WMRP "tone" has simply hindered progress (IMHO) but yes you are entitled to your position, and I do respect your interest, knowledge and tenacity.
Until this past winter I have supported the DNR on nearly everything they have ever done. You'll find me squarely in support of them again as soon as they start doing things differently. They don't have to stock Mississippi strain muskies in every lake in the state.
But not stocking any Miss strain this year and not creating a single brood lake this year in which to start future management programs is offensive to me because it sets the whole program back one year. One year may not be important to the WDNR, but it is important to the fisherman and businesses of this state. One brood lake would have been progress, that's not much to ask. Muskie clubs would buy the eggs, and raise the fish. It would have cost the WDNR nothing. If there is some blockbuster genetic discovery that Mr. Sloss finds, we simply would not have stocked again.
Is doing nothing working together?
Folks - how we've been trying to bring change the last 20 years has simply not worked - it's just not been successful. We need to have new ideas and we need everyone involved. It's a great point about having only one 50 inch size limit proposal per year. Maybe we need to have 711 separate 50 inch proposals,(one for each lake) every year. Keeping the CC going to 5am will wear down the people who don't support it.
We can't keep doing nothing if we want change.
For all of the critics out there who can do it better - GO DO IT!
Bob Benson
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Steve, you keep talking about all your efforts, and I applaud and appreciate those efforts more people should get involved as you do. Maybe I should ask more questions before I say this but - I don't think your efforts have done one bit of good in bringing change. If anything they have just caused more problems in encouraging the DNR to take things slow. Your position on the WMRP "tone" has simply hindered progress (IMHO) but yes you are entitled to your position, and I do respect your interest, knowledge and tenacity.'
I could say the same about the WMRT. And the question remains, is the WMRT correct, or not? I could DEMAND publically, in a huge nasty published statement that before ANYTHING changes, that whether the WMRT IS correct in their assumptions is setteled in a solid, scientifically provable manner, by SCIENTISTS; not a couple well intentioned anglers. I didn't, not to you, or to the Scientists. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I do, however, have lots of questions. That might be pesky, but that's the way it is.
I am reasonably sure the DNR doesn't currently feel inspired to immediately change the Wisconsin management program based on anything the WMRT has come up with, at least not on the face of things. The 'good science' requirement remains. Several highly respected scientists from across the muskie range have read this and other threads across the WWW, and called this entire affair 'bar room biology' or it's equivelant.
Tell me Bob, why should anyone ( DNR, the public, anyone...) respond to anything your group has to say any more than what any other interested party might believe? Just because? Is Larry Ramsell more qualified to postulate about the science than I, Mike Roberts, or anyone else? NO. I submit he is not. I am sure that those who actually HAVE dedicated their entire working lives to the study and aplication of fisheries biology might feel the same way. I for one would not want a layman, no matter how well intentioned or well read he or she might be, developing new treatments and medications for disease, managing the deer herds in Wisconsin, or managing the Muskie program in Wisconsin, either. That remains the responsibility, not to be taken lightly, of the biologists and scientists in place now.
I can read muskie research, experiments, and other papers and documents too, and have since the 70's, everything I can. I have a couple years biology under my belt, enough to just make me dangerous, so I ask the experts from all over North America who have DEGREES when I come across a question, and read as much source literature as I can find. I am aware of the complexities of the situation, and one strong difference between WMRT and I is I'm willing to accept the answers from area fisheries folks and the Madison DNR at face value given the situation and the position and statements of qualified folks across the Muskie range, and WMRT prefers to offer an opinion that there is some grand conspiracy under way because many of those same folks disagree with the WMRT platform AS PRESENTED TO DATE. Perhaps one might look at that, and move forward from one's actual position, not a desired position in which one wishes to be.
If you are asking me or anyone else to stop questioning because someone in the DNR will somehow take questions as a reason to stonewall (that makes absolutely no sense), perish the thought. If you are asking me or anyone else to stop speaking to scientists and biologists from across North America because you think it will discourage action to get the facts properly presented, perish that thought as well.
The WMRT didn't get their desired cooperation from the scientists, and you wish to place at least partial blame at my door? Sheesh.
MuskieFIRST has voluntarily provided a forum and pinned the subject matter to the very top of that forum so the debate can be presented by all and for all our user base. This forum will provide opinions from all sides of the issue, or it would cease to be debate.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I was talking to my Dad about these issues the other night and the Indian spearing issue came up, as we where discussing this I had a thought.
One thing about the Mississippi River Musky that is different than the other strain is that it spawns in deeper water. If I remember correctly it’s in 3 to 5 meters that’s about 9 to 16 feet, one extra benefit of the spawning nature of the MR musky would be, it would be nearly impossible to spear these fish while they are spawning.
Now I would guess they could still be winter speared, and speared if they followed baitfish up shallow during the walleye spawn, but would the deep water spawning nature of the MR musky protect it from the spring spear? If that is the case it should be easier to limit harvest of these big girls.
Any comments on this.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| MRoberts
I ponted this out at one time in the last few months on one of the threads on one of the message boards as well. It does make sense. However, if the lake does not have the right type of lake bottom in deeper water that these fish prefer to use when spawning, they can and have used the more "traditional" spawning locations. This was pointed out to us by the MDNR. In some of thier brood lakes they need to put nets out in the "traditional" spawning locations to capture the big females during spawning because some of these lakes do not have the right bottom make up in the deeper water that they would normally prefer to use. The biggest advantage of these fish spawning in the deeper water is that it increases the chances of survival in lakes with a pike population. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJ,
Do you think any of the flowages or lakes in western Wisconsin have the right kind of bottom composition in the deeper water? That would be an added benefit, since a fair amount of the harvest isn't actually targeting muskies in the Spring, they just show themselves and are harvested as a result. 6' would be a tough depth to see anything in some lakes, but not in all. | |
| | |
| Steve,
I am sure that there are some waters with the type of bottm composition in deeper water they prefer. What bodies of waters those are I am not sure of. But yes, it would be much harder to spear a fish you can't see or that is too deep. Makes sense to me.
EJohnson | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | What is the proper bottom composition?
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
| Steve (Worrall), you continue to serve your fishing friends and Wisconsin's musky fishery as a poser of legitimate questions and a respectful voice of reason in this debate. Because I respect your approach, I feel obliged to respond to YOU and to those who will give you their ear. Lately, I have been busy trying to find a way to implement several worthwhile fishery management projects proposed by my biologists for next fiscal year (7/1/05 - 6/30/06) but not approved due to insufficient funds. So I have not had time to follow the message boards or address questions about the muskellunge genetics issue. Until this week, most other DNR fish folks in northern Wisconsin have been working overtime in the field to assess walleye and muskellunge population density and size structure throughout the Ceded Territory. Last night I browsed this and other threads, and I saw frustration expressed by WMRT members and supporters over the low level of WDNR response to their repeated questions and demands. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but there are three reasons for my relative silence of late.
First, I have many other responsibilities. I serve ALL people who fish in my 6-county Upper Chippewa Basin in northern Wisconsin. A statewide survey was conducted a couple years ago by a UW-Stevens Point graduate student working under Dr. Michael Hansen. When Wisconsin anglers were asked what species they would pursue if they could fish for only one species or a group of similar species, 31% said panfish (bluegill, crappie, and perch combined), 26% said walleye, 16% said bass (smallmouth and largemouth combined), 12% said trout (all species combined), and approximately 5% said muskellunge. Panfishing enthusiasts do not have an organized voice, yet they clearly are the most numerous and probably the most under-served relative to their numbers. Just look at where we have been spending our time the last 4-6 weeks -- assessing walleye and muskellunge populations. In my opinion, we have a largely untapped potential to create and sustain outstanding panfishing throughout northern Wisconsin. I believe this would do more to satisfy our stakeholders and aid a struggling tourism industry than anything else we could do. But we are not going to make progress serving panfish anglers and the businesses who depend upon them if we spend all our public outreach time responding to the information needs and action demands of one relatively small, persistent group of musky anglers.
Maybe this "squeaky wheel" tactic works in some places with some people. Not with me. I'm looking at those survey results and realizing who is paying most of my salary. I plan to maintain a balanced fishery management program where muskellunge probably get a bit more than 5% of my attention, simply because I am stationed in the heart of musky country and I have a personal interest in muskellunge that is steeped in family tradition. (My grandfather fished for muskies near Eagle River until two weeks before he died of lung cancer.) But I would be less than professional to allow such personal bias to override my sense of responsibility toward the majority of people I serve. So to answer Eric Johnson's question in this thread regarding who the DNR serves: It's you, Eric, and 19 other anglers who are NOT particularly passionate about trophy musky fishing. In fact, some of them don't like our muskies at all, and I spend some of my time trying to convince those folks that muskies have a valuable role in our ecosystems and can be legitimate components of our recreational fisheries. Please keep that in mind when you wonder why your public servants in the DNR do not maintain a frequent dialogue on issues important only to trophy musky hunters. We are not able to do it for anyone else, either. I wish we had more people and time to do it, but we don't.
If Wisconsin anglers want to help with the workforce issue, they might consider talking to our legislators about sponsoring a statewide referendum to establish an earmarked sales tax like Missouri’s 1/8 of 1% conservation sales tax. Since 1976, that source of revenue has produced 60% of the operating funds for my former agency -- the Missouri Department of Conservation. The Missouri State Legislature cannot touch that money, so many of them resent it. But they cannot override the will of the people of Missouri who passed the initiative by a majority vote. If we had such a significant and stable source of conservation funding in Wisconsin, we could do a lot more for everyone here, including keeping our fishing friends better informed. And everyone who benefits from the fruits of our efforts would be paying for it, not just license-buying hunters and anglers. The bottom line always is, you get what you pay for.
Second, fishery professionals are like everyone else. We prefer to interact and work with people who treat us with respect. Anyone who has heard or read some of the negative comments made by WMRT members and supporters knows that DNR biologists, supervisors, and program leaders have not been extended that basic courtesy on a consistent basis. Many contributors to this thread have made that observation independently, and I appreciate their sentiment. Folks, as student many years ago, I took courses in biology, chemistry, and statistics that prepared me for the position I hold today. My colleagues did the same. We are trained to develop and critique experiments from a biological and statistical standpoint, and to evaluate the probability that study conclusions are valid. Because of this training, professional biologists interpret data and reports through a different filter than avid anglers who have not shared our training. If this sounds pompous and arrogant to some, I humbly apologize. Please know that even I feel woefully inadequate to address some of the genetic questions being posed in this debate. But I know enough to ask good questions of experts in the field of genetics, and I am able to develop reasonable opinions based upon their counsel. As Confucious said, “To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know… THAT is true knowledge.” What I perceive from WMRT members and their strong supporters is an almost complete disregard for what we do NOT know. Despite their diligent and even useful assembly of historical information, they frequently misinterpret and place undue faith in select studies that do not begin to answer all the important questions, and they fail to acknowledge the risks associated with acting upon faulty assumptions and hasty conclusions. Even more distressing is their apparent disinterest in learning what we have now, genetically, so that we can determine where to go from here.
Friends, please do not ask me to elaborate on the faulty assumptions, misinterpretations, and hasty conclusions of the WMRT. I have neither the time nor the expertise to deliver an online course in fish population genetics, and I certainly do not have time to engage in what would surely be an unproductive online debate.
Back to my response… Imagine if I were to direct my doctor which of several possible procedures to use for my heart bypass surgery, because I had been reading the Journal of the American Medical Association lately. Or imagine if I were to tell my lawyer who to select for my jury, because I had been reading the Harvard Law Review lately. How would those professionals respond? With incredulity? With resentment? Would they keep working for me? I think it wiser that I tell my doctor I want to live, and my lawyer that I want to live freely, and then trust them to make it happen.
All we are asking is a similar level of respect. In exchange, we are more than willing to solicit the realistic dreams of our stakeholders and incorporate them into our fishery management goals and objectives. You want more trophy musky fishing opportunity in some waters? Great! If enough stakeholders support such a goal on a water-specific basis, and it is compatible with ecosystem capabilities and other objectives for that water, we will try our best to make it happen. But please don't tell us HOW to go about it.
To those in this thread who have advocated reform in the rule-making process, BLESS you. Please let your opinions be heard by your Conservation Congress representatives and your legislators. We could do a LOT more for muskies and other fisheries if we did not have a two-year process involving a statewide vote of largely uninformed people in order to implement simple harvest regulation changes on individual waters. Let's put public input where it belongs, into the development of goals and objectives for individual waters, not into dictating strategies to achieve objectives that do not exist. Hold me and your other DNR servants accountable for soliciting and incorporating that input in a sincere manner, but then support efforts to remove the obstructions that prevent us from acting in an efficient, timely manner.
The third reason I have been relatively silent on this issue lately is that the WMRT chose quickly to take this issue to the office of the Secretary of the Wisconsin DNR. The WMRT wanted action NOW, and they were prepared to wield any perceived influence to make it happen against the better judgment of seasoned fishery professionals. Call it enthusiasm. Call it dedication. Call it mean-spirited expediency or dirty politics. However you view it, and whatever you call it, it did not work.
WDNR is not going to make the giant leap necessary to conclude at this time that our muskellunge broodstock sources are compromised. But we are proposing to inventory our genetic stocks and examine our hatchery propagation and stocking systems based upon our growing understanding of muskellunge genetics. We can learn a lot in just two years and be fully prepared to make changes, if necessary, in four. But “more study” clearly is not acceptable to Mr. Ramsell, who has told me numerous times while sitting in my office that “It’s the fish, stupid.” (In fairness, I don’t think he was calling me stupid, personally, but I still resent the implication that some of my colleagues might be viewed that way.)
Failing to exert his will at the highest levels, Mr. Ramsell is now working locally, not with the DNR, but against us. While we have been busy surveying walleye and muskellunge populations, he has been busy persuading the Hayward Visitor’s and Convention Bureau to sign a letter demanding that DNR cease stocking muskellunge in all lakes in Sawyer County, and that we not proceed with a planned transfer of several hundred muskies from Butternut Lake (1 adult musky per acre) to Lac Courte Oreilles (<0.2 adult per acre) next year, even under the condition that those fish pass health screening and genetic compatibility tests. He has convinced his fellow Hayward Lakes Chapter members of Muskies, Inc. to withdraw their offer of financial support for genetic testing, despite the fact that our plans to better understand and to improve the musky fishery at Lac Courte Oreilles are in direct response to the vocal concerns of many of those members. I will be visiting with all those good folks to explain another side of the story in the near future. In the meantime, is it any wonder that we are not eagerly addressing the continual barrage of WMRT questions and demands?
Fortunately, there are many good folks to work with both inside and outside the Muskies, Inc. organization. We’ll get through this folks. Steve, thanks for the forum and the opportunity to explain why DNR folks (me, anyway) are not responding frequently to these questions and challenges. Due to time constraints, this will be my last posting for awhile, but I’ll peek in now and then to keep my finger on the pulse. Take care.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | A brief "other side of the story."
First let me state that I do have a GREAT respect for Dave Neuswanger's knowledge and dedication, and know for a fact that his plate is filled to the ceiling. Those things have never been questioned. I'm glad I'm not in his shoes! Two things I do have a problem with Dave is, first he is fairly new to Wisconsin, and due to his tremendous work load and learning curve, quite simply did not and does not have the time to catch up with over 100 years of Wisconsin Muskellunge management. He has told me that "we" need to trust them (DNR) to do what is right. In most cases I truly agree. In this case I do not. The UNINTENTIONAL errors over that 100 years has, to NO ONE'S fault directly in the DNR, has created a situation that needs work. While I frustratingly understand their desire not to "plunge ahead" based on what we have learned blindly, we also see no reason to continue to do business as usual.
I have not been working "against Dave & Co." in a mean spirited way. I have been speaking to those groups that have had a sincere concern, especially in the tourism arena, AT THEIR INVITATION! They obviously haven't liked what they have learned about our tremendous loss of tourism dollars conservatively estimated at well over a half-million dollars last year alone, with only continued and additional loss in the immediate future because of what is happening in Minnesota. That isn't "peanuts" to the business folks here who rely heavily on tourism for their income, including myself. That these folks "get it" and would like something done about it and are by nature political animals, that is the way they react. Simple fact.
I thought Dave's response in total, his anger with me notwithstanding, was well stated. I still have the right to disagree with some of his statements and comments, but will not delve into them here as it would be meaningless without his participation. When the opportunity presents itself, I am sure Dave and I will be discussing this in the foreseeable future, even though I am aware that he isn't too keen on giving me anymore of his time. But we are neighbors, so we'll see.
On a much more positive note, I am pleased to say that Tim Simonson, DNR Point Man in all of this and Co-Chair of the State Musky Committee contacted me today saying that he would like to work with us folks (WMRT) as much as possible, and that our energy and enthusiasm is outstanding. In addition, he allowed that the more we can understand each other the better, and that it is unproductive for all involved to keep going back and forth on these issues. He related that he would like us to find some common ground we can work together on and agree to disagree on the other issues.
I told him that his comments were very much appreciated and is exactly what we have wanted from the start, and feel that we have a lot to contribute. We are confident in our knowledge of the information, and we would welcome the opportunity to work on the issues we disagree on. Facts can be persuasive, and we freely admit that we can change positions when based on fact. We would hope that the reverse can also be true. While we don't have Mr. Neuswanger's "filter," we do know that some "facts" that have been ignored to date won't change with filtering.
I indicated again to Mr. Simonson that we have maintained from the very start that we weren't pointing the finger at ANYONE within the DNR for inadvertent happenings of the past. We do however expect the current regime of "decision makers" to act upon things learned that are factual and investigate those they are unsure of. Movement is being made in those directions in some respects and not in others. I told Tim we were very appreciative of his offer of working together toward a better understanding on both sides of the issues and were eager to begin anew. We are working on plans to share a musky boat in the very near future to begin that process, and we sincerely hope that similar feelings will be forthcoming from the other members of the State Musky Committee and all other DNR personal, including my friend Dave.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Thanks for the post, and the stats on the number of Muskie anglers by percentage. Perspective is an important tool in understanding any issue. I also appreciate the mention of the need to develop goal oriented public input, that subject's a pet peeve of mine.
I will somehow control my almost violent urge to answer the post following, probably by simply turning off my computer.  | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I really liked what I read in Dave’s post and I believe Larry’s posts, does show PROGRESS.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | To anyone associated with the WMRT. Can your proposed plan be implemented under the DNR's current budget. If not, have any ballpark figures been given as to how much money and time will be required to completely overhaul the states muskie program and start stocking Leech strain fish? Right now, and for the forseeable future, Wisconsin doesn't have and won't have much disposable income. And even if the budget does balance out, the DNR is always last in line for cash handouts. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Great posts Dave AND Larry. Please keep us informed as to current progress. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, I noticed a similarity between a post from you about our small lake/big fish and those mentioned by Steve S. Interestingly, there are even parallels between the big hybrid opportunities in Minnesota metro and here in Vilas, witnessed by Tony Grant's success on Kentuck and a couple other waters.
Lets ask a question. Why do stocked fish, or for that matter naturally occuring fish, in one lake grow to trophy size, and fewer or none grow to that size in another? For discussion sake, lets compare two systems that access the Pelican. One is gated, the other probably not well enough to prevent movement of muskies from the river to the lake or the other way around. Both are dark water, both are relatively shallow. Stocking in one ended in 1989, with 400 fish from Woodruff. The other was stocked every few years up to 2002.
I have caught and released two Moens fish that were 48 in the last three seasons, and have not seen a 50. I bet they are there, they certainly were, but not in numbers, I wager. There is natural reproduction there, I catch little muskies. The stocking in the 70's and 80's was considerable. I have spoken to many other anglers there, and darn few report ANY 48" fish at all, so I was lucky. What's up with that? I think it's harvest, pressure, and angler related release mortality, but that is just a guess.
George is putting out some really nice fish. There are several year classes of mid 40" to lower 50" fish there, I have caught reasonable numbers from each class the last few years. There is also a representative number of smaller to low 40" class fish, also represented by stocking data. Before stocking, this was a pretty poor muskie lake, with poor numbers and few nice fish. There were a few hybrids there, though, and there still are. The biggest I know of was 53" and 36#.
So why in one lake are there big, most certainly stocked fish, and in the other, very few at all? And both waters draining into the same system just a couple miles apart, very similar lake types, etc?
Now let's look at Thompson. Another similar lake, a stones throw from George. A pretty nice lake. There are big fish there, but not in numbers, and very few fish we would consider trophy class. As far as I can tell, the same stocking in general, all the way back to the record on hand. Muskie stocking there was halted in 1984. A 48" fish is big, and 50" very rare.
Three lakes, three levels of stocking from limited to a BUNCH, and three levels of big fish success. Why is it that some small lakes kick out big fish and some do not?
And what's up with Spider, a great action lake. My son caught a 46 there last year, and another good one in that class the year before, match fishing, in fact. That's a HUGE fish in Spider.
Big water, let's look at that. In Oneida County, a big lake is 3600, Pelican, for example. This is a lake that has had what I consider intensive management for 30 years. I started fishing it hard two years after the early stocking record. It was affectionally known as the Dead Sea. I DID catch big fish there, an average of one a year in my boat 49 to over 50 and a couple over 45". That was guiding part time, but at least every weekend. Then came the stocking, and I watched those fish grow, catching multiple year classes and tagging a fair number with wire tags, and for a couple years, MI tags. By 1984, my clients and I were catching a dozen a year in the 48" class, and averaged 1 in the 49 to 50" class. In 1984, I had an 11 day period with two over 50" ( one caught by a client) and 7 over 45". One weekend in 2003 I had 5 over 40". None over 50, but what a weekend, and all those fish looked like they were poured out of a mold, obviously from the same year class. They were all brightly barred fish, which is a mark of the stocked fish in Pelican. In 2003 I fished Pelican less than 20 days.
Off hand, I know of two over 50 from Pelican last year, I'm sure there were more.
So why do the muskies in Pelican get big, even the stocked fish?
BUT! Why are they not 58"? Well, they never were from what I can find, at least not any that I can prove out. The longest fish I can find that was for certain from Pelican is 54.5. There is rumor of one in the mid to upper 50's that was speared, but that as I said before was an Enterprise fish according to Garner Ball who was there when the fish was speared way back before I was fishing. So I would not say that many fish here in my local waters have ever reached 56" or more, at least if they did, they were not caught much.
How about the Wisconsin River here in the area and the Boom flowage? I know of plenty of fish from 48" to 55", but not many over that. Sabota's 40# fish and my Pelican 40# and 39# the same years (and nearly the same days) back in the late 70's were considered to be true pigs and raised quite a stir, so was there ever numbers of 57 or 58" fish swimming in Boom Lake? Stocking there was undertaken in the early 90's, and those fish are now coming to age in the 48" class and corresponding year classes by my experience. Keep in mind, out of 400 stocked in ONE YEAR one might only expect 140 or so alive, and at 6 years less than half that and at ten dramatically less, so stocking 400 a year for a few years will not result in fish swimming up the line in the intense desire to be netted and removed from the crowded conditions. The flowage has been improving, IMHO, in numbers and overall quality due to CPR and perhaps stocking, and the big fish are still there. But why not 50# fish? Why not 55# fish? IMHO, those are VERY rare fish here. Only a very few have ever been caught in this watershed, all the way north and south, east and west over the course of history, yet there was one in the Vilas County Muskie Marathon released last year:
Pete Olson
Boulder Junction, WI
09/21/04
55 ½"
Manitowish Lake on a Top Raider (Bucher) Bait
Greg Bohn caught a 56" not too awful long ago, and that was one heck of a big fish for here.
So, since we are not eligible for Leech Lake fish here in Vilas and Oneida, Lincoln and Langlade, Marathon and surrounding counties because that strain has never been native here, what does this all mean? Are we to be content with our fish hitting 40# to 45# and that's it? Well, that was good enough for most for the last 100 years, and fish in that class were killed, and I mean fast, up until recent years. If we want more trophy opportunity IMHO we need to pass the 50" limit on trophy waters. Soon.
Another thing to remember, much of the past in muskie history was lore, story, and subject to a severe exaggeration factor when big Muskies were the subject. One cannot apply that to New York, Michigan, and Ontario as a historical fact but insist that never happened in Wisconsin. It did. Is that a horrible thing? No, it was the way it was, and things change.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I wont disagree that stocked fish can and do grow big. And I will state again that I think we are in a better situation in this part of the state than in the West. I think the reason is that the hatchery over here has not been taking eggs from one single source for the last 20+ years.
I have a theory on George (I can’t believe we are discussing this here, but I think it is important, I hope I don’t get beat up)
In 1987 there was 2700 fish stocked into 400 acre Lake George, is it possible that these big fish that are showing up are a result of a very large year class of stocked fish.
What I was planning to do once things settled down and I thought I could get some info from the hatchery is request the data on the fish the eggs were taken from in 1987. It would be interesting to see if there where any eggs taken from a big girl that year.
Is this data that is available? If so you may have an in to get it.
I won’t completely discount the genetics issue because I believe with all the stocking they do, every once and awhile they do strip eggs from a cow. It would stand to reason those fish have a better chance of growing into cows themselves. Plus they get one cow and they need less eggs from small girls. If big fish are available in the stripping process big fish can be stocked.
As I have said numerous times I don’t think our lakes are completely polluted with small growing fish.
I don’t know if you buy the 2 strain theory, at this point I do. I also think it is possible that our big fish may be this larger growing strain and they just look a little different and maybe don’t reach the 50# class as often, or maybe there is just less of them overall as pointed out by Jlong. I would be happy with more 40 and 45 pounders.
But, lets say it’s not a two strain issue, but larger fish do take longer to ripen their eggs. I would be worried about stripping practices that mainly target small fish in colder water. These are the kinds of things that really should be looked into. And I don’t think this type of stuff would really cost any more.
The crews pulling the nets doing research work continually pull 50”+ fish out of many different lakes. But they aren’t the crew stripping eggs. Maybe the two crews should talk and try to get a few large fish from different lakes into the Gene Pool.
Lots of different rambling here, and I need to get some sleep to get rid of this cold so I can be fishing at Midnight tomorrow night.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, at this point I don't buy any theory that there are two 'strains' here in this area. I haven't seen any real evidence that it's necessary to strip a big fish that's 17 years old to get the same growth attributes, etc. from a 'strain' of muskies. A 41" female or a 35" female that has the same genes as a 49" female (same lake, same time, same hatchery, same brood stock, etc) should pass on pretty much the same potential to get to trophy class given the same male, everything else equal, and given that it's not all that easy to get only really big fish, probably not all that practical. That's my next telephone conversation with the fisheries folks, I guess, to get their opinion.
Far as I can find out so far, the fish in '87 were Woodruff and taken from the same lakes they are taken from today, but I'll keep checking to confirm. I mentioned that there are several year classes doing VERY well, so it's not just the '87 stocking, IMHO. I talked to a couple of the area DNR folks to see if they do this early, cold water, little fish stripping thing. According to what I've found out, it isn't that way at all. Every single year, the fish stripped are diverse, not just small, not just large, but a combination. They are stripped when they are spawning or very very ready to spawn, and viable females are stripped.
Good luck on the water tomorrow!! | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | One more post, then I think I will leave this issue alone at least for the weekend.
I agree that IF a 35” fish is stripped there MIGHT be the big fish genes consistent with its parents IF its parents had big fish potential.
However there is NO DOUBT that eggs from a 50+ inch fish HAVE the potential to grow to that same size, not guarantied, but potential.
When big humans breed there is a better chance that there offspring will be big, again not guarantied. If you want a big dog, your best bet is to breed two big dogs, and so on and so on. I don’t see why it would be any different for fish.
All I am saying is that IF there is a POTENTIAL genetics issue and things can be done at relatively no increase in cost. Then why not do it or look into doing it. There are lakes in the area that they could net big fish from almost every year. Because when they sample them now for research they get big fish almost every time.
From the evidence I see natural selection favors big fish. Why, because look at egg production. Big fish can produce as much as 8 times the number of eggs, (from the DNR numbers of 22,000 to 180,000eggs per adult fish). I don’t know how many fish are stripped to get the eggs the DNR uses at the hatchery, but I think this should be taken into consideration if a natural stocking gene pool is the goal. Eggs should not be taken from only small fish. If that 33.5” average number is correct for eggs taken for the Spooner hatchery that really seems like it needs to be addressed.
Don’t you think an average size should be more in the lower to mid 40s with specimens both small and big? To me that just makes more sense. If cost makes doing this an issue then this is were we should try and raise some private funds or help share the work.
Along with this we need to continue working on higher size limits.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think we are confusing young/smaller and old/larger with young/smaller MEANS small genetics and OLD/larger MEANS large genetics. If the genetics are there, a younger fish will still be carrying them. That is a point that has been made by the fisheries folks a few times, but it always gets lost in the 'Big Spider' debate. A prize mare, for example, when she is 3 has the same genetics as when she is 9. Just a point! | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | If Tim Simonson is really offerring to work with the WMRT, he is a bigger man than most.
Mr. Simonson has my utmost respect. I hope this is a sign that everybody can start working together on these issues.
Good luck to all going out tommorrow morning for the southern Wisconsin opener. | |
| | |
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I know that Caleps fish farm has had some fish in the 50-54" range for their brooders over the years in their ponds. Couldn't the DNR do something similar?
Olsons big fish wasn't caught out of Manitowish Lake, though it was from a lake associated with the chain. Wasn't Bohns from Plum?
Good points Bytor.
Edited by Reef Hawg 5/6/2005 2:23 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | We want young/larger and old/huge, not old/smaller. Steve you and the Fisheries folks are exactly right the young/small fish MAY be carrying big fish genes. The problem with a fish in the field is you don’t know if it is a 15 year old 35 incher or a 4 year old 35 incher. One you may want to use as breed stock one you many not. If you have a 52 incher you don’t know if it is a 10 year old 52 incher or a 20 year old 52 incher, but you know it grew to 52 inches.
Say eggs are taken from 4 35 inchers some carrying big genes some not, all young have the same chance to survive genes are passed on equally. Say eggs are taken from 3 35 inchers and one 52 incher. Using the DNR average numbers the 35 inchers combined produce 66,000 eggs, the 52 incher produces 180,000 eggs. Which fish passes on the most genes to survival?
There has to be natural genetic variability even in the same species of fish, just like in humans some grow only to be 5’ tall some grow to be 7’. The difference is a 7’ woman doesn’t produce 8 times the eggs as a 5’ woman. They don’t need to for the species to survive. The number of eggs a musky can produce is based on it’s size not it’s age, more eggs with those genes means more young survive each year. Nature has dictated that it is better for the species to have more big fish than small fish other wise egg production would be a function of age not size.
Again I admit there is no guarantee that those eggs grow into bigger fish, the odds are just a lot better they do.
Purely speculation on my part, but makes sense to me.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 1938
Location: Black Creek, WI | I agree with MRoberts and am glad to see him finally using his geniousness to think like the mathmatician/engineer that he is... rather than an armchair biologist.
Trying to break the DNA code and identify the superior "gene" is a very very very very long term vision and why I have avoided the entire GENETIC discussion. I feel it is a NOBLE effort... but I also feel thinking in more simple terms (less assumptions, considering probability, and using good common sense) will get us good results faster. Will they be the BEST results? Probably not... but I'd rather see SOME results in my lifetime. I'll let my boys enjoy the "superior gene" bonanza once I"m dead and gone.
Thus, I'm gonna be selfish and just continue to focus on how to work with what we got right now. I want to catch a Wisconsin 40 pounder in 2005..... not 2025!
jlong | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guys,
It is unaminous from every source I contacted, the idea of selective breeding using only large fish from the brood lake /lakes or any source is considered very unwise, even if you use several large fish. It is possible that the big fish selected might forward a trait toward larger growth, while sacrificing successful reproduction, might genetically favor growth while not properly defending against disease; you get the picture. Using a few females and a few males (which would certainly provide enough material) could negatively effect the future populations in ways we have not even considered. Obtaining material from a cross section of the brood population is best, from what I understand.
I oversimplify tremendously. I don't think you will find many scientists working in the field of esocid genetics that would support the idea because of the entire genetic diversity argument.
Here's a discussion on genetic diversity:
http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m12158/latest/
And another:
http://genetics.nbii.gov/GeneticDiversity.html
'Say eggs are taken from 4 35 inchers some carrying big genes some not, all young have the same chance to survive genes are passed on equally. Say eggs are taken from 3 35 inchers and one 52 incher. Using the DNR average numbers the 35 inchers combined produce 66,000 eggs, the 52 incher produces 180,000 eggs. Which fish passes on the most genes to survival? '
The answer to that question isn't necessarily in the number of eggs produced, it's in the traits passed on for survival in that ecosystem by both parents. The 4- 35" fish may pass on better survival characteristics allowing the future muskies there to grow older without disease, and reach trophy size for example, or for that matter, vice versa, we just don't know. Hence the diversity argument. Also, when considering many of the populations of muskies across the range, it isn't necessarlily always the younger, faster growing fish that are desirable, it may be slower growth fish reaching older age that create the next world record. If I remember the details correctly, some of the Ontario big fish were old indeed, including some of the pigs on the Goon.
What I'm saying again is I feel there is no easy, simple, just -do -it fix to the Wisconsin Muskie 'Question'. I still firmly believe that the problems we have here in our fishery are more related to mortality provided by angling pressure, spearing, and single hook sucker fishing, perhaps overstocking in some instances on some waters, the age of the overall stocked population and the dynamics one might assign to the generational influences. In individual cases, unique systemic anomolies, not widespread 'small strain', will determine future management plans from the DNR. I feel that the management plans for reaching our trophy Muskie potential need to be implemented for trophy muskie waters carefully, selectively, and with publically acceptable long term goal oriented management. Raising the size limits on waters that will support that is key. Reducing delayed mortality from sucker rigs is key. Adjusting goals and expectations for the inevitable spearing harvest is key. There's more, lots more, and most of it has already been covered here. My point is this isn't politics, it's science. This is, IMHO, a process---not an event.
Another link to a wealth of information:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/pubs/Esocid_bibliog.pdf
| |
| | |
| Extremely well said, Steve. You are living proof that an intelligent person not trained specifically in fishery biology or genetics can still grasp the important concepts with accuracy. You have demonstrated that a willingness to consult with, ask tough questions of, and truly listen to subject experts can produce a level of understanding that may generate public support for sound policy. Because we in DNR do not have time to do it all, I greatly appreciate and laud your efforts to understand and clearly communicate these complex issues on your web forum. Thanks for your dedication to musky conservation. | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| I am going to respectfully disagree with the idea that taking eggs from only big fish may produce weaker fish. It totally contradicts the basic laws of nature. Only the strongest survive in the wild and nature shows no favoritism; they would not get big being weak or disease prone. A big fish has a proven record of survival and growth. I would think it to be only advantagous to tap into that proven track record when possible. Sure you can get strong small fish but why?
I will agree that the rate of harvest be it by spear or angler has really hampered the state of Wisconsin. I think some patience should be shown, the Pastika's catalog has some very nice pictures from the year of 2004, Hayward area fish. We may be on the verge of what people want. The benifits of catch and release may just be showing its rewards. I find it a shame that the pollution of Musky Bay on LCO isn't stopped. Probably won't be anymore pictures of 60" plus fish coming from the body of water.
| |
| | |
| Guys we are talking alot about things the MN DNr and the WMRT have already agreed upon. The question is really why is the WDR continuing to stock slow growing muskies in lakes that have little or no natural reproduction in the first place. It simply doesn't make any sense.
Can a musky stocked in WI get as big as a Leech lake strain fish? Absolutely? But, facts say it won't because it will have to live for 30 years instead of the 10-15 years it takes a Leech Lake strain to get to and above the 50" mark. The Nancy lake study tells the whole story.
The WI DNR is like the alcoholic who refuses to believe he has a problem because he still gets to work on time and hasn't gotten fired yet! | |
| | |
| I have read a lot about comparing lake size on these posts. I have read about forage type. I have read about catch and release. I have read about spearing, and on and on and on.
Why don't we just stock some more musky lakes in WI with the Leech strain and see what happens.
What is the WI DNR afraid of? The Leech Strain isn't going to result in smaller muskies.
I have also read Worrall saying this is a process not an event. Give me a break!!! The event startegy put the MN fishery light years ahead of the WI fishery and counting.
The whole lake by lake by lake management startegy is never going to happen in these tight economic times so let's stop discussing it.
STOCK LEECH LAKE STRAIN MUSKIES AND HOLD ON TO YOUR ROD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Many of the big fish are removed from our systems by harvest. (Often used argument that our genetics are fine it’s the harvest)
Most of the small fish are left in our systems because of catch and release. (Often used argument on why some lakes appear stunted)
Therefore lakes that do have natural reproduction get the same genetic diversity that our current stocking practices produce. Many eggs from small to medium sized fish and a few eggs from big fish.
What do you know in Wisconsin we have many adult fish in the small to medium sized range and few big fish.
“If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got!” D.P.
Here’s an idea in the stocking process don’t take eggs from only big fish or only small fish, take eggs from fish in the same percentages as they would end up in a lake in naturaly. See if it makes a difference, it really is a cheap experiment.
For one reason or another nature has dictated that it’s a good thing for big fish to have more eggs than a small fish. Having eggs harvested from females with an average size of 33 ½ inches (if that is correct) doesn’t seem very genetically diverse to me.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 1938
Location: Black Creek, WI | Here is an idea. How about all you guys seeking superior genetics in Wisconsin take a look a the Great Lakes Spotted Program that is gaining some major momentum. Just look at the numbers of fish recently stocked in the Winnebago and Green Bay Systems. The Wisconsin DNR is currently doing what you ask (stocking superior genetics).... just not quite in YOUR desired location.
Perhaps we should be debating whether the Great Lakes Spotted is superior to the Leech Lake Strain???
Perhaps the pressure this massive system will recieve in the next few years will REDUCE the pressure currently experienced in northern WI... and maybe... just maybe... we will see what impact "pressure" has had in the northwoods? Oh yeah... and perhaps you guys forgot about those giant pigs from the Bay... that were the "regular" flavor of genetics from the "early" stockings? Just goes to show that the "diluted" genetics concept may not quite hold as much water as you all would like to believe... and the lack of pressure, massive forage base, and infinite locations to hide (increased survival?) had something to do with it?
This post isn't long enough... so I thought I'd stir the pot a little to get things going (heh heh).
jlong | |
| | |
| Jlong give me a break. Fish from the Bay are getting huge because the system is huge. I would expect you to realize that Leech Strain get huge in, for example, the Minneapolis Metro regardless of the size of the system or the pressure applied or the forage present. Frankly, your arguement is weak at best. Again, look at the studies. | |
| | |
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | DJS
Actually JLong's argument is right on target. If the fish genetically does not have the right "stuff" to get big they won't, even if they are in a ocean of cisco. But they DID get BIG in an unpressured system with a bunch of forage.
If this is the case it is not genetics we need to look at but something else entirely. | |
| | |
Posts: 8
| jlong, I suggest that all visitors to this site visit or re-vist the WMRP site at wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org.Realize that the WMRP is a small group of Wis. musky fishermen working against great odds to improve all our "trophy" opportunities here at home.Reference to the Great Lakes strain is covered on the homepage along with the Missisippi River strain.This should NOT be a Wis. vs Minn. issue-it IS a Wisconsin issue.It(Leech) is not an imported Minn. fish,it is as close to the original Wis(Mississippi River) fish as we are likely to find today.We need to stop stocking the "hatchery" fish that has evolved over the past 70 years.The Mississippi River and Great Lakes strains are the fish of choice-grow fast and reach giant size.Let's all work together to get this done!Also,we might all go back and re-read Mr.Neuswanger's long post.I did several times and got more angry each time.There is a job to do! Thanks! John | |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | What strain of fish are the fish in Georgian Bay, the Ottawa, and north of the border in Ontario waters such as LOTWs, Lac Seul, Eagle, etc. etc.? | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | JBENSON,
This also isn't an angler against the DNR issue, and it will not be sold that way by the WMRT here. It IS a discussion of selective interpretation of data and layman based determination of the facts VS that of working scientists, and there's where you hit the wall. Tremendous odds? That's overblown politics. The court of public opinion is very fickle, sir, if I were you I'd use great caution not to try to try this case there before all the facts are presented. If you are wrong, and Mr. Sloss's work and other efforts undeway will tell us that, I would rather find that out BEFORE radical, unpredictable, and possibly damaging changes are implemented.
I ask you, how do you know the Leech Lake fish are genetically closest to original Wisconsin stocks? This strain has been listed as 'pure' by the WMRT, what information difinitively lists this as a pure strain?
DJS,
Genetic propensity to grow large will NOT mean that fish will be successful in every system it is stocked into. Nor will that strain necessarily remain as it was introduced if there is breeding interaction between the strain already in place and the introduced fish, in fact the results could be disastrous. The place to stock Leech Lake fish is EXACTLY where they ARE being introduced for the very reasons listed in posts from DNR folks here.
There are numerous small lakes here in Wisconsin producing fish up to the low to mid 50" class RIGHT NOW. I know of one angler here onsite who has several over 50" in the last two seasons from very(and I mean VERY) small waters in Vilas and Oneida, from stocked waters. So give ME a break, the fish here are obviously capable of reaching trophy size and no matter how much one wishes that little pesky detail wouldn't come up, the facts are the facts. And I repeat, even the WMRT clearly states we should not stock Leech fish in the Great Lakes basin, so the waters Mike and I have discussed wouldn't be eligible anyway. Bay of Green Bay and Winnebago were stocked with fish from Lake St. Claire.
I would ask anyone who wishes to make this a simple, black an white issue call the area fisheries folks and ask questions, lots of questions. The answers may not be what you wish to hear, but certainly are supported by the scientific community across the range of the Muskie. Someone PLEASE tell me why I should discount the opinion of fisheries biologists, scientists, and genetics experts regarding the Muskie population in Wisconsin and the WMRT platform? Because a group of anglers says so? I don't think that ALL the WMRT ideas should be dismissed out of hand, but I also have not been able to find any scientific support for the suggested course of action they present. A request to the WMRT; get a panel of genetics experts and a panel of working fisheries biologists together who support your platform. Have them publish what they feel should be done, sign on to your platform, and lets see the scientists discuss this pro/con.
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Steve,
I have a question and its this. Does the Wmrt say anywhere on this thread how they think we should pay for the changes they are demanding the WDNR to implement?
Thanks
Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hunter4,
No. They insist this is easy, cheap, and simple. I am currently looking in to some efforts they may have influenced on the financial front regarding Mr. Sloss's work and other genetic study work including the proposed trnasfer of Butternut fish into LCO.
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Steve,
I've posted this before and I'm not trying to kiss your fanny, but I wish people like yourself were the ones working with the WDNR rather than (well you know who I'm talking about). While there are some very pressing questions we need to present to the DNR. I feel very strongly that these folks deserve our respect and paitents. You sir, have demostrated the kind of tact that the WMRT should have shown from the being. Thanks for your hard work and dedication Steve. Please continue to keep us informed and aware of any changes or advancements.
Thanks
Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 8
| Mr.Worrell Sir;Apparently somewhere in my post I gave the impression that I encouraged an"angler against the DNR"issue.My APPOLOGY!!!!All I meant to say was that the WMRP website did mention inclusion of the Great Lakes strain as a good choice for consideration by the DNR.This was in confirmation to a suggestion in the post by jlong.I certainly hope also that I did not encourage a "website against the WMRP" issue. I do believe also,sir,that the upcoming 2 year study to be conducted by Dr. Sloss was a result of earlier meetings between the WDNR and WMRP team.I am sure you will correct me on this if you know more.I have many good friends with the WDNR and consider it an outstanding organization!Also,I am not a WMRP,er.Obviously you made that assumption by my name.A friend and believer-yes.Please,when you state that I am "selling" a WMRP issue "against the DNR"on your website(here) I do not believe that issue exists.Hopefully the DNR and all fishermen will continue to work together on all issues.Thank you, John Benson
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
No, I made the assumptions from the content of your post. It's pretty easy to misunderstand a person's intent in written form; your post wasn't diffucult to misinterpret. Thank you for clarifying your position.
Please, everyone, remember, the DNR was a couple years into a comprehensive rethinking and study of the Muskie fishery here before the WMRT was formed.
Something you should know. Mr. Neuswanger's statements about the resource are widely supported by the scientific community. Becoming angry because one finds the educated answer to one's position indicates one is misguided or incorrect is not constructive, and follows the direction by platform of the WMRT to date. Also, please keep in mind the WMRT has not handled the PR very well with the folks from the DNR at times, causing some reaction, as one might expect. I am aware of at least two instances where the WMRT has at least been an influence to stifle further study, and at least one where the influence they exerted was possibly detrimental to the very thing they so loudly support, Wisconsin Tourism. I'm sorry, but the ends do NOT justify the means in this case, too few are even confident what that end might be.
Do I support looking into and asking questions about the current management? Yes. Do I support the WMRT in that work, reasonably presented? Yes. Do I respect the dedication and hard work? Yes.
If the study as it's completed ( I have great faith it will be) indicates they are to a degree correct, which everyone admits could be possible to a much smaller degree than one is led to believe by the WMRT's position and published documents, that's great; if they are proven wrong to a degree, which from what I've seen is far more likely, it will be much easier to communicate about the points they score along the way from a position of moderation. My point is, and will always be, that proof is paramount to any management changes BEFORE they are blindly implemented under the direction, order, or even threats of three well intentioned anglers. | |
| | |
Posts: 8
| Thanks Steve Could you elaborate on the current re-thinking and study that the DNR is now involved in? I was not aware of it.I believe all would be interested.Also,are you aware of any points in the future Dr.Sloss study in addition to determining genetic specifics? John | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Briefly, yes. The DNR began a study a few years back anticipated to continue with changes made as they are needed for about a total of ten years. As a result, many lakes have been placed on the do not stock list, in others stocking will continue, boom shock, creel, and fyke netting studies are underway, and new population estimate work is also underway. This work also will help us move toward a larger limit through our convoluted Wisconsin process on waters where trophy potential is strong, and natural reproduction is satisfactory. Lakes that are determined to be overpopulated will receive special attention, and those in need of stronger data will be carefully examined. That's a portion, will update later. | |
| | |
Posts: 8
| Steve-On an earlier post you asked me how I knew the Leech Lake strain fish was the nearest to the "original" Wisconsin fish.Probably should not have been said by me-as much as I love this musky info stuff and would love to know-does anybody?How many "original" Wis.fish were there? Anyhow,this goes back several years to the Minn. Musky show.A Minnesota DNR booth person explained to a small group of us that after their(Minn.)study in which they chose the best fish for their purposes they decided to use fish from Leech Lake as that was a natural muskie lake and had no stocking of fish either from Shopak Lake or Wisconsin strain.I believe- but am not certain of course- that only fish from Leech were put into their brood stock lakes hopefully keeping the strain pure.Help me here if you know more and again-I am certainly NOT! a spokesperson for the WMRP team and this is not info from them.Also,I should have said western Wisconson as both (w/Leech)share the same drainage.I don't believe there are any pure strain Wis. fish. Thanks , John P.S. WMRP team site=wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think anyone has proven any purity of strain in the Leech Lake fish as of yet, at least I haven't seen where that strain is any more 'pure' than those in Oneida County. Yes, the MN DNR used the fish they thought best suited for their waters. Our DNR is doing exactly the same thing, plus introducing Lake St. Claire fish into some waters, and allowing Leech strain in others. You said to many unanswered questions, ask them, OK?
"To nasty?"---- No idea what you mean here.
What's the problem? Ask the biologists and geneticists. All I have spoken with disagree with many of the assumptions made on the WMRT website, and do not support the wholesale actions recommended. What is this, an advertising campaign? These folks have taken liberty with the data selectively and without sufficient regard to repeated cautions by the scientific community. When questioned by the folks who actually have a lifetime study and a few degrees about the conclusions they have drawn, and the weaknesses of those conclusions are pointed out, the response so far has been less than what should be expected from a group claiming to have all the answers. The WRMT uses the data assembled by some of the best scientific minds in the field past and present selectively to try and influence management to their liking, and then ignores critical commentary and corrections by the very folks one might choose for a peer review panel for any current work. I asked you to call the folks that manage our muskies here in Wisconsin and ask them the questions you raise here. Did you do that?
Please define a 'pure' strain. As I understand it, no strain either in Canada or the US, has been definitively designated as 'pure' from the original Muskies that were in our waters after the ice age. Would not 'native' be a better term? I think that has been a point of confusion so far. What is the difference between the purity of the Shoepac fish and the Leech Lake fish? What was the mechanism that was causal to the adaptation the Shoepac fish exhibit, and the unique adaptation the Leech Lake fish exhibit? Are the Leech Lake fish the same fish genetically as those further down the drainage? Are the Lake St. Claire muskies the same genetically as the fish in Pelican that reach 54"? How about the stocked fish in Lake George that reach 52" in what anyone would consider a reasonable timeframe? What strain are those? How about the big fish in the stocked small lakes across the North Central area, what strain are those? What fish should we stock in Pelican? What strain is IN Pelican, and why do all the fish, stocked and naturally reproducing, exhibit similar and acceptable trophy growth potential, up to the mid 50" class? Should we stock ANY in Pelican? It's currently on the do not stock list. Why? Why is the same strain of fish growing very large in one lake in Oneida County, and not another, of nearly the same acreage? If a strain of muskie indicates by test data and creel, harvest and CPR to be capable of reaching trophy size easily in a system, should we toss that strain, stop all stocking of that strain, and replace it? Why would ANYONE resist the use of tremendous advances in the genetics field of study over the last few years that would potentially answer these questions difinitively? Answer Slamr's questions, and tell me what strian is in many Ontario waters, tell me what fish are in the Ottawa and Georgian Bay, what strain? What is the dynamic that describes the current state of the fishery in many MN waters, RE: the relatively 'new' population of muskies reaching maximum potential, and what has happened in fisheries that have initially matured under intense fishing pressure like that which is certain to occur on some MN waters? What are the long term effects on a population of fish in this circumstance? Ask those questions, study them, use Google, call your area biologist, call those who are considered to be the best in the field, and THEN post there are to many unanswered questions. By doing so, you make my point exactly.
Waves on the water make the wind blow, you know.
Let's ask a panel of scientists supporting the WMRT platform to debate those who advise caution, instead of a bunch of amatures like us bandying back and forth. Let's ask the WMRT to stop dabbling in influence peddling and perhaps underhanded politics, and address this issue as it should be addressed. Let's look at each person's history(expert AND WRMT personnel), what they believed about Muskie management, biology, and genetics and why, when and what they had to say as a historical and actual record..
| |
| | |
Posts: 8
| Hi Steve-nice post!Hey-I am a slow 1-finger typist and just when I complete a reply-I lose it! Hate to ask you this but...what's my problem?Steve-this may not be silly;but I think it is!Is that OK!My last post respectfully answered a question from you and you jumped all over me-why? This will absolutely be my last post and only to again try to answer your questions to me.You do have my e-mail if you choose.Telephone too;or Ill buy lunch.Pure!Guess I should have said "un-mixed".I do have a strong engineering background(retired)-but obvious to you,only an interest in fisheries.I am a little suprised your experts support continued mixing of stocks throughout the state-do they feel that is no problem?Do they support moving 100 adult fish from Butternut to the LCO fishery?Is it important to know the size of these 100 fish?Steve-this is an honest question-not a challenge-or may I NEVER catch another muskie!Please don't jump all over me again.Would it be possible to have one of these folks come on and explain this issue?I do-of course-know the WMRP team and support the goals to have more trophy muskies in our state.The WMRP is/has only asked for the state to re-visit it's own stocking program and consider the successes seen in several other states.I am very optimistic this will happen soon.Once again- Thanks, John --- Sorry-did not answer your "nasty" quesion.Please refer back to my last post and this is my opinion only:I felt that they knew that unless they stirred the pot a bit something they felt strongly about was being dismissed by "politics".They had very strong support from too many people(some experts) to just give up.Much support came from within the DNR.Again Steve,this is my opinion only-Ido feel it is absolutely true. Thanks | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't 'jump all over' you, I answered your post with my opinions (strong as they are, and influenced in tone by recent developments) and information I have gathered. I was asking you about the 'too nasty' remark, no idea what you mean there. As to the Butternut fish, they would be tested genetically first to assure compatability and fin clipped or tagged for identification later as part of an ongoing assessemnt of LCO. I spoke with the fisheries folks over there about this project just a few days ago. The genetic testing and some of the LCO survey work WAS going to be financially supported by an group over there, but because of lobbying by some folks, that support has reportedly been recinded. Too bad, I hope there is an opportunity to reconsider. Perhaps I can help there, I sure intend to do what I can as well as support the work Mr. Sloss has planned.
The questions I posted to you were intended to encourage you to carefully examine all the information before drawing any conclusions. As a retired engineer, I am sure you would find it a bit unsetteling if someone who has absolutely no educational background and no professional working experience in your field of expertise was to gather a group of three and demand that all engineering on a critical, long term project be halted, a complete mind set change implemented, and a new set of plans implemented because they want it so, based on thier interpretation of engineering stats and documents from projects throughout history. If, sir, that was the scenario, and you, as a working expert saw weaknesses in that proposal, observed flaws in the logic and in the application of data; would you point them out?
Please sir, look at this logically. The DNR fisheries folks are not dismissing the WMRT out of hand, they are being legitimately critical of some of the conclusions the WMRT has drawn based not on politics, but on science. As I have repeatedly said, some of the points made by the WMRT are well taken by everyone. Some are not. There NEEDS to be dabate on this issue so ALL the facts may be aired, and I appreciate your doing so. The absolutely obvious attempt to 'ramrod' the issue has failed to date, so now reasonable debate should be the next move. I hope it is.
There will be several documents posted here in the next few weeks as I continue to gather information about current activity from everyone concerned.
As far as losing the reply, I would say it's either your computer ot your internet connection, is Airstream a dial-up? I'd like to help you with this issue if I can.
| |
| | |
| Steve, thanks for answering Mr. Benson's question about the Butternut Lake - LCO transfer proposal. As usual, you have interpreted and explained that situation accurately. Allow me to elaborate just a bit for the benefit of Mr. Benson and other readers of your forum.
Shortly after I arrived in Hayward in August 2002 to supervise fishery management in the 6-county Upper Chippewa Basin, Sawyer County biologist Frank Pratt and I met with several prominent members of the musky fishing community, including guys like Pete Maina, Bruce Shumway, and Mike Persson (President of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc.). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss concerns about the perceived dramatic decline in musky density at 5,000-acre Lac Courte Oreilles. It was and still is a perplexing situation, because 7 DNR musky population estimates over a 30-year period have resulted in the conclusion that adult musky density has changed very little over time, averaging about 0.2 per acre (1 adult fish in every 5 acres). This is a bit on the low side of average, but not bad. However, these musky fishing experts -- some virtual legends -- were telling us that they simply are not catching or even SEEING muskies like they once encountered at LCO. They have tried to adjust their fishing tactics on the chance that these muskies have started behaving differently under high fishing pressure, but nothing seemed to work. These top-of-the-line anglers were frustrated that we (DNR) seemed unaware of the perceived decline.
Now any biologist worth his salt knows that fish population estimates can be wrong if certain statistical assumptions about the distribution of marked and unmarked fish are violated. The bigger the lake, the greater the risk that such assumptions may be violated. LCO is a pretty big lake for purposes of estimating fish density. We had to admit that something could be wrong with our musky population estimates there. The steady 0.2 per acre estimate might simply be an artifact of some systematic bias in our methods. Alternatively, our estimates could be correct, and the fish have simply changed their distribution and behavior patterns so dramatically that even excellent anglers are not encountering them. Bottom line is, we did not know.
What do you do when you don't know? You seek to understand. The first thing we needed was some documented evidence that musky fishing quality was as poor as our experts had claimed. Frank and I worked with Mike Persson and Art Malin from the local chapter of Muskies, Inc. to develop a volunteer angler diary form that would allow Hayward area anglers to record their fishing effort for, encounters with, and catches of muskellunge in various waters. We hired a young Northland College graduate to create a nifty relational database that would allow us to store the data and summarize the results. With Mike's and Art's assistance in rounding up local cooperators, these volunteers logged almost 1,000 hours fishing for muskies at Lac Courte Oreilles in 2004. Their reported catch rate was abysmally low. On average, it took over 90 hours for these cooperators to catch a musky at LCO in 2004. That got our attention, considering that the average lake in Wisconsin produces one musky every 25 hours of directed fishing effort.
This spring the Hayward DNR fish team of Frank Pratt, Russ Warwick, and Joe Drabek have been braving the unseasonably cool weather to make a special effort to capture muskies at LCO for purposes of genetic stock characterization. Last week, they captured only 5 fish in 40 overnight fyke-net sets! Fyke-net capture rates are not reliable indexes of musky density. But when the capture rates are extremely low or extremely high, it tells us something. Our capture rates were extremely low last week. And we perceive that northern pike have become increasingly abundant due to improved conditions for survival of their young in a weedy, nutrient-enriched Musky Bay.
At this point, we cannot be absolutely certain that musky density has plummeted at Lac Courte Oreilles. But all the arrows are pointing in that direction. Enter our conditional proposal to transfer over-abundant muskellunge from 1,000-acre Butternut Lake in Price County to Lac Courte Oreilles. Butternut has 1.0 adult musky per acre -- enough to adversely affect their condition and growth rate compared with years when there were fewer muskies there. We also have concerns about the effects of high musky density on other members of the fish community at Butternut. So we asked ourselves, why not transfer 500 28- to 38-inch muskies from Butternut to LCO if they are free of disease and can pass genetic compatibility tests? Why not mark all these fish in the proposed year of transfer (spring 2006), then follow up with a fyke-netting survey at LCO in spring 2007 in order to examine the recapture ratio of marked fish and obtain a good population estimate? With that many marked fish in the lake, the population estimate should be excellent, answering definitively our question about musky density at LCO. It might also improve musky fishing in the short term to instantly add 0.1 fish per acre at LCO. Transferred muskies might just start eating what we perceive to be over-abundant northern pike there, too. I should reiterate that all this is conditional on testing the Butternut fish for disease (a 20-fish sample already taken this spring), and then trying to capture enough muskies in Butternut (48 so far) and LCO (5 so far) to test for genetic compatibility in Dr. Brian Sloss' lab using microsatellite DNA analysis. We would like to compare the DNA of 50 fish from each lake before making any decisions. If our sample size at LCO is too small, or if results show that Butternut and LCO muskies differ too much in genetic composition, I personally will not allow the project to proceed.
Enter the WMRT. When he got wind of this proposal, Larry Ramsell informed me that we (DNR) would NOT be implementing this project, period. I was shocked by his arrogance, and I have been unable to understand his thought process. Apparently he feared that we would be endangering the genetic stock of muskies at LCO, which he has been claiming for months is already ruined. (Incidentally, that is HIGHLY unlikely.) And apparently he has no interest in learning whether state-of-the-art testing will reveal genetic similarity or divergence between the two populations in question. Apparently he is willing to simply assume, without testing, that LCO fish are ruined and that adding Butternut Lake fish will make matters even worse. Something tells me he would be delighted to see us stock Leech Lake strain fish, which clearly are of a different stock and pose a real risk of outbreeding depression. Again, his thought process eludes me.
Ordinarily I would not be too concerned with the rather contradictory concerns of one angler working against his fellows in the community who wish to better understand and improve a musky fishery. But in this case, Mr. Ramsell has had time to wage a misinformation campaign that has resulted in several local entities writing letters to DNR to urge us not to transfer muskies from Butternut Lake to LCO. To our local friends and supporters in the musky fishing community, I urge you not to worry. I will be providing accurate information about this proposal in the coming months, and I expect to obtain a large measure of support before all the chips fall. It may turn out to be a lot of "to do" about nothing if I personally determine that the Butternut and LCO stocks are genetically incompatible. But I will appreciate everyone's patience and support in helping us to understand and solve this interesting problem.
Dave
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Neuswanger,
Thanks for the update, sir. As an aside, I met with an Arkansas Game and Fish fisheries biologist this week on Bull Shoals during the In Fisherman Professional Walleye trail event there. He's wishing they had more muskies in the state. They have now captured hybrids that are 38" from a recent program in some waters, and have hopes of an expanding program. The walleye fishery is indeed impressive, it took nearly 50 pounds to win, three day 5 fish limit. Only one problem for this Yankee, it was 90 DEGREES down there in the afternoon. I near melted covering the event. Interesting links:
http://walleye.outdoorsfirst.com/leaderboard/llb.asp?t=390
http://walleye.outdoorsfirst.com/
By the way John, I can't type either, I was fishing and hunting during High School typing back in about 1968 instead of practicing. One of my greatest regrets. I'll take you up on that lunch, but I'll buy this one; expect an email soon! | |
| | |
| Dave,
I have a few questions for you. If you get the time someday to post answers here that would be appreciated.
There has been 4,900,430 Mississippi strain walleye fry and 4,308 Mississippi strain walleye fingerlings stocked into LCO between 2002 & 2003. There has also been Mississippi strain walleyes recently stocked into many other NW WI muskie waters.
Why is it ok to stock the Mississippi strain walleyes into LCO but not Mississippi strain muskies? Other than the species of fish, whats the difference?
Same questions as above in regards to the other muskie waters that the Mississippi strain walleyes are being stocked into?
Why did the DNR start recently stocking the Mississippi strain walleyes into many NW WI waters in the first place?
Thanks in advance. | |
| | |
| Dave,
When Frank Pratt and yourself met with these prominent musky anglers from Hayward about the decline of fish in LCO,was their mention of the severe tribal spearing taking place in Musky Bay through the ice just before and during that time?
Were these studies of Butternut strain vs LCO strain fish transplant plans before or after the WMRP Report?
| |
| | |
| Good question, Eric.
First, there is no genetically distinct and well-defined "Mississippi strain" walleye to my knowledge. Biologists and propagationists may use that term to distinguish fish originating in our large Mississippi River basin from, say, those in the Lake Superior or Hudson Bay drainage basins. But most walleyes in the Midwest, and to some extent nationwide, have a diverse genome based upon decades of indiscriminate mixing. Even more than muskellunge, walleyes have been moved from basin to basin and state to state in such an unregulated way for so long that there may be very few stocks left that have remained reproductively isolated from other stocks to the extent that they may still possess coadapted gene complexes that confer upon them maximum fitness in their waters of origin. Over time, the potentially adverse effects of such unregulated mixing might be reversable. That's why biologists all over the country are starting to be more careful not to introduce fish originating from widely differing environments into important walleye waters where the potential exists for coadaptation to resume in existing stocks. Over a period of centuries, walleye stocks in Lake Superior (and its tributaries up to the first barrier), Lake Michigan (and its tribs...) and other major systems, if not perpetually bombarded with genes from other locations, may actually develop unique genetic characteristics that confer improved "fitness" upon those populations -- characteristics that may make them better able to reproduce, grow, and survive to reproduce themselves.
One thing we must realize is that walleye did not exist in most lakes in NW Wisconsin before we humans decided to spread them around. They clearly existed in the major river basins, but it's only in the last century or so that we introduced walleyes into lakes where muskellunge and bass had somehow become established naturally without our help. Therefore, it could be argued that there are few, if any, coadapted gene complexes among walleye in those lakes where they were introduced by man. But to be honest, we don't know exactly how long it takes for coadaptation to occur, because the phenomenon can occur in a couple different ways. We usually think of coadapted gene complexes arising as a result of selective environmental pressures (extrinsic factors). Presumably these take time to exert their influence -- hundreds or even thousands of years. But they also can arise as a result of the complex processes that occur when spawning fish exchange genetic material to make new little fish (intrinsic factors). This process could, by sheer luck, result in improved fitness for a particular group of offspring almost overnight. If those offspring out-survive and out-reproduce their cohorts who did not get the lucky combination of genes, a coadapted gene complex may form and be perpetuated.
I guess the bottom line is this... Walleyes can be viewed somewhat differently than muskellunge, depending upon the water of course, because most of our isolated inland lakes did not have walleyes to begin with. Does this mean we carelessly stock walleyes from, say, Lake of the Woods into Lac Courte Oreilles? No. But any walleyes originating from anywhere in northern Wisconsin outside the Great Lakes system should be just fine based upon what we know today. I may eat my words in 20 years, but that's science and I will welcome improved understanding as it develops. The IDEAL situation would be to allow nature to take its course in our better walleye waters where natural reproduction is usually sufficient, possibly resulting in the formation of coadapted gene complexes in those waters over the next 100 to 1,000 years. But preventing short-term crashes in walleye density via stocking may be more important to Wisconsin anglers than allowing the fitness advantages of coadaptation to run its natural, long-term course. I predict this will make for healthy debate for some time to come.
You also asked about Mississippi strain muskies. I know the terminology can be and has been confusing, but we all need to realize that fish from Leech Lake, Minnesota are just that -- fish from Leech Lake, Minnesota. Some folks seem to believe that just because these fish arose within the huge watershed boundary of the Mississippi River that they are characteristic of all muskies in the basin. Not true. These fish may have had time to develop their own coadapted gene complex in Leech Lake. Some of the early genetic studies suggest they are different, and the work proposed by Dr. Brian Sloss should greatly advance our understanding of just how different they are from, say, the muskellunge native to Lac Courte Oreilles.
I hope I have answered these politely posed questions to your satisfaction, Eric. | |
| | |
| Musky Man,
Concerns WERE expressed by our local musky fishing experts about the spearing of muskellunge in Lac Courte Oreilles. I do not know if the tribal harvest occurs to a degree that prevents trophy musky angling goals from being achieved, but I am troubled by the absence of documentation of that harvest, whether it is large or small. I will be working with our tribal neighbors to learn of THEIR goals, and to see if we can find enough mutual interest to start documenting what is being harvested by the various stakeholders. We must understand the system before we can manage it effectively, but we must also be very respectful of the ancestral rights of these people to engage in the harvest of these fish in this manner.
To answer your second question, the Butternut-LCO transfer idea was conceived long before the WMRT produced their report and began promoting their agenda. We have been concerned about musky density at LCO since our meeting with local fishing experts in fall 2002. And we developed a formal Fishery Management Plan for Butternut Lake after a stakeholder meeting in spring of 2004 identified stakeholder interests in reducing musky density and improving musky size structure at Butternut.
| |
| | |
Location: Munster, IN | Dave,
Keep up the good work.
I have been fishing LCO for over 40 years and have seen the ups and downs.
Has the degredation of the spawning area on the lake contributed to the decline of the number of muskies?
I have heard that no natural reproduciton occours on LCO anymore. Is this true?
Some type of reproduction must be taking place becasue I caught 2 hybrid muskies last summer.
One thing that I have noticed in the last 2 years is that the weed growth in the main lake area has improved tremendously. I know for a number of years many of the cabbage weeds had been diasappearing. It is starting to look like it used too. Musky Bay also seems to be improving slowly.
I am really hoping the two fish will be compatable so you can go ahead with your plans. Good luck and you do have supporters backing you.
Thanks,
Paul | |
| | |
| Well while the DNR and the anglers in WI continue to ask questions and gather data until they are blue in the face. Here in Minnesota a simple change has created a fishery that puts WI to shame. Keep asking questions and doing studies WI anglers and then come to MN when you are ready to catch a 50".
Some peolpe like MUTTS as pets but apparently WI anglers like them in there musky lakes. LOL. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | DJS,
That is not a fair picture of what is happening in Wisconsin. We have Lake St. Claire fish in the Bay of Green Bay that were introduced at about the same time the Leech fish were in most Minnesota waters producing some really big fish now, the same fish were introduced in Winnebago and walleye anglers are catching them trolling cranks, introductions of Leech Lake strain in the Madison Chain and perhaps Petenwell, a series of lakes and systems with good natural reproduction and excellent growth rates put on a do not stock list to ensure potential as size limits have been scratched and clawed upward through the CC process on many waters. Average size IS increasing on most, and an ongoing assessment of a number of Muskie waters is in about the middle of the process.
Wisconsin has a bit of a different scenario than Minnesota did in the early 80's, as we already for decades had established and successful Muskie waters here that are, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, producing some very nice fish. These systems have already experienced the heavy harvest and tremendous pressure over 50 years or more that is part of the 'discovery' process your 'newer' MN waters have really just begun to experience. Since the early 80's, many have been speared in the winter and during the normal spring harvest time, kill rigs were very popular here...you get the idea, I hope.
I clearly remember the first few nice fish caught off Mille Lacs, and Mr. Bentley's success on low 40" specimens back not all that long ago. Cass had a reputation of skinny, long fish, and Leech a reputation of being VERY tough and having a narrow window of opportunity. Al Maas, Ted Gwinn, Murph, and a few others pioneered the Muskie guiding over there on Leech, and IMHO helped raise awareness of those systems.
I'll point out once again that the total number of fish reaching the 50" mark from any year class is quite small. Pressure, harvest, and unitentional angling related mortality will reach the almost inevitable level as more folks show up there in search of an 'easy' 50. I think the CPR ethic in MN is stronger because of the development of the fishery at the same time CPR was being popularized, but I'd still like to see larger size limits there.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Dave I want to see if I have your answer to the Mississippi Walleye question correct.
The Mississippi River designation that is being give to walleye in the stocking reports means that the eggs and milt have come from waters in the Mississippi river drainage basin IN WISCONSIN. Which includes the upper Wisconsin River and Chippewa River, correct? So if eggs where taken from fish on LCO and stocked back into LCO they would be called Mississippi River Walleye. Fish taken from Winnebago would be called Lake Michigan Walleye.
Do I have that right? If I do that clears a bunch up for me regarding the management practices of the two species.
Thank you very much Dave for taking the time to respond to these internet ramblings, and keep up the good work.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, you asked in a previous post Why has stocking been halted on Pelican Lake in WI. As far as I know stocking has been halted on Pelican lake because the Lake association petitioned the DNR to stop stocking because the Musky where eating all the walleye and perch. Purely political, with no biological foundation. This was done before the no stock list was developed, however it is now on the list, I don’t know if it is there for political or biological reasons.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
I checked into that, and from what I can find out Pelican is on the list now mostly as a result of the fact natural reproduction is good there. Pelican is actually considered a numbers lake, by it's classification. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | DJS,
Here's a 'mutt' from a year class stocked in a smaller local lake. I have two like this one from there in my rig the last two years, and know of two others from last year that were CPR. I emailed a gentleman who caught this fish 4 or 5 years earlier when she was low 40" class, so the growth was very good indeed. The release shot is a fish from a tiny ( I can fish the entire lake in a couple hours) lake here with almost non existant forage, but a good population of muskies that are usually skinny as a result. This is the second fish from that water of that quality in my rig in two years.
Attachments
----------------
 IMAG0004.JPG (82KB - 420 downloads)
IMAG0035.JPG (104KB - 295 downloads)
| |
| | |
| You've got it exactly right, Mike. Our database SAYS "strain," but a more accurate term in most cases would be "source." In most cases, when we record the sources of stocked fish in our database, we don't know if we're actually dealing with a discrete "strain" with proven genetic characteristics that set them apart from other strains. There are a few exceptions, but in most cases our designation of "strain" is simply a shorthand way to keep track of the general source of broodstock used to produce the young fish being stocked. It's our way of moving away from major inter-basin stock transfers and beginning to allow coadaptation to occur within watersheds and even individual waters over a long period of time. Gotta start sometime
Because the Upper Wisconsin and Upper Chippewa river basins both drain into the Mississippi River, we use the term "Mississippi strain" to refer to young walleye whose parents came from that large general area IN Wisconsin. Broodstock may be from LCO or lakes near Woodruff. All are called "Mississippi strain" walleyes in the database. I hope this clarifies some things for you and others who care about understanding this issue. Thanks for your support. | |
| | |
| Hello Paul,
Thanks for your support. I'll try to answer your questions here:
PAUL: "Has the degradation of the spawning area on the lake [speaking of Musky Bay in Lac Courte Oreilles] contributed to the decline of the number of muskies?"
DAVE: Paul, the nutrient enrichment of Musky Bay may have had direct adverse impacts on muskellunge reproduction at LCO. However, the decline in musky recruitment (survival to a size likely to contribute eventually to the fishery -- 20 inches or so) also is likely to be related to predation on young muskies by a burgeoning population of northern pike, which may actually have been favored over muskellunge by the habitat changes in Musky Bay. This indirect mechanism is our current hypothesis, though nothing has been proven conclusively.
PAUL: "I have heard that no natural reproduction occurs on LCO anymore. Is this true?"
DAVE: DNR crews have failed to document any natural reproduction (survival to first fall) of muskellunge in LCO since the early 1970s. So if there has been any natural reproduction, it has been VERY minor. The fact that you caught 2 hybrids (crosses between northern pike and muskellunge) last summer provides additional evidence that northern pike are significant in this ecosystem. Probably over 95% of all muskellunge in LCO today are fish that have been stocked as fall fingerlings by WDNR on an alternate-year basis at a rate of 2,500 large fingerlings per stocking. That's 0.5 fish per acre every other year. I'm not sure what it will take to turn this lake around in favor of muskies, but I have to believe a "shot in the arm" of 500 healthy, 28"-38" genetically compatible fish from Butternut Lake, if so proven, would be a way to start.
Glad to hear you think the habitat overall is improving in LCO. That certainly would help.
On a personal note, I'm interested to see that you live in Munster, Indiana. I grew up in Lansing, Illinois, just across the state line from you, and I worked at a grocery store on Ridge Road in Munster as a high school student. Gotta wonder if we've ever crossed paths!
Take care, and thanks again for your support.
| |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Dave,
I saw by the reports, that 14 muskies were speared from LCO this year, and I'm guessing it has been similar in years past. Is there any chance this would have an adverse affect on the muskie population? | |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Another question for Dave:
if Northern Pike are eating the present strain of muskies in LCO, will changing the strain of fish that are stocked in LCO, change the amount of predation of these young fish? | |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Dave N. Thanks for taking the time to answer some of our questions here. I'm very interested in your reports about LCO. I fish LCO several times a yr. I usually see a couple muskies each time out, but I have a hard time getting them to strike. I know there are lots pike out there. I was catching 2-3 pike per hr while muskie fishing last yr.
The low muskie density you site on LCO is amazing to me. I checked the DNR stocking numbers for LCO since 1996 and 8012 fingerling muskies and 1.2 million musky fry have been stocked there since 1996. Are all of these fish getting eaten by pike before they can reach adult size? I was really hoping the 50" size limit on LCO would improve the musky fishery there but it sounds like now it's the pike not the fishermen are not releasing their catch?
Thanks for the input
Grass,
Chris Grassel | |
| | |
| Another question for Dave:
I understand there were very few muskies caught in the nets on LCO, but what was the average size?
thanks,
Bob | |
| | |
| Slamr, you asked (I'll take the liberty to paraphrase) if an annual spearing harvest of 14 muskies could prevent us from achieving sport fishing goals and objectives for muskellunge at 5,000-acre Lac Courte Oreilles. My answer clearly is "No." However, THOSE 14 fish are the ones that get speared in the OFF-reservation portion of LCO and reported accurately to creel clerks at the public boat landings. The OTHER half of the lake lies WITHIN the Lac Courte Oreilles Indian Reservation. I am told that a significant amount of spearing effort occurs there in the spring -- all undocumented. (The courts did not address this.) Effort and harvest during the winter spearfishery also is undocumented. It's not what we KNOW that concerns me. It's what we DON'T know -- about genetics, population density, tribal harvest, angler harvest, and incidental mortality associated with C&R -- that concerns me. We need more and better information in all these areas in order to analyze the situation correctly and make good management decisions in the best interest of all stakeholders. See my response to "Musky Man" (#147001) on this subject also. Thanks.
Dave | |
| | |
| Bob, you asked for an average size of muskies captured in fykenets this spring at LCO. Honestly, it's not worth reporting an average length for 5 fish. I'll let you know if and when we're lucky enough to capture about 30 fish. That would be a statistically relevant sample size. Thanks for your patience. | |
| | |
| GRASS asked: "The low muskie density you site on LCO is amazing to me. I checked the DNR stocking numbers for LCO since 1996 and 8012 fingerling muskies and 1.2 million musky fry have been stocked there since 1996. Are all of these fish getting eaten by pike before they can reach adult size?"
DAVE: Grass, I still am not CERTAIN that LCO musky density is low. I said that all the arrows are pointing in that direction at this time. Let's not lose sight of our uncertainty. But I can still try to answer your question about musky fry and fingerling mortality. First, forget about the fry stockings. Survival of stocked musky fry is so low that we cannot begin to measure it. If we stocked 8,012 musky fingerlings since 1996 (I'll trust your figure because I have not calculated that total myself), and our most optimistic estimate is that there are only 1,000 adult muskies in LCO (0.2 per acre), then obviously SOMEthing is causing the death of most of those fall-stocked 10- to 12-inch muskies during their first year or two in the lake. Is it predation by northern pike? Probably some. Is it predation by adult muskellunge? Probably some. Is it disease? Possibly some. Is it mortality associated with the inability of some stocked fish to find enough of the right size prey to provide the energy reserves needed to sustain them through a long, cold winter in a new, wild environment? Probably some. Which mortality factor is most significant? We are not sure, and it would be VERY expensive to find out. I wish I could provide a more definitive answer, but beware of anyone who claims to know more | |
| | |
| Slamr asked: "If Northern Pike are eating the present strain of muskies in LCO, will changing the strain of fish that are stocked in LCO, change the amount of predation of these young fish?"
DAVE: No, but introducing a new strain of muskellunge probably would result in hybridization between existing fish and the newly introduced fish. If these strains of fish differed enough, genetically, and if the new strain were stocked repeatedly, we could experience what the population geneticists call "outbreeding depression." (Not enough time to fully explain that process here and now.) If that happened, subsequent generations of fish would be less fit to survive, grow, and reproduce than EITHER of the parental stocks. Not worth the risk, in my opinion. | |
| | |
Posts: 8
| Dave, Thanks for being with us. I do love to fish your area-having done so for 45 years. Could you briefly provide fish/acre & trophy potential info on the Chip.,Round and Grindstone.Also,have any more fish been netted this week on LCO?Could you let us know the largest netted so far on LCO? Thanks, John | |
| | |
Posts: 8
| Hi! Dave, John again. The WMRP team website-on the homepage- Goal #1 suggests "to "select" for large strain eggs".I am sure they mean from the largest fish available from the existing stock now in our waters. Why is this not possible? I have been told by some pretty experienced folks this is not the policy. Thanks again, John | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'll take a whack at that one. Collection of spawn needs to be from a crosssection of the brood population, not just selected large fish, to ensure diversity. Using a single or even several individuals exclusively for roe collection would not be wise because those individual fish might pass on a propensity for growth or other trait at the expense of other traits, like disease resistance, that ensure the viability and health of the overall muskie population.
There is an underlying assumption in the document you mention that the muskies selected for brood stock are inferior, small growing fish that will not grow to anything near trophy size, and that any large fish in those stocked and brood systems are surviving large growing genetic 'piggy banks' from the past. That assumption is one of the items I find that is debated by those managing the fisheries here and elsewhere.
If I'm incorrect I'm sure someone will let me know! | |
| | |
| Question for Dave,
Thanks for the excellent reply's!
My question is about the benefit's of stocking fry.When fry are planted into the water system are they dumped randomly or are they put into a spawning- nursery area?Another way of putting it is, if these waters show natural reproduction or if a strain is being introduced that does have good natural reproduction wouldn't it be logical to put them in known spawning areas or habitat similar so the fish can IMPRINT?
Taking it a step further and this may not be possible,but if a screened pen of some sort could be constucted to keep predation out untill they get big enough to be on their own,then of course they will have to be fed some how! | |
| | |
| If taking eggs from only large fish does not ensure diversity, then can't the same be said for taking eggs from only smaller fish? Especially if your taking eggs from fish from the exact same lake, in the exact same spot on that lake, at the same water temps, year after year? I would think you would be getting the exact same fish in the nets in many cases year after year. If this is not the case, and they are getting different fish from year to year then why wouldn't you expect the same thing if you target large fish also?
Another concern. There is something that just bothers me about the fact that the broodstock lake that has been selected for egg taking for our hatcheries does not produce hardly any large fish, is not a self sustaining fishery, and requires stocking to maintain a population. Then we use those eggs to raise fish and stock them all over WI. Doesn't seem right to me. I can't see any good reason for using Bone Lake as our broodstock lake. It seems to me that Bone Lake has been selected as our Broodstock lake for no other reason other than the DNR knows they can go in there and in just a few days get all the eggs they need for the hatchery for the year. In other words, its cheap. Ever heard of the sayings "you get what you pay for" or "nothing good ever comes easy"? | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Several comments, Eric.
1) The brood lake is of course 'exactly the same lake'. That's a given.
2) Muskies spawn at the same time ( pretty much) every year, that's a given
3) I've actually worked a fyke net a couple times. My son does every year. During studies, fin clips or other markers are used to determine recapture over the time the nets are in. It's really rare that all the same fish are caught in total every day, much less every year.
Again, your underlying assumption here is that the fish in Bone are slow growing and will not get big. There's a few arguments about that IN Bone Lake onsite from folks who fish it and catch nice muskies. I believe what the biologists think has been covered already. I also believe that the brood stocks/lakes are under assessment as announced by the DNR quite some time back, as well.
The last couple comments are pretty negative, let's try to keep the conversation on a level of mutual respect. | |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I have comments to the following posts:
"Dave Neuswanger
Posted 5/16/2005 4:20 PM (#147179 - in reply to #147031)
Subject: RE: WMRT questions for the DNR
Hello Paul,
Thanks for your support. I'll try to answer your questions here:
PAUL: "Has the degradation of the spawning area on the lake [speaking of Musky Bay in Lac Courte Oreilles] contributed to the decline of the number of muskies?"
DAVE: Paul, the nutrient enrichment of Musky Bay may have had direct adverse impacts on muskellunge reproduction at LCO. However, the decline in musky recruitment (survival to a size likely to contribute eventually to the fishery -- 20 inches or so) also is likely to be related to predation on young muskies by a burgeoning population of northern pike, which may actually have been favored over muskellunge by the habitat changes in Musky Bay. This indirect mechanism is our current hypothesis, though nothing has been proven conclusively."
QUESTION: Didn't a fairly recent study determine that northern pike did NOT have an impact on the musky fishery in LCO? Allow me to quote: "...Recruitment of stocked fish did decline during the early 1970's, but this was because no muskellunge were stocked between 1966 and 1970. Second, Johnson (1981) incicated that the number of naturally reproduced muskellunge recovered from each year class from 1958-78 (a measure of recruitment) also did not decline, even though northern pike population increased by a factor of 3-4.....Thus, the decline in muskellunge numbers from this study and Johnson (1981) may be due to reduced muskellunge stocking rather than increased northern pike population size..." (Technical Bulletin #160 by John Lyons and Terry Margenau 1986). Has this thinking changed?
"PAUL: "I have heard that no natural reproduction occurs on LCO anymore. Is this true?"
DAVE: DNR crews have failed to document any natural reproduction (survival to first fall) of muskellunge in LCO since the early 1970s. So if there has been any natural reproduction, it has been VERY minor. The fact that you caught 2 hybrids (crosses between northern pike and muskellunge) last summer provides additional evidence that northern pike are significant in this ecosystem. Probably over 95% of all muskellunge in LCO today are fish that have been stocked as fall fingerlings by WDNR on an alternate-year basis at a rate of 2,500 large fingerlings per stocking. That's 0.5 fish per acre every other year. I'm not sure what it will take to turn this lake around in favor of muskies, but I have to believe a "shot in the arm" of 500 healthy, 28"-38" genetically compatible fish from Butternut Lake, if so proven, would be a way to start."
QUESTIONs: How did you determine that "probably over 95% of all muskellunge in LCO today are fish that have been stocked as fall fingerlings by WDNR? I concur, but what do you base that on? If you aren't sure what it will take to turn LCO around, how is putting 500 adult fish known not to grow large going to help, especially when most of them are from the same hatchery system that currently stocks the mentioned huge numbers in LCO that do not reproduce nor grow big?
"Dave Neuswanger
Posted 5/17/2005 5:41 PM (#147352 - in reply to #147346)
Subject: RE: WMRT questions for the DNR
Bob, you asked for an average size of muskies captured in fykenets this spring at LCO. Honestly, it's not worth reporting an average length for 5 fish. I'll let you know if and when we're lucky enough to capture about 30 fish. That would be a statistically relevant sample size. Thanks for your patience."
QUESTION: Should this be intrepreted to mean there were no large fish in the nets?
"Dave Neuswanger
Posted 5/17/2005 6:01 PM (#147355 - in reply to #147342)
Subject: RE: WMRT questions for the DNR
GRASS asked: "The low muskie density you site on LCO is amazing to me. I checked the DNR stocking numbers for LCO since 1996 and 8012 fingerling muskies and 1.2 million musky fry have been stocked there since 1996. Are all of these fish getting eaten by pike before they can reach adult size?"
DAVE: Grass, I still am not CERTAIN that LCO musky density is low. I said that all the arrows are pointing in that direction at this time. Let's not lose sight of our uncertainty. But I can still try to answer your question about musky fry and fingerling mortality. First, forget about the fry stockings. Survival of stocked musky fry is so low that we cannot begin to measure it. If we stocked 8,012 musky fingerlings since 1996 (I'll trust your figure because I have not calculated that total myself), and our most optimistic estimate is that there are only 1,000 adult muskies in LCO (0.2 per acre), then obviously SOMEthing is causing the death of most of those fall-stocked 10- to 12-inch muskies during their first year or two in the lake. Is it predation by northern pike? Probably some. Is it predation by adult muskellunge? Probably some. Is it disease? Possibly some. Is it mortality associated with the inability of some stocked fish to find enough of the right size prey to provide the energy reserves needed to sustain them through a long, cold winter in a new, wild environment? Probably some. Which mortality factor is most significant? We are not sure, and it would be VERY expensive to find out. I wish I could provide a more definitive answer, but beware of anyone who claims to know more."
QUESTION: You state that "and our most optimistic estimate is that there are only 1,000 adult muskies in LCO (0.2 per acre)". When did this change? The lake biologist has maintained that LCO is the most studied musky lake in the world, and his adult population figures have ALWAYS been under 500 and as low as 250 over the past 30+ years. Why is this number now "magically" increased more than two-fold? Is there NEW data to support these new numbers?
Also, you state; "then obviously SOMEthing is causing the death of most of those fall-stocked 10- to 12-inch muskies during their first year or two in the lake. Is it predation by northern pike? Probably some. Is it predation by adult muskellunge? Probably some. Is it disease? Possibly some. Is it mortality associated with the inability of some stocked fish to find enough of the right size prey to provide the energy reserves needed to sustain them through a long, cold winter in a new, wild environment? Probably some. Which mortality factor is most significant? We are not sure, and it would be VERY expensive to find out. I wish I could provide a more definitive answer, but beware of anyone who claims to know more."
Can it be inferred that we will never know the answers to these questions due to "expense?" And isn't a "workable hypothesis" better than throwing ones hands in the air and saying we can't know due to cost, so we will do NOTHING but transfer more small fish into LCO??
"Dave Neuswanger
Posted 5/17/2005 6:20 PM (#147357 - in reply to #147184)
Subject: RE: WMRT questions for the DNR
Slamr asked: "If Northern Pike are eating the present strain of muskies in LCO, will changing the strain of fish that are stocked in LCO, change the amount of predation of these young fish?"
DAVE: No, but introducing a new strain of muskellunge probably would result in hybridization between existing fish and the newly introduced fish. If these strains of fish differed enough, genetically, and if the new strain were stocked repeatedly, we could experience what the population geneticists call "outbreeding depression." (Not enough time to fully explain that process here and now.) If that happened, subsequent generations of fish would be less fit to survive, grow, and reproduce than EITHER of the parental stocks. Not worth the risk, in my opinion."
QUESTIONs: Has your hybridization "hypothesis" been proven? The overstocking of Leech Lake fish in MN where others "locally adapted" small growing fish had been stocked for over 70 years has worked just fine and no hybridization noted.
And what about this potential for "outbreeding depression" you keep referring to. IF, as you stated above, the population in LCO is over 95% STOCKED (mixed) fish that do NOT reproduce and do NOT grow big, how can it be harmful to introduce a "different" population from what is currently being stocked and NOT working?
IF, and I stress the IF, there IS a SMALL remnant population (2%?) of ORIGINAL LCO stock with large growth potential left in LCO (and we believe there may be), would it not be in the best interest of LCO to TRY and isolate those fish (only attainable by genetic testing of EVERY fish there, OR taking eggs from ONLY the remaing few LARGE fish there)? YES, I agree genetic diversity would be small, but isn't small better than "flushing" what is left there rather than to make SOME attempt to save them since natural reproduction isn't doing much more than keeping a FEW present there?????
Another consideration; since all stocking into LCO from 1899 to 1938 were from the Woodruff Hatchery in the Wisconsin River drainage, could it not be that the big fish that appeared in LCO in the 30's, 40's and 50's came from that source? Indeed more "food for thought."
Respectfully submitted,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyResotration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 5/18/2005 4:39 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) The Pike population is not the same level as it was in 1986.That was nearly 20 years ago. Read Mr. Neuswanger's post again, he qualifies the pike statements carefully, which you subsequently ignore and then argumentatively post an out of date, probably no longer applicable stat. Just a personal observation on that comment.
2)They captured 5 fish, Larry. That isn't a statistically significant number regardless of the size of those fish. I think that's what was said.
3) The 'known to be' comments you post are not proven out, and are center to a large portion of the debate today. The Butternut fish were to be tested genetically to assure compatibility, which should answer your question, even though it will not change your mind on the 'small strain' theory you forward. This also lends to the comment about whether outbreeding depression risks have been proven. That is a very odd question for you to ask. I think the WMRT has used that data enough to attempt to prove out some ideas you have, supporting the concept, and then when it suits, questions the validity of the scientific basis in fact. You have provided your own answer to that question, one cannot have things both ways.
4) Tell you what, as a personal suggestion let's see the WMRT step up and offer to use some of what seems to be umnlimited time and some considerable influence to assist an underfunded agency in raising funding for the study you suggest needs be done on LCO to determine the causes exactly of the low density of muskies that MAY exist there. Or maybe cease acting against the effort to test those fish and those from Butternut at least, allowing the DNR to see if those fish are indeed compatible. | |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "IF, and I stress the IF, there IS a SMALL remnant population (2%?) of ORIGINAL LCO stock with large growth potential left in LCO (and we believe there may be), would it not be in the best interest of LCO to TRY and isolate those fish (only attainable by genetic testing of EVERY fish there, OR taking eggs from ONLY the remaing few LARGE fish there)? YES, I agree genetic diversity would be small, but isn't small better than "flushing" what is left there rather than to make SOME attempt to save them since natural reproduction isn't doing much more than keeping a FEW present there?????"
Great idea Larry, except that:
a. you say no more study is necessary, and this involves a large amount of study (cant have it both ways Larry)
b. where is the MONEY going to come from? this question has been asked of the WRMT a number of times on this board, and your group has give NO answers to this. If you know what the DNR should be doing, shouldnt you also know how to impliment these changes?
c. do YOU, or anyone know the exact DNA makeup of a BIG GROWING FISH, versus the others that you say shouldnt be there? and having found that out from each and every fish (which probably would need to be done in a Lab, just a guess), how could you then go back to THAT fish, or that group of fish, to then strip them for their eggs/milt?
Its a great idea, but like all the WRMT ideas, they are:
-unfounded by current research.
-not supported by any visible/vocal CURRENT fisheries biologist or expert in fish genetics.
-unrealistic in scope
-ignores any and all facotrs outside of genetics as non-relavent.
-unfunded
Edited by Slamr 5/18/2005 10:50 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Munster, IN | Steve,
You make excellent points.
My question to Larry is in regard to the following:
3) The 'known to be' comments you post are not proven out, and are center to a large portion of the debate today.
The Butternut fish were to be tested genetically to assure compatibility, which should answer your question, even though it will not change your mind on the 'small strain' theory you forwardHow "small"( actually I mean big) does the small strain grow to? How pertenant is your data that supports the "small strain" theory to this situation on LCO?
I think Steve's # 4) suggestion is a great idea and should be acted upon by your group as soon as possible.
Paul
PS- Larry, Do you know how and why northerns were introduced into LCO? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | In my OPINION I don’t need a bunch of references from Dave when he is answering our questions in this forum, we are basically asking for his opinion and if he has to back up every word of his opinions posted on this site with reference material there isn’t a chance in hell he will answer our questions.
If he is laying out management decisions to the legislature or natural resources board then yes references should be supplied, but that is not the case on this forum.
Larry you ask some good questions and I think we need to accept that if somebody like Dave is going to answer them HERE we need to accept that it is personal opinion based on information he or she has, just as we form our own opinions based on what we know, or think we may know.
Two questions you ask that I would like to know more about are the Out breeding questions as they relate to the Mn situation and the Genetic Diversity and how it relates to taking eggs from bigger fish? I have heard these responses from three different DNR representatives.
If I had to guess the Out Breeding questing isn’t answered yet in MN because it’s only been one generation or so. Is this a concern that the MN DNR has for future generations of ski or is their plan to continue stocking and not worry about creating natural reproducing systems? Because if that is the case out breeding would not be an issue, because stock can be controlled every year. Where the long-term goal is naturally reproducing systems I can see Out Breeding as being a major concern.
Regarding Genetic Diversity, I understand that taking eggs from only one or two big fish year after year could cause problems, but what about a bigger cross section of fish including both big and small fish in many different years. Is it true that the average size fish now being used is under 34 inches? If so, is it true that this issue is being looked into? Could funding assistance from groups like Muskies Inc. help defer the costs associted with trying to get a bigger sample of eggs from big and small fish, not just the first fish into the nets, during egg taking process?
Thanks everyone for providing a great discussion.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 8
| Steve -thanks! There is little doubt in my mind that you do know quite a bit more about "this" than I do-seriously.My background , experiences and appreciation of this wonderful sport, however, draw me here when I should go fishing. I live in N.W. Wis., love it here and appreciate all it has to offer.I have had very limited time fishing here each year until I retired early(probably too early-financially,at least)11 years ago. Not a very good fisheman but absolutely love doing it.Steve,I love fishing over big fish!That was certainly a very big fish in the recent photo.We all know they are rare-a real trophy!I have never been lucky(good?) enough to get one like that in Wis. I want more of them here at home! I believe we should only stock fish here at home that will get that big. I do believe we should breed the BEST fish available. We have mixed our "stock" here for at least 75 years ! Now we are going to(hopefully) start a project that will tell us what we have. I ABSOLUTELY hope we don't decide we have the same fish here as we are stocking now-continue the same! You seem to have many experts available-that is good. I certainly hope they consider 75 years of stocking history in their determinations. Much I do not know but try to continue learning. Have we bred race horses, clysdales and ponys over the last 75 breeding seasons? Do we have 2 of anything? Do we need to address breeding principles?--seems like it. Good breeders-dogs,race horses,etc...know what they want and choose the best they have to get there. My first 6 hours in a different state we had a 50"er in the boat-a much larger one exploding on my globe! It is not always easy(very seldom-of course),but you seem to feel you are on big fish always.They all seem to get big. Breeding? How about lake "x" here-I have heard several explainations-none add up to my experience.They all seemed to get big. Your big fish photo shows that fish can and do get big in a small, non-forage lake. Here at home we have very many capable lakes-large and good forage.Would" Shaq." be a small man if he grew up in a small house? Does the other state not have good fisheries people too? Are they happy with their results after 20 years? These are my questions and they are still with me? I appreciate the efforts of the guys that are not giving up on this issue. I do appreciate your side too. Reply only if you feel it is necessary-we will see where things go-John | |
| | |
| OK. As much as I hate the idea of waiting for more studies to be done before the possibility of change exists for WI's muskie broodstock selection, I have an idea for a study that just might be able to end this small fish - large fish debate once and for all as well as answer many other questions. But first you need to have a commitment from the DNR up front that upon completion of the study they will use the strain of fish that grew the largest as broodstock for NW WI lakes. You also need a commitment that broodstock lakes will be established with the strain that grew the largest. Without commitments like this up front, and like so many studies done before, this study will most likely result in no change in the broodstock being used for stocking in NW WI and will result in wanting to do even more studies as we have come so use to seeing over the years.
The study: First you strip eggs and milt from Butternut fish. Then raise them to fingerling size. Take 250 of these Butternut strain fingerlings, 250 of the Bone Lake strain fingerlings, and 250 of the MS or LL strain fingerlings and fin clip or tag each strain differently so you can identify one from the other. You stock them all into LCO, a WI lake, at the same time. You now have the makings of an experiment or study that will answer many of the questions and/or arguments coming from all sides. Since they are all stocked into LCO, which is a lake that must be stocked to maintain a population, there is no risk of screwing up a self-sustaining population. And since there are no waters that have a natural self-sustaining population connected to LCO, you have no risk of screwing up any other waters. Now, stock them and lets see which one grows the largest and then use them as broodstock.
Since all these fish were stocked into the same lake at the same time under the exact same conditions, you now have a study being done where all things are equal. You have a large lake. You have a deep lake. You have a 50” minimum length limit to protect them all to at least that size. You have all the forage and the right type of forage supposedly needed to produce large fish assuming that forage is indeed the key or one of the keys to producing large fish. There are northern pike present in the lake so we will be able to tell which one survives better with this situation to deal with. They are all subject to the exact same amount of fishing pressure, harvest by either angling or spear, and mortality after release. They are all in a lake that used to produce very large fish so possibly one of these strains will do that again. You see which one grows the largest after say 6 or 7 years. You now have your winner. You now use the winner as broodstock for stocking in NW WI.
You have now just done a study that is really no different than what the MDNR already did nearly 25 years ago when choosing its broodstock except that this study, unlike the studies done in MN in the early 80’s, was done in WI. This eliminates the argument that since those studies done in the 80’s were done in MN, you can’t use the findings from those studies to select a strain for using in WI.
This study should answer most of the theories on what it takes to produce large fish. Regardless of strain, the biggest fish wins. I know what strain I would bet my money on.
| |
| | |
| Steve,
How about a compromise: The WMRP funds the genetic sample of Butternut fish and Dave Neuswanger allows Leech Lake Muskies to be stocked in LCO for the next 10 years? That would be working together.....or is it the DNR way or the highway. (To Minnesota)
The WMRP wishes to focus our time and efforts on fundraising, and working with the WDNR on efforts that are PROVEN to grow large Muskies. (See Minnesota, Nancy Lake, Long Lake and Green Bay projects). We would also like to assist with money and manpower to assist in procuring enough Large Male and female muskies each spring to ensure enough genetic diversity (this has not proven to work, but at least it's different than our current DNR plan which has proven not to work). We have let the WDNR and the state Muskie Committe know that we want to help, and are still awaiting word on how we can go about it. I'll remind all of you again that we spent months trying to work with the WDNR offerring money and manpower before any of you heard of us. Our offer still stands, and we re eager to end the bickering.
I believe I can speak for the rest of the WMRP in stating that we have no interest in funding any studies of small fish like those in Butternut Lake. The people on Butternut don't want the fish taken out and the people on LCO don't want them in LCO. We've studied and bred small muskies in Wisconsin for 50 years with one exception (Nancy Lake). We would love to lead a fundraising effort to stock Leech lake strain Muskies in LCO - a lake with no known natural reproduction in years. I still do not understand the danger of outbreeding depression in LCO when there is no natural reproduction. If the worst thing that happens is we establish a reproducing population of large growing Leech Lake strain muskies in LCO, I say let's get on with it, because nothing else has worked there. Why keep flushing 2500 fingerlings from the same source into LCO if they are not working. Doing the same things will only yield the same results. Wouldn't stocking fish with different reproductive habits make sense? The people of NW Wisconsin have made their feelings known what they would like to do, I'd like to ask why the WDNR is not being called to task for not working with the people who want to try something different on a lake that is truly failing? The people want to do it, are willing to pay for it on this one lake - What Is Wrong With That?
My research indicates that most self-sustaining populations of large fish have females averaging in excess of 45 inches with males averaging over 38 inches and that very few smaller fish contribute to the population.
We should be modeling our fisheries and brood stock with specific goals in mind. The best way to create a population like this is to use brood stock from a lake that has a naturally reproducing population of large muskies.
As to the questions related to the necessary funding of any changes to the current system, please be specific in your questions. If we are replacing Bone Lake fingerlings with LL fingerlings, the only additional costs are procuring the eggs and we simply switch the eggs at the hatchery. We've researched the cost of doing this and funding is available to the WMRP. We await word from the WDNR that this is acceptable. We'd like to see a brood lake established this fall, so that we can become self-sufficient in our egg taking over time. If you have more questions on funding I'd like to answer them. The best solution is for anglers and the DNR to work together to keep everyone's costs down. We all need to find a way to work together, not just fund the continued studies of small muskies with the single minded aproach of protecting a hatchery strain of fish.
There is no reason we can't try some of these things this year. We want to help......
Thanks,
Bob Benson
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To further compliment what Bob posted, I would like to say that for me the last two days have been very rewarding. I have met and talked with two different DNR Musky Committee folks that are dedicated and want to truly improve the musky fisheries. They were great and OPEN and honest and expressed a "beyond the call of duty" desire to help and WORK TOGETHER. A great and working dialogue has been opened and options are being considered.
So, rather than to continue this wasted banter on this web site, I intend to focus my future efforts to working with those that care to do so and are sincere about improvement and working together. To a man, we had NO problems with ANY of the members of the State Musky Committee meeting in February. It was "other" factors that created the problems of that time. I believe the DNR underestimated us and we overestimated us. We've learned and they have learned. To date, the ones we have dealt with have moved beyond the past and wish to end the "war" and move forward. We concur, and to date, it is apparent that the only way to end the war with the DNR person prevelant here is to end the debate here, at least our inclusion in it. One way or another it is going to be debated face to face publicly with him, and soon. A meeting of the minds could occur before then, and a mutual public presentation could occur.
If Dave would like to sit down and have an open debate and come to a resolution of our disagreement, we are ready. A LOT has changed and MUCH new information has become available since we met with Dave earlier this year. It changes the WHOLE perspective on some thinking. We could mutually share information, and I'm confident that minds on both sides could be altered...but NOT without "direct" communication. We have a LOT to share, and have had the time necessary to "dig it out." We understand that he doesn't, but to continue to speak from a position of incomplete knowledge cannot be helpful. The "board" stuff is OVER for me.
As Bob noted, we have access to funding, but we aren't going to pour good money down a rat hole for no good reason. Convince us it is the right thing to do and we will be more than happy to help. Otherwise, we will continue to use "politics" (NOT "dirty politics" as Dave alluded to). It is after all, the American way! I intend to move forward to do anything I can to improve Wisconsin's trophy muskie fisheries.
By the way, new information gleaned today helped me to answer the question of "why" there are many lakes in the NE part of the state that have much better trophy fisheries than in the NW, but that will have to wait for another day. Doesn't seem to be appreciated here anyway.
Bye.
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoriation Project Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Location: Munster, IN | On a personal note, I'm interested to see that you live in Munster, Indiana. I grew up in Lansing, Illinois, just across the state line from you, and I worked at a grocery store on Ridge Road in Munster as a high school student. Gotta wonder if we've ever crossed paths!
Take care, and thanks again for your support.
Dave,
I am sure we probably have crossed paths somewhere along the way.
I have lived in Munster for 21 years. I grew up in Flossmoor, IL just a little west of Lansing.
It's a small world.
Like I said before keep up the good work and remember there are a lot of good people that believe in what you are doing.
I will be up on LCO in 3weeks hoping to catch one of those 50 inch "mutated" muskies. I know they are in there, it just might take 90 hours to catch her ;).
Thanks again,
Paul
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
I am truly sorry (and frankly surprised) you feel you 'wasted your time' discussing this issue on the Research Forum of the largest muskie media source anywhere on this planet. If you don't care to post here, that's your choice, but if you believe that without your input the story will be dropped here, you are mistaken. This issue is of importance to all muskie anglers who fish in Wisconsin for Muskies. It's your choice sir, add your commentary or not, the issue will be actively discussed.
MuskieFIRST will ask for regular press/information/update releases from the WMRT and from the DNR so we may inform the folks watching this forum. If indeed those are not found to be forthcoming from either source, OutdoorsFIRST will dispatch an outdoors writer to get the story; something we are quite prepared to accomplish, and are used to as a result of our comprehensive tournament coverage across the country. We will continue to provide both sides of the issue asking for details or supporting facts wherever necessary. I strongly encourage anyone with a question about this issue to continue to post here, and I will do my level best to encourage qualified individuals to answer.
I am very aware of the international audience we have watching this issue here, and expect that a spirited, fair, open, honest, and reasonable debate will be carried on about the future DNR management of Wisconsin Muskies.
Bob, Eric, John,
I am on the road and in the middle of uploading a ton of Green Bay FLW Walleye tournament pictures and getting the updates done for day one. I think you have some great ideas, more on that later. | |
| | |
| Eric, you politely posed some interesting questions about experimental design. I admire your curiosity and your desire to seek answers experimentally. So I am going to share with you and our readers my reaction to your hypothetical study, so that everyone can view this through the eyes of one fishery scientist. Other biologists may have different thoughts, but here are mine:
ERIC: "... first you need to have a commitment from the DNR up front that upon completion of the study they will use the strain of fish that grew the largest as broodstock for NW WI lakes. You also need a commitment that broodstock lakes will be established with the strain that grew the largest."
DAVE: The first thing that catches my eye is a focus on only one performance characteristic -- growth rate. Other important aspects of performance are long-term survival, condition factor (relative plumpness), future reproductive success (assuming we do not want all our fisheries to remain or become stocking-dependent), and ultimate size. What happens if one group of stocked fish out-grows the others significantly after 6-7 years, but the second fastest-growing group out-survives the first by a significant margin after 10-12 years at large? What if the second fastest-growing group also exhibits better condition, and is preferred by anglers because of its relatively impressive body depth? What if the second fastest-growing group also happens to select a reproductive strategy that results in higher survival of their offspring? Does DNR still abide by some pre-project acreement to stock only the fastest-growing fish after 6-7 years of study in one lake? I don't think so.
The second thing that catches my eye with your hypothetical experiment is the lack of replication. We cannot base major changes in a statewide program on the results of one experiment on one lake. Any number of spurious factors could give rise to results on an individual body of water that would not reflect what might happen on a typical or average body of water.
ERIC: "The study: First you strip eggs and milt from Butternut fish. Then raise them to fingerling size. Take 250 of these Butternut strain fingerlings, 250 of the Bone Lake strain fingerlings, and 250 of the MS or LL strain fingerlings and fin clip or tag each strain differently so you can identify one from the other."
DAVE: To make this a really good experiment, we should also know the gender of each stocked fish; and we should stock a similar number of males and females from each group. We know that males and females will grow at significantly different rates. We cannot legitimately compare performance (especially growth rate) among these stocked groups if one is 67% males and another, by chance, is 67% females. Determining the gender of these young fish is possible, but only upon examinination of a tissue extract analyzed in a genetics laboratory. This would increase the cost dramatically (~$20 per fish). Multiply that cost by X number of lakes in a properly replicated study if you want to know the true cost of obtaining reliable results.
Just an aside here: There is no "Butternut strain" to our knowledge. There are only the fish that live in Butternut Lake. Some are probably native to the lake, but many either originated within our hatchery system or are the progeny of fish that we have stocked over the years. For all I know, Butternut Lake fish are virtually identical to LCO fish. Currently we are collecting samples for comparative microsatellite DNA analysis in order to find out.
ERIC: "Since they are all stocked into LCO, which is a lake that must be stocked to maintain a population, there is no risk of screwing up a self-sustaining population. And since there are no waters that have a natural self-sustaining population connected to LCO, you have no risk of screwing up any other waters."
DAVE: I would not endorse this experiment for LCO, because I believe there is real hope for restoring natural recruitment in that lake someday; and because I know that muskellunge in LCO still have the potential to grow very large. (I spoke with a game warden two weeks ago who personally observed 4 muskies in one bay on a warm evening earlier this spring that were over 50 inches long. A 52.5-inch fish was speared in that same bay sometime later.) But even if we were not trying to restore natural reproduction in LCO, 26 years of experience in fishery management has taught me that some anglers enjoy moving fish from lake to lake in their livewells. Fish from a non-local strain stocked into one lake may very well find their way into adjacent waters -- probably not enough to cause outbreeding depression, but possibly enough to confuse genetic stock characterization.
ERIC: "You see which one grows the largest after say 6 or 7 years. You now have your winner. You now use the winner as broodstock for stocking in NW WI."
DAVE: I think I've addressed this already, but 6-7 years is inadequate to compare all the potentially different performance characteristics of interest among these groups. I know Eric realizes that muskies often live 15-20 years, and sometimes much longer. Given that understanding, what if Group A fish are more aggressive or naive than Group B fish; and what if Group A fish are caught and accidentally killed more frequently than Group B fish during years 10-15 post-stocking? Might that not affect how many fish ultimately make it to trophy size in a high-pressure body of water? My point is, there are more performance factors to consider. It's not just about growth rate.
A final note: Minnesota DNR biologists did a nice job in the early 80s of identifying a problem with the Shoepack Lake strain of fish. And while their strain comparison was relatively short-term, they saw little enough difference between LCO and Leech Lake fish to justify bringing LCO fish into their state and risking outbreeding depression of their Leech Lake strain. They made the right decision and began stocking Leech Lake fish in most of their waters 15-20 years ago, despite some local pressure that still exists to stock Wisconsin LCO fish because the Wisconsin fish are perceived to be heavier at any given length. Minnesota now is reaping the rewards of their sound decision as the first wave of stocked Leech Lake fish are reaching their ultimate size potential. I hope they can withstand the pressure that Wisconsin lakes have sustained for decades. My hat is off to my colleagues in Minnesota. I can only hope that my bald pate does not blind them
For our part, we need to inventory our genetic stocks in Wisconsin. It's the first thing you do when you seek to understand a system. And you must understand it before you can manage it effectively. No short-cuts, I'm afraid.
Thanks for your question, Eric. It provided an opportunity to discuss some common concerns and interests. | |
| | |
Posts: 440
| Dave: first thing thanks for coming here and answering questions. Sorry but I have couple of my own.
1. Maybe this has been answered and I missed it but....How is using 15 45" plus females for egg taking different than using 15 35" females? I can understand the $$$$$ reason but genetically I can't make it work in my mind yet.
2. Has Wisconsin considered spring stocking rather than fall stocking? Iowa has gone to stocking 1 year old fish in June and the DNR is reporting greatly improved survival rates.
3. I am sure you have seen the pictures and talked with the guides in Pastika's about some the large fish they were getting last year in the Hayward area. Do you see this as a sign of things to come? Maybe it just now the NW Wisc area is reaping the rewards of the positive effects of catch and release?
Again thanks for your info and time. | |
| | |
| Mike, I almost skimmed past the important questions at the end of your post, but fortunately my morning coffee has opened my eyes and neural pathways, so let me tell you what I know. Your questions were:
MIKE: "Regarding Genetic Diversity, I understand that taking eggs from only one or two big fish year after year could cause problems, but what about a bigger cross section of fish including both big and small fish in many different years. Is it true that the average size fish now being used is under 34 inches? If so, is it true that this issue is being looked into? Could funding assistance from groups like Muskies Inc. help defer the costs associted with trying to get a bigger sample of eggs from big and small fish, not just the first fish into the nets, during egg taking process?"
DAVE: Mike, I personally don't know the average size of fish being used as wild broodstock at Bone Lake, but I DO know that there is a conscious effort to get a wide size range of fish, including the biggest fish available. (Beware of averages in this case, because we always get more males than females, and several smaller males could mask the size of a couple big females in the mix.) We are not terribly concerned about the sizes of fish being used as broodstock at Spooner and Woodruff, but we ARE looking into our fertilization techniques. I attended a workshop a few weeks ago where I personally heard our Statewide Fish Propagation Coordinator, Al Kaas, visiting with Dr. Brian Sloss about reviewing and revising WDNR's protocol for mixing gametes from males and females to ensure maximum genetic diversity. As I understand it, potential improvements may involve increasing the number brood fish and the number of batches we split the eggs into, and in how many males we use to fertilize the eggs in each batch. Trying to simulate the musky spawning orgy orchestrated by Mother Nature is tricky, but I think that's the propagation goal | |
| | |
| Dave: first thing thanks for coming here and answering questions. Sorry but I have couple of my own.
1. Maybe this has been answered and I missed it but....How is using 15 45" plus females for egg taking different than using 15 35" females? I can understand the $$$$$ reason but genetically I can't make it work in my mind yet.
2. Has Wisconsin considered spring stocking rather than fall stocking? Iowa has gone to stocking 1 year old fish in June and the DNR is reporting greatly improved survival rates.
3. I am sure you have seen the pictures and talked with the guides in Pastika's about some the large fish they were getting last year in the Hayward area. Do you see this as a sign of things to come? Maybe it just now the NW Wisc area is reaping the rewards of the positive effects of catch and release?
Again thanks for your info and time. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Larry Ramsell - 5/18/2005 4:19 PM
By the way, new information gleaned today helped me to answer the question of "why" there are many lakes in the NE part of the state that have much better trophy fisheries than in the NW, but that will have to wait for another day. Doesn't seem to be appreciated here anyway.
Bye.
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoriation Project Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Mr. Ramsell to say that this information you are alluding to wouldn't be appreciated here is absurd. I think everybody that is following this thread would like to know what you learned. To "take your ball and go home" at this point is childish. What did you talk about with the WDNR? Bob or Eric will you answer? In my opinion Muskiefirst is the best musky forum, the people on this board are very concerned about these issues.
Edited by Bytor 5/19/2005 10:35 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Bytor:
As I noted in my post under Mr. Worrall's "op ed" piece, I will gladly answer any questions. Time constraints limit my response right now, and I haven't had time to compile the data I gleaned yesterday. As soon as I do, I will post it. Please be patient. It is good stuff and will be of interest to all anglers in the eastern side of the state.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Location: Munster, IN | Larry,
You may want to correct your link to the Restoration website.
I think it should be restoration not RESOTRATION.
EJ- That apoligy will come in time, if it is deserved and not before.
In the mean time he might consider making one to the people he has insulted or pissed off.
I don't know who pi$$ed in his Cheerios but there has been good dialog here on this site in respect to this topic.
No reason for a tantrum.
Larry,
FYI- Northerns where introduced into LCO (via Squaw Creek) due to the pressure of local businesses and some local anglers (Tavern owners) on the DNR.
Their logic was they thought too many anlgers where heading north to Canada to catch "unlimited" numbers of pike.
Back in those days the Dare Devil was the hot bait for Northern Pike. Surely you remember?
It was going to be a big boom for the local economy (Resort owners and taverns, mainly).
How many resorts are left on LCO today? How many northerns are there?Let the biologists and scientists do their job without the unnecessary added pressure that is coming from your organization.
My source of information for LCO comes from a family (mine) that has been on Lac Courte Oreilles since 1918. You are a relative new comer to the area by those standards.
Like I said before becareful what you ask for. You just might get it!
My $0.03
Paul
Edited by PFLesox 5/19/2005 11:51 AM
| |
| | |
| PFLesox,
PFLesox: Quote----"EJ- That apology will come in time, if it is deserved and not before.
In the mean time he might consider making one to the people he has insulted or pissed off."----End quote.
Below you will, find what you apparently missed and was posted by Larry earlier today on another thread here on musky first.
Larry: Quote----"I would again like to take this opportunity to apologize to ANYONE that I may have offended along the way to this point. I have the greatest of respect for our overworked and underpaid fisheries professional's, and will proceed from this point in an effort to make that clear and try and end the "war of words" that has heretofore taken place at times."----End quote.
| |
| | |
Location: Munster, IN | missed it EJ
glad to hear his cheerios are dry again
Edited by PFLesox 5/19/2005 1:09 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Eric,
Why will he need an apology? The way I see some of the people on this board are only raising questions about the WMRT's findings based on the evidence Larry has presented. I'm of the opinion that the WMRT may have some very important data but you totally lost its meaning when the organization is not willing to be held up the same standards that you guys demand of the WDNR to adhere too. This very hypocritcal on your part. Nobody owes anybody anything except to be dealt with in a respectable fashion and that is something WMRT has not been doing. So for me at least the notion that Larry, Bob, or yourself is going to be owed anything is ridiculous.
Thanks
Dave | |
| | |
| Folks,
I thought I'd update you on the cost issues related to stocking a different strain of fish. The issue is really more if we decide to stock two different strains ongoing. If the different strains spawn at different times, there would be additional costs in supplying the right size food for the 2nd strain during the early part of the spring. It's hard to tell exactly what the costs would be - but there are solutions to limit them. As a starting point, we feel the best solution is to get LL or GL fry direct from either the MN DNR or a commercial supplier, and simply provide those fry to the state hatchery. The costs of the fry would likely need to come from Muskie clubs, or through donations and fundraising. Up to this point it would actually be a cost reduction to the DNR because they'd have to raise less fry. Once the second strain is in the hatchery, we'd expect them to raise the same number of fingerlings so the cost for raising fry to fingerlings should be a wash. In theory this route should have no additional costs to the WDNR as long as Muskie fisherman - through clubs and fundraising - are willing to help out in obtaining fry. Many individuals have indicated they would be willing to make contributions to allow this to happen.
This scenario should be needed for 5 years as we create broodstock lakes.
Once broodstock lakes are available the WDNR should be able to to obtain spawn from various sources at the same time. For instance they take eggs from the earlier spawning fish from a lake that is further north, while they take eggs from the later spawning fish from a lake futher south. This should allow the current Muskie program to operate under something very close to it's existing cost structure.
My point is there are solutions out there, without just saying "it costs too much - so stop thinking about it."
Whenever we discuss costs, we must also include the costs of not doing this in terms of lost tourism, lodging, gas etc.
There are other solutions here, I'm sure there are better ideas. Possibly partnering with the MN DNR on the St.Croix drainage?
Another thing I'd really like to see (possibly on the Madison chain, or preferably up North on a landlocked lake like Shell Lake) is a growth study that includes Wis, LL and GL strains in the same body of water.
The tougher question to answer would be the additional costs of selective breeding........again, Muskie clubs and fisherman have indicated they are willing to support this with both money and manpower.
I'd be interested to see anyone else's thoughts on the additional costs associated with this project.
Bob
| |
| | |
| Chad, no need to apologize for asking a couple good questions in a civil tone. I'll do my best to answer them here in general terms:
CHAD: "1. Maybe this has been answered and I missed it but....How is using 15 45" plus females for egg taking different than using 15 35" females? I can understand the $$$$$ reason but genetically I can't make it work in my mind yet."
DAVE: "Actually, it might NOT be different. There is a chance that the offspring created by using 15, 45" females may not differ in their performance potential from the offspring created by using 15, 35" females in the same body of water. However, it would be unsound practice to use either group as the sole broodstock. What we seek is genetic DIVERSITY. We have good reason to believe that a diverse mix of large and small, young and old fish is necessary to maintain a healthy stock that is not inbred in any way. Almost by default, but increasingly by design, we seek this diversity in selecting fish to spawn.
CHAD: "2. Has Wisconsin considered spring stocking rather than fall stocking? Iowa has gone to stocking 1 year old fish in June and the DNR is reporting greatly improved survival rates."
DAVE: I don't know the extent to which Iowa does this, but with far fewer musky waters, they may be able to afford the cost of winter holdover better than Wisconsin. Because I am not a fish culture expert, I will not elaborate, but my understanding is that overwinter holdover (survival, cost to feed a maintenance ration, occupation of ponds needed for young walleye and musky production EARLY the next spring, etc.) make this an impractical option for Wisconsin's huge coolwater fish propagation program. If any Iowa DNR biologists or Wisconsin hatchery managers are reading this, please feel free to correct me or elaborate if I have oversimplified.
CHAD: "3. I am sure you have seen the pictures and talked with the guides in Pastika's about some the large fish they were getting last year in the Hayward area. Do you see this as a sign of things to come? Maybe it just now the NW Wisc area is reaping the rewards of the positive effects of catch and release?"
DAVE: This Wednesday the Sawyer County Record ran a story that included mention of 10 muskies over 50" long reported to the newspaper, with photos, in 2004. (Apparently those fish had not heard they were the product of inferior broodstock.) That's how many 50-inchers were reported to the newspaper. We have no idea how many were caught. Because we have a lot of smaller lakes in the area, big fish often go unreported for fear that a crowd will gather quickly. There are very big fish in several Hayward area lakes. Average size has been increasing over the past 20 years in response to higher minimum length limits and voluntary catch-and-release. But we are still concerned about the effects of incidental kill and unknown harvest (sport and spearing) on the survival of fish to trophy sizes. Incidentally, whenever I browsed the local paper last summer, I noticed LOTS of photos of happy anglers holding up muskies 40-49" long. The smiles on their faces did a convincing job of hiding their bitter disappointment over not catching a 50" fish.
A BIT OF PERSPECTIVE HERE: I spent all day helping Mike Persson (President of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc.) guide a couple disabled anglers as part of the annual "Fishing Has No Boundaries" event on the Chippewa Flowage. (What a GREAT event!) One of our boat partners, Jerry, caught a 24" northern pike. I'm sure his exhilarant whooping could be heard across the lake, and it took 5 minutes to wipe the smile off his face. I came home with a smile on my face too, and then I watched Joe Bucher catch a 42" musky on TV. Here's a guy who has caught more muskies than most of us will ever see in a lifetime, and yet he was just as excited as Jerry over the shock of the strike and his brief but violent confrontation with such a magnificent creature. He was genuinely excited and pleased, and he made a point of saying that it shouldn't take a 50" fish every time to get one's heart pumping. (Thanks, Joe.) Add to this excitement the calling of the loons, the sight of bald eagles and bears, the smell of birch wood smoke drifting across the water from the balsam-scented forest, and you realize things just aren't all that bad here in the North Land. Have we forgotten all this in our quest for the genetic superfish? Have a great weekend, Chad.
| |
| | |
Posts: 7090
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "The costs of the fry would likely need to come from Muskie clubs, or through donations and fundraising. Up to this point it would actually be a cost reduction to the DNR because they'd have to raise less fry. Once the second strain is in the hatchery, we'd expect them to raise the same number of fingerlings so the cost for raising fry to fingerlings should be a wash. In theory this route should have no additional costs to the WDNR as long as Muskie fisherman - through clubs and fundraising - are willing to help out in obtaining fry. Many individuals have indicated they would be willing to make contributions to allow this to happen."
I'm interested Bob, WHICH clubs have offered to provide this kind of funding? If its a concrete idea that you have figured out how to execute, then you must know names of clubs who support raising funds for this program.
The WMRT seems to speak of experts who support your views, but their names are never mentioned, funding is now spoken of, without naming the exact groups who have pledged support for your proposed actions. AND, to a large degree, the WKRP speaks of the "majority" of WI muskie anglers supporting your cause, but with the vast numbers of anglers visiting the OutdoorsFIRST websites, the response to the WMRT viewpoints is pretty much evenly divided between blind agreement and passionate fighting versus either your theories, your methods of 'research', or your methods of working with the actual professionals within the WDNR. | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
'Fishing Has No Boundaries' is a GREAT program! Many of the folks I work with are active in that organization. It sounds like you had a great time. | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Bob,"Another thing I'd really like to see (possibly on the Madison chain, or preferably up North on a landlocked lake like Shell Lake) is a growth study that includes Wis, LL and GL strains in the same body of water."
I would really like to see a study like this. I have a feeling that the GL strain would win this contest. Maybe we could stock some landlocked lakes in each region of the state with the winner.
Bob,"There are other solutions here, I'm sure there are better ideas. Possibly partnering with the MN DNR on the St.Croix drainage?"
This is an excellent idea, the problem being two seperate state agencies would need to work together. It seems to me WI should do all of stocking in the St. Louis with GL strain. Our MN friends could do all of the stocking in the St. Croix with LL fish. It seems like a no brainer to stop putting two different strains into each river.
Bob,"The tougher question to answer would be the additional costs of selective breeding........again, Muskie clubs and fisherman have indicated they are willing to support this with both money and manpower."
I have no doubts that these gentlemen can pull off the financial support that would be needed. Our club in Madison just had a very successful fundraiser in April. We have committed to putting 500 LL strain fish into Lake Monona this fall. Monona was do for a stocking of 1400 muskies this fall.Other area clubs are talking about helping out, if they can come up with the money for 200 more LL fish, we would have 700 LL's and 700 WI strain being stocked this fall. Our club is doing this all on its own, next year the DNR will start raising some LL fish. I got this info from the CC MI message board. I haven't had a chance to talk to any of the players, yet. This project really fires me up. | |
| | |
| Dave,
I'd appreciate your help with this - Are there any documented occurrences of either inbreeding or out breeding depression within Muskellunge populations? If so can you direct us to where we might learn more.
I understand these are valid concerns across all life forms, and something that must be considered in any management program.
thanks again,
Bob
| |
| | |
| Here is what they are doing in Texas to make a better bass fishery. I'd love to see someting like this aimed at the lakes of either the Flambeau or Chippewa drainage. This has been going on for nearly 20 years in Texas and from what I understand fishing for big bass is better than ever there - although no world record yet.
Steve Worrall - an interview with someone in this program would be interesting. No muskie questions, just what are they doing and is it working type questions.
Would you call these fish managers reckless or progressive?
From another website:
Lorraine Fries is the Lab Manager at the A.E. Wood Hatchery in San Marcos. She says her team stays busy searching for genetic markers in bass that could indicate the quantitative traits they seek.
"We're exploring the utility of something called amplified fragment length polymorphisms. And, that probably means nothing to most people. But, these are a class of genetic markers that are frequently typed, or associated with, quantitative traits. And quantitative traits are what we're interested in looking at for the selective breeding programs."
The genetic markers they seek in bass are those which indicate the fish - and its offspring - may grow large. Therefore, size is the quantitative trait they desire.
And A.E. Wood geneticist Jamie Dixson says they study lunkers from the ShareLunker program.
"And we analyze those fish by looking their DNA, and then we analyze a standard type fish which we call a wild type largemouth bass; and we look for differences. If the difference that we see is found at a higher rate in the lunker largemouth bass, then its possible, and in many cases probable, that that genetic trait that we're looking at can be associated with a gene that allows the fish to grow to a greater size."
These fish enter a selective breeding program with the hope of making bigger bass. And bigger bass means happy anglers.
The Budweiser ShareLunker Program began November 26, 1986 when a 17.65 pound Lake Fork largemouth bass was caught by Mark Stevenson. Since then, 391 largemouth bass have been donated from 52 public reservoirs and 11 private lakes. The program, which runs from October 1-April 30 each year, is a venture among businesses, state government and anglers to preserve and enhance Texas' largemouth bass fisheries.
Through the program, anglers loan largemouth bass weighing 13 pounds or more to Texas Parks and Wildlife for spawning and research purposes. At the end of spawning season, the fish will be returned to the angler for live release, or the angler may donate it permanently to the program. Superior genetics from ShareLunker females and their offspring will be used to improve the quality of largemouth bass stocked in Texas waters. In return for their cooperation, participating anglers receive a free fiberglass replica of their catch, Budweiser ShareLunker clothing, and recognition at the awards banquet at Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center. In addition, the Texas resident catching the largest entry of the season will be awarded a lifetime fishing license
Anyone catching a 13-pound-plus largemouth bass is eligible to participate by calling (903) 670-2226 weekdays or by paging (888) 784-0600 weekends and evenings.
Special thanks to Anheuser-Busch for providing funding for the Budweiser ShareLunker Program
Budweiser ShareLunker Program Key to Record Bass Effort
ATHENS, Texas — To create a master strain of trophy bass and ultimately a new world record specimen, Texas Parks and Wildlife biologists first need a strain of master anglers. Thanks to the Budweiser ShareLunker program, which offers incentives for anglers who turn over their catches of 13-pound-plus trophy bass to TPW for research and selective breeding purposes, state officials have a way to reach that breed of fishermen.
The ShareLunker program, entering its 14th year, is an integral component of a unique fisheries management strategy to improve bass fishing and produce a new world record largemouth bass in Texas. Program officials believe the knowledge and experience gleaned from years of borrowing trophy bass from Texas anglers for hatchery production and research, combined with resources at the state-of-the-art Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center, make this attainable.
"Our goal with the ShareLunker program from the beginning has been to improve the quality of bass fishing in Texas, and I think we've moved forward," said Allen Forshage, TFFC director. "We began the Operation World Record selective breeding program with this past year's crop of ShareLunkers. We produced about 90,000 fry from ShareLunkers last spring. Some of these are in eight research ponds at the center. These will be used in our selective breeding program."
ShareLunker offspring will be strategically stocked around the state in hopes that these bass will grow to record size, said Forshage. To ensure the success of the initiative over the long haul, however, biologists need to replenish broodstocks regularly. "Most of these fish are pretty old when we get them, and we're not sure how reliable spawners they'll be or how many offspring they'll be able to produce."
Because not all trophy bass are caught during the spawn, biologists are hoping to increase the odds of getting more spawning success by extending the time frame for accepting ShareLunker entries. The season runs Oct. 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001.
"This should help us bring in more broodstock at a time of year when the bass aren't as stressed as during the spawn," offered David Campbell, TFFC hatchery manager. "Thanks to conservation-minded anglers who know how to handle big fish, the experienced TPW staff and the facilities here at the center, we're getting good survival and production and can handle a bigger load."
Forshage noted that one of the challenges for the ShareLunker program has been ensuring the health of these mammoth bass. "These big bass are in a stressful condition to begin with during normal spawning activity. That stress is compounded when you consider an angler has just caught them, and then we haul them around the state, sometimes for hours before they are stabilized again," he explained. "By holding over eight of last year's crop of ShareLunkers, we can expect predictable spawns with fish that aren't so stressed. Our biologists have become more proficient in handling these fish, as have anglers, and that's reflected in the increased survival rates of our ShareLunkers."
Since 1986, 321 bass weighing 13 pounds or more including two state record fish have been loaned or donated to the ShareLunker program. Last year's first entry did not come until Feb. 3, the latest date for a first entry in the history of the program. In surpassing the 300-entry mark, the program also had 12 different lakes contribute bass, including five lakes that gave up their first ShareLunkers, and six lake records.
Again this year, anglers will be offered the option of permanently donating their lunker catches to the program for ongoing research, display and hatchery production. In exchange, the ShareLunker program provides anglers with a fiberglass replica of their catches. This year, the ShareLunker program is offering additional incentives to participating anglers. Texas residents who donate or lend their catch to the program will receive a jacket identifying them as ShareLunker anglers, shirt and cap. Plus, five anglers who attend the annual recognition banquet at TFFC in May 2001 will have a chance to win a G-Loomis MBR model 784 fishing rod. The Texas resident angler who donates the largest bass of the year will also receive a $600 Texas Lifetime Resident Fishing License. Anyone catching a 13-pound-plus largemouth bass is eligible to participate by calling (903) 670-2226 weekdays or by paging (888) 784-0600 weekends and evenings.
The Budweiser ShareLunker program operates under the auspices of the Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas Inc. The mission of the Budweiser ShareLunker program is to involve the public in the conservation and enhancement of trophy bass fishing in Texas." For more information on the Budweiser ShareLunker program, call the ShareLunker staff at (903) 670-2226 or check the TPW ShareLunker Web page (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/infish/hatchery/tffc/sharelunker.htm).
| |
| | |
| Dave you stated: "Actually, it might NOT be different. There is a chance that the offspring created by using 15, 45" females may not differ in their performance potential from the offspring created by using 15, 35" females in the same body of water. However, it would be unsound practice to use either group as the sole broodstock. What we seek is genetic DIVERSITY. We have good reason to believe that a diverse mix of large and small, young and old fish is necessary to maintain a healthy stock that is not inbred in any way. Almost by default, but increasingly by design, we seek this diversity in selecting fish to spawn.
Dave,
I'll agree that diversity is a good thing, But I'll respectively contend that by using NO LARGE FEMALES in the hatchery breeding program, we may be actually limiting the diversity just as you suggest. My understanding is that in most years there are no large muskies (greater than 46 inches) used in our egg selection in NW Wisconsin. I've not received data on every year, but this is my understanding relative to recent times. If I am off base and there are records that indicate otherwise, please let us know.
While it can be speculated that some of the small fish used for spawn taking may grow to large sizes, it is only speculation as no one knows for sure whether they will grow large or not. I would like us to use more large fish that are KNOWN to be of large size in our brood stock to ensure that we include the genetic diversity of these large fish in our breeding program. If we continue to allow to the harvest of known large fish and not include known large fish in our breeding program - we may encounter problems. Your thoughts?
Bob
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, Geeeeze, no one can ask a question in the tone you use nearly every time you post without getting blasted by....you. I read Slamr's post ten times, and don't see anywhere where he even slightly insinuated you were lying. He's making a point I'll make more clearly, since he chose partial parody:
The WMRT has continually made claims to know WAY more than they are telling us poor dopes out here ( is this because the information is SO blockbuster, we would possibly faint dead away upon reading it?), have the very strong support of scientists, have what appears by comments to be massive financial support, etc, without backing up any of those claims.
Any other NGO, PAC, activist group or any type of group making those claims would be taken to task immediately by the public, why not yours? To date, no one but the WMRT has backed up the scientific assumptions you've posted, no representative from an organized group has stepped up, and we keep hearing the 'if you just knew what WE know' comment. Slamr asked you to put up, that's all. Grow thicker skin, or get the heck out of the target zone, that's my suggestion.
About the genetics study:
Remember the study proposed by Mr. Sloss? When that study is complete, it's for all intents and purposes what you read about the bass study that you'll get. I believe there is work in Canada underway as well by highly respected scientists, I've read quite a bit about that over the last couple years. The entire idea is to identify the average fish we have now and compare them to the large mounted fish of the past, and the present, fish from other areas, etc. to identify exactly what we DO have here. Our DNR then can move forward with plans to maximize the management of muskies here in a scientifically acceptable manner. If I have that wrong, I won't for long, I'm scheduled to speak with Mr. Sloss Monday. The implications of that knowledge are HUGE!!
As far as fund raising Slamr and many MuskieFIRST members ARE stepping up ( in fact, Slamr already has raised a significant amount of money in concert with volunteers here at MuskieFIRST for Muskie stocking efforts, but you wouldn't know about that. Because as a result of your selective posting on MuskieFIRST you do not read the HUGE volumes of information elsewhere onsite), we intend to raise money for both the genetic work on the Butternut fish, and for Mr. Sloss's work. I'm betting it will not be necessary for Mr. Nueswanger to look any further that right here for the money to test those Butternut fish.
Far as your next post, I'll let Mr. Neuswanger answer that if he wishes, I already have given my opinion on that one about a dozen times.
OK, Bob, here's part of the problem. This forum is used by our community here at MuskieFIRST to discuss research issues. You folks barged in here and sought to dominate the conversation, all up with the we-know-and-you-don't-so-don't-ask-questions-We'll- let- you- know- when- you- are- informed attitude, and don't contribute a #*^@ed thing to the rest of MuskieFIRST. The way this place works is pretty simple, we actually COMMUNICATE reasonably, share information, exchange ideas respectfully like Mike Roberts, Norm Wild, Mr. Nueswanger, others were in a thread in this forum for awhile. So from this point forward, no more special priveledges for you folks, you step beyond our posting permissions or protocol, and it's gone.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bytor,
I'm excited about the projects on the Mad Town water and the Petenwell, the Fox River and Green Bay, and Winnebago. I'd direct you to the comment in the Genetics question Slamr raised. The answer there is the difinitive scientific answer to much of what were discussing here. Take my word for it, the gentleman who posted that information is extremely well qualified. Again, I thank him for his post and time.
On a side note, the walleyes in the Bay are UNBELIEVABLE!! The FLW there this weekend took a 4 day limit of 20 fish at 111.5 POUNDS to win. If the Muskies are doing as well as the walleyes, we may see a new world record out of Wisconsin yet.
We are at a mid-study cross roads of sorts, which the DNR has arrived at from about 5 years of work on the Muskie program. We NEED more genetic study, and I intend to do everything I can do to assist, it's critical to our future management programs and a good move no matter WHAT else is going on with our Muskies here or anywhere. | |
| | |
| From another board;
"The decision to stock Leech Lake fish in Wisconsin is easier than the decision to use sunscreen"
I am a Minnesota scientist and have been reading the posts about stocking Leech Lake fish in Wisconsin. I have been humored by many of the inane responses to the Wisconsin Musky Restoration Project. I have prepared this long post to show you that the decision to stock Leech Lake fish in Wisconsin is much easier than the decision to use sunscreen:
1. Are the fish being stocked in most Wisconsin inland lakes of mixed parentage? There is little doubt from information presented by Larry Ramsell and others on this and other websites that inland Wisconsin lakes are stocked with progeny of fish that came from four different bodies of water.
2. Is it important that the strain being used now is a mixed strain? Unknown. In dogs, a mixed strain (or mutt), may have a nicer personality than the purebred, but be unable to perform certain tasks (like retrieving) as well as a purebred. Since size is one of the major reasons people fish for them, and muskies are usually stocked to become a sportfish, stocking muskies that grow large is important. A bit about this "strain" business. Here i will draw on my genetics background. I suspect that there are big fish that have genetics that are quite similar be they living in Quebec or Minnesota. And then there are pond mutants that became isolated from the main big fish as the glaciers retreated. These pond fish had a much less diverse genetic pool and developed some strange things about them, often small size. Using genetics, we can make a tree that shows, by number of genetic changes, how far a particular individual is from the trunk of the tree, or if an individual is in another branch of the tree. (This is done by sequencing part of the DNA in the genome, the DNA in your mitochondria is identical to that of your mother, the DNA in the X chromosome identical to your father. Thus both Maternal and Paternal lineages can be followed.) The pond mutants became separated from the main tree long ago as the glaciers melted, leaving these pond mutants lots of time to separate genetically from the main tree. I will from this point forward call these fish "pond adaptees". I suspect that PCR analysis to be presented at the Fall muskie symposium will verify my theory, (anecdote: There are many lakes which are only steps away from large bodies of water that have pond adaptee fish. Calder lake and the better known Pincher lake are examples of lakes in NW Ontario that are very near my favorite big fish water (the Manitou), yet are filled with pond adaptee fish. A few steps of physical distance can be centuries of genetic distance.)
3. Is the growth rate and the penultimate size the most important thing in selection of muskies for stocking? These are related, as slow growing adaptees do not reach the ultimate size of rapid growing fish. Thus, selection for rapid growth rate will probably lead to the largest ultimate size. In theory, selection at the hatchery level should be searching for surviability, growth, resistance to disease, ability to reproduce etc. In the case of muskies that are destined to be sportfish, where size matters, selection by size trumps these other charachteristics.
4. Are the fish now being stocked in Wisconsin inland waters pond adaptees? ( please forget MI Lunge Log catch data for the moment.) The way to test the rate of if fish's growth in a particular body of water is simply to tag a fish and then recapture it and measure it; or to age a dead fish by use of the cleithrum bone. Minnesota did this in the early 1980s and showed that Leech lake fish had the fastest growth rate. . Wisconsin did this by putting Leech Lake fish in Nancy Lake and also showed Leech Lake fish to grow the fastest. Illinois has Project Green Gene. Particular fish have been recaught more than once and growth rates noted. Leech Lake strain fish in the high 40 inch range are growing more than one inch a year in small Minnesota Lakes. I have reviewed the raw data from 128 recaptured fish from inland Wisconsin lakes. These fish are growing about one inch a year when they are in the high 30 inch range, their growth is negligible when they reach 45 inches. The Minnesota DNR has a library of cleithrum from various size fish. I suspect the Wisconsin DNR has a similar library. If the Wisconsin DNR could produce cleithrum from a number of high forty inch fish that are only 10 or 12 years old, they would have a defense against the WMRA claim that the fish are slow growing. I suspect their cleithrum show the opposite, many fish in only the 35 to 40 inch range that are already 10 years old. This would explain the Wisconsin DNR rapid agreement to allow several lakes to be stocked with Leech Lake strain. (Anecdote: In the Twin Cities Muskie tournament a fish, with a massively damaged lip, has been caught in the same spot two successive years. This fish grew from 46.5 inches to 48 inches in one year. The witness in year 2 was fishing nearby and had caught the fish in year 1, It was in a tournament and measured accurately. There are many similar anecdotes showing the growth of MN high forty inch fish to be over one inch a year. Today, I helped stock 176 two and three year old muskies into White Bear lake. Average size of the two year olds was 16 to 22 inches, the three year olds 25 to 31 inches. Those Leech lake fish do grow fast!!!!!)
5 Are Wisconsin fish living in an environment with a lack of forage? Probably not. Fish of most species that grow with a lack of food tend to have large heads and comparatively small bodies. Look at the Lake trout above the Arctic Circle (where food is rare and the fish grow very slowly, but they have the genetics to grow to world-record size) vs. a Lake trout growing in a western US reservoir. Or those huge-bodied brown trout caught in Lake Michigan. Also, the harvest of muskies in Wisconsin should protect against an overpopulation that would lead to stunting. Others have noted that the Wisconsin fish have large bodies and small heads, indicating there is plenty of forage. I would call this anecdotal evidence unless actual length by girth data is given.
6 Does the harvest of fish affect the genetics of the overall population? Definitely. Many studies show that when a "minimum size limit" is imposed on any species, you are selecting for a population of fish that grow slowly so that they can reproduce the maximum number of times before they reach that minimum size limit. This is unlikely at present in Wisconsin, because the reproduction of inland fish is poor, but may be the reason the brood stock is of slow-growing genetics. (my opinion-This effect has had a devastating effect on Wisconsin walleye size.)
7. Are world-record fish "freaks"? Probably. In any large population, there are mutants that arise. I consider both basketball and football to be games where such freaks are the dominant players. (If 'fridge Perry is reading this-Yes, I consider you to be a freak) But, these freaks have the parentage to put them on the upper edge size-wise of the general population anyway. In weight lifting, a particlar mutation that turns off the gene for myostatin, creates humans with naturally tremendous physiques. In the July 30, 2004 issue of Science, (page 635) there are photographs of a seven-month old child with such a physique. In the New England Journal of Medicine, June 24, 2004 issue, a 4 year old with the same mutation and the physique of a "mini-bodybuilder" is described.
8. Should we be selecting muske populations to create larger and larger fish just to get a world record fish? Maybe. In salmonids, this has been tried unsuccessfully many times. When you select for a population that has one desireable feature like rapid growth, you usually select for other features that make the creature have poor survival in the wild. One of the beauties of the Leech Lake fish is that mother nature selected a fish that grows rapidly in the 42 to 49 degeee north latitude, and the fish has adapted to spawning in the presence of northern pike. It is not clear if the Leech Lake fish is perfect for the latitude of Kentucky. But it is important to note that the Leech Lake fish is naturally occuring, where the pond adaptees presently being stocked in Wisconsin inland waters are not natural strain, but rather, hatchery-made.
9. So what about the Spray and Johnson fish? I dont' t want to anger Larry Ramsell here, but those fish are either Fakes or Freaks, you make the call. To base a stocking strategy on these few fish, if that is what is done presently, is "anecdotal science". This is equivalent to believing that smoking is not harmful because " my aunt smoked two packs a day and lived 'til 90". Exceptions will occur, and, in fact, there may even be chemicals in LCO and the Chippewa Flowage that lead to a few of the fish spawning there to have a mutation that makes them grow extremely rapidly. See the human weight-lifter mutation example in #7 above.
10. If they could grow without fishing pressure would the fish all get huge? No. Lac Suel is an example of a relatively untouched fishery that has lots of forage and a fast growing fish, yet does not often yield fish over 60 lbs.
11. Is the selection of a strain that is most likely to have natural reproduction important? Maybe. Remember, many muskie fisheries are dependant totally on the hatchery process. The muskie is a political fish. In these years of increased economic pressure on Departments of Natural Resources, hatcheries may be closed and the fisheries dependant on them become nonexistent. Wisconsin muskie fishermen should consider the fact that the Leech Lake fish reproduce well naturally as possibly the most important reason to start stocking Leech Lake fish.
12. Has this happened before? For Wisconsinites who may be embarrassed that fish from upstart rival Minnesota should be used to rehabilitate the Wisconsin fishery; the use of genetic material from a competitor is not new. All of the wine grapes in France are from California vines which had to be re-introduced to France when disease killed the original French vines. We may humorously remind you that your state fish really came from Minnesota, but we would like all states to have beautiful muskie fisheries so we can fish in peace.
13. Where can Wisconsin get Leech Lake fish? From public and private hatcheries in many states. I would hope that Wisconsin has some ability to get Atlantic Salmon, then trade them to Minnesota, because Minnesota had the beginnings of a great Atlantic Salmon fishery, then discontinued the program before fully analyzing it. Minnesota DNR, how about a catch-and-release Atlantic Salmon lake like Hosmer Lake in Oregon?
14. Can Minnesotans effect change in the Wisconson stocking strategy? Yes. Quit buying the Wisconsin license and wait a week to start fishing. Wisconsin license is too expensive for a lousy week (or a week of lousy?) fishing anyway. Send the money to the Wisconsin DNR and put "stock Leech lake fish" in the subject line.
15. Should there be another study on muskie growth? On one of the posts it is indicated that Wisconsin is going to ask for federal money to study muskie growth. This sounds like a tactic to create or pay for jobs that already exist. If you suspect that the funds are being misused, you can use the Freedom of Information Act to see how the money is being used. I have spent thousands of my own money in the past gathering such documents, so it can be done.
---------------------------
1. Should you use sunscreen? Now this is a much harder question to answer. Remember how your mother said "go out and play in the sun" Maybe she was right. Dermatologists have created a fear of sunlight. But our bodies create Vitamin D in sunlight. I have lots of data that shows that sunlight inhibits development of many kinds of cancer and that sunscreen doesn't prevent the two worst types of skin cancer. I'll start with quotes form a presentation at the American Association for Cancer research meeting I attended in April. "There is evidence that Vitamin D insufficiency is associated with reduced incidence of bone and muscle diseases, multiple slerosis, type 1 diabets mellitis, myocardial infarction and end stage renal disease...." from the same pesentation "Use of sunscreen does not protect against melanoma or basil cell carcinoma, and reduces the production of vitamin D" I've plucked a few references off of the web to reinforce my argument that sunlight may be more helpful than harmful (see references below)
2. Should you intentionally get a sunburn? From American Association for Cancer Research,2005 meeting, Abstact number 2188. "The role of sunburn in the etiology of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma". Plant, Catherine E. et. al. The presenter had data from Scotland and showed four sunburns halved the chance you would get non-Hodgkins Lymphoma when compared with those who had never had a blistering sunburn. ( I don't make this stuff up. Enjoy the sun and have your skin inspected for melanoma often)
(I use sunscreen on those areas of the body which are exposed when in a casket-forehead, cheeks, ears, nose and neck. Sun does age the skin, and I want to be presented as a young-looking corpse.) (you would have to drink 20 glasses of milk a day to get to the Vitamin D levels they are talking about in most of these papers.)
References: (there are hundreds but I got lazy)
Note: Abstracts of these papers may be found at PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/)
1. Rajakumar K. Vitamin D, cod-liver oil, sunlight, and rickets: a historical perspective. Pediatrics. 2003;112:e132-5.
2. Frost HM, Schonau E. The "muscle-bone unit" in children and adolescents: a 2000 overview. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13:571-90.
3. Vieth R. Vitamin D Nutrition and its Potential Health Benefits for Bone, Cancer and Other Conditions. J Nutr Env Med 2001;11:275-91.
4. Grant WB. An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the United States due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation, Cancer, 2002;94:1867-75.
5. Ponsonby AL, McMichael A, van der Mei I. Ultraviolet radiation and autoimmune disease: insights from epidemiological research. Toxicology. 2002;181-1821-8.
6. Barthel HR, Scharla SH. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2003;128:440-6.
7. Calvo MS, Whiting SJ. Prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in Canada and the United States: importance to health status and efficacy of current food fortification and dietary supplement use. Nutr Rev. 2003;61:107-13.
8. Hayes CE, Nashold FE, Spach KM, Pedersen LB. The immunological functions of the vitamin D endocrine system. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2003:49:277-300.
9. Heaney RP. Long-latency deficiency disease: insights from calcium and vitamin D. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;7812-9.
10. Holick MF. Vitamin D: A millenium perspective. J Cell Biochem. 2003;88:296-307.
11. Zittermann A. Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence? Br J Nutr. 2003;89:552-72.
12. Holick MF. Vitamin D: importance in the prevention of cancers, type 1 diabetes, heart disease, and osteoporosis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Mar;79(3):362-71.
13. Grant WB, Strange RC, Garland CF. Health benefits of ultraviolet-B radiation through production of vitamin D, J Cos Dermatol, in press.
14. Chen TC, Persons KS, Lu Z, Mathieu JS, Holick MF. An evaluation of the biologic activity and vitamin D receptor binding affinity of the photoisomers of vitamin D3 and previtamin D3. J Nutr Biochem. 2000;11:267-72.
15. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 58;295-300,1965.
16. Chuck A, Todd J, Diffey B. Subliminal ultraviolet-B irradiation for the prevention of vitamin D deficiency in the elderly: a feasibility study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2001;17:168-71.
17. Lo CW, Paris PW, Clemens TL, Nolan J, Holick MF. Vitamin D absorption in healthy subjects and in patients with intestinal malabsorption syndromes. Am J Clin Nutr. 1985;42:644-9.
18. Sowers MR, Wallace RB, Hollis BW, Lemke JH. Parameters related to 25-OH-D levels in a population-based study of women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1986;43:621-8.
19. Grant WB, Garland CF. A critical review of studies on vitamin D in relation to colorectal cancer. Nutr Cancer. in press.
20. Ovesen L, Brot C, Jakobsen J. Food contents and biological activity of 25-hydroxyvitamin D: a vitamin D metabolite to be reckoned with? Ann Nutr Metab. 2003;47:107-13.
*Grant WB, Holick MF. A review of evidence supporting the role of vitamin D in reducing the risk of chronic diseases. Submitted to Am J Clin Nutr (March 9, 2004).
Greg Ide
The dock is IN
| |
| | |
| Good post
What's an adaptee?
Do stocked fish always mix with the resident fish? | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Ramsell, thanks for posting that response, could you direct me as to how I might get in touch with this gentleman? I'd prefer to talk with him directly instead of you answering for him, even though you posted the information. Now that's what I'm talking about!!
I'd point out that Michael's response here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=20... conflicts with this statement in part. Mr. Idle's statement doesn't address the eastern portion of Wisconsin at all (as an example similar to his, I caught a fish season before last that was over 50" that had been caught five years earlier by another angler. This fish has a very distinct scar. The fish was 42" five years prior to my catching it). Hopefully we can get him over here on this board to discuss this issue further.
I'd ask Mr. Idle if he really thinks it's wise to suggest that Dr. Sloss's proposed work is a misuse of public funds, and would ask if he has spoken to Dr. Sloss about the work proposed or knows for whom Dr. Sloss works. I'd ask him if he is aware that Dr. Sloss will be studying genetics in any case whether it's for the Muskie genome or another critter, and if he s aware that Dr. Sloss already has undertaken substantial preparation for the proposed project without any funding.
I would agree with his comment about the 'fakes or freaks', but that's me.
I also find it interesting that he refers to the general public's responses and questions to the WMRT 'inane'; treating the general public that way might be characterized as the same. I must be fair and admit the following: I work in a field that requires experience in public releations and interpersonal communication skills, and actually have directed comments not too far from the mark of his. I did, however, direct those comments to EXACT incidences, and with an end goal in mind. I sincerly hope he's willing to do the same instead of just taking broad shots at the general public. I'll try to locate him and get an interview, asking him to clarify some of his commentary and offer his scientific credentials.
Per his reference to Wisconsin Walleyes:
Here's some walleye tournament results from Wisconsin:
MWC results:
26 1 ERIC EICHORN DAN FELBER 21.36 [5] 20.76 [5] 13.19 [5] 55.310
21 2 DENNIS CLARK KENT EIDE 8.88 [3] 17.23 [5] 24.55 [5] 50.660
4 3 DONALD OLSON MICHAEL OLSON 11.17 [5] 19.25 [5] 17.41 [5] 47.830
25 4 DEAN NATHE PAUL THOMPSON 12.25 [5] 11.56 [5] 11.32 [5] 35.130
31 5 PETE HUIBREGTSE RICK LARSON 14.35 [5] 12.61 [5] 8.11 [5] 35.070
16 6 DAVID BJORKMAN KEN BJORKMAN 11.06 [5] 12.15 [5] 11.46 [5] 34.670
42 7 MARTY BERNS JEFF LAHR 20.26 [5] 14.01 [5] 0.00 [0] 34.270
39 8 MIKE FORTIER BRUCE KOLINSKI 11.77 [5] 8.41 [5] 10.41 [5] 30.590
11 9 COREY MEINCKE DJ SIEWERT 13.56 [5] 16.90 [5] 0.00 [0] 30.460
37 10 RUSSELL GAHAGAN GEORGE GAHAGAN 13.95 [5] 10.67 [3] 5.45 [2] 30.070
FLW Walleye, Wisconsin:
JAMIE FRIEBEL 11.75 13.06 17.94 14.13 56.880
2 2 PETE HARSH 10.50 15.50 16.38 11.06 53.440
3 3 RICK OLSON 12.31 13.25 12.88 9.69 48.130
4 4 JOHN CAMPBELL 12.13 11.44 12.50 8.44 44.510
5 5 TIM REITAN 12.94 9.56 20.94 7.38 50.820
6 6 JIM MINNEMA 15.50 11.81 16.13 5.88 49.320
7 7 TIM MINNEMA 19.00 17.50 17.75 5.63 59.880
8 8 MARTY GLORVIGEN 13.56 12.50 14.00 4.81 44.870
9 9 LEROY SCHROEDER 18.88 23.94 14.63 2.25 59.700
10 10 CECIL NEWMAN 9.31 13.81 16.00 1.13 40.250
2.5 pound average, not too bad for Winnebago and the immense pressure it receives.
FLW this week:
3 1 PATRICK NEU 35.06 [5] 30.38 [5] 30.63 [5] 15.44 [5] 111.501
83 2 PAT SCHUETTE 29.81 [5] 36.38 [5] 24.06 [5] 17.50 [5] 107.751
44 3 DAN STIER 22.88 [5] 28.25 [5] 19.13 [5] 36.63 [5] 106.875
66 4 DAN PLAUTZ 25.38 [5] 16.94 [4] 32.31 [5] 24.19 [5] 98.814
122 5 TROY MORRIS 25.88 [5] 22.50 [4] 30.00 [5] 20.13 [4] 98.500
30 6 MARK KEENAN 18.19 [4] 34.63 [5] 31.00 [5] 11.00 [2] 94.813
6 7 GREG DARSOW 35.13 [5] 12.06 [4] 24.44 [5] 19.88 [4] 91.501
88 8 SCOTT ALLEN 39.88 [5] 24.75 [5] 7.69 [3] 18.69 [5] 91.001
52 9 TOM KEENAN 14.06 [3] 30.00 [5] 27.13 [5] 10.50 [4] 81.688
105 10 TOM ZOLLAR 25.31 [5] 28.94 [5] 19.50 [5] 6.50 [3] 80.251
Winner had 20 fish at 111 pounds.
10th place had a 4.458# average.
I have seen pictures of some of the 'eyes from this Spring's surveys off smaller waters, and would say there are still some VERY nice fish available to us in Wisconsin, state wide, despite the inevitable negative effects of multiple harvest modalities.
Now some Minnesoata eyes:
MWC Leech Lake Qualifier:
17 1 PAUL FOURNIER RYAN OLSON 15.99 [5] 16.52 [4] 32.510
113 2 GORDON SCHWARZ BRETT WILKENS 11.42 [4] 14.04 [4] 25.460
12 3 DAVID BJORKMAN KEN BJORKMAN 12.11 [5] 10.83 [5] 22.940
75 4 CHRIS JOHNSTON JOHN ERICKSON 10.96 [5] 10.72 [5] 21.680
67 5 DENNIS DRONTLE GREG DRONTLE 8.63 [2] 11.77 [4] 20.400
74 6 STEVE SMALL ROB HILL 6.55 [2] 12.51 [5] 19.060
46 7 TIM COURT RICK ROTHSTEIN 10.13 [2] 7.89 [3] 18.020
132 8 JACK SHRIVER BRIAN GREY 6.52 [4] 11.16 [5] 17.680
35 9 PATRICK ROONEY VIRGIL MALBRAATEN 6.94 [5] 10.56 [5] 17.500
90 10 KEVIN DAHL STEVE STACK 10.47 [5] 6.98 [3] 17.450
Not too bad, about 2.5 # average, but way fewer fish caught.
Mississippi River, MN:
44 1 COREY MEINCKE DJ SIEWERT 26.84 6.34 33.180
4 2 JIM SIEWERT TOM DIERCKS 11.12 14.53 25.650
30 3 DERRICK DE DECKER MARK DE DECKER 15.83 9.75 25.580
133 4 DONALD OLSON MICHAEL OLSON 12.64 11.60 24.240
113 5 WAYNE PROKOSCH BART HAAKE 12.90 8.64 21.540
130 6 TIM DICK THERESA DICK 12.45 8.54 20.990
89 7 CHRIS GILMAN JARRAD FLUEKIGER 11.67 8.06 19.730
140 8 DARRIN YOUNGBLUT DEAN JONES 9.19 10.29 19.480
94 9 RICK NASCAK JOE WILSON 9.49 9.97 19.460
33 10 GLENN CHENIER CAROL CHENIER 3.73 15.05 18.780
2 pound avarage
Lake of the Woods, MN, PWT qualifier:
1 1 DAN STIER 13.29 21.92 18.43 53.640
2 2 PETE HARSH 12.31 20.25 18.75 51.310
3 3 ERIC NAIG 12.49 19.49 18.93 50.910
4 4 PERRY GOOD 17.08 22.01 10.69 49.780
5 5 RICK MCLAUGHLIN 18.70 14.00 16.95 49.650
6 6 ROSS GROTHE 17.51 14.81 17.04 49.360
7 7 TERRY RYCKMAN 16.21 18.59 14.37 49.170
8 8 TODD RILEY 16.48 20.84 11.81 49.130
9 9 JIM KLICK 17.81 15.63 15.59 49.030
10 10 STEVEN HAYNES 15.92 14.42 18.33 48.670
About 3.5 pounds average
SO, what is my point? Big walleyes are alive and well in Wisconsin, and Minnesota too.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
I don't know what you mean by "Now that is what I'm talking about!!", but I merely copied Mr. Ide's post from the Musky Hunter message board and posted it here to further the discussion with another view point from a scientist/geneticist, and have/had no intention of speaking for him. He has stated there that the MH board is the only board he posts on, but I am sure he would have no problem with you questioning him there or contacting him...Larry | |
| | |
| Bob, I'll do my best to answer your questions. In some respects they go right to the heart of the matter, so they're worth discussing for everyone's benefit.
BOB: "Dave, I'll agree that diversity is a good thing, But I'll respectively contend that by using NO LARGE FEMALES in the hatchery breeding program, we may be actually limiting the diversity just as you suggest. My understanding is that in most years there are no large muskies (greater than 46 inches) used in our egg selection in NW Wisconsin. I've not received data on every year, but this is my understanding relative to recent times. If I am off base and there are records that indicate otherwise, please let us know."
DAVE: The confusion here seems to arise very simply from the presumption that phenotype reflects genotype -- that broodstock size at capture somehow reflects that fish's potential to attain trophy size. Granted, a fish that has achieved a length of 50" has PROVEN it can do so, whereas we must DEDUCE that potential for smaller fish. But there are ways to do that for musky populations in lakes, like Bone Lake, where ecological and perhaps even social factors have not yet allowed development of a high proportion of adult muskellunge over 50" long.
The first method involves calculation of what we call the "Von Bertellanfy growth curve" based upon back-calculated length-at-age data interpreted from annuli on bony structures, like a musky's cleithrum bone. One of the parameters of the Von Bertellanfy growth equation is called "L-Infinity" (sorry, I cannot denote the proper mathematical symbol here). In simple terms, L-Infinity often is called "ultimate length." Based upon the shape of the growth curve and survival rates from empirical data, we can mathematically project whether the members of a given stock have the potential to grow to a particular ultimate length. Tim Simonson has done this for Wisconsin muskies and sees no reason to believe, based upon this indirect method, that the fish being propagated in Wisconsin DNR's hatchery system cannot achieve trophy sizes.
The second method is much simpler. We simply analyze netting and creel survey data from lakes that are entirely dependent upon stocking, and if we see fish over 50" long, we know that potential exists. Lakes all over Wisconsin reflect this potential. These combined phenomena help to explain why Wisconsin biologists do not suspect broodstock genetics to be an important factor limiting the relative abundance of trophy-size muskellunge in this state today.
We also believe the probability is VERY small that some minor stock mixing years ago resulted in a degree of outbreeding depression that could adversely affect ultimate size potential among the fish we are propagating today. The complex mathematics behind that proposition just doesn't add up. We would like to characterize our genetic stocks as outlined in Dr. Sloss' study proposal in order to minimize uncertainty about any ill effects of past mixing. But until that work is done, there is no reason to risk creating a REAL problem by introducing an admittedly fine strain but a DIFFERENT strain from Leech Lake, which COULD cause problems if stocked repeatedly into systems where locally adapted fish reproduce naturally.
I have heard folks criticize WDNR for poor broodstock management, and also for being overly defensive about public criticism of those management techniques. The critics need to know that I had nothing to do with Wisconsin fishery management until 3 years ago when I moved here from Missouri. My new Wisconsin colleagues know (probably to their chagrin!) that I am not afraid to raise questions and concerns about past management practices. But our muskellunge propagation system is not high on my list of concerns. Our fish culturists have nothing to be defensive about. Could there be improvements? Sure. Currently our Statewide Fish Propagation Coordinator is working with Dr. Sloss and others to ensure a healthy level of genetic diversity in our hatchery system. Our heightened awareness of the need to maintain genetic diversity has come from within the realm of fishery science, and I expect that our progress toward that end will continue with our without prompting from the angling public. Of course, it would be nice to have the moral and financial support of people who care about the fish we are entrusted to conserve on their behalf.
Respectfully,
Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Thanks, sir! You have the financial support of the OutdoorsFIRST organization, that much I can promise. We would like nothing more than to help fund the required research our DNR needs to continue on the path of improving our trophy muskie potential here. I'm starting tomorrow in an effort to raise the $500 needed to do the Butternut testing.
Larry,
You are showing your age, sir.
'That's what I'm talking about!' in 2005 means, 'OK, NOW we are getting somewhere!'
If he will not post here (because he only posts on Musky Hunter), I'd be happy to interview him, do you have his telephone number or email address? | |
| | |
| Dave, a question or two below for you if you don't mind.
DAVE: The second method is much simpler. We simply analyze netting and creel survey data from lakes that are entirely dependent upon stocking, and if we see fish over 50" long, we know that potential exists. Lakes all over Wisconsin reflect this potential. These combined phenomena help to explain why Wisconsin biologists do not suspect broodstock genetics to be an important factor limiting the relative abundance of trophy-size muskellunge in this state today.
ERIC: What lakes are entirely dependent upon stocking in NW Wisc. that reflect this potential? I personally suspect that the large 50" fish that are ocasionally coming from lakes that were not created as new muskie lakes initially through stocking, that those 50" fish are not from our hatchery but are the result of a few remaining larger strain fish that were in these lakes all along that have somehow beaten all odds and by pure luck there are still a few that show up once in a while. I suspect that these fish over 50" ocasionally coming from these lakes are not stocked fish from our hatchery. I'm not talking mid-forty inch fish here, but legitimate fish over 50". Is this possible?
Thank you.
| |
| | |
| Dave, a question or two below for you if you don't mind.
DAVE: The second method is much simpler. We simply analyze netting and creel survey data from lakes that are entirely dependent upon stocking, and if we see fish over 50" long, we know that potential exists. Lakes all over Wisconsin reflect this potential. These combined phenomena help to explain why Wisconsin biologists do not suspect broodstock genetics to be an important factor limiting the relative abundance of trophy-size muskellunge in this state today.
ERIC: What lakes are entirely dependent upon stocking in NW Wisc. that reflect this potential? I personally suspect that the large 50" fish that are ocasionally coming from lakes that were not created as new muskie lakes initially through stocking, that those 50" fish are not from our hatchery but are the result of a few remaining larger strain fish that were in these lakes all along that have somehow beaten all odds and by pure luck there are still a few that show up once in a while. I suspect that these fish over 50" ocasionally coming from these lakes are not stocked fish from our hatchery. I'm not talking mid-forty inch fish here, but legitimate fish over 50". Is this possible?
Thank you.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have heard that argument as well, and wonder how that could be that a 'large strain' would somehow exist as an 'island' in a stocked 'small strain' lake, if one was to buy that idea at all. | |
| |
|
