|
|
Posts: 7038
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Quick question for the WMRT:
what is YOUR goal for the fisheries of WI?
a. the biggest fish possible?
b. the fastest growing fish possible?
c. balanced populations of numbers and size within all lakes?
d. a fisheries spanning 700+ lakes that have opportunities for a, b, or c. | |
| | |
| Slamr,
I found this on the WMRT's home page of thier website. It should answer you question. It is a direct quote from their site.
Our goal is to restore Wisconsin’s once superior musky fishery back to its’ former glory. With that goal we seek two objectives:
For the Wisconsin DNR to discontinue its’ practice of stocking small growing strains of muskies into Wisconsin’s lakes. To "select" for large strain eggs, or
To stock only the large growing Mississippi River strain or Great Lakes strain of muskies back into Wisconsin’s musky fisheries where they were once the native species. (Minnesota has done this very thing and has been very successful).
Fred J
| |
| | |
Posts: 7038
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Fred,
I've seen that too, but that really doesnt answer my question. I personally believe that there HAS TO BE more to muskie fishing than just a 50"er! Some people probably want a shot at a few fish a day, some are chasing that 50" fish, some are looking for a shot at "the one", meaning a fish pushing that 65lbs. record mark!
The WMRT is talking about making MAJOR changes to the way that the WI muskie fisheries are managed. I just am asking what their management plan speaks to. Do they say that their changes will give more shots at a 50", will they create fisheries that offer the chances at great "numbers" fisheries, or will they offer a shot at the trophy of trophies?
I think this is a legitimate question. | |
| | |
| Slamr,
I guess we will disagree on that then. Your question was what are their goals? I posted what the group has published as thier goals. Seemed to answer you question quite well in my mind.
Why would changing current stocking prcctices by selecting large native fish for brood mean any decline in the numbers of fish available? To me, it seems, the same number of fish going in with a greater chance that more of them obtain greater size and over a shorter timeframe. Seems like a win/win situation. What makes you think the numbers of fish caught will be affected? Also don't forget that they are not looking to change managment for all lakes. Many somehow get the idea they want to make changes in every lake in the state. That is not the case as pointed out on thier website.
Fred J | |
| | |
Posts: 7038
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Why would changing current stocking prcctices by selecting large native fish for brood mean any decline in the numbers of fish available?
Does harvesting eggs from larger fish mean more and bigger muskies? I am DEFINITELY no fisheries biologist, but a part of me thinks that the oldest fish in the system may or may NOT have the capability to ALWAYS provide the best eggs to realize our goals. If, for example, I were to be looking for a human mate to reproduce the BEST with, I probably WOULDNT be looking at a full grown, older woman for this. Obviously it is a totally over-simplified example here, but being that there is NO DEFINITIVE STUDY to prove or disprove that big fish spawn = big fish genes = big fish in the system, my example IS relative. Is it POSSIBLE that the reproductive capabilities in a muskie declines at it ages? I dont know, I'm not a biologist, but if we're going to make decisions without study, then my example makes as much sense as the thought that all big fish make big babies.
And Fred, I dont have all the answers, but I do have questions. The WMRT is attempting to make LARGE SCALE changes to a PUBLIC AGENCY, I think if they are going to try to exert this kind of influence, it is not only our RIGHT as muskie fisherman, but also our RESPONSIBILITY to ask them these types of questions! Just as it is the WMRT's RIGHT to ask the WDNR for information, and to lobby for their own changes to be made, it is mine to question the theories and actions of the WMRT.
One last point, if they cant or wont answer these types of questions, should they really be influencing the waters that we all fish?
Edited by Slamr 5/24/2005 4:34 PM
| |
| | |
| Slamr addresses an issue at the very heart of this discussion yet ruefully undiscussed, long term goal oriented management for our waters in Wisconsin. The demanded changes the WMRT wants are the ABSOLUTE opposite, it's the tail wagging the dog. I'd argue loudly if given a public podium to do so that the public's interest is not best looked after by three political activists. What needs to happen is the PUBLIC needs to meet with the DNR, in well organized committee, and carefully plan what the long range goals of each area's fisheries would be desirable and in concert with our citizens long range vision of our natural resource's future, and then perhaps the DNR could formulate a plan accordingly, executing that plan with long term goals in mind with absolute public support instead of suggested management by fire control.
---Our goal is to restore Wisconsin’s once superior musky fishery back to its’ former glory. With that goal we seek two objectives:
For the Wisconsin DNR to discontinue its’ practice of stocking small growing strains of muskies into Wisconsin’s lakes. To "select" for large strain eggs, or
To stock only the large growing Mississippi River strain or Great Lakes strain of muskies back into Wisconsin’s musky fisheries where they were once the native species. (Minnesota has done this very thing and has been very successful).---
Sounds pretty all inclusive to this old man. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Slammr:
To my knowledge we have not failed to answer any questions to date, so why would you infer we wouldn't answer this one. It is a fair question, please allow me to give the answer. You asked:
"what is YOUR goal for the fisheries of WI?
a. the biggest fish possible?
b. the fastest growing fish possible?
c. balanced populations of numbers and size within all lakes?
d. a fisheries spanning 700+ lakes that have opportunities for a, b, or c."
First of all, the question cannot be answered completely with any of your options alone. "C" comes close. To clarify, we have NEVER advocated "messing" with any NATIVE, SELF-SUSTAINING populations...EVER! That has been inferred many times in many places. As for the native lakes that MUST be stocked, we would prefer the use in the hatchery system of a stock of fish that has known large growth potential, if it can be found. We are working on that. In non-native lakes, "receptor lakes" as the DNR refers to them, where the don't have a problem with the stock of fish used, we would like to see Mississippi River strain fish used, ESPECIALLY in the St. Croix River drainage, with the exception of the Great Lakes drainage lakes, where naturally we feel Great Lakes strain muskies should be used.
Finally, we are NOT asking for lakes full of 50 inch fish. What we are asking is that all of the fish being used in the hatchery system have the "potential" for this type of growth, while providing fish of all size ranges throughout their growth. We don't believe this is asking too much.
Hopefully this answers your question.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
| |
| | |
Posts: 7038
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Finally, we are NOT asking for lakes full of 50 inch fish. What we are asking is that all of the fish being used in the hatchery system have the "potential" for this type of growth, while providing fish of all size ranges throughout their growth.
Question: so what you are saying is that you do not believe that the fish that the WDNR uses to stock their lakes have the "potential" to reach 50". | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Sammr:
Where did we say: "so what you are saying is that you do not believe that the fish that the WDNR uses to stock their lakes have the "potential" to reach 50"."?
To take a long, complex discussion and try to boil it down to a statement like that is, I believe, over simplification, and of course incorrect. We KNOW some stocked fish reach 50 inches. I won't go into "why" again here, but the main point we have been trying to make, and it "appears" from Mr. Worrall's posts, that is isn't as bad on the eastern side of the state (likely due to the quality of lakes used by the Woodruff hatchery over the years) as it is in the west, is that the percentage of fish making it to 50 inches is miniscule (.03% of over 69,000 reported, including only 2 of 2,885 from the Bone Lake brood stock over 50 inches).
An somewhat anecdotal fact is that in this years (2005) spawn taking from Bone Lake, the largest fish they had in their nets was 45 1/2 inches. Test netting in Nancy Lake (LL strain) produced a MALE that was 46 inches and a number of larger females. Is it "the fish" or is it the "mixing/possible outbreeding depression" that may have been created in that brood stock? Or is it a combination of the two?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 5/25/2005 6:32 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7038
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Finally, we are NOT asking for lakes full of 50 inch fish. What we are asking is that all of the fish being used in the hatchery system have the "potential" for this type of growth, while providing fish of all size ranges throughout their growth. We don't believe this is asking too much.
Pretty simple to find where you made that statement Larry.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Slamr, I think you and many others are thinking to much in absolutes.
From my limited knowledge off all that has transpired here and through emails. It’s just like fishing for these darn fish, there are no absolutes. And there is no easy answer.
Larry’s quote again:
“Finally, we are NOT asking for lakes full of 50 inch fish. What we are asking is that all of the fish being used in the hatchery system have the "potential" for this type of growth, while providing fish of all size ranges throughout their growth.”
The key word in that statement is ALL, from my understanding the WMRT believes the fish being used in the hatchery system right now don’t ALL have the potential to reach 50. Some do, most don’t. As Larry pointed out in his last post he admits some fish do and I bet he would admit some year classes are better than other.
I don’t know where I come done on this question:
Please correct me if I am wrong on my interpretation, I will try to summarize what I think is being said.
The WMRT thinks it is the case that there are two strains of musky currently active in the hatchery system, a large growing strain and a small growing strain. The quest for immediate action is because they believe that the small growing strain is dominating the large growing strain, because the way the hatchery system currently operates. And with each year the big fish potential goes down. Propagating far more “small strain” fish into the many different lakes that are stocked. TO ME this COULD make sense, IF some of the fish being used in the hatchery system originally came from a lake or lakes where the fish adapted in such a way where size didn’t matter. Mostly likely “IN MY OPINION” because northern pike weren’t present. And then over time egg stripping has been done in such a way where more eggs are stripped from the small fish than the big fish. Each generation could have the potential to weed out more big fish. Is this the case for sure, many aren’t willing to say.
There are others who believe the stock coming out of the hatchery is just fine and reminiscent of the Wisconsin Muskies of old. The reason they don’t grow big, is mortality. To many large specimens are still being killed, weather by hook, spearing or delayed mortality. “TO ME” there is some evidence that supports this by the large fish being caught from relatively unknown small lakes that don’t get pressure. This includes both documented stocked and unstocked waters. Keeping in mind that even in the 70s many sporting clubs stocked lakes and there is no record of where or how many. I have personally talked to people that where involved with some of these stockings.
Clear as mud!
No one I have talked to believes there are NO big muskies in Wisconsin lakes or even that the hatcheries don’t have the potential to create big muskies. It’s a question of MORE!
To me the Genetics issues are not clear and I would hate to see us flush the Wisconsin musky down the toilet if it is unique and still exists. No body at the WMRT is suggesting this from what I have read, but many are reading this into the WMRT’s action plan, and spreading it. Both people who agree with them and people who disagree with them.
From what I am hearing the work Dr. Sloss is doing has the potential to answer these questions. Do we still have a unique Wisconsin fish, can it be isolated and propagated, are the differences between the LL fish and the current hatchery fish small enough that fish can be stocked across basins without worry of out breeding and many other questions. In my opinion, this work needs to be funded and completed and it will be an unbelievable source of information for our generation and those to follow.
These are all just pieces of the management options. Controlling harvest here in Wisconsin is most likely just as important. If they don’t live long enough to grow big they will never get big.
Hope this post made some sense; I have actually been working and just typing a little at a time, which can really make for incoherent babbling.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 7038
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "To me the Genetics issues are not clear and I would hate to see us flush the Wisconsin musky down the toilet if it is unique and still exists. No body at the WMRT is suggesting this from what I have read, but many are reading this into the WMRT’s action plan, and spreading it. Both people who agree with them and people who disagree with them.
From what I am hearing the work Dr. Sloss is doing has the potential to answer these questions. Do we still have a unique Wisconsin fish, can it be isolated and propagated, are the differences between the LL fish and the current hatchery fish small enough that fish can be stocked across basins without worry of out breeding and many other questions. In my opinion, this work needs to be funded and completed and it will be an unbelievable source of information for our generation and those to follow.
These are all just pieces of the management options. Controlling harvest here in Wisconsin is most likely just as important. If they don’t live long enough to grow big they will never get big."
I couldnt agree more. I think what we both, and many others believe is that there are probably MANY factors affecting what the WMRT is stating is a problem. I THINK what most people would argue against the WMRT about is not that what they are saying is wrong, more that it is POSSIBLY ONE PIECE WITHIN A LARGER PUZZLE. Fish that have the genetics for a LONG TERM SOLUTION for what the WDNR is trying to create in the fisheries of state, are obviously necessary for these waters. BUT, the genetics issue is just ONE PIECE OF THE PIE. In addition, it would appear that all active/identifiable TRAINED BIOLOGISTS that have spoken up are saying that how the WMRT is saying this problem should be solved are either stating that these theories are either based on erroneous/incomplete/non-applicable data, or is that more study is needed.
Genetics are more than just what a fish looks like, be it spots or bars, or size or weight, or age or apparent age. The last 20 years have brought on a spawn of new technologies and understanding of genetics, and what they mean. I dont know much about the field, but I know that if we are going to improve the genetic stock of the Wisconsin Muskie fisheries it will NOT be with a quick switch, but through careful research and planning towards a pre-determined/solidified LONG TERM goal. AND, MuskieFIRST is going to show that we have a true committment to this end:
We are assisting the Wisconsin DNR in raising the funds needed to test the Muskies in Butternut lake and in LCO genetically to see if they are compatible, and will then continue on to assist Dr. Sloss in his ongoing genetic reseaerch on Wisconsin Muskies. This research will not only be used to make positive decisions for future directions within WI muskies, but will also provide valuable insights into muskie genetics as a whole. We already have committments from 3 well-known muskie guides to donate a day or half day of their guiding expertise to help in raising these funds. We are currently hashing out the details, and will be (hopefully) bringing more and more guides dates/muskie gear, etc. in for auction. Time is to be determined, but probably near to the end of June, where is to be on the MuskieFIRST board. More details to come.
If anyone would like to donate their time on the water, or new muskie gear, please contact myself or Steve Worrall directly. It is ALL our resource, so its ALL of our responsibility in helping to improve it!
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Slamr (and all):
Very good post and I would like to comment.
You stated: "I think what we both, and many others believe is that there are probably MANY factors affecting what the WMRT is stating is a problem. I THINK what most people would argue against the WMRT about is not that what they are saying is wrong, more that it is POSSIBLY ONE PIECE WITHIN A LARGER PUZZLE. Fish that have the genetics for a LONG TERM SOLUTION for what the WDNR is trying to create in the fisheries of state, are obviously necessary for these waters. BUT, the genetics issue is just ONE PIECE OF THE PIE."
Reply: We wholeheartedly concur. Certainly ALL factor's must be considered. The strong point we have been trying to make, is that all factor's are applicable, however, if the fish being used genetically simply cannot grow to large size, the other parts of the puzzle become moot.
You continue: "In addition, it would appear that all active/identifiable TRAINED BIOLOGISTS that have spoken up are saying that how the WMRT is saying this problem should be solved are either stating that these theories are either based on erroneous/incomplete/non-applicable data, or is that more study is needed."
Reply: "Spoken up" is a key here. We have talked to several trained biologists/scientists that do support our basic premise, but we will not put them on the "hot seat" by naming them or asking them to post. You'll just have to take my word for that. We have encountered many instances of "misunderstanding" to some of what we have said, and some misintrepretation of same. I told the Team that was going to be a problem with such a complex puzzle months ago. We have along the way endeavored to correct some of that, and have succeded in many cases, and not in others. We have admittedly made mistakes along the way as well, especially in some of the conclusions drawn, or in the manner expressed. We are endeavoring to correct same.
You further state: "Genetics are more than just what a fish looks like, be it spots or bars, or size or weight, or age or apparent age. The last 20 years have brought on a spawn of new technologies and understanding of genetics, and what they mean. I dont know much about the field, but I know that if we are going to improve the genetic stock of the Wisconsin Muskie fisheries it will NOT be with a quick switch, but through careful research and planning towards a pre-determined/solidified LONG TERM goal."
Reply: Again, we concur. Just this morning, Team Leader Bob Benson and myself sat in on a presentation on basic genetics by Dave Neuswanger. It was an excellent presentation and painted a very clear picture of what he was saying. We discussed it briefly with Dave after the meeting, but couldn't get too much into it as he had to leave to prepare for another meeting. I think we are on the same page, albeit not exactly the same place on the page, and we will be meeting again with Dave to discuss it further. We came away with a greater appreciation for the new advances in genetic study that Dr. Brian Sloss will be employing, and will be very interested in exactly how it will be applied to the current state of Wisconsin's muskellunge fishery, especially in light of the new information we have gathered in the past couple of weeks.
On a side note, Tim Simonson, DNR point man and Musky Committee co-chair, has asked for our help and cooperation in that informational regard, and we have pleged to help in any way we can, both with input of that information and the continued search for more, to Dr. Sloss, as well as assistance in the brood stock review currently underway.
You also stated: "AND, MuskieFIRST is going to show that we have a true committment to this end: We are assisting the Wisconsin DNR in raising the funds needed to test the Muskies in Butternut lake and in LCO genetically to see if they are compatible, and will then continue on to assist Dr. Sloss in his ongoing genetic reseaerch on Wisconsin Muskies. This research will not only be used to make positive decisions for future directions within WI muskies, but will also provide valuable insights into muskie genetics as a whole."
Reply: The WMRP too, is committed to the improvement of the Wisconsin muskellunge fishery, and too will get involved in obtaining funding for the genetics work by Dr. Sloss (more on this later).
You end: "We already have committments from 3 well-known muskie guides to donate a day or half day of their guiding expertise to help in raising these funds. We are currently hashing out the details, and will be (hopefully) bringing more and more guides dates/muskie gear, etc. in for auction. Time is to be determined, but probably near to the end of June, where is to be on the MuskieFIRST board. More details to come."
Reply: Please include me also for the Guide donation list with four half-days. As Tim Simonson and I agreed, we must work together in this endeavor and end the "point-counter point" (for lack of a better term). We really do all have the same goal...the betterment of Wisconsin's muskellunge fishery, and we intend to "get on with it...peacefully and together!"
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
Thanks, sir. That's what I'm talking about!!  | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Steve:
You're welcome Sir. That's what I'm talking about too!...Larry | |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | AMEN!!
Wonderful thread here Gentleman.
From what I heard in the Muskie Committee meeting in May, the objective IS to try and figure out the puzzle to then optimize the genetics that we use for our future stocking. And at that meeting we discussed making sure we got Larry involved to help Mr. sloss unravel the info he will gather by providing the historic stocking perspective.
All the energy involved in this issue focused down the same path would yeild tremdous results
Cory
| |
| |
|
Question for the WMRT