|
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | s
Posted 11/11/2005 9:02 AM (#165159 - in reply to #164281)
Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete
Posts: 280
100100252525
Location: Rhinelander, WI
Thanks again Dave, very interesting stuff. I really appreciated you coming into this public forum and answering these questions.
Slamr, I don’t know who MuskyMonk is and I understand you guys have been embroiled in a, sometimes bitter, debate with the WRMP people, but I think you are being a little harsh, on Monk, relating to this thread.
It took his comments as personal experience, which is worth something in my book. You have to understand their frustration when it comes to LCO. A trophy lake with a great history, and a recent history of not living up to potential, even with a 50” size limit.
If a person has successful experience on a lake my guess is they will consider it a success even if netting success is dismal. Who knows the variables involved with both experiences.
Here is one of my personnel experiences:
A number of years ago I had two lakes on my hit list. I talked to a respected friend at the DNR who was working on netting crews at the time. I asked him about the two lakes. Lake one he told me was full of stunted panfish and didn’t have enough oxygen to support forage for a fishable population of musky. Lake two would be dynamite, they had captured loads of musky in the two year survey they had just completed out there. He suggested I spend my time on Lake Two. I spent my time that summer exploring lake two and never even saw a musky. Another friend fished lake one, I never had the chance to tell him of my conversation. First time out he saw a couple nice fish. By the end of that year we had over 10 fish from lake one with an average size over 43 inches, 48 ½ was the biggest, with a couple of sightings of fish over 50.
Lake two gave up one fish that summer, and I still to this day have personally never seen a fish out there. Are the fish out there? Sure they are, they where captured in the nets. I just haven’t been able to hit the lake when the time was right.
If the DNR tried to net lake one would they get fish, who knows? Maybe we just figured out a way to catch a limited number of fish in the lake. But no matter what the DNR would find, the lake would be a success in my mind.
What we consider successes as fishermen, doesn’t necessarily mean they would be good brood stock lakes. That is what we pay the DNR for and if they can’t capture the fish when they need to be captured the lake can’t be used.
By the way, I still have great respect for my DNR buddy, he was just passing information on to me. They can only work with what they have, if you want to use that info you need to interpret it for yourself and look at all the variables.
These fish can drive a sane person to the nut-house, imagine how the people that know LCO feel. I think this is where all the passion is coming from. They have been waiting for LCO to turn around for years and it’s not happening. People who have invested in this body of water emotionally and economically want something done and they want it in a hurry. I can feel their pain.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Profile Private message E-mail Homepage
Slamr
Posted 11/11/2005 10:04 AM (#165174 - in reply to #164281)
Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs
MR,
Possibly I am being a bit "harsh" at times in this debate, and if I'm offending people in my approach, for that I apologize. However, as an interested party in the results of the efforts of both the WMRT and the DNR, I am looking for real IMPERICAL knowledge that things are as they are stated. As a group that fights the use of "anecdotal" evidence or information in studies, I think it is only proper that in trying to influence the public, they present to the public REAL PROOF. If fish are being caught, lets see the pictures! If they're film pictures, scan'em! If Minnesota DNR guys are saying that the nets are placed in the wrong places, get them on record saying that they are. Maybe I'm a picky one, but I prefer to base my opinions on proof that is backed up by scientfic or tangleable proof.
The WDNR muskie stocking is a huge effort, costing almost a million dollars a year, and I think many people within DNR the would agree that mistakes have been made in the past, and they would admit that they have NOT been perfect in all their approaches over the last 100 years. However, the groups attempting to shift policy (in my own opinion) should be working in a professional manner; presenting TANGIBLE PROOF, backed up by the DIRECT WORDS of DNR/Fisheries Biologists/Researchers to those in charge of the programs. But, thats just me, my editorial thought processes at work.
I guess I'm starting to see it like this: if a court of law were judging this issue, how would it be judged. Who is bringing the "expert witnesses" and scientific data to the table, and who is not.
-----
Andrew "Slamr" Golden
[email protected]
Reese's Country Store, the Place for Hughes River Jerk Baits
(304)679-3502 or [email protected] for information
Profile Private message E-mail Homepage
MuskyMonk
Posted 11/11/2005 12:57 PM (#165192 - in reply to #164281)
Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete
Slamr,
Take a chill pill, I'm not out to pick a fight.
The pictures exist of the two people I referred to, contact Larry Ramsell and he probably will show them to you. And if you read his posts, you probably can figure out who the fisherman he is referring too.
And listen, I understand that the DNR did not have success netting this spring. AND I AM NOT QUESTIONING THERE RESULTS. Maybe there were other factors involved on why they didn't catch more fish, maybe not. WHAT I DO KNOW, FROM THE FACTS, is the fish that were netted were big. Much bigger than what has been netted elsewhere. And the fish that were documented to be caught were big. An average much better than what I have experienced on LCO and the Chip. If Larry's information is correct, the two fisherman noted above caught 32 muskies in about 90 days of fishing that averaged 45". To me, THATS A TROPHY FISHERY. Point me to another lake in Sawyer county with that type of success and I'll gladly trailer there. What I do know personal experience is that LCO sucks wind as a musky lake and change is badly needed. That lake has so much potential its scary. And what I'm trying to understand is since the current strain in LCO is failing, why not try another one?
And my question still stands to Mr. Neuswanger: Why weren't any Sawyer County lakes given permission or considered to stock LL strain fish? And please tell me why LCO WOULDN'T be a candidate to study this strain? Because to me, the current strain used there is a disaster.
Slamr
Posted 11/11/2005 1:07 PM (#165195 - in reply to #164281)
Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete
Posts: 3579
20001000500252525
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs
I was a bit over the top, and for that I apologize, again. Passions run high in this debate, eh?
And NO ONE is saying there arent big fish. But the purpose of Nancy Lake wasnt to see whether or not the fish got big, but to see whether or not you could create a self-sustaining fishery with LL stock fish in this lake. The presence of big fish, without small fish in the nets shows a population of mature fish, and I know that certain people will say that the nets were set "wrong" to find these fish, but is anyone catching fish that give evidence to natural reproduction, as in smaller fish that were the product of LL fish makin babies? If this is going on, can we see evidence?
I guess for me 11 fish in the nets doesnt show anything except that there are a few big fish remaining from stocking a number of years ago. And the presence of 2 fish without fin clips over 110+ net pulls doesnt say anything to me significant, and it doesnt to the DNR either. But I like to make a habit of being wrong at least 10X a day, maybe this is one of those cases.
Maybe I'm wrong, lets see the pics. Larry, I know you're watching, what is the easiest way to get the pics of these fish onto the site?
-----
Andrew "Slamr" Golden
[email protected]
Reese's Country Store, the Place for Hughes River Jerk Baits
(304)679-3502 or [email protected] for information
Profile Private message E-mail Homepage
sworrall
Posted 11/11/2005 1:08 PM (#165196 - in reply to #165192)
Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete
500020001000500100252525
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I agree, Larry's associates' angling information sounds great. I'd like to know the year and timeframe, that should help bring this into perspective. There's alot more at play on that water body that is not being discussed, remember that up to 40% of any muskie yerar class can die every year, and if NR is poor or absent, the year class can disappear in one heck of a hurry, leaving only a few large fish.
Problem here is this is a thread about muskie/pike interaction and competition, and it has been hijacked somehow. I'm moving the debate about the nancy Lake fish elsewhere, it doesn't belong here.
-----
Steve Worrall
OutdoorsFIRST Media
OK, there it is so far. I'll direct you to scientific data when necessary ro answer questions as best as I can locate same, and perhaps Mr. Ramsell can shed more light on when those 32 fish were caught, if not by whom. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | This is a excerpt from a communication we received to a question we asked about the research work on Nancy this Spring:
'The objective was to assess feasiblity of using Nancy Lake for LL strain broodstock for a research study. Our conclusion was that the numbers handled would not be sufficient to support a hatchery egg take operation, given practical limitations to staffing and concerns about inbreeding depression ( a problem when small numbers of fish are used )and the need to hold individual fish (1/day can't be spawned!). Nine nets were set at eleven locations (a couple of nets were moved during sampling) on the lake, including most locations reported to yield fish in previous netting surveys. We did not do a population estimate.'
It would indicate that there was no population estimate done, but the determination was made that due to low capture numbers over a 10 day period with 9 nets and 78 pulls, the population was not large enough to use the stocks in Nancy for the prescribed purpose and Leech Lake muskies would be purchased from Minnesota. We will clarify if there is anything missed or misquoted.
-----
Steve Worrall
OutdoorsFIRST Media | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin |
From Musky Monk
Thanks Dave,
I do appreciate your answers and was able to understand your points. Just to let you know, I do support WRMP's efforts mainly because I am life long musky fisherman that chooses to fish in Wisconsin (Hayward area) and want to see our area's musky fishing improve.
From my standpoint, the musky situation on LCO is absolutely deplorable, if not critical. This really saddens me because my cabin is roughly three miles from this lake and would really like to see that situation improve. The one thing bothering me with the current Leech Lake study and stocking efforts underway is that not one Sawyer county lake is going to be included. Now I follow you on the issue of outbreeding depression, but given the situation with the current musky population on LCO, I would think that the WDNR's better option would be to attempt to stock LL strain fish instead of transporting 500 Butternut muskies there. Obviously, whatever musky strain exists in LCO now is not working, why not try a different one? I have to think the costs would be less to stock than to spend time and effort in capturing and transporting fish.
Nancy Lake was a success, an overwhelming success. It would be amazing if we could replicate those results in LCO.
But for now, my next trip up north, I'm going to leave Sawyer Co. and fish Nancy Lake.
Again, from Muskie Monk | |
| | |
| Musky Monk,
In the future you will be able to fish Lake Wissota near Eau Claire for these large growing fish that were stocked in Nancy lake. A successful stocking of MS strain Muskies occurred this past week in Lake Wissota!
The 1st Wisconsin Chapter of Muskies Inc. worked very hard to get this accomplished. Mark Hintz, Fred Johnson and the whole club in general should feel very proud of what they accomplished.
None of this would have been possible without the Local DNR there. The 1st Wisconsin club is thankful to have a DNR rep that is willing to listen and work with the local Muskie clubs.
Bob Benson | |
| | |
| IN RESPONSE MuskyMonk's POSTING TRANSFERRED HERE BY STEVE WORRALL:
MONK: I do appreciate your answers and was able to understand your points. Just to let you know, I do support WRMP's efforts mainly because I am life long musky fisherman that chooses to fish in Wisconsin (Hayward area) and want to see our area's musky fishing improve.
DAVE: Thanks, Monk. I assume you mean WMRP. It is refreshing to have a CIVIL dialogue with someone who does not agree with WDNR policy in this matter. And just so you know, I am a lifelong musky angler too, as are many of my colleagues. My grandfather virtually crawled in and out of a wooden rowboat to fish for muskies on Sevenmile Lake in Forest County (east of Eagle River) until two weeks before lung cancer finally ended his life. My wife’s parents have fished for muskies in the Hayward area since the late 1940s. I still have a great black-and-white photo of my petite mother-in-law in a safari hat, holding up a fat 44-incher she caught in Little Round Lake in 1949. It’s hard to guess who weighed more, Julie or the fish! Musky fishing has actually improved in Wisconsin over the past 20 years (no thanks to me, I’ve been in Missouri), but I think it can be even better. We’re working on it. And we need support, not fist-pounding directives, from anglers who care.
MONK: From my standpoint, the musky situation on LCO is absolutely deplorable, if not critical. This really saddens me because my cabin is roughly three miles from this lake and would really like to see that situation improve.
DAVE: Many people agree with you about LCO, including me. I didn’t know what to believe about LCO when I first arrived in Hayward in summer 2002 and was approached by a number of local musky guides about the situation there. We met with several of them that fall at the DNR office in Hayward, where Sawyer County biologist Frank Pratt shared data from seven population estimates over a 30-year period. The results showed that muskellunge population density had not changed much at LCO during that time period – that it had always been a relatively low-density population capable of producing some large, old fish. Existing data failed to document a decline in number, and the proportion of really big fish had actually increased in WDNR samples. But knowing that population estimates can sometimes be misleading, especially on a lake as large and complex as LCO, we decided to conduct a special volunteer angler diary project to examine catch rates of muskellunge by musky anglers during 2003. Mike Persson and Art Malin of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. were instrumental in helping us design the record-keeping forms, and they recruited enough volunteers to provide us with data on almost 1,000 hours of musky angling effort during the following fishing season. The results confirmed what the guides had been telling us – average angler catch rate was a dismal 1 fish per 76 hours of effort directed toward muskellunge. (Compare that with the excellent Wisconsin state average of 1 fish per 25 hours of directed effort.) Many of the cooperators were experienced anglers. Something was happening at LCO that our population estimates were not detecting.
MONK: The one thing bothering me with the current Leech Lake study and stocking efforts underway is that not one Sawyer county lake is going to be included.
DAVE: Neither are any other lakes in the native range of muskellunge in northern Wisconsin. I support my agency’s science-based policy decision 100%, but everyone needs to know that this is not just Dave Neuswanger’s Sawyer County policy, it is WDNR’s native range policy.
MONK: Now I follow you on the issue of outbreeding depression, but given the situation with the current musky population on LCO, I would think that the WDNR's better option would be to attempt to stock LL strain fish instead of transporting 500 Butternut muskies there. Obviously, whatever musky strain exists in LCO now is not working, why not try a different one? I have to think the costs would be less to stock than to spend time and effort in capturing and transporting fish.
DAVE: Whatever strain exists in LCO was there, and apparently worked, for thousands of years before we Europeans came upon the scene and started introducing non-native species and strains. I hope that one day LCO muskellunge will again produce enough natural recruits on a regular basis that we will not even have to stock it. But in order to get to that point, where native fish can once again sustain themselves in the ecosystem where they evolved, we may need to take dramatic action to tip the esocid community balance back in favor of muskellunge. Most anglers at LCO feel strongly that northern pike are more abundant now than in the past. Frank Pratt and I are hoping that an infusion of adult muskellunge from Butternut Lake will begin to tip the scales of esocid community balance back toward muskellunge. Nobody knows if this will work, and my final approval of the project still depends upon whether the fish from Butternut Lake are genetically indistinguishable from those in LCO. They should be, because Butternut was stocked for many years with fingerlings from LCO broodstock. But we won’t know until we test. Fin tissue samples were collected last spring (50 from Butternut alone). The genetic testing will be conducted this winter. I hope you will agree that we are making a serious effort to understand and solve this problem.
MONK: Nancy Lake was a success, an overwhelming success. It would be amazing if we could replicate those results in LCO.
DAVE: Nancy Lake muskies grew fast and got big, but natural recruitment has been virtually nil, so I’m not sure how that translates to the “overwhelming success” claimed by proponents of stocking Leech Lake strain fish all over Wisconsin. In fact, WDNR fyke net capture rates at LCO last spring were much higher than those in Nancy Lake. As I mentioned above, we will not be stocking Leech Lake strain muskellunge into LCO or any other lake in the native range of muskies in northern Wisconsin.
MONK: But for now, my next trip up north, I'm going to leave Sawyer Co. and fish Nancy Lake.
DAVE: That is, of course, your prerogative. I know there are a few really nice fish there, and I wish you the best of luck in catching one. The Missouri Department of Conservation actually stocked some Leech Lake strain fish into Hazel Creek Lake in northeastern Missouri when I was still a fisheries regional supervisor down there. They are interesting fish. For some reason, they jump out of the water when being played on hook and line more often than the Pennsylvania-source fish that we had stocked previously. We also found them far more difficult to handle in our nets (more energetic) than the Pennsylvania-source fish. (The two strains were easily distinguishable – Leech Lake fish being silvery and spotted compared with the brown-bronze barred or unmarked fish from Pennsylvania.) Survival of the Leech Lake fish was not particularly high there, so we discontinued stocking them and returned to using the Pennsylvania-source fish that had performed so well. I know the Leech Lake fish do much better in their native range. Anyway, best of luck to you at Nancy Lake, Monk. Let us know how you do.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
| |
| | |
| Thanks Dave, again, appreciate the response.
I will definitely report my efforts on Nancy... even if they are extremely limited.
Couple of followup questions if I may, and please bear with me. However I would like to challenge you on a couple of points:
Dave:
"Whatever strain exists in LCO was there, and apparently worked, for thousands of years before we Europeans came upon the scene and started introducing non-native species and strains. I hope that one day LCO muskellunge will again produce enough natural recruits on a regular basis that we will not even have to stock it. But in order to get to that point, where native fish can once again sustain themselves in the ecosystem where they evolved, we may need to take dramatic action to tip the esocid community balance back in favor of muskellunge.. Frank Pratt and I are hoping that an infusion of adult muskellunge from Butternut Lake will begin to tip the scales of esocid community balance back toward muskellunge. Nobody knows if this will work, and my final approval of the project still depends upon whether the fish from Butternut Lake are genetically indistinguishable from those in LCO."
Monk:
You state that your goal is to develop a self-sustaining LCO musky population. I agree with that goal ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. And I do recognize the effort the DNR is employing. However my challenge to you is this, when was the last time LCO was documented to have a self sustaining population and can we identify WHAT strain contributed THAT success? Per the information from the WMRP, its possible that LCO has had no or little natural recruitment since as early as the 40's or 50's. And if this is the case, can we conclude that whatever native LCO stocks that were in the lake originally, that may have been sulfsustaining, have been wiped out due to angling, stocking, pike invasion etc. And if we were to conclude that the current stock in LCO is not the native stock and the Butternut fish show the same genetic profile to the current LCO population, why should we continue this strain? Are we introducing the Butternut fish to increase the predators of pike?
Dave:
"Nancy Lake muskies grew fast and got big, but natural recruitment has been virtually nil, so I’m not sure how that translates to the “overwhelming success” claimed by proponents of stocking Leech Lake strain fish all over Wisconsin. In fact, WDNR fyke net capture rates at LCO last spring were much higher than those in Nancy Lake. As I mentioned above, we will not be stocking Leech Lake strain muskellunge into LCO or any other lake in the native range of muskies in northern Wisconsin."
Monk:
I am glad we are in agreement that the LL strain in Nancy grew fast and got big. To me, that alone would exhibit a successful strain. The Green Bay restoration has been deemed a success based on the same criteria. However, you challenge the Nancy Lake success story due to a lack of natural recruitment. I would challenge you may not have the evidence to make that conclusion. From angler information presented by WMRP, the fisherman that caught the 32 muskies from Nancy said that 10 to 15 did not have noticeable fin clips or tags. Granted they are not fishery personnel, but they did put up to 90+ days on that lake and had success catching muskies. If they made the statement that 10 to 15 muskies did NOT have fin clips, then the remaining 17-22 muskies DID have noticeable fin clips. Even if we were to make a conservative estimate and say only 10 did not have fin clips, you still are talking about 33% of the fish caught were the result of natural recruitment. Couple that with the results of the netting, that 2 of the 6 fish netted did not have fin clips, 33% natural recruitment. See where I am going with this. To say that natural recruitment was virtually nil is premature and unjust based on the body of evidence. I challenge that the DNR does not have enough time and experience on this lake to make a conclusion as to the reproduction habits or success of the strain in Nancy lake.
I understand that the goal of the netting effort was to determine if a brood source from Nancy Lake was possible AT THIS TIME. I do not disagree with the conclusion reached by the netters: The conclusion being that AT THIS TIME, there wasn't a enough NETTING SUCCESS to gain the neccessary material for a brood source. However, to make a conlcusion on the reproduction success based on one year of effort over a two week time span does not, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, constitute conclusive evidence.
I realize that the DNR may never have the financial or human resources to make an accurate population estimate of Nancy Lake, or gain enough evidence to make a determination of the level of natural recruitment. What may be possible is to do on Nancy what was done on LCO. Engage local fisherman to put time on the water there and report and analyze their results. I believe it is important to get a complete picture of the story Nancy Lake has to tell and this may be a way to do it. Just my thoughts. And the fact that we are moving forward with the LL stocking elsewhere in the state, I believe that this should be a NECCESSARY addendum to the project.
LAST QUESTION FOR TODAY:
Much has been discussed about maintaining the genetic profile in LCO. However, the Chip has shown evidence in the past to have a large growing strain. Is there going to be any effort in id'ing that strain in the Chip so that we may stop stocking other strains (such as Bone Lake) into that system. | |
| | |
| Believe me Bob, I'm keeping close tabs on those lakes that are getting the LL strain. In 5 or 6 years, I'll be definitely hitting those as well! | |
| | |
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I might be nutty here, or speaking from a lack of knowledge, but it is POSSIBLE, and I'm just pontificating.....that the reason the lakes in NW WI. (LCO, Grindstone, etc.) arent turning out the numbers of fish.....is something other that the "strain" of fish in there?
I'm not saying that Leech Lake fish dont grow fast and get big....but is it POSSIBLE that before we go changing the stock of fish in the waters. that we look at other factors involved?
Could it be...
-lower size limits leading to angler harvest?
-spearing?
-pike infestation (preying on ANYTHING small, whether it has bars or spots)
-single hook sucker rigging?
-spawning ground destruction?
| |
| | |
| -lower size limits leading to angler harvest? - Nope, 50" limit on Grindstone and LCO since I believe the mid 90's.
-spearing? - Possibly, I'm not up there in the winter but I know both lakes are hit with spearing
-pike infestation (preying on ANYTHING small, whether it has bars or spots) - Seems like a definite factor on LCO, don't know how much so on Grindston. Hence, maybe go with a strain that can coexist with pike?
-single hook sucker rigging? - On these waters, don't think this is an impact. If I'm mistaken, you can't even buy single hook rigs in the Hayward area.
-spawning ground destruction? - Seems like a definite factor on LCO. See the Musky Bay lawsuit for the damage done there. But outside that, I think history has shown that even with spawning grounds in good condition, the strain in LCO has shown poor natural recruitment for years. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
Some pertinent info:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/photos/photo-thumbnails.asp?a...
From the Symposium:
Mr. Diana, University of Michigan (General Session Symposium presentation: Human influences on natural spawning), on the subject of coexistence between Northern Pike and Muskellunge in Inland Lakes in Wisconsin and genetic strains, Panel Discussion, Genetics section of the discussion, apparently in response to another panel member's comments about Northern Pike competition in Wisconsin Stocked lakes:
Mr. Heiting asking for perspective on 'Superior strains of Muskellunge': "Mr. Diana, do you have any perspective on this please?"
Mr. Diana: " Well, just to bring this to a different point and that has to do with the coexistence of pike and muskellunge. I don’t think there is any evidence we have to say that a strain that is comfortable in location where both pike and muskellunge exist, will have any better capability surviving in the long-run in a new situation with pike. I think that we need better research on that coexistence and what causes one or the other to become dominant, but at this point we really don’t know, and I don’t think you can say that the Leech Lake strain will be any better in an inland lake in dealing with pike as a competitor than would the Wisconsin strain. "
In a nutshell, there is an impressive amount of evidence that Wisconsin muskies and pike coexist (and naturally reproduce) in many waters. So do Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and for that matter, Rock Bass and crayfish. Red Rusty Crayfish ( an exotic stream creature used for bait and introduced in waters across the state) are unbelievably efficient in scouring the bottom for anything edible, and have, IMHO, been a detriment to ANY NR of ANY specie of fish where they have benn introduced. Rusty crayfish eat spawn, weeds, and even small fish sometimes. Carp are trouble where they exist, too.
Habitat is probably as large an issue as any, IMHO, Dave can corect me if I'm upside down here.
Also, spearing takes place through the ice and in the Spring. It's certain there is an impact anywhere Treaty Rights are exercised, but the exact impact on LCO is not known. We need to find a way to improve communication between folks like Mr. Neuswanger and the folks spearing and keeping the records of harvested fish there to improve information flow and add that data to the information we do have. I have spoken to Mr. Neuswanger about this at length, and feel he's on the right track on this issue, for sure.
Monk:
'I am glad we are in agreement that the LL strain in Nancy grew fast and got big. To me, that alone would exhibit a successful strain. The Green Bay restoration has been deemed a success based on the same criteria. However, you challenge the Nancy Lake success story due to a lack of natural recruitment. I would challenge you may not have the evidence to make that conclusion. From angler information presented by WMRP, the fisherman that caught the 32 muskies from Nancy said that 10 to 15 did not have noticeable fin clips or tags. Granted they are not fishery personnel, but they did put up to 90+ days on that lake and had success catching muskies. If they made the statement that 10 to 15 muskies did NOT have fin clips, then the remaining 17-22 muskies DID have noticeable fin clips. Even if we were to make a conservative estimate and say only 10 did not have fin clips, you still are talking about 33% of the fish caught were the result of natural recruitment. Couple that with the results of the netting, that 2 of the 6 fish netted did not have fin clips, 33% natural recruitment. See where I am going with this. To say that natural recruitment was virtually nil is premature and unjust based on the body of evidence. I challenge that the DNR does not have enough time and experience on this lake to make a conclusion as to the reproduction habits or success of the strain in Nancy lake.'
I've been following this portion of the discussion very closely, mostly because I desperately hope the LL fish will do well where experimentally stocked this year. In what timeframe were those fish caught by the mentioned anglers? Were many ( or most of the fish) caught in about 2000 to about 2003? If so, would you agree that with the loss of about 20 to 30% of any year class (about, if I remember correctly, again I'll get a correction if I'm upside down here) that an additional three years of loss would have a significant impact on the adult (large fish) left in Nancy if NR was poor as reported throughout the entire study? Wouldn't that be consistent with findings to date? The thing that trips this line of thinking into gear for me is NO ONE is reporting catching small LL fish there, and no one has for a very long time. I catch them ALOT in Leech and Cass from the upper 20" class all the way to just under the 40" minimum, so it's obvious that if there ie NR, small fish should be caught in a rough ratio of numbers of small fish to angler hours on Nancy.
The survey this Spring was conducted over a timeframe that was THREE times longer than the average fyke netting work, from what I can find out. The fish that were captured near the end of the work there were free flowing, and for all intents and purposes, coming down the home stretch on the spawn. If that was true as posted by others who looked into this, then more fish, more males, and certainly more females should have been captured, I would reason. Only one time were there two caught in one night out of multiple pulls, so it's a stretch to insist there were muskies somewhere else just getting ready to spawn but out of the capture zone the 9 nets represented; those nets were placed in the areas where capture had been successful in other surveys, and a couple were even moved to be sure. I'm not arguing with you, I just trying to apply math, logic, and reason as a layman based on what we know about Nancy to the situation there today.
However, angler data, as Dave has stated, IS important. If the 33 fish were caught in '04 and '05, and the anglers were reasonably sure that there were few (if any) recaptures represented there, then there's strong evidence you are correct to a point in your thinking, I'd say. If, on the other hand, the fish were caught over a several year span and most were caught 3 to 5 years ago, the math works almost perfectly to insinuate those year classes are declining and there are few, if any, coming up to take their place in the Frabill.
| |
| | |
| Mr. Worrall,
I've read that statement before... and yes I agree there probably isn't enough evidence out there to conclusively say that any certain strain is better adapted to coexist with pike. However, I don't think you can completely ignore the fact if a certain strain does coexist in a number of systems with Pike and have show to have natural recruitment in those systesms. I agree, there are a littany of other factors involved in the reproductive success of a species in a given system. And I do recognize the negative impact of tribal spearing.
However...... HOWEVER...... my point in this discussion.... what I am trying to understand is the following:
Given the same environment that currently exists in LCO. With no significant changes in habitat, regulations (as to spearing or other fish harvest), fish populations (as to % of pike, walleye etc.)... what good will it do to plant 500 adult Butternut Lake muskies in LCO. If they are proven to be genetically identical to the current stock which has failed to produce a selfsustaining population for decades.... decades, where is the benefit? Why is more of a bad thing, good? All I see is the lake population increasing by 500, with little hope of increased recruitment and even less hope of those fish attaining trophy size. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Several points there, and I can address a couple of them and will defer to Mr. Neuswanger for the rest.
The fish from Butternut represent several positive factors IF they are proven by Dr. Sloss to be acceptable. First it is certainly possible that the Butternut fish are capable of reaching 'trophy size' if removed from an 'overstocked' water and placed in a low density situation. No one seems interested in harvesting enough fish from Butternut to reduce the population of young adult fish there, and there is no concrete indication that strain is not capable of reaching acceptable maximum size under the right conditions. There certainly are concerns, so why not press the issue and find out what happens? The fish are there, can be transferred with relative ease, and the genetics testing and perhaps more of the project can be paid for by a MuskieFIRST auction.
Those fish will represent a known number of introduced 'adult' fish, and the data gained from a cooperative effort of anglers, perhaps the Tribe, and the DNR about recapture in the nets, those harvested by spearing, and those caught by anglers (CPR or kept), may be quite valuable to the data set the DNR fisheries management folks have now.
There are some social implications, all positive far as I can see, which will bear discussing when and if the stock transfer is about to take place.
There is an underlying assumption in your question that these fish will do poorly because there is a problem in LCO right now. If angler reports are correct, LCO has a real problem, and it's going to take experiments and studies like this one; reintroducing a significant number of genetically acceptable ADULT fish and following immediate and future results closely to help find out what has actually happened there. Since it is not at all likely there will ever be Mississippi strain fish released there, (WIDNR policy, not area fisheries management alone) this is a shot in the arm that might prove your ideas out, or disprove them, that's the nature of work like this IMHO. Point is, it can happen with relative ease and based on what I've found out about the proposal, should happen. | |
| | |
| MuskyMonk - 11/14/2005 5:46 PM
MONK: Given the same environment that currently exists in LCO. With no significant changes in habitat, regulations (as to spearing or other fish harvest), fish populations (as to % of pike, walleye etc.)... what good will it do to plant 500 adult Butternut Lake muskies in LCO. If they are proven to be genetically identical to the current stock which has failed to produce a selfsustaining population for decades.... decades, where is the benefit? Why is more of a bad thing, good? All I see is the lake population increasing by 500, with little hope of increased recruitment and even less hope of those fish attaining trophy size.
DAVE: I think Mr. Worrall did a fine job of answering this question accurately. The only insight I can add is that the muskies in Butternut Lake have been reproducing naturally at an excessively HIGH rate since WDNR stopped stocking musky fingerlings in 1999, and that high reproduction/recruitment is occurring in the presence of northern pike. So if genetic testing reveals no significant differences in existing microsatellite DNA markers between fish from Butternut and LCO, and if the within-stock transfer occurs, and if muskellunge recruitment remains low or nonexistent in LCO, we will strongly suspect that the problem in LCO is not genetic but rather ecological in origin (because those Butternut Lake fish were recruiting just fine in Butternut Lake). If we do the transfer and recruitment improves at LCO, I will be delighted, but we will want to identify the mechanism of improvement, which will not be easy. Of course, if genetic testing reveals significant differences between musky populations in these two lakes, we won't risk the transfer. I'm hoping the fish will test similar enough that we can try the experiment, learn something, and maybe improve the musky fishery of both lakes in the process.
I think we've about covered this one, gentlemen.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| It seems that Steve and Dave are reasonably intelligent people, but isn't it clear to everyone that if natural reproduction has been failing for 60 years in LCO while being stocked heavily, that all the fish are stocked fish - and thus have the genetics of stocked fish.
So the plan is now to test the genetics of stocked fish in LCO with the stocked fish in Butternut lake.....Gee do you think they will match?
So then the choice is does the DNR stock muskies with the same genetics of Muskies that are proven to fail in LCO? Fish that are not wanted by the sportsmen and businesses of NW Wisconsin....Fish with recognized growth problems in Butternut lake.Fish that no genetic test can tell if they were the native fish in that lake because the natives have been gone so long.
Or Dave & Steve can support a plan that includes stocking a strain of Muskies that is proven to grow large. A fishery that the sportsmen and businesses of Wisconsin desperately want and need a chance to fish for in NW WIsconsin.
The choice seems easy, yet Dave and Steve seem eager to risk the livelihoods and fishing future of those in NW Wisconsin, in order to stock fish that have been proven not to provide a trophy fishery in High density Butternut or Low Density LCO?
I guess since Dave and Steve were the ones to support the Bone lake fish last year - a lake that the WDNR is now scrambling to get away from - they are just hoping to find something they are right on. IMHO I doubt this will be it.
| |
| | |
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Monk
This may answer one of your questions.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/muskellunge/muskie_northern.html
One comment on Butternut. I have fished Butternut and know many others who have fished it and never caught a pike there. I think trying to say that muskies in Butternut are reproducing just fine in the presence of pike could be a little misleading.
A few questions. Can the DNR provide any netting or other type of data to show us what the pike population actually is there? Can you define similar enough? Also, if the transfer of Butternut fish to LCO does acually take place and those fish do not grow in LCO either, then what? If you do start finding YOY fish, how will you be able to determine if they are offspring of fish taken from Butternut or the LCO fish? Or a combination of the two creating yet another man-made musky strain? Since the Butternut and LCO fish would be genitically the same or should I say "similar enough" to one another how will you determine this?
(There is an impressive amount of evidence that Wisconsin muskies and pike coexist (and naturally reproduce) in many waters?) ?????
Steve or Dave - Please name the lakes in NW WI that have an impressive amount of evidence that the Wisconsin muskies and pike coexist (and naturally reproduce).
Thanks
Eric Johnson | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
What was posted above was information, not "stuff". I'm not going to allow the same rude, angry, point counterpoint we had last year; I find myself answering in the tone the post I am referring to was written, and I'm sure that happens with other folks here too. Keep your comments straight up and questions properly directed without any slams or digs. I'll edit your comment this time, but will immediately delete any in the future which is nasty or unfriendly in tone. We can discuss this as reasonable adults, or not at all.
I can list an abundance of water here in North Central Wisconsin where good NR in the presense of large NP populations exists. I can't in NW Wisconsin, because I'm not from that area and do not know the waters there other than fishing trips a couple times per year, so I'll defer to Mr. Neuswanger on that one.
I'd direct you again to Mr. Diana's statement, and for that matter to the last paragraph in your linked MNDNR article; read those carefully. Read the linked studies here. Look at the available science we have today. There are SO many factors that could limit NR in SO many waters, it's not a given it's the pike/muskie interaction that is the problem.
Guest,
First and foremost, don't attach any of the DNR decision making processes to me, and be careful not to attach same to any one individual in the DNR. The policy that doesn't allow LL fish stocking in LCO is an Agency stance, not just your area fisheries folk's. I'm moderating and participating in this discussion, adding material I can reasonably prove to be beyond reproach and accurate where I see the need, and assisting in getting the truth out from ALL sides on a very contentious topic.
There is no scientific proof genetics has anything whatsoever to do with the LCO population problem. There are, as mentioned earlier, 'concerns voiced by the public', and that's been noted repeatedly and in fact is mentioned in a recent DNR document. I would also argue with the statement that no genetics test can tell if those LCO fish there today are the same as those in the distant past, Dr. Sloss is working on that as we speak. His work and participation is also one reason for the future gathering of muskie spawn from a more diversified group of waters, along with answering public concerns. That document hardly describes a 'scramble', but it SHOULD be recognized by activists on your side of the fence as a victory of sorts, don't you think? I thought so, and was happy to see the adjustment.
I resent the charge that I personally am risking any livelyhoods or business success or lack thereof in NW Wisconsin. I repeat, what I AM doing, as is required by my position here, is providing a forum where the facts can be presented in an even handed and reasonable manner. Just because we seek the truth doesn't make anyone here at MuskieFIRST anti ANYTHING. I didn't 'support' the Bone Lake fish, I asked a series of questions about the claims made against that source of hatchery material, asking for concrete scientific proof for the emotionally charged issues raised, and looking for the actual facts of the matter. The transfer of the Butternut fish and resulting data collection on the success/failure of that project will asist in doing just that!
It's been obvious over our history that to manage ANYTHING based on emotion and passion may cause worse problems than the ones the changes were meant to address, especially regarding our Natural Resources. The 'choice' you refer to as 'so easy' has, unfortunately not been supported by ONE single fisheries biologist or geneticist we have spoken to over the last year, so it's moot at this point, I think until LL introductions in waters like LCO ARE supported by the scientific community.
MuskieFIRST will do our very best to present facts, and those may or may not reflect my personal feelings or anyone elses here.
On this issue that I personally am somehow against a good muskie fishery in NW wisconsin, that's absolute hogwash. There are a few folks over there who have an axe to grind with me because I have a tendency to look for the truth instead of accept rhetoric, especially if that rhetoric threatens to cause future confusion or even harm to the flow of accurate information. If I find the truth and make it public, as is my job, and it either supports or doesn't support the rhetoric, that's the way it is and I personally challenge all of those who feel slighted by the material here to present well documented opposing material without personal attack attached, there's NOTHING PERSONAL meant by any of this. I am NOT making anything up here, sir/madam, I'm just asking questions and doing my best to acquire the actual 'for real' answers whether they come form the WMRT, the DNR in Wisconsin or any other state or country, leading genetics experts across North America, or anyone else who represents a credible source. Those sources might just include you, if you wish to discuss the issue in a reasonable fashion. Social considerations ARE important, and SHOULD enter the conversation when appropriate.
Edit: See the genetic study completed by Dr Brian Sloss. End of debate about the genetic integrity of the LCO fish. No changes at all, same genetics that were ALWAYS there. Instead of creating 'mutts' as the challenge was presented, the stocked fish neither reproduced nor bred with the LCO native Muskie population, creating a two tiered population. The stocked fish did not show much or any NR. So look for other reasons and for once in this debate, offer something of substance in your arguments...anything of substance.
It's been quite some time since you were posting about the LL stocking and you heading over to those lakes to catch 'fast growing' monster LL muskies stocked there.
How's that going for you?
| |
| | |
| Last reply on this thread, and then I'm done.
In reply to Steve on Nancy Lake:
We are both speculating as to what the real answers are, and we are both interpreting the data differently. I see a success. I see a lake that was stocked three times 15-21 years ago. A trophy musky population developed under the worst possible conditions. Abundant Norhtern Pike population, small lake, small forage base. Reproduction DID occur (based on DNR and angler reports), whether or not a self sustaining population exists is yet to be determined. However, trophy class fish from natural recruitment DID occur. The Green Bay project has been deemed a success based on less. To ignore this success in conjunction with the current evaluation of the LL strain would almost wrong... flat out wrong. But I agree with you Steve, I'm hoping for the best in the other LL stockings.
In reply to Steve and Dave on the LCO transfer:
Your responses have made me less confident of this project than I was to begin with. It seems that we are doing a lot of wishing that once the Butternut fish hit LCO, they all of sudden will turn into trophy fish. And yet there is no documented evidence that this strain of Butternut fish has that potential, other than the fact that they may be related to the current strain in LCO that is failing. Dave you stated if recruitment improves, you will be delighted. But then say that it will be difficult to determine to what degree it does improve. What I have yet to hear from the two of you is the GOAL to manage LCO as a TROPHY musky fishery. LCO has a 50" limit because it was deemed to be a TROPHY fishery. IF you go through with this transfer, and those fish do not start growing, it will be a failure. Plain and simple. LCO should be a lake that produces 30-40 POUNDERS, not 30-40 INCHERS.
And believe me, that is the criteria that people who care about this lake will hold people accountable for. Whatever project plan you put together, there better be a significant effort to given to track the growth of these fish and make decisions based on those results. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
No reason to exit the conversation, you have asked excellent questions and have posted your feelings on the matter. A discussion ensued presenting opposing or even parallel viewpoints, which is, I hope, the ultimate goal here. You do a credit to the discussion, sir. | |
| | |
| I won't be exiting the discussion. As new information is made available I'll comment on it. I will be anxious to see the complete project plan for the transfer. I know the project is dependent on the genetic match that is going to be made, but at this point, the transfer seems to be in the good idea stage. There may be a project plan, there may not, I don't know.
What I do want to see is how this project is going to be evaluated before it is implemented. What are the measurables that will determine whether this effort worked or not. Whart are Year 1, 2, 3, 4 goals and objectives. Dave made the statement that if the Butternut fish do not reproduce, then ecological factors should come to the forefront as to the reason for failing NR. I don't agree with this. To rule out genetics without experimenting with the LL strain would be premature. I do agree that there are ecological factors involved at LCO, but the LL strain should be given equal opportunity to succeed or fail.
If in 5 or 6 years down the road the LL strain is a success elswhere in the state, and if in 5 or 6 years down the road LCO has not shown significant improvement, I hope the powers that be have the open-mindness to try new solutions.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Important point:
The Butternut Lake fish are reproducing in Butternut. That's an important point. If they reproduce well there, but do not when transferred to another body of water, there are conclusions to be drawn, I'd guess. | |
| | |
| Steve, the conclusion I would draw is that the current strain, no matter where its origin, cannot succeed in LCO. But again, we are only talking about one side of the equation, recruitment. The other side, the more important side is growth. Maybe that issue belongs in another thread, maybe not.
Dave spoke of increasing recruitment, good thing. Dave spoke of swinging the balance back toward the musky, good thing. What I did not hear is how this plan will be evaluated on in terms of growth of the muskies. That lake is big enough and has a substantial forage base to support a trophy fishery. At one time, there was a strain existing in LCO that grew to enormous size, I doubt that the strain exists there today. If it did, you would see more 30-40 pounders coming out of that lake. I would like to see how many fish over 45" came out LCO in that 1,000 angler study that Dave oversaw. Based on those results, could LCO still be classified as a trophy fishery? Does it warrant a 50" limit? What fish are we protecting?
LCO should be managed as a trophy fishery, same with Grindstone, same with the Chip. That should be the #1 driver on all decisions made with these three waters. "Is this 'such and such' decision going to better this lake as a TROPHY fishery". Is stocking Bone lake fish in the Chip a good thing (something that ANGERS me more than the LCO issue)?
Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but that will be my question until its answered. And the question is, what are going to do to specifically (and differently) to manage LCO, Grindstone and the Chip as trophy fisheries? And I have yet to hear how the Butternut transfer will make LCO a better trophy fishery. | |
| | |
| MuskyMonk - 11/15/2005 9:51 AM
MONK: In reply to Steve and Dave on the LCO transfer:
Your responses have made me less confident of this project than I was to begin with. It seems that we are doing a lot of wishing that once the Butternut fish hit LCO, they all of sudden will turn into trophy fish.
DAVE: Less competition in LCO. More prey per musky. More diverse, high-quality habitat in LCO. And most fishery biologists (including me ) can cite several instances in which slow-growing fish transferred from a lake where they were over-crowded became fast-growing fish in a more suitable environment. I have seen it personally with largemouth bass and bluegill. I don't believe it's been tried or documented with muskies, but based upon what we know about fish in general, it's not a whimsical fantasy.
MONK: And yet there is no documented evidence that this strain of Butternut fish has that potential...
DAVE: I need to remind everyone that we have no idea if Butternut Lake has its own "strain." It's very doubtful. But DNR records and musky anglers on both sides of this issue agree that the proportion of LARGE muskies (including fish over 50" ) was once much higher in Butternut Lake when the overall number of adult muskies was much lower than it is today. If Monk wishes to send me his e-mail address, I'll send him a copy of the Butternut Lake Fishery Management Plan that details what we know about the recent history of that musky population and our goals/objectives for that fishery. My e-mail address is [email protected].
MONK: Dave you stated if recruitment improves, you will be delighted. But then say that it will be difficult to determine to what degree it does improve.
DAVE: Monk, please review what I actually said. I said it would be difficult to determine the MECHANISMS (causative factors ) for improved recruitment. It will be relatively easy to document the DEGREE to which recruitment improves by using conventional survey methods (looking at capture rates of age-0 and age-1 muskies in fall shoreline electrofishing samples along with fyke net capture rates of young adults once they become fully vulnerable to capture by that gear at 4-6 years of age ).
MONK: What I have yet to hear from the two of you is the GOAL to manage LCO as a TROPHY musky fishery. LCO has a 50" limit because it was deemed to be a TROPHY fishery. IF you go through with this transfer, and those fish do not start growing, it will be a failure. Plain and simple. LCO should be a lake that produces 30-40 POUNDERS, not 30-40 INCHERS.
DAVE: I couldn't agree more. One of the things that troubled me upon arriving in Wisconsin was a scarcity of goals and quantitative objectives for individual waters. We met with local stakeholders in the LCO fishery last summer, and it was agreed that muskellunge were the NUMBER ONE species of sport fishing interest there. Furthermore, we developed a written, trophy fishery goal with quantitative objectives that will serve as our benchmarks for success. I am currently assembling the results of that stakeholder visioning session, and will share them here for all to see as our long-term fishery management plan for LCO comes together. I ask your patience as I seek concurrence with angler goals and objectives from our LCO tribal partners (half the lake is on Reservation property ) before I release that information. (There would be no point striving toward goals that another sovereign nation sharing that water does not recognize and support. ) Please stay tuned...
MONK: And believe me, that is the criteria that people who care about this lake will hold people accountable for. Whatever project plan you put together, there better be a significant effort to given to track the growth of these fish and make decisions based on those results.
DAVE: If this project comes together, we certainly will track the growth rate of individually tagged Butternut Lake fish. But "growth rate" is not an objective; it is merely one of several indicators that help us to understand what is happening in a fish population. Like recruitment and mortality, growth is a rate function that influences density and size structure. THOSE are the parameters around which we should build our objectives -- HOW MANY and HOW BIG. Fish can get big in two ways -- by growing fast even if mortality rate is relatively high; and by growing at a moderate rate with relatively low mortality. The most esteemed fishery scientists in North America (Ed Crossman and John Casselman ) are on record as saying it is the latter mechanism that has most often produced fish of world-record caliber. Regardless of the mechanism, our objectives will be clear and we will keep trying reasonable strategies until we achieve them.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe Dr. Casselman said at the Symposium he felt it was preferable to have a muskie that is capable of reaching what would be considered trophy size over a longer span of years, in other words a slower growing fish with trophy potential, in waters that support really big fish. I'll review the video and get a quote when I get some time. | |
| | |
| ERIC JOHNSON (a.k.a. Lockjaw) of WMRP fame made this challenging remark in a previous post:
"One comment on Butternut. I have fished Butternut and know many others who have fished it and never caught a pike there. I think trying to say that muskies in Butternut are reproducing just fine in the presence of pike could be a little misleading."
DAVE: Mr. Johnson may be right in a way. I may have actually understated the success of natural reproduction of muskellunge in the presence of pike at Butternut Lake. To quote a popular phrase, here are the "stunning new findings" from 1,000-acre Butternut Lake in Price County:
Butternut has been one of the most intensively surveyed lakes in the Upper Chippewa Basin over the past two decades. WDNR biologists conducted seven fall electrofishing surveys during 1985-1994 and eight similar surveys during 1995-2004. On all survey dates, at least four miles of shoreline were sampled, and 11.2 miles of shoreline (most of the lake) were sampled on five of those dates. Young-of-year muskies that may have been stocked just prior to the fall electrofishing survey were recorded separately from those that had been produced naturally. In this summary, we will focus on naturally produced fish because they are more reflective of the reproductive fitness of adult muskies in Butternut Lake.
Because it is difficult to present tabular data in this format, I will summarize the data by ten-year period, referring to 1985-1994 as Decade 1 and 1995-2004 as Decade 2.
During both Decade 1 and Decade 2, the average number of naturally produced young-of-year muskies captured during fall electrofishing surveys was 1.4 per mile of shoreline sampled. The range was 0 in a couple years to a high of 4.5 per mile in 1998 – a year when no muskies were stocked. But the average capture rate during both decades was 1.4 per mile. This did not vary from decade to decade, despite the fact that the average electrofishing capture rate of northern pike (all sizes) more than doubled during that time period, from 2.7 per hour during Decade 1 to 5.9 per hour during Decade 2. As the northern pike population was increasing, so was the population of adult muskellunge to its present level of 1.0 fish per acre – too many to sustain good condition and satisfactory growth rate. We will be presenting other data in the near future to demonstrate that northern pike do not necessarily prevent adequate recruitment of muskellunge where they co-exist in Wisconsin waters.
By the way, Butternut Lake was stocked with 15,500 fingerling muskellunge during Decade 1, but only 3,000 during Decade 2. All musky stocking was suspended in 1999 when it became apparent that natural recruitment was more than adequate, and perhaps even excessive, to sustain a desirable adult population. It is impossible to conclude any cause-effect relationship here, but it is interesting to note that a five-fold decrease in musky stocking coincided with a doubling of mean electrofishing capture rate of northern pike from Decade 1 to Decade 2. Despite all that, natural reproduction of muskellunge remained constant. These are the fish that WMRP members and their supporters claim will do no good if transferred into LCO, supposedly because they can never get big (wanna bet?) and “cannot co-exist with pike” like a popular strain from Leech Lake, Minnesota.
For skeptics who do not believe that WDNR electrofishing results indicate the existence of a significant northern pike population in Butternut Lake, I have included (I hope) a few photos of successful young anglers at Butternut. All these fish were caught during the past couple years. I cannot explain Mr. Johnson’s lack of success in catching pike at Butternut Lake, but I suspect he was targeting muskellunge. Many thanks to Senior Fish Biologist Skip Sommerfeldt and his great family for sharing these data and photos.
Editors note: We will have the pictures posted tomorrow.
(Butternut Pike 25.5 inches 2-05.jpg)
(Butternut Pike 28.5 inches 2-05.jpg)
(Butternut Pike 29.5 inches 2-05.jpg)
(Northern Pike 23 inches 5-04.jpg)
(Northern Pike 30 inches.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Butternut Pike 25.5 inches 2-05.jpg (35KB - 309 downloads)
Butternut Pike 28.5 inches 2-05.jpg (34KB - 314 downloads)
Butternut Pike 29.5 inches 2-05.jpg (30KB - 329 downloads)
Northern Pike 23 inches 5-04.jpg (38KB - 307 downloads)
Northern Pike 30 inches.jpg (33KB - 342 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| I see no reason to have slower growing fish as a target for trophy fish. I believe that most northern strains live 15-20 years anyway and generally real trophy fish seem to be hitting trophy size in less than 12 years. It is easy to see the difference in life span of the northern and southern fish(due to habitat and ecology)but it really does not seem to serve any logical purpose to have a northern strain slow growing if it can be fast growing. I think the original statement about this was in relation to northern waters vs. southern waters, NOT northern waters vs. northern waters.
A slow growing individual, stands much more chance of fatal contact with the number one musky predator before it hits major proportions. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
We'll have Dr. Casselman's complete video commentary from the Symposium up soon. Please view his opening presentation and graphic demonstrations here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/muskievideo.asp It's definitely worth watching!!
Taken in context, the idea isn't that the fish grow painfully slowly, they actually grow pretty quickly during the first few years of life; it's that fish like those from G B, the Ottawa, St. Lawrence., LOTW ( by the way, incredible year classes on LOTW have caused a downward spike in the averages(angler diaries, etc.) there, because the numbers of relatively old fish to relatively young has been bumped down as a ratio by those strong NR years) and many other waters DO have a longer 'growth curve' and if I remember correctly life span on the graph over time much like the Muskies from some Oneida county waters (eg> Jonnysleds 40# fish this summer from the Wi River). Fish from these waters regularly live to be as old as upper 20's or more, and depending on the water they are from, grow VERY large and VERY heavy. That is one reason the Ministry in Ontario decided to protect some waters with a 54" limit, effectively making them CPR waters except for that very special 1% or better fish, partly to address your last comment; low density in fertile waters, great long term survival, and the ultimate combination of weight to length. To my surprise, Wabigoon was lower middle 50" class upper CL, so I may not be searching the 'right' water for a 70# plus fish. He specifically addressed that the world records are generally considered by weight, and as such, these fish would be more likely to reach an upper confidence limit in waters he discussed of about 61# from GB, a figure close to that from the Ottawa, and 73# from the Larry. These would be, as I understand his points, old, healthy, upper 1% of the available population muskies.
I have seen the 'slower growing adapted fish are desirable' (to wildly paraphrase) commentary in the literature. I'll do my best to link to author and study for reference.
Interestingly, the Kentucky fish from the Licking and if course Cave Run peak and might even pass on at about 10 to 12 years, so the upper confidence limit of that population is going to be 'smaller', despite a MUCH faster growth rate. They grow quite quickly, but die younger, according to the folks I talked to there this spring.
I hope I didn't butcher the concept to badly, if I did, the videos will help me stand corrected. | |
| | |
| Dave and Steve,
Sorry, I'm not buying it. And this discussion is making me less confident in the Butternut Lake transfer. And I apologize beforehand if the tone of this post will be somewhat emotional. Why?
Because it has been admitted that we are attempting to do something "THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE" on a lake that shouldn't be treated as our own petri dish. If you want to determine if the Butternut fish can survive and grow to trophy size, pick another lake to put those unwanted fish in.
I have a suggestion, why don't we plant those fish in Nancy Lake. Seems to me that the decision on that water is there isn't a viable musky poplulation there anyway, and then come back to me in 10 years and show me the Butternut trophy fish. Then we will have accomplished two goals:
A. We will know the growth pattern for those Butternut dinks.
B. And we will have a side by side comparison with the LL strain.
I'm sure there are a few studys on how the growth of a bluegill and bass population improved based on such a transfer. GREAT! But I have an idea. Why don't we do whats proven to work with the musky species. Why don't we find SIMILIAR situations as to what is happening in LCO and Grindstone and find SUCCESS stories based on those situations and DUPLICATE those efforts. To me, that might be a better option than hoping something works that has NEVER BEEN TRIED BEFORE with a species. I have to think, there are waters in MINNESOTA, that were in SIMILIAR situations as LCO and Grindstone. Aren't there DNR and fishery people you can talk to in that state? Everyone is so quick to quote from scientists and fishery people, well, why don't talk to THOSE people?
This is what I am going to challenge either Steve or Dave with. WMRT has compared Grindstone with Pelican, White Bear and Plantagenet; and LCO with Bemedji and Miltona. Based on the catch data that they have presented, I would conclude that ALL those MN waters are good TROPHY fisheries. Why don't one or both of you find out who manages those MN waters and talk to them. Ask them about the history of their lakes and how they developed those fisheries. Ask them about the composition of each lake (habitat and competeting fish populations). Ask them what they have SPECIFICALLY done and continue to do to maintain their TROPHY fisheries. Ask them what there thoughts and concerns where when they switched strains in stocking, AND if those concerns came to fruition (i.e. outbreeding depression perhaps?)
If you truly want to stand by your decisions, then YOU have to challenge yourself from every avenue to make your arguments stronger. Don't just seek out those people and materials that will SUPPORT your position, but find those that are willing to maybe challenge your position and KEEP AN OPEN MIND. THAT is how you find the RIGHT answer to this thing. The one thing that I haven't seen done by those that have oppossed the WRMT stance is to hold meaningful conversations with the MDNR and explain why what they did WOULDN'T work in Wisconsin. Ask them what they would do if they managed Grindstone and LCO based on those lakes history?
And until I see that effort, I have spent all the time I can on discussing this. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | “Why can’t Leech Lake fish be stocked in LCO?”
The answer to this has been grazed but I don’t think fully given.
I know the official stance is LCO is in the natural musky range in NW Wisconsin.
One concern with stocking non-natives into a lake is down stream pollution. When making a decision on weather to stock or not stock the entire drainage basin is looked at. Can the Non-Native be isolated. The following is what you have down stream of LCO which is a A1-3:
Little LCO B-3
Couderay River B-2
Billy Boy Flowage B-3
Grimh Flowage A2-2
Chippewa River B-2
Holcombe Flowage A1-2
Cornell Flowage B-2
Old Abe Lake B-2
LAKE WISSOTA A1-2
Class:
A1 – Premiere Trophy Musky Water
A2 – Premiere Action Musky Water
B - Intermediate Class Musky Water
Category:
3 – Stocking is required to maintain musky population.
2- Some natural reproduction, however some stocking occurs to supplement natural recruitment.
Up stream you have Grindstone Lake, A1, 3, I don’t know if there is a dam there preventing fish passage up stream. If not any fish in LCO could easily end up in Grindstone.
If I am not mistaken Wissota is getting Leech fish. There are however no major flowages south of Wissota. Wissota is also approximately 90 miles south of LCO (by river). What puts LCO in the natural musky range and Wissota not?
If the powers that be could be convinced, I am wondering why not stock a non-native in LCO, especially if it can be proven that successful spawning is the major problem. Maybe the non-native would do better at spawning because they spawn in different areas, specifically areas that may not have been, potentially, polluted by the cranberry industry.
They also potentially spawn deeper which makes them less accessible in the spring, to the end of a spear.
Would any of the lakes listed above be in danger if fish from LCO migrated down stream? That question would need to be answered to get the fish there. Looking at the classifications I don’t see that as a problem. If there was a class A1 or A2, category 1 lake in that group it might be the case but every thing is a cat. 2 or 3.
I think a great study would be take the 500 fish from butternut and put them in LCO and get 500 adult Leechers from some place and put them in LCO and do a comparitive study that way. I think everyone agrees there are major problems someplace with LCO. A study like the one above could make everyone happy, if there is no know risk to the downstream waters. Which really what would be the risks, are any of them thriving naturally producing musky waters? It doesn’t look to be the case. The first question that would need answering if a study like this was to be done is: Are there any lakes out there with an over population of Leech Lake fish?
Is LCO in such bad shape that a study like this would be warranted, prove it is an you might have case for non-natives?
One more quick question: Has out breeding depression been observed in any of the MN lakes where they where stocking WI fish for years and then abruptly switched to Leech Lake fish?
Thanks, just more fuel.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Mike,
I think you and I are on the same page here. You have valid questions, much like I do. How bad is the situation... would you choose to fish a lake where the average is 80 hours for ONE legal.
I too would support a side by side study on LCO, as is being done elsewhere in the state. But to just put Butternut fish in LCO is only telling half the story.
The ball is in the oppositions court to address the questions Mike and I have brought up. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
I'm just providing information I have found and archived, and have absolutely nothing to do with decisions on stocking LL fish or any other muskie anywhere. I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm trying to get all the facts out there in an atmosphere that encourages reasonable debate and conversation.
As to the proposed transfer, it's apparently one position that the fish are not wanted, are slow growing and are an inferior strain. That certainly is not everyone's opinion; there are those who have studied the issues with the 'open mind' you suggest and feel this would be a valid project with no negative and MANY positive possible outcomes.
Therefore, there is more than one opinion, and all the information surrounding all opinions should be aired.
I honestly cannot see ONE single reason why the transfer and resulting intensive study shouldn't take place. Since it is the position at this time of the WIDNR that no Leech Lake fish will be introduced there, this is an immediate (adult fish) opportunity to begin investigating what the mechanisms are in play on that water and gain some very important information.
If the stance is to be that Leech Lake fish should be planted because of percieved superior performance, why then not use Ohio Strain, a fish that has out performed the LL strain in several recent studies? Why not fish from Lake St Clair, those fish are getting big in Green Bay, why not fish from Lake George here in Oneida County, those fish are definitely reaching HOG status and survive very well with NR occuring. Why not those from the Ottawa, where the upper confidence limit is around 60#? Why not from the St Lawrence, where the upper confidence limit is 73#, according to Dr. Casselman's statement at the Symposium? For the very same reasons the LL intorduction into LCO probably is out.
Also, keep in mind there is the 'shared resource with another Nation' influence there, too.
Why NOT use muskies from Butternut if Dr. Sloss finds they are compatible? Please post a statement from a working fisheries scientist or biologist that would contradict what Mr. Neuswanger has said. I have tried to find one, and can't. Statements from Casselman, from the esteemed folks at Trent, from the Illinois DNR, Kentucky DNR, University of Michigan scientists, Minnesota scientists, all are what they are, none have offered support for the type of stocking that LL fish introduced in the Chippewa Basin represents or have stepped forward to support the agenda of the WMRP on that particular issue. Some even took great care to step outside of the box a bit at the symposium to address the issue, in fact. If there are indeed those in the fisheries management trade who would support the LL introduction there, I'd like to see the opinion in print, if for no other reason than to see the opposing scientific viewpoint. It is my experience that scientist DO frequently and heatedly disagree, but I find that after more than a year of this discussion not one fisheries scientist with an opposing viewpoint has emerged. I expected to see at least one or two opposing viewpoints from the biologists and scientists during our coverage of the 2005 Symposium, yet witnessed none.
I see no alternative to applying the universally accepted position of the best scientific minds out there to make sound muskie management decisions, regardless of the motivation or the pure of heart desires projected from those who would object. I would suggest we accept where direct scientific and perhaps even more importantly, social challenge can be applied from ANY source successfully and influence management strategies as a result, witness the Madison, Petenwell, and Wissota fish stocking, and the St Croix Basin, all to be perceived as a victory for the hard working folks who got those projects underway, the WMRP, AND the WIDNR; at least to me.
I spoke to biologists from many muskie states last spring, and couldn't find one that was willing to support or encourage the idea of LL fish in the Chippewa Basin or here in our waters in Vilas and Oneida County. I found that several who had direct experience with spotted muskies felt that other strains were superior in the applications they had studied, in fact, and even those fish were felt to be unacceptable for application where the WMRP is focusing; the Hayward area.
Did you view the Casselman video yet? It really is worth watching, if you have the time.
| |
| | |
| I will watch when I get the chance too.
Maybe I'll sum up my position in one question. What will it take for the WIDNR to consider a different genetic strain for LCO?
The success of LL fish in other Wi lakes?
The failure of Butternut fish in LCO?
What will it take for Dave to SUPPORT a different strain of fish (ANY STRAIN) in LCO than the one currently failing?
I'll leave it that. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I understand the stance on the ENTIRE Chippewa basin, but what about LCO specifically. With the problems that are apparently present there. Why not try a strain of fish that have proven different spawning habits.
What makes Wissota different than LCO, or is the 90 miles of river enough?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Should this thread, again be broken off into a separate line under LCO.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You need to prove that the 'strain' in LCO is the problem if you are both going to keep insinuating I'm somehow responsible for the DNR policies regarding those fish. Yes, I understand the reasoning behind the reluctance to stock Mississippi strain fish there, because I took the time to call the biologists and ask the questions, acquire the answers; then check those answers with biologists from OTHER STATES who confirmed.
LCO ISN'T Wissota, that much you must admit.
I know of a couple fish surveyed on LCO over the last few seasons that were true giants, so some LCO fish can and do get big. I know the fish raised from LCO stocks reproduce elsewhere. I know that some muskies from LCO can and do grow large, very large. I know that there is a population problem in LCO that needs to be addressed, at least one that SEEMS to be very serious. I know some of that water doesn't reside on territory we have any control over. I know that there are a number of difficulties in assessing the population there that do not exist on waters we DO have better data from, at least in the reporting portion of the equasion, and that this particular water body has a couple twists that many others in the Ceded territory do not. I know that the fish from there have a history; recent history, of the capability to reach magnificent size and weight and that the fish SHOULD be reproducing. They apparently are not, and we need to find out why.
The natural place for a logical thinker to go to next is perhaps a plethera of factors including harvest, habitat destruction, water chemistry, or any number of others that could be in play INCLUDING but not EXCLUSIVE to genetics. The genetics issue is in the discussion and under investigation by Dr. Sloss, a management plan/proposal is in place, and I don't think to look for a magic bullet quick fix is in the most likely to be dealt cards from the DNR at this point. I guess I am a realist that way.
I know that the transfer from Butternut is an opportunity to work in the here and now and get immediate results, helping get an overpopulated lake's numbers down while working with a fish we know can reproduce and should be able to get to trophy size in the process. If they don't, we will know pretty quickly, not having to wait 5 years for the fish to mature. And I know that since the variables mentioned are real, and are part of the LCO equasion, it isn't likely LL fish will be approved for that water by the DNR even if Mr. Neuswanger personally begged for them.
Mike, Mr. Diana was very clear in his statement during the symposium that Leech Lake fish adapted to a condition on Leech Lake, and may NOT behave the same in another water body. That is is evidenced by the failure of the strain in Illinois testing on four waterbodies ranging from Northern temperate to southern, lake to impoundment. I have also heard that same comment on a more generalized basis from other biologists and researchers.
There are lakes here in our area that have some muskie population issues to worry about. Pelican is one, the density could fall dramatically and soon if those fish are not protected. What do you think our chances would be asking for a Leech Lake or Lake St Clair stocking on Pelican while it is under the management plan you are aware of there for the forseeable future? How about the River? Is there any guarantee the muskie fishing in Pelican will not deteriorate considerably with no stocking and high harvest of large fish from spearing and angling harvest over that timeframe down to what LCO is experiencing? What's the difference here except that LCO might just be further along than Pelican because of numbers of harvested fish that are not even counted? What if you had a chance to indicate that the fish are capable of growing large and reproducing, or disprove it, and could do so with a small amount of privately raised funding, add 500 adult fish to a system that sure seems to need them, and even solicit cooperation from sources that were not in the reporting loop during the process? Would you pass that opportunity by and do nothing, which at this pont seems to be the only other option?
If you were to place 500 fingerling LL fish in LCO, and they survived as well as those first stocked in Nancy, by my math there would be less than 150 left at the end of year two, and less than 50 by the time they matured enough to begin possible reproduction. What you are proposing with a matched stocking isn't even possible unless we can acquire 500 adult Leech Lake fish. Someone can correct me if my math is off, it's been a long day.
The assumption you both are forwarding is that the problem is the genetic makeup of the LCO fish. What if that isn't the issue at all? What if Dr. Sloss's work proves that the LCO fish today are genetically the same as those from years ago? What IF those fish are perfectly capable of reaching trophy size? Remember, the WMRP data was supposedly VERY conclusive that the stocked fish from Woodruff and Minocqua are slow growing small strain. Bull!!!!!!! Those stocked fish produce 40# adults RIGHT NOW from lakes that had no native muskies and were 100% reliant upon stocking at first. Some of those waters were only stocked ONE time, yet produce fish into the 53" class and show good NR DESPITE high Pike populations, and I'm talking TODAY.
I'll defer to the fisheries folks to answer the rest and tell me where I'm full of beans.
 | |
| | |
| Like our friend Monk, I have many other things to attend to. But I'll give this one more try, after which we may simply have to agree to disagree with some of the fine folks who understandably wish to see musky fishing improve in places like LCO. I promise to do my best to make that happen in a responsible, scientifically and socially enlightened manner.
MONK: "Maybe I'll sum up my position in one question. What will it take for the WIDNR to consider a different genetic strain for LCO? The success of LL fish in other Wi lakes? The failure of Butternut fish in LCO? What will it take for Dave to SUPPORT a different strain of fish (ANY STRAIN) in LCO than the one currently failing?"
DAVE: It will take a realization on my part, and on the part of several experienced WDNR fishery supervisors above me in the chain of command, that there is something irrecoverably wrong with the population genome of LCO muskellunge, rather than simply a fish community imbalance. Because of thorough file searching and reporting by the WMRP Team, there is now clear documentatioin of within-state source mixing among fish stocked into LCO; but that has occurred on all stocked Wisconsin waters, and they are not all suffering like LCO. Muskies in LCO get big (captured 56" and 57" fish in fyke nets a couple years ago), but natural recruitment is virtually nil. Is this because of inbreeding depression, outbreeding depression, or fish community change and imbalance? We do not know. Nobody knows, but we are working on finding out, and I am betting on the latter. Why?
Let's look at what's going on "next door" to LCO in Grindstone Lake. We've all seen the statistics from LCO in 2004, when volunteer cooperators reported fishing 305 hours in 102 trips for muskies and caught only 4 fish (1 fish per 76.3 hours). Pretty poor compared with the excellent Wisconsin state average of 1 fish per 25 hours. At Grindstone, volunteer cooperators reported fishing 135 hours in 35 trips for muskies and catching 16 fish (1 fish per 8.4 hours). Outstanding action! What's the difference between these two lakes? They're both deep, clear-water lakes with a diverse prey base. Both lakes harbor big fish that are heavy for their length. Natural recruitment has been virtually nil in BOTH lakes for at least the last three decades, probably due in part to a shortage of nursery habitat (shallow, weedy bays or shorelines) and the establishment of northern pike that frequent those rare weedy habitats and prey upon young muskellunge year-round. Both lakes are STOCKED with the same Wisconsin hatchery fish, yet musky fishing at Grindstone is outstanding for those who know how to catch them.
So what’s the difference between LCO and Grindstone? It may be as simple as differential northern pike density in those waters (not all waters by any means). We lack good quantitative data on northern pike there, but my field staff and many anglers are convinced that there are far more northerns in LCO than in Grindstone. IF that is true, knowing there are few places for young muskies (less than 20 inches long) to hide in those lakes, perhaps we should not be surprised that more 10- to 12-inch musky fingerlings survive in Grindstone than in LCO. It could be that simple (not certain). Recall Ocham’s Razor in science, which suggests that for each problem, we should try the simplest potential solution first. That is the basis for our plans to supplement the LCO musky population. If we acknowledge that mechanical or chemical pike eradication is neither desirable nor possible, the next best option is to tip the balance in favor of muskies by adding some genetically compatible adults to LCO that are not needed elsewhere (e.g., Butternut Lake). It is reasonable to believe that increased musky density will reduce northern pike recruitment in the future.
I would like to say one other thing relative to an earlier post by Monk. He assumes that I (we) do not talk to our colleagues in Minnesota. That is not true. I have known and communicated with Minnesota biologists since I was Missouri’s representative to the Esocid Technical Committee of the North Central Division of the American Fisheries Society. They are fine professionals who, to my knowledge, agree with our policy to not stock Leech Lake strain muskellunge into the native range of muskellunge in Wisconsin. They experienced similar challenges a few years ago, when Minnesota anglers were pressuring them to stock Wisconsin fish into Minnesota waters, ostensibly because the Wisconsin fish were so much heavier for their length than the allegedly skinny Leech Lake fish. Minnesota biologists did the right thing and resisted that pressure. We talk, Monk. And we read each other’s reports. And if we interpret them differently than you, it is because we do this for a living. Best of luck to you on the water, sir.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| And with that, better to let this issue go. I will agree to disagree, but keep an eye on the results. I do sincerely hope things will improve.
Good luck. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I don't know if I agree or disagree but just like fishing for these fish I am trying to answer the all important question WHY? I apologize this is going to get very long.
STEVE: “… I took the time to call the biologists and ask the questions, acquire the answers; then check those answers with biologists from OTHER STATES who confirmed.”
Response: Steve the above is exactly why I keep asking you these questions. I know you are not responsible, but I also know you understand the thinking better than anybody else on this board other than Dave. You are both busy so I am trying to spread the love so the discussion can continue. I am also cognizant of the fact that Dave is responsible for the entire North Eastern fishery not just MUSKY, and I very much appreciate the time he is taking to be involved in this discussion, because he doesn’t need to be and it has probably caused him many headaches.
STEVE: “LCO ISN'T Wissota, that much you must admit.”
Response: I will agree LCO isn’t Wissota, and you and Dave have given me the info I was after in the above posts. Still a remnant population of big fish there, not a total loss yet, and I think the Grindstone info Dave provided is very important.
STEVE: “The natural place for a logical thinker to go to next is perhaps a plethera of factors including harvest, habitat destruction, water chemistry, or any number of others that could be in play INCLUDING but not EXCLUSIVE to genetics. The genetics issue is in the discussion and under investigation by Dr. Sloss, a management plan/proposal is in place, and I don't think to look for a magic bullet quick fix is in the most likely to be dealt cards from the DNR at this point. I guess I am a realist that way.”
Response: I’m not necessarily looking for a magic bullet, I personally am trying to look at the LCO problem logically. Look at two possible factors for the problem you list above, harvest and habitat destruction. My thinking was that the habits of the LL fish may be such that these two factors could be limited.
In my opinion adding 500 adult fish to LCO is a magic bullet, I have never said I was against this and no matter what happens with the LL fish, which at the time we all know is nothing. I think putting those 500 fish into LCO is a great idea. I think they very well might get big, IF ALLOWED. Will they spawn successfully, that is the big question. But they immediately add a significant adult population to the lake which I feel can’t be a bad thing. IF the WMRP is correct and they have bad genes and they are correct and they won’t be able to reproduce there. It really shouldn’t present any kind of long term problem, because they will all be gone in 10 to 15 years anyway.
STEVE: "Mike, Mr. Diana was very clear in his statement during the symposium that Leech Lake fish adapted to a condition on Leech Lake, and may NOT behave the same in another water body. That is evidenced by the failure of the strain in Illinois testing on four waterbodies ranging from Northern temperate to southern, lake to impoundment. I have also heard that same comment on a more generalized basis from other biologists and researchers."
Response: That may be the case, but I don’t think the Illinois comparison fits. Leech and LCO are much closer in latitude and total distance. If LL fish spawn on a specific structure in Leech and LCO has some of that same type of structure (big question I don’t know the answer to) then the adaptation Mr. Diana speaks about could be exactly why they MAY work in LCO. Especially IF the spawning habitat, WI muskie look for, is gone.
STEVE: "There are lakes here in our area that have some muskie population issues to worry about. Pelican is one, the density could fall dramatically and soon if those fish are not protected. What do you think our chances would be asking for a Leech Lake or Lake St Clair stocking on Pelican while it is under the management plan you are aware of there for the forseeable future? How about the River? Is there any guarantee the muskie fishing in Pelican will not deteriorate considerably with no stocking and high harvest of large fish from spearing and angling harvest over that timeframe down to what LCO is experiencing? What's the difference here except that LCO might just be further along than Pelican because of numbers of harvested fish that are not even counted? What if you had a chance to indicate that the fish are capable of growing large and reproducing, or disprove it, and could do so with a small amount of privately raised funding, add 500 adult fish to a system that sure seems to need them, and even solicit cooperation from sources that were not in the reporting loop during the process? Would you pass that opportunity by and do nothing, which at this pont seems to be the only other option?"
Response: I hope we are taking steps on Pelican to stop this downward spiral. LCO has had a 50” limit for 10 +/- years. We all know we can’t do anything about the spearing so what options are left. I don’t think it is feasible to give it an infusion of adult fish on a regular basis. Lets hope Pelican doesn’t have all the problems LCO does or it may be in big trouble. And IF the size limit increase passes on Pelican and 10 years down the road it is in the same shape as LCO right now you can bet I will be screaming to try something else. There has to be a point where you cut your losses and realize because of harvest, habitat destruction, water chemistry, or any number of others factors all you are left with is a put and take fishery and you stock what will grow the best. We know from the 80s and 90s that WI stocked fish will survive and grow in Pelican, if the size limit doesn’t work hopefully we go back to the level of stocking seen in the 80s and 90s. Pelican is definitely not at that point and hopefully limiting harvest along with NR will grow more and bigger fish. But I don’t feel you can stop stocking and not address the harvest issue on a lake that sees the pressure Pelican sees or there will be huge problems a few years down the road. I don’t know exactly where LCO is on the slope, and that is what I am trying to determine, from your and Daves posts I don’t think it is at the bottom yet, but it’s much closer to the bottom than Pelican. As I stated above I am all for the transfer of fish if the genetics works.
STEVE: "If you were to place 500 fingerling LL fish in LCO, and they survived as well as those first stocked in Nancy, by my math there would be less than 150 left at the end of year two, and less than 50 by the time they matured enough to begin possible reproduction. What you are proposing with a matched stocking isn't even possible unless we can acquire 500 adult Leech Lake fish. Someone can correct me if my math is off, it's been a long day."
Response: I agree 500 fingerlings in a 5000 acre lake probably wouldn’t be enough. I agree putting 500 adult Leech Lake fish into LCO would depend on finding a source. I stated that when I first suggested it. It was just a suggestion for a apples to apples comparison. I would only do this if LCO is proven sterile for WI Musky. WHEN is that call made? After how many studies?
STEVE: "The assumption you both are forwarding is that the problem is the genetic makeup of the LCO fish. What if that isn't the issue at all? What if Dr. Sloss's work proves that the LCO fish today are genetically the same as those from years ago?"
Response: What I am trying to forward is maybe the LL genetics are better suited for LCO TODAY, not that WI genetics are inferior. If the lake has changed because of many different factors in the last 100 years then maybe the original LCO genetics are no longer suited for the lake and different genetics could work better. IF (I admit, very big if) this is the case it may very likely be LCO is the only lake in the state where this is the case, however there may be more lakes where this thinking could be valid.
STEVE: "What IF those fish are perfectly capable of reaching trophy size? Remember, the WMRP data was supposedly VERY conclusive that the stocked fish from Woodruff and Minocqua are slow growing small strain. Bull!!!!!!! Those stocked fish produce 40# adults RIGHT NOW from lakes that had no native muskies and were 100% reliant upon stocking at first. Some of those waters were only stocked ONE time, yet produce fish into the 53" class and show good NR DESPITE high Pike populations, and I'm talking TODAY."
Response: I agree with you, but maybe LCO is different because of all the factors affecting it.
DAVE: "It will take a realization on my part, and on the part of several experienced WDNR fishery supervisors above me in the chain of command, that there is something irrecoverably wrong with the population genome of LCO muskellunge, rather than simply a fish community imbalance."
Question: What if it’s not the genome of LCO muskellunge, but fish community imbalance along with limnology problems. If the fish community imbalance couldn’t be corrected because of the limnology could/should a different muskellunge genome be considered?
Dave, thank you for the information comparing LCO and Grindstone. When I look at the map I notice that both lakes have cranberry bogs and both are half in the Reservation. Both are Cat.3 lakes, with no known reproduction. My guess is, both have approximately the same harvest. So it makes sense the difference in pike population could be a significant part of the cause as to why the stocked fish don’t show up in numbers on LCO, but they do in Grindstone. But how is the reproduction problem resolved in both bodies of water?
Steve and Dave I again thank you both for taking the time to discuss this. I understand you both probably have much better things to do with your time. But I think it’s important to fully understand these issues.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| MROBERTS: Question: What if it’s not the genome of LCO muskellunge, but fish community imbalance along with limnology problems. If the fish community imbalance couldn’t be corrected because of the limnology could/should a different muskellunge genome be considered?
DAVE: Mike, you've hit upon a good point here. I think limnology, which includes consideration of aquatic plants and other physical habitat features in a lake, certainly plays an interactive role with the fish community in LCO. For example, dense beds of aquatic plants throughout Musky Bay seem to comprise perfect nursery habitat for young northern pike. If that habitat could be altered to the disadvantage of northern pike, would that help tip the balance in favor of muskellunge at LCO? I'm not sure, but it seems like one thing to consider. Could near-shore cover in other parts of the lake be enhanced (for example, tree drops) in such a way that the probability of survival of young muskellunge (natural or stocked) would increase in areas outside of Musky Bay? This might be another productive avenue to investigate. I regret that I can only address your question with more questions of my own, but these are the questions I ask myself, and these are the habitat-related strategies Frank Pratt and I would consider before resorting to the introduction of an exotic strain of muskellunge from Minnesota into the heart of Hayward musky country. Given WDNR policy decisions at levels far above me, I think this is a moot point anyway.
MROBERTS: Dave, thank you for the information comparing LCO and Grindstone. When I look at the map I notice that both lakes have cranberry bogs and both are half in the Reservation. Both are Cat.3 lakes, with no known reproduction. My guess is, both have approximately the same harvest. So it makes sense the difference in pike population could be a significant part of the cause as to why the stocked fish don’t show up in numbers on LCO, but they do in Grindstone. But how is the reproduction problem resolved in both bodies of water?
DAVE: You're very welcome, Mike. Your challenging questions are a PLEASURE to answer because you pose them with civility and respect. (I have ceased to respond to people who don't.) I'll be a nitpicky biologist for a moment and beg your indulgence by distinguishing between reproduction and recruitment. Frank Pratt and I think there is suitable spawning habitat for muskies in both lakes (maybe not in Musky Bay of LCO anymore, but elsewhere in the lake). So we believe natural reproduction of muskellunge can and does occur in both lakes. It is recruitment -- the survival of young muskies to stock size (20 inches) -- that seems to be the main problem. Any condition that facilitates predation upon young muskellunge during their first couple years of life should be considered a potential contributor to recruitment failure. The more large predators in these lakes (northern pike and even adult muskellunge) and the fewer hiding spots for young muskies (near-shore areas with structural complexity), the greater the threat to musky recruitment. So I'll rephrase your question to say, "How is the recruitment problem resolved in both lakes?" I wish I had a silver bullet for that one. But in general, I think we do what we can to protect muskellunge (50" length limits already in place, but may need to address the live bait mortality issue), encourage harvest of northern pike, and increase structural complexity in near-shore areas to provide young muskies with safe places to hide and feed. We will certainly address these things in the upcoming fishery management plan for LCO. Thanks, Mike.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Well it certainly is going to be difficult to do the tree falls on the lake. Most of the shoreline seems dedicated to cabin frontage. Obviously to anyone who has drifted musky bay and either burned a bucktail or a Johnson silver minnow with a rind on the back, northerns are abundant. Billy Boy flowage is another significant northern nursery and I am sure that it produces a bunch of them. I did ask the question about imprinting and possibly changing spawning sites for these fish or would that be far fetched?
If I remember Johnsons study it involved an initial population of fish which was being depleted every year and his conclusion was that there was NO natural reproduction going on any more. I think as a historic fishery, the loss of Couderay is particularly vexing if not painful to the older segment of the fishing population. I was friend to a family that had a cabin up there since post depression times and from there reports the fishery was very different in those days, and Musky Bay was named such because it actually had MUSKIES in it. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Dave thanks again for the responses, have a few more questions I have been thinking about and have come up in some email exchanges.
I looked through the stocking reports for Grindstone and LCO, from that Grindstone has actually been receiving more muskies per/acre than LCO. From 1990 through 2003 Grindstone received approx 2 musky/acre more than LCO. Combine that with the supposed higher pike population in LCO maybe that alone explains the difference in musky stocking recruitment. Maybe LCO just needs a higher stocking density. Is that economically feasible?
I understand that the 500 fish transfer will be an immediate adult population boost, but I don’t think it would be possible to do that every 5 or even 10 years if it’s needed. I know, I know…..….that has never even been suggested, I’m just rambling.
Regarding the tipping of the balance in favor of muskies, is it fare to say an increase in musky density will reduce northern pike recruitment? I think it’s important to be careful with statements like this, because from a muskie fisherman’s perspective this could come back to haunt us, when looking to increase musky density or size structure on any lake.
While working on size limit increase the number one question we need to answer is what effect will this size limit have on walleye and panfish. The best response we have is “Musky are such a low density fish that yes, they will eat some walleye and panfish, but when looking at totally densities it is minimal, compared even to cannibalization.” According to one DNR biologist I have talked to Musky stockings have been tried in the past to control stunted panfish populations, it has never worked. Because, in most situations muskies just do not reach a density, high enough, to control other fish populations. Walleye, Pike and Bass have been used successfully to control stunted panfish populations.
Musky are typically at less than 1 adult fish/acre, many good lakes are at less than .5/acre. One of my favorite musky lakes, which I would consider to have a moderate pike population, is supposedly at 6 adult pike/acre. I don’t see any way to tip that balance other than to get a high enough musky population so the young survive. Not so the muskies reduce the pike population. I don’t see how that could be possible, without other negative affects.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| "Regarding the tipping of the balance in favor of muskies, is it fare to say an increase in musky density will reduce northern pike recruitment?" Good question, Mike.
If you were to look at Butternut Lake, its fair to say that incresed musky density had no impact on the Northern Pike population. I think (maybe wrong) the goal of the transfer is to increase adult musky spawning populations and thus generate a type of critical mass in which a self-sustaining population may occur (still an open question as to the impact this will have on TROPHY fish).
However, reading recent comments, the thought may be that overriding ecological factors are playing a predominant role in recruitment. Okay. Now do those same ecological factors exist in Butternut, and despite those factors, both pike and musky thrive? I don't know, but there is a reason that pike and musky coexist in Butternut. And do those reasons apply to LCO.
Again, we should try to find a situation similar to LCO and see what worked. There might not be a similar situation. There might be a list of x number of "close" situations. But I would like to see if there were other lakes that had similar difficulties and see what was done. And if we were to compile such a list, would Butternut still be an appropriate example. Are other lakes, maybe in Minnesotta, closer to the mark? Again, I don't know. To me, it would seem like a logical step.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| MROBERTS: I looked through the stocking reports for Grindstone and LCO, from that Grindstone has actually been receiving more muskies per/acre than LCO. From 1990 through 2003 Grindstone received approx 2 musky/acre more than LCO. Combine that with the supposed higher pike population in LCO maybe that alone explains the difference in musky stocking recruitment. Maybe LCO just needs a higher stocking density. Is that economically feasible?
DAVE: Mike, exceptions are possible during times of hatchery surplus, but by policy, we cannot PLAN to stock any given lake with more than 2,500 fall musky fingerlings from WDNR hatcheries in one year. This upper limit was imposed many years ago in order to distribute our most expensive hatchery products equitably throughout the state. Also, there's a general understanding that such stockings usually will occur only on alternate years.
MIKE: Regarding the tipping of the balance in favor of muskies, is it fare to say an increase in musky density will reduce northern pike recruitment? I think it’s important to be careful with statements like this, because from a muskie fisherman’s perspective this could come back to haunt us, when looking to increase musky density or size structure on any lake.
DAVE: I think it's fair to say that it's worth a try. We don't know if it will work, but there seem to be precious few other options for reversing the dominance of northern pike in a lake like LCO. Each lake has complex and dynamic interacting factors that we rarely understand completely. At Butternut Lake, our electrofishing capture rate of northern pike more than doubled in the most recent decade, coinciding with a five-fold decrease in musky stocking from 1985-1994 to 1995-2004, but also a significant increase in adult musky density in the latter part of the most recent decade due to high natural recruitment and low adult mortality. When we see contradictory evidence like this, it's a pretty good indicator that we do not understand all the complex interactions at work. About all I am able to conclude is that muskellunge have reproduced naturally and actually increased in abundance despite the doubling of fall electrofishing capture rate of northern pike at Butternut Lake in the most recent decade. Now that adult musky density has reached a high level of 1.0 per acre at Butternut, will they repress future pike recruitment there? If we don't move half of them to LCO, we may find out. If we do move half of them to LCO, we stand to learn a lot there too.
Regarding the social implications you mentioned, I am comfortable with our direction. In the Upper Chippewa Basin, northern pike have their fans in a few select waters with excellent pike fishing potential (e.g., Nelson Lake and Miller Dam Flowage), but muskies are still rated MUCH higher in angler preference by local stakeholders on most waters. And at LCO, muskies were the NUMBER ONE species of interest among our visioning session participants. All lakes cannot be all things to all anglers, so we have to make tradeoffs. In the case of LCO, we are going to do our best to feature muskellunge, and we will do so unapologetically, even to the disadvantage of species held in lower regard if necessary. Ten miles away at Nelson Lake, we have no muskellunge objectives at all, but we will start managing a trophy northern pike fishery if participants in the Conservation Congress hearings next spring give us the "thumbs up" on our proposal for a 32" minimum length limit and 1 daily bag limit for pike there. Different priorities for different waters, influenced by what each system is capable of supporting and by what stakeholders indicate they want via local meetings, creel surveys, statewide mail surveys, etc. I don't know how else to do it.
Hope this answers your questions, Mike.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks great answers, but they lead to more questions.
DAVE: …we cannot PLAN to stock any given lake with more than 2,500 fall musky fingerlings from WDNR hatcheries in one year.
Question: Dave, if local clubs could come up with the money and APPROVED fish could they supplement the stocking from a private source on a lake like LCO? Or if clubs put 2,500 fish in LCO, is the DNR obligated to stock their fish in other places because the quota was reached?
Dave: Ten miles away at Nelson Lake, we have no muskellunge objectives at all, but we will start managing a trophy northern pike fishery if participants in the Conservation Congress hearings next spring give us the "thumbs up" on our proposal for a 32" minimum length limit and 1 daily bag limit for pike there.
Question: You brought up Nelson Lake again and it reminded me of a question I was meaning to ask about NANCY. I had a brain freeze for a while there and confused the two. Anyway, I noticed that NANCY is on the no stock list for musky. Why not continue the LL experiment there and do some supplemental stocking of LL fish to try and build that current LL musky fishery? Or is the plan to continue to study the lake, to see how the existing LL fish survive? It seems the DNR could get some good PR by at least continuing the LL program there. It would give the people who want it a close destination. Unlike the 5 lakes near by that are schedled to be stocked 06 thru 09, Nacy has a current fishable population of LLers
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/22/2005 10:00 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Wow, I am tired after reading this post, lot of good information regarding LCO, been fishing it for 5 years now, very limited success. Fish per hours really seem right on the head. I also think Grindstone is more fish friendly due to it size and fishablility. Dave a couple Questions.
1- How does your fish per hour vary by season? Usually have much more success till 1st week of July, then after turnorver, suspect move deep and the vast open water(limited fish) make them harder to contact in summer.
2-With LCO has limited natural reproduction due to spawning habitat demise, why not try the LL that spawn in different habitat, and may not be vunerable to the density of pike in LCO? What is the risk of mixed reproduction of LL and LCO fish if they are using different spawning habitat?
3 Have you tried using 2 year old in stocking, in MN we have noted they have much higher survival rate than fingerlings?
4 As mike eluded to why not keep stocking Nancy, with 7-10% survival rate of stocked fish, you would think that there needs to be more stockings to ensure that there are enough adult fish to really have a chance at this lake becoming a brood stock lake? MN still stocks most of its lakes yearly to build its adult fishery with hopes of the lakes becoming self sustaining.
5-Why a limit on at 2500 fingerling, why not have it be a ratio based on lake size?
Yes there are big fish in LCO, but few and far between, it has the Hype of a Trophly lake, but its glory years are in the past and is in definite need of help.
Troyz
Edited by Troyz. 11/22/2005 2:13 PM
| |
| | |
| Someone show me where Grindstone is the fantastic lake Dave says it is! I fish it as well as several other good musky hunters I know, and yes there are good numbers of fish there but all of us seem to have trouble getting past that mid to upper 40 inch size range. Not even seeing but a very ocasional 50! Lots of them though 36 to 42, and decent nubmbers from 42 to 45 or 46, few larger. This is EXACTLY what we are seeing on almost every lake up here. We have been seeing the same size structure for the last 5 or more years and no increase above that. Almost like they have topped out where they are. Even with the 50 inch limits, Grindstone is not much different in average size fish it gives up that say Teal, Lost Land, Siss, or most other lakes here. | |
| | |
| Grindstone Angler... nail meet head! That my friend is the entire point of this discussion.
Let me repeat the comments from Mr. Neuswanger,
1. "At Grindstone, volunteer cooperators reported fishing 135 hours in 35 trips for muskies and catching 16 fish (1 fish per 8.4 hours). Outstanding action!.... Both lakes are STOCKED with the same Wisconsin hatchery fish, yet musky fishing at Grindstone is outstanding for those who know how to catch them." - Key word, action. What was the average size of those fish? What was the biggest?
This is the point of my arguement. If the DNR is satisfied with the results of Grindstone, then there you have the root of the problem. We are not looking for action on these lakes, we are looking for the big girls, trophies. I don't know, maybe we need another set of lake meetings to clarify angler priorities.
| |
| | |
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | I don't fish grindstone much, due to its boat landing and my boat. But the size structure suprises me. I know on LCO the last few years I have seen more fish, but in low 30" size range. I also talked to a group that spends a week in the fall on LCO, the award a trophy for big fish, 9 caught, 31" was the winner. So size structure is still a issue, sure the grow an occasional big fish, but the consistancy is an issue.
Troyz | |
| | |
| Grindstone angler,
In IR 418 (page 14 table 6) by the MN DNR, it is written that the average LCO strain female will reach a maximum size of 1194 mm or 47 inches (vs. 1341mm / 53in for MS strain) in the lake studied. This is not my opinion it's something written by Biologists. (Likely by certified members of the AFS) If you are catching 46 inch fish in Grindstone, you should feel good about yourself, it may be as big as those stocked fish can grow. Of course there will always be some exceptions.
MRoberts,
it is true that Policy dictates that no more than 2500 Muskies be stocked in a body of water on a given year. It is the same type of policy that limits the stocking of alternate strains (including those proven to grow 10% larger in MN and Wi waters - IR418 & RR175) in Wisconsin waters. That policy applies even where those other strains exist today (Nancy). Concerned citizens of Wisconsin would like to see both policies changed in order to provide higher quality fisheries. If we can change one policy, we can certainly change the other. By the way - how many Muskies were stocked into Green Bay this year? Last year?
Bob Benson
Member - American Fisheries Society
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
I think one needs to be cautious when using data from a study in Minnesota on a Eutrophic lake arbitrarily to predict L and 95% CI for the same fish in LCO. The lake mentioned in your reference, Waconia, is described as larger than Grace (the other study water) shallower, and more eutrophic on the edge of forest/ag area of SE Minnesota , a markedly different waterbody than LCO, I would say. The figures on the page you mention offer far more information than you mentioned, and conclusions were for those waters. Please reference the difference in L and in 95% CI Limit between Grace and Waconia Mississippi strain, and please note also the Minocqua strain L and 95% CI Limit listed for Grace VS the Mississippi strain there, and the fact that LCO fish were not stocked in Grace, and Minocqua fish were not stocked in Waconia. I think one needs be cautious that data from this work isn't used to discuss what the same parameters on LCO might be, there is not necessarily a correlation between the two. Would the Mississippi strain perform as in Grace when stocked in a Hayward area lake, or would they perform as they did in Waconia, or as they did in Forest or the Fox in Illinois? How would LCO fish have done against the Mississippi strain in Grace? Against the Minocqua fish? I don't know, that isn't in the data mentioned and I'm not qualified to venture a guess.
Here's a link to the mentioned study:
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational...
We will have the entire Green Bay video presentation from the recent symposium up soon. Just to make sure no confusion occurs, the fish in Green Bay are not Mississippi strain. Lake St Clair, I think.
Dave,
Is there any indication the LCO fish will not reach 50? 54"? 56"? If indeed I at least somewhat understood many of the presentations at the Symposium and all I have read over the years, it isn't just the genetics or the water body or the forage or angler harvest or spearing or..... that indicates how many of the older, oldest, large fish survive from each year class and are available as a result for us as anglers as 'trophy class fish' it's a combination of all. Am I correct? I believe Dr. Casselman stated slower growing fish that live longer and develop a solid length/weight ratio are preferable long term trophy material, do I have that right too?
Is there any data on Grindstone that indicates what is happening on that water and has happened to overall size structure of the muskie population there?
Grindstone Angler,
Please see the tone in which questions and answers are exchanged here. This forum is designed to do just that, allow for an exchange between anglers, fisheries folks, etc. We encourage constructive discussion, and strongly discourage that which isn't. Please keep your posts within those limits, and you can expect to get answers from varying points of view to any question you might have.
Thanks to Bob, Monk, Mike, Troyz, Dave, and everyone for keeping it real, let's maintain the air of mutual respect. | |
| | |
| The fact still remains that even 20 years ago the fish in Grindstone and LCO were bigger than today and there were far more of that larger size as well. Not so any more! There will always be the rare and very few exceptions, but those larger fish are just not there anymore. In Grindstone What is in there and as I said before have been there for the last 5 or so years, is plenty of fish up to to low to mid 40s and THEY JUST DO NOT SEEM TO BE GETTING ANY LARGER. What I am seeing is a kind of almost universal fish topping off around the mid 40s in almost every lake I fish up here. Why is that. Should we not have a better shot at a bigger fish on some of the former trophy lakes than the numbers lakes? That is not what is happening. Today you have just about as good of chance on the numbers lakes and just as good of chance for the mid 40s fish. Should not be so and don't make sense! Is it the hatchery fish we are stocking???? Not much else has changed | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I suggest you look to the reams of discussion here about that issue on this board, there are several points of view answering that question many times over. I also suggest you watch the Dr. Casselman video, that is extremely germane to this issue. We are working on the rest of the Symposium video and audio, you will be able to see every one of the main stage presentations and almost every one of the breakout sessions here soon.
There is no such thing, as I understand the dynamic, as 'exceptions' to the rule. A population is either capable of reaching a certain size, or it is not, depending on the variables mentioned in several threads here on the Research board. What thereIS talked about quite a bit in the literature is the upper confidence limit, and those fish in any given population that reach the 1% upper limit, if you will excuse possible misuse of the term. I heard that term alot when discussing the big fish in Georgian Bay, Wabigoon, Eagle, Lake St. Clair, the St Lawrence, the Ottawa, and other well known trophy water either in or bordering Canada. Not every female in any population will make it to the upper 1% for a number of reasons, and if that capacity is there, then the culprit, VERY generally speaking, lays in those variables.
In several studies I read, of 1000 fish stocked only a fraction survived to reach adult spawning age. At a rate of loss at I believe about 25% each season's remaining numbers of that class, do the math on how many will be present especially if the larger, preciously rare really big fish are harvested by anglers or the tip of a spear, or die from handling or single hook or....you get the picture.
Part of the problem when discussing this issue is most of us want things to be easy to fix, one shot fix it all with a 'it's the fish' answer. I learned over the last year and at the Symposium that there are some indicators that certain fish do well in certain waters, especially those they have adapted to over the years, that an initial 'introduced' population always does better in the first stocking than in subsequent stockings, and that natural reproduction and resulting recruitment is quite a challenge for the Muskie on many of our waters man has altered forever. I learned that one of the answers I got from biologists in Illinois, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, Several provinces in Canada, Minnesoata, Wisconsin, and other areas is that it's not a good idea to bring a strain from aother natural range and overstock those you have, especially if the fish you have there can and do reach trophy size.
The argument that they (A strain some folks proclaimed as slow growing small strain) cannot has been pretty much discounted in North Eastern and North Central Wisconsin, that's obvious as anyone's nose they can and do reach very respectable size well into the mid 50" class, and undoubtably need more protection so that the good year classes have an upper TEN percent allowed to get to what most folks consider a trophy, and the upper 1% reach that WHOA!!! size. If indeed there are fish reaching the 50" and more from a good year class with good recruitment from the strain in MW Wisconsin, then there isn't a logical progression anywhere that would indicate a genetic 'problem' with those fish, and that's clear and logical examination of fact and reasonable conclusion supported by the experts I have spoken to from the areas mentioned above. Not to say that the genetics coupled with conditions, social applications to those fish by anglers, Native Americans, and 'accidental muskie anglers' wouldn't have an effect, there are reams of support for that idea in the literature. Others might successfullyargue and have a well thought out and logical sounding platform, but I'm still waiting for a biologist and fisheries manager (or a dozen, if the assumption is to be so obvious that 'it's the fish' as to generate the hype around the platform that scientists JUMP at the opportunity to prove it to be so) to step in and do just that. It's my experience that scientists actually get off a bit disagreeing with each other, but there is none of that with this issue yet. We've been covering it for over a year. The claim that they are all in collusion and will never disagree with each other isn't borne out in the history of the science, so that one's out.
Editorial commentary:
Is my statement 'biased'? No, that's as ridiculous as calling Grindstone Angler's or Bob Benson's post 'biased'. It's their heart felt opinion, and this is mine; we are all entitled, and we all can debate the accuracy in a friendly, straight up, non agressisve atmosphere. I can and do enter the conversation here, because I'm just as much an activist as the next guy, some days. I'll continue to do so in support of reaonable debate, and that's just the way it'll be. There will be NONE of the name calling, sophmoric, heck, even bordering on libelous commentary that has surfaced elsewhere, that sort of thing never will be allowed to ruin anyone's day at MuskieFIRST and is horribly counterproductive in making any headway toward any changes proposed by anyone for the management of Muskies in Wisconsin. If I read a personal attack against the folks working toward resolution of concepts and ideas in this state or anyone else for that matter, no matter they be DNR, Muskies Inc, or independant anglers here from any side of the discussion, it's gone. No dancing around the issue here, DNR, Muskies Inc, American Fisheries Society members, WMRT, or just a guy interested in Muskies, you are all more than welcome to post to the issues here, but keep it reasonable and clean or go post opinions elsewhere on discussion boards who's operators care not about civility and fair play in debate.
By the way, to clarify a point because it is imporatant to this discussion and those who I might be able to convince it's reasonably safe to expect a fair debate here, I am the only moderator of this board. If your post is deleted, you can take it to the bank I am the one who deleted it, and you can bet you were outside of the posting permissions discussed above. I HATE this sort of editorializing, but the nasty tone and ebb and flow of attacks and counterattacks elsewhere is a waste of all of our time, don't you agree? | |
| | |
| For those of us who sometimes get caught up in the issues of the day, a brief visit to a nursing home can put everything into proper perspective. Today I visited my wife’s uncle, Joseph Drasler, a 94-year-old gentlemen in every sense of the word who is living his last days in hospice care. Joe was a foot soldier in Patton’s Third Army. He landed on Omaha Beach a month after D-Day and did not leave Europe until Hitler was dead. He slogged through every mud hole, fox hole, and hell hole in Eastern Europe, fought the entire Battle of the Bulge, and was one of only three members of his original twenty-man unit who survived the conflict. He lost five commanding officers, including a captain who got blown out of an adjacent fox hole by an allied bomber who did not realize that our troops were so far forward. I know all this because Joe faithfully wrote a letter almost every day to his beloved wife of over 60 years, Alice, to let her know how things were going. All those letters were later assembled into his personal war diary. The Steven Spielberg movie “Saving Private Ryan” was shocking. Joe told me it didn’t begin to describe the real horrors on the ground in Europe. Despite this, he never complained about it. It had to be done. It’s over.
I cannot begin to repay Corporal Joseph Drasler for the freedoms and opportunity that he and others of his selfless generation bequeathed to me and others of my generation. But I can try to honor his service and his sacrifice by using my time on Earth to protect and enhance to the best of my ability some of those things that make America great. I can spend my days (and sometimes my nights) conserving our aquatic natural resources in order to sustain a quality of life that only a free and prosperous people can enjoy. When Joe was still able to think and communicate clearly, he was always interested in what I did, and he seemed proud of me for doing something useful with my life. He knew there were some hard, long days, both physically and mentally. But his life experience has helped me to put those things into proper perspective. (My life is a walk in the park.) As Joe awaits the gentle hand of death to end the misery he has endured over the past few months, I respectfully submit that the Wisconsin musky fishery issues important to me and many of you over the past few months are truly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Are they worthy of discussion by all who question and care? Certainly. But are they worthy of the vitriolic personal attacks that have characterized the silly little “war” that has been waged by some in the Hayward area media? I think not. Actually, I know not. Joe Drasler taught me what real war is all about. And I am quite certain that today's bad guys are hiding in the mountains of western Pakistan and in the halls of power in North Korea.
So on this Thanksgiving Day, I am grateful for several things. I am thankful to have known Joe Drasler. I am thankful for the freedom and the quality of life that he and others like him have given to me and my family. I am thankful to live in northern Wisconsin, where fish and wildlife of all types and sizes abound in relatively unpolluted lakes and streams surrounded by inspiring wild lands. I am thankful to have a job that gives me the opportunity to make those things even better. I am thankful to live in a warm home that has not been flooded, burned, buried in a landslide, blown over or blown up. Most of all, I am thankful to have a loving family and good friends who I hope will remember me one day with even a smidgeon of the honor and respect that I will remember Joe Drasler.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Great post, sir. Thanks for providing an additional perspective on this fine Northern Wisconsin Thankgiving Day. I spent the mornning writing an article, the mid day with family, and last two hours of light watching deer freak out when hit by little tornados of snow when they tried to get across the powerline opening on my land. Some of those whirlwinds of snow were 50' high, and pretty stong as they clipped and rocked the stand I was in.
Pretty cool stuff, living in Wisconsin. | |
| | |
| Steve;
This can go on forever but let me add this observation. I am glad you added that 1% upper confidence limit thing as from what I am seeing on most alkes here is that that limit would have to fall just short of the 50 inch mark. As someone who has fished the area for more years than I want to think about and someone who has in tha past caught more over 50 than most have here, I can tell you we have seen changes. Some good and some bad. Good is that we are now seeing more 40 to 45 inchers than ever before. Bad is that we are seeing fewer over 50 and almost no over 52 that we did in the past. In fact you tell me why the lakes that are called numbers lakes now stack up almost identically in size structure to the larger trophy lakes?? From what I am seeing these fish for the most part top out at 45 to 47 inches with a very very few ever getting to 50 much less over 50.
Does this mean we need to stock something else? I can not answer that one but it appears that there could well be a problem with the Bone lake fish, maybe more so than the Minouqua fish you mentioned as getting larger. So if there is a problem, what is the answer? Where do we get our fish from if not LL strain? Even IF we can find a relatively "PURE" source, will they be sucessfull at reproducing with the hordes of small pike now in many of these lakes. IF we do go that route and it fails at least we "might" have a little better chance of larger upper end fish, but maybe still not as large as the LL fish, but still a put and take fishery with no recruitment. Using the LL fish raises questions too but at least there we have maybe a better shot at NR lakes and there is not much question that they do get larger and faster.
Whatever the case it's likely you and I as well as a good portion of todays musky anglers will be worm food before we see changes | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Grindstone Angler,
I disagree, there have been changes in procedure announced in cooperation with Dr. Sloss's work, and a new LCO plan will be released soon. LL fish are going to be stocked in the ST. Croix, and have been in Wissota. Far as the LL fish, as Mr. Diana said at the Symposium, there is NO indication the fish from Leech would be any more successful competing with Pike than the muskies we have in place, and the MN DNR has had to continue stocking in some waters to supplement NR in many of the waters there, I believe.
The exact quote from Mr. Diana is posted in complete context in the Pike/Muskie thread.
One of the most interesting sessions at the Symposium was about LOTW's muskie population. The average size reported has fallen off over the last few years. Now I could take that data and make a case that there's a problem, but quite the contrary, it's not a problem at all. The reason for the diminishing over all average is the larger number of small fish from extremely successful year classes. These year classes, unlike many others now gone or nearly gone, will be better protected throughout their life to whatever size thay can attain, up to the limit there whcih is 54" now, I believe.
The argument that live bait fishing hasn't hurt the population over there because the rigs were almost eliminated from the shelves bodies well for the year classes you describe, but damage to the larger, older, big girls has already been done. Since muskies can and do live to 25 or even older, and the single hook rig controversy and changes in the norm came just a couple years back, I'm sure you see my point. Add to that the other mortality issues and poor recruitment on a couple of the lakes, and it spells trouble. As I have said, and I believe I am at least on the correct page, there is NO indication at this point there is anything wrong with the genetics on the LCO and Grindstone fish. There is that possibility, albeit small, and I believe it has been discussed by the Muskie committee and has been addressed in a recent statement, and will addressed further in future management plans. | |
| | |
| Steve'
Yes live bait can be a factor but consider this on that subject. You say you are still seeing and catching the big girls over East? I know from talking to some of the guides over there that the single hook method is still very much practiced and you can buy them off the shelf over there too. Why has it only "hurt" us and not over there? Do you think there are more live bait anglers on this side of the state? I doubt it. Yet we have fewer of the big girls even though we have way fewer people still using single hook methods and we have way bigger lakes on the average. If there is no difference in the fish genetics, then in theory we should be ahead of the East side of the state in big fish production???BTW many the best big fish anglers over here quit using the single hook rigs over a decade ago as we then felt that it was not good, way before the DNR came to the conclusion.
Ask any of the better known muskie guides over here that have been fishing these lakes, the ones that fish multiple lakes, for the last 30 years and they will tell you the same as I am telling you on average sizes and max sizes. Our fishing is actually great if all you want is action and fish up to the mid to maybe upper 40s, but for the 50s and up they are simply not here.
Good example, I know of one angler who I would put up against anyone, anywhere on catching big fish that spent a real lot of time on our trophy waters this fall. The result was a bunch of fish from 44 to 47, a 48, a 49, and one just over 50. Now consider that virtually every time that angler has made a trip to MN or Canada for just a few days he has caught a 50 or better?? I can tell you for sure that 20 years ago we would have caught a lot more 50s in the fall with that kind of effort. I know because many of us did.
I do not profess to have the answers to why but thats what we see and we need to come up with a fix as quickly as we can. Hopefully one that does not take a generation or two before we see inmprovements. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Believe me, where the single hook sucker rigs were used alot, our area was hurt pretty badly too.
I am not aware of anywhere one can buy them off the shelves here, all the sport shops here have had them off the shelves for a couple years. I know a large number of guides over here, and don't know any who don't use quick strike rigs now. Yes, I said there are big fish here, and there are big fish over there, too. The papers have 50's in them pretty regular, most times released these days, and I saw a number of big fish photos this season from across Wisconsin.
Do some of the trophy lakes over there have a problem? I think LCO does, as does the DNR; read the posts regarding the LCO again.
Far as the water over here, look at this link, blow up the map and compare:
http://www.wistravel.com/wisconsinstatemap.htm
We have a couple large inland lake chains, Three Lakes and Eagle River, Wisconsin River and associated flowages, Pelican River and flowages, the Minocqua, Tomahawk chain, and LOTS of other water. Further East and North are the Michigan/Wisconsin boundary lakes, too.
I'll check with the folks in fisheries management next week and see what I can find out about plans for the future. One thing for sure, the consensus so far amongst the folks the State has organized to deal with the issues is no LL fish there.
| |
| | |
| Steve Worrall mentioned the following in a previous post:
STEVE: "Believe me, where the single hook sucker rigs were used alot, our area was hurt pretty badly too. I am not aware of anywhere one can buy them off the shelves here, all the sport shops here have had them off the shelves for a couple years. I know a large number of guides over here, and don't know any who don't use quick strike rigs now."
DAVE: I concur with Steve's observations and will share my own personal impression that single-hook sucker rigs are becoming obsolete in the Hayward area. But as Steve went on to say, we cannot dismiss the lag effect of past use on the size structure of today's musky populations. Muskies in the 40-45 inch range 5-10 years ago (when swallow rigs were still the norm) would have been today's 50-inchers if 83% of those caught on single-hook sucker rigs (Terry Margenau's recent study results) had not died within a year of their release.
We also need to be careful not to over-generalize about the degree to which "swallow rigs" have fallen out of favor. In a recent telephone conversation with an avid Hayward area musky angler, I was informed that two very active guides on the Chippewa Flowage STILL use swallow rigs when guiding clients. I was told that those two guides are responsible for well over 100 sucker-caught muskies on one resort's board over the past five years. (I have not sought independent confirmation of this story, so please consider it as one angler's opinion only.) IF these suspicions are correct, those two guides alone could be unwittingly responsible for the death of over 83 muskies over that five-year time period. How many of those fish might have become 50-inchers by 2006? How many non-guided anglers, including non-locals who buy or make their own swallow rigs at home, are also catching and presumably live-releasing (but probably killing 4 of 5) nice muskies every fall? We don't know. I think it would be interesting and useful to find out. Maybe the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. could help us assimilate that kind of information...
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| Dave;
I think blaming sucker fishing as being the main culprit would be a real stretch being that even if there were a number of fish dieing from that it would in no way equal what was killed or kept back when no one released fish. Even then there were more of those upper end fish being caught. There is just no way sucker fishing could be the largest problem as even if we are loosing fish that way some would get thru to grow to the upper sizes we are talking about and that is not the case. Also again over east they too use suckers and they still are producing more of the 51, 52 and up sizes there.
As for the guides you mentioned still using single hooks, I too know who they are and what they are using are circle hooks, not the same as the old j hook. Yes you can still gut hook a fish with them but very few. Not the same as the regular single hook.
Steve and Dave,
I have asked several good and legitimate questions here that still remain unanswered?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Look in the earlier discussion from last winter about the 'strain' we have here in Oneida County and in NC Wisconsin. It was stated the the fish from the Woodruff Hatchery were mutts and a couple folks went to great lengths to attempt to show a problem with the genetics of the fish. In fact I was taken to task pretty strongly calling my claims that there ARE good fish in Northern Wisconsin a story, and it was insinuated my personal experience was strictly anecdoatal and therefore to be ignored. So if the fish are indeed 'genetically OK' here, yet the proof from the WMRP is otherwise, do you see a problem with the insistence that 'it's the fish' statement as being the conclusive and only cause/effect? I do.
You are retracing a discussion that took all winter last year, and was discussed over and over. Your question was answered several times, but I'll do my best to clarify what I've said about a dozen times. By the way, when others didn't like answers they were given, they became beligerent as well. Not acceptable, sir, stay with Q&A or take it elsewhere.
First:
No one claimed that single hook rigs were the primary problem or 'jumped on it real quick'. I believe I said that harvest. spearing, single hook sucker fishing took a definite toll on fish that would otherwise now BE trophy class, and harvest rates on large muskies that were fairly high I feel are contributing factors. Is it just the fish stocked? I think that that subject has been covered as much as it can be.
Second: I have repeatedly asked the opposing question you ask. What proof is there that there actually IS a genetic problem with the fish in Butternut, LCO, etc? As I stated, the DNR did recently discuss the issue in a recent report. Would you at least admit there are other dynamics at work there, and that those need to be addressed, considered, and management strategies developed as a result? Read the recent report on the DNR website from the statewide muskie committee.
Third: I believe Dr. Sloss has work underway that will help clarify this. His work was first condemned, then dismissed, then touted by those who support 'it's the fish'. Look, read the entire progression of the discussion here. It went from Accelerated Evolution to Genetics to it's the fish to It's The Pike so we need a fish adapted to Pike back now to it's the fish.
Until the State decides otherwise, you won't see LL fish in LCO. They base their decisions on current, solid, working science. Opposing viewpoints from what I've seen are based on selectively searching the data for anything that would support what they want, and using a sledgehammer approach and exterme PR techniques to try to force the issues. Is the WMRP platform correct? I don't know, but the bulk of opinion from the scientific community seems to contradict a considerable portion of their platform. They need more public support from the scientific community, which has yet to materialize.
I would disagree that the pressure over here is any higher than than on waters over west of here. I'd bet it's the opposite, but maybe not. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Two quick notes to Grindstone angler. I never claimed that swallow rigs were the MAIN factor in suppressing the proportion of muskies over 50 inches long that you perceive to be in Wisconsin lakes. But the ubiquitous past use and reduced current use of swallow rigs may well be ONE factor that could be significant. That's all I said. We all know that other factors may be involved, including excessive stocking of some lakes, excessively high or low natural recruitment in others, spearing harvest, and harvest or hooking/handling mortality by novice anglers. (Bad genetics is on the bottom of the list of suspected factors.) Please do not alter and oversimplify my statements in order to make them easier to challenge.
Second, it has been a long Thanksgiving weekend. I just buried my wife's uncle and my good friend -- a World War II hero. I'm in no mood to hear complaints about lack of contact with public servants on holiday weekends. If you can find another biologist willing to do so even during a regular work week, good luck. I may respond later if I get time. Some of your questions may have been addressed in earlier posts on different threads here. Please review some of those if you get time. Thanks. | |
| | |
| There is a question of what proof exists that there is a genetic problem. Valid question... I would say, based on past stocking history there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that, at the very least, the genetic strain currently being stocked should be called into question. The fact that Spider and Callahan lakes were used in the past calls into question the genetics of any stocked musky population. The EXTREME rarity of Bone Lake 50"ers.... maybe 2 or 3 documented fish over the last 40 YEARS... calls into question the growth potential of that brood source. And lets not forget that Bone lake was once the recipient of stocked fish that originated from Spider and Callahan eggs. And there are historic examples of Spider lake fish that were stocked into LCO that did not grow to trophy size, in fact they were lucky to get to 35 inches (Genetics or Ecological... I say Genetics). I agree that there are other dynamics at work, however I don't think it would be reasonable to push genetics to the "bottom of the list" as Dave suggested. And Dave, my condolences on your loss. I personally know five people who have done tours (and thankfully made it back okay) in Iraq/Afgahn. The people that put their lives on the line for our freedoms don't receive near the due that is owed to them.
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | I think we need to have some patience...population densities, environment, maximum growth potentials(Dr. Casselman), harvest all have a lot to do how big our fish get.
Fifty inch fish have been rare on Bone....Bone has a dense population and a lot of fish get harvested.
Dr. Sloss's work will tell us if we have a genetic problem...patience.
I found Dr. Cassleman's lecture from the symposium fascinating....Every body of water has a different maximum growth potential.
Our fish here in Madison seem to top off at 47"-48"...We will see soon enough if the LL fish do any better.
Why do the same fish in Southeastern Wisconsin get over 50"? ...environment?? And the fish in Madison don't.
Monk I totally agree that Bone lake fish should not be going into the Chip. Shouldn't we be putting river fish in there?
Dave, thanks for your input. I appreciate it. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | This topic has been awesome, though it is traveling a little off point, but still very worth while discussion in my mind.
Bytor you bring up a very good Point.
“Our fish here in Madison seem to top off at 47"-48"...We will see soon enough if the LL fish do any better. Why do the same fish in Southeastern Wisconsin get over 50"?”
The first question I would ask is do the muskys stocked in the Milwaukee area come from the same hatchery as the Madison fish. I am pretty sure the Mad Town fish come from the Spooner Hatchery, if the Milwaukee fish also come from the Spooner hatchery I would say that is pretty good evidence there is not a genetic problem. If the Milwaukee fish come from a different hatchery it leaves open the possibility. Does anyone know?
I know a number of very good anglers who fish the Mad chain regularly and can’t top that 47”-48” range. There doesn’t seem to be a forage problem out there even on the smaller lakes so I don’t think that is holding the upper limit down. Also the guys I know who fish the Pete regularly, have been saying the same thing about the top sizes there. Again I believe these are Spooner fish.
I really hope Dr. Sloss’s work can sort this all out. I still haven’t heard exactly what his research will tell us from a practical standpoint. Steve is this something you have the answer to. IF the bone lake gene pool (thus the Spooner Hatchery gene pool) has been polluted with a small growing strain of musky similar to the Mn. Schopac strain will the research be able to quantify that and isolate it. So it can be fixed.
Dave I can completely relate to the story of your wife’s Uncle, as I leave for Milwaukee in a couple of hours to attend the funeral of my Great Uncle, who was more like a grandfather to me growing up. They sound like the same type of individual. Thank you for sharing your story.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| MRoberts,
Here are a couple of related thoughts that I have had on some of the same issues. I live in West Central WI and we have never until this year been given the option to purchase fish from any fish farms to supplement the stocking in our area. Since there are no fish farms in our drainage (Chippewa River Drainage as set by WDNR) and no fish farms using stocks from our drainage, WDNR considered any purchase would bring in fish not from our drainage and thus would not be allowed. We have relied on Spooner Hatchery fish for as long as I have been around. Lakes here are much as Bytor describes. We have plenty of fish available but fish above 47” are extremely rare.
Other parts of the state have been allowed to purchase WI Strain fish from both the MN Fish Farm and Kalleps (sp) fish farm. In talking with Lloyd Kallep I was told that he has his own brood stock of unmixed WI strain fish that are very large. He said “many fish well in excess of 50 inches” I have often wondered if the offspring of these fish may be the larger fish showing up with greater regularity in other areas of the state.
I hope Brian Sloss can get genetic samples from these brood fish to see how they compare to our hatchery stocks.
Fred J
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| MROBERTS asked the following question:
"The first question I would ask is do the muskys stocked in the Milwaukee area come from the same hatchery as the Madison fish. I am pretty sure the Mad Town fish come from the Spooner Hatchery, if the Milwaukee fish also come from the Spooner hatchery I would say that is pretty good evidence there is not a genetic problem. If the Milwaukee fish come from a different hatchery it leaves open the possibility. Does anyone know?"
DAVE: Here's what I know, Mike. Muskellunge reared at the Spooner hatchery to fall fingerling size were stocked directly into Pewaukee in 1989 (2,230 fish) and 1990 (1,033 fish). Before and after those years, the source of fingerlings stocked into Pewaukee would require a great deal of time to trace. According to Hatchery Manager Gary Lindenberger, small fingerlings hatched and started in Spooner often were transferred to other facilities in the state (particularly west-central ponds, but occasionally cooperative rearing ponds elsewhere in the state, including the Southeast District) for grow-out to stocking size. So fall fingerlings stocked before 1989 and after 1990 that are now showing up as 50-inch fish in Pewaukee MAY have been reared to small fingerling size in Spooner but were reared to fall fingerling size elsewhere before being stocked into Pewaukee. There ALSO is a chance that even the small fingerlings originating from Spooner came from fry provided by the Woodruff hatchery. There ALSO is a chance that anything stocked directly by the Woodruff hatchery may have originated as fry at the Spooner hatchery. In the past, these facilities occasionally exchanged fry in order to meet production quotas, but all came from wild broodstock captured in lakes in the native range of muskellunge in Wisconsin. So as you can see, I cannot make any conclusive statements about the ultimate origin of today's 50-inch fish in Pewaukee, other than to say that any 50-inch-plus fish stocked in 1989 or 1990 were reared to fall fingerling size at Spooner.
Some (2001) or all (2002 and 2003) of the more recent stockings of Pewaukee are known to have come from the Spooner hatchery also, but obviously these young fish would not yet be the 50-inchers we are talking about here.
Interestingly, there were northern pike/muskie hybrids (tiger muskies) stocked into Pewaukee in 1983 (3,500), 1984 (1,280), and in 1989 (1,000) along with the 2,230 purebreds from Spooner in 1989. I do not know where the tiger muskies were created and reared. Are any of our readers catching any big tiger muskies in Pewaukee?
| |
| | |
| If I am not mistaken I seem to rember that the Milwaukee Chapter of MI also suplimmented the stocking of Pewuakee with fingerlings purchased from fish farms. I don't know what years, how many or where they were purchased from. Hopefully someone from that chapter has that information and can shed more light on the origins of the fish in Pewuakee.
Fred J | |
| | |
| Have not said much on this subject but had to relate this info.
Found some interesting info on LCO the other night thought some of you might be interested in.
Many of you might remember the years from 85 to 90 on LCO. Those years myself as well as many other pretty well known musky guides had some great years on LCO for big fish. There were definately a lot more of those biggies in there then from what we saw and caught. However, by the time we got to the early to mid 90s things started to go seriously downhill on that lake as far as catching that size fish!
Well here's the interesting part. One of the fish I remember catching in 86 that was over 50 inches also was a fin clipped fish and at the time research sugested that the fish was 15 years old and that would put the stocking time at 1971. Well through some research I found that in 71 and a few other years in the very early 70s a good portion of the eggs gathered for the Spooner hatchery came from several sources including the Big Chip. In 71 about a third of the eggs came from the Chip and those fish went everywhere, including LCO.
Now as we got into the mid 70s and on all the eggs were taken from LCO and BONE.
Were all those big fish from 85 to the early 90s from those Chip flowage eggs???? Once the stocking went to all Bone and LCO eggs by the mid 70s would that not coincide with the same time frame that the bigger fish started getting hard to come bY?
JUST THOUGHT SOME MIGHT BE INTRESTED
I know it's not science but I found it a very interesting coincidence and string of events.
John H. Myhre
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Fred J - 12/1/2005 11:55 AM
If I am not mistaken I seem to rember that the Milwaukee Chapter of MI also suplimmented the stocking of Pewuakee with fingerlings purchased from fish farms. I don't know what years, how many or where they were purchased from. Hopefully someone from that chapter has that information and can shed more light on the origins of the fish in Pewuakee.
Fred J
Fred, the records in WDNR's stocking database do not indicate any such private stockings, but that does not necessarily mean they did not occur. I have found that a few stockings from entirely private sources have occurred elsewhere that did not get entered into the fish stocking database, though DNR biologists are encouraged to enter ALL stockings into the database regardless of fish origin. In some cases, the biologists themselves may not have been informed. In other cases, it just slipped through the cracks amid the general overflow of work. Like you, I would like to know if Pewaukee received any unrecorded stockings. Is it possible that the Milwaukee Chapter's contribution was for the cost of feeding Spooner-supplied small fingerlings to stocking size (10-12 inches) in cooperative rearing ponds in the Southeast Region, rather than the direct purchase of fall fingerlings from some private source? Either way, it would be interesting to know... | |
| | |
| Dave N,
Here is an email I received from a Muskies Inc member in regards to stockings in Pewaukee outside of the WDNR hatcheries. Looks like they ran a co-op pond with the DNR but had to get egg elsewhere during the Tommy Thompson Hatchery renovation.
>>>“Those are the 1995 year class.....1800 fish stocked. The spooner hatchery was under construction....and we were not able to get fry, thats what we were told at the time....So we bought 3000 fry from the MN muskie farm and got 1800 fish. Mark Mickelson was our club pond manager and he can verify the stocking. All were left anal fin clipped.....and the survial rate on those were fantastic.....I swear in Aug of 1999, every other fish I caught( total of 48 that month) were from the year class with the left anal fin clip...and the fin clipped ones were all 32" at 4 years old.
I remember that DNR from Eagle who assisted in the stocking....saying this was the "best" batch of fish he has every see us raise....
The next year we got fry from Spooner.....pond production....was only 800 or so.
Those fish were 10 years old this summer....and I believe..(dont quote me)...but I knew of 6- 50-52" muskies coming out of Pewaukee this year. Thats a 2700 acre lake with a 34" size limit..tons of preasure and boating traffic...not bad.
We also bought some Wisconsin strain 18-20" 2 year fish in the fall of 1998 or so and put 400 of them in Okauchee...and those came from the MN muskie farm. Okauchee is now back in action and kicking our some really nice fish.”<<<<<
It would be nice to get some samples from the large fish in Pewaukee to Brian Sloss to verify if indeed these are geneticly the same of different fish that our normal stocked fish.
Fred J
| |
| | |
| Very interesting info Fred. This should definitely get to Dr. Sloss (maybe Steve can send this along). Wouldn't it be extremely ironic that Minnesotta may have a fast, large growing Wisconsin strain!
I do believe that there is a wisconsin strain out there (possibly hidding in waters like the Chip) that has the genes to get big quick. But as recently documented by the WMRP, the mixing of strains and stocks over the last 100 years may make the identification and rearing of that strain next to impossible.
As heated as this debate has been, I really feel that we are on the verge of breaking this issue wide open. And the people who love to fish in Wisconsin (count me in that number) are the ones that are going to benefit. The state deserves nothing but the best, and hopefully we can find the "right" fish to make it the best musky fishing destination in the country. | |
| | |
| Monk,
That's exactly what I have been thinking for a while. Maybe those old pure WI strain genes are available but not where you would think to look at first. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Fred, this seems like really good background information that could be important to our interpretation of current status in Pewaukee. Please ask your friend with the Milwaukee Chapter to contact his local fish manager and share this information first-hand. (I would do it, but I would hate for important information to get lost in the translation.) It's likely that my colleagues in Southeast Region already know all about this, but it was not evident to me based upon a quick review of our online fish stocking database records.
Just curious... Do you know if the six 50-52" fish that came to your attention this summer exhibit any residual evidence of the left pelvic (you said anal, but I assume you meant pelvic) fin clip given to the MN fish stocked in 1995? Does anyone know if they had the classic silvery spotted appearance of Leech Lake strain fish, versus the more brassy/bronze barred or unmarked appearance of most Wisconsin-source fish? Photos might be interesting...
Thanks for looking into this and sharing what you found... | |
| | |
| In many cases you simply can not determine by the appearance of the fish if it was a leech lake strain or another strain like the traditional WI strain especially in larger fish such as these 50"-52" fish being asked about. I have many pictures of some large leech lake strain and WI strain fish that can certainly prove this. In some cases you can definitely tell the difference, but I have many pics in which no one yet has been able to tell me which strain they are simply by looking at them. They could easily be passed off as either a leech lake strain or a WI strain.
EJohnson | |
| | |
| Dave N.
You Wrote: "Just curious... Do you know if the six 50-52" fish that came to your attention this summer exhibit any residual evidence of the left pelvic (you said anal, but I assume you meant pelvic) fin clip given to the MN fish stocked in 1995? Does anyone know if they had the classic silvery spotted appearance of Leech Lake strain fish, versus the more brassy/bronze barred or unmarked appearance of most Wisconsin-source fish? Photos might be interesting... "
My response: I did not personally know of these six fish until I received the email. I can ask him if he knows of any evidence of the fin clips. I do know though however that in many instances clipped fins do regenerate and can be difficult to notice by most anglers. Any definite clips would prove very interesting though. I also have not seen any pictures but will see if they are available. Even if the fish exibit the coloration we normally expect to see in WI strain fish I think it would be unwise to assume they are WI fish on that point only. I have fished a couple of MN fisheries that only contain Leech Lake fish and there was much varation in thier coloration from the extremely spotted to a more mottled to something that looks like a WI fish. Coloration alone is also not a definate indicator of thier origin. I will see if I can get any more information.
Fred J | |
| | |
| Dave N,
Point of clarification:
The fry from the MN farm that were purchased and raised by the club I believe to be WI strain. I know the MN farm sells WI strain and believe that was what was used. Don't want to give the impression that Leech fish were used. I don't think that was the case.
Fred J | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Great stuff on Pewaukee, guys. In my opionin there is nothing wrong with the envirnment in Monona and it should be kicking out fish over 50 inches.3000 acres, plenty of forage and lots of deep water.
I find John Myre's comments on the Chip fish stocked in LCO very interesting.
Observations of a fisherman: I have been fishing the Chip for twenty years and there are some beasts in there....but the truly big fish are not barred fish....they look more like the huge fish Justain Gaige caught out of the Wisconsin River this year...More and more barred fish are showing up on the Chip...Boners in my opinion. What do the fish look like in the local rivers...barred or golden/brown fish without bars? I have not fished in the rivers but I here reports of some monsters coming out of them.
Couldn't and shouldn't we selectivly take eggs from the fish without the bars? I agree with the Monk that putting Bone lake fish in the Chip is a very bad thing. Couldn't we take eggs from the nonbarred fish and create a new brood lake.
Steve aren't the fish in your lake X colored like the fish I am talking about? Aren't they reproducing and coexisting with Northern Pike?
It is my opinion that we have our own large, fast growing strain right under our noses. Will Dr. Sloss be analyzing any of these golden/brownish fish?
Maybe the LCO could be brought back to life with these Chip fish. We wouldn't be crossing any drainages and we would be getting larger fish. Sounds to me that this fish farm in Minnesota might have a large, fast growing Wisconsin strain already isolated for us. Dr. Sloss should analyze these fish, also.
Ramblings of a fisherman
Edited by Bytor 12/3/2005 7:09 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bytor,
No, actually the fish in my 230 acre lake and my 500 acre lake X examples are barred. Both lakes are experiencing NR, and both are loaded with Pike. The 230 acre lake has only been stocked twice with a strain that has repeatedly been called 'small and slow growing' or 'mixed' or 'mutts'. That lake is totally self sustaining and has some incredible year classes and some fish that will stop your heart, too. Ask Lambeau, he probably won't tell you the name of the lake, but he had one on there that was very large. I know of two released there last year in the low 50" class, very heavy fish.
Fish in a very similar system, the Moen, used to get that big, 50's were caught there. One rarely sees a 50 there now. The stocking of those waters appears to be the same fish from Woodruff, and I dug around pretty well. The difference? Moen got a ton of pressure for awhile and experienced quite a bit of large fish harvest over the last 15 years. The other two lakes are off the radar screen, get almost no pressure, and are fished these days by a few CPR only anglers for the most part. Both Moen and the 500 acre Lake X get speared. I have two friends who caught 48" fish out of Moens, so maybe with the lighter angling pressure there now they are getting a chance to grow.
Here's some excerpts from a recent WMRP document about those fish:
1943 The Woodruff Hatchery had a total egg failure and eggs for stocking quotas were
obtained from the Spooner Hatchery (Chippewa River drainage) and were raised at Woodruff and stocked into lakes in the Wisconsin River drainage. This was the first of five different years of TOTAL egg failure at Woodruff (1943, 1948, 1958, 1961 & 1963) and eggs from Spooner were used! Source: The Woodruff Hatchery Story.
1947 - Data from Moose Lake Improvement Association: 3000 muskellunge fingerlings stocked in Moose Lake in Sawyer County.
1948 This was the second year of total egg failure at Woodruff and eggs were used from the Spooner Hatchery for stocking in the Wisconsin River drainage. Hatchery egg taking and stocking records prior to 1948, are to date, unavailable, if they even still exist. Prior to 1938, there were few or no records kept of where muskellunge were stocked and few extant records of where eggs were taken from have been found.---------
Those fish didn't hurt the trpohy potential in the Wisconsin from what I can tell. Lake Tomahawk has produced very large fish throughout history.
Another exceprt:
'The Woodruff Hatchery again obtained eggs from lakes in both the Wisconsin and Chippewa River drainages.
Egg taking data:
Spooner Hatchery
Grindstone Lake 18.467 quarts
Big Spider Lake* 10.875 " NOTE: 15.34% of total quarts taken**
Lac Court Oreilles 41.562 "
TOTAL 70.904 Quarts taken
*Determined (by WDNR study) to be a "small-growth" strain of muskellunge.
**By actual egg count, Big Spider Lake contributed OVER 25.7% of eggs used!
Woodruff Hatchery
Squirrel Lake 13.25 quarts
Pokegama Lake 14.125 " *Chippewa River drainage
Irving Lake 10.063 "
Muskellunge 17.875 "
Lac du Flambeau 7.125 " *Chippewa River drainage
TOTAL 62.438 Quarts taken'---
'1958 - 1958 was the third year for total egg failure at the Woodruff Hatchery and once again eggs were obtained from the Spooner Hatchery (Chippewa River drainage) and raised at Woodruff and stocked into Wisconsin River drainage waters.'---
'
1961 - In 1961, the Woodruff Hatchery again took eggs from a Chippewa River drainage lake. According to the Woodruff Hatchery Story, Woodruff raised 5 tons of muskellunge from 1961 to 1964.'---
'2000 - A review of the Woodruff hatchery sheets, discovered that in 2000, the Woodruff hatchery stocked 2000 muskies into the Spooner hatchery BROOD STOCK LAKE, Bone Lake. In addition, they stocked 1,014 into the Chippewa Flowage, among others.'---
I think the point they are trying to prove is that the Spooner fish and Woodruff fish are now as one statement reflects, a hatchery created strain.
So why is it that a heavily stocked lake ( Pelican) continues to kick out good numbers of 50" fish and has consistently since I began fishing it in 1974? Why is it George does too, from stockings in the 80's and 90's? Why does that little gem of a 230 acre lake produce 52" fish that are nearly 40#? Why do some lakes stocked with muskies from the same years from Woodruff not put out fish the quality of the Wisconsin River Boom Lake flowage, Pelican, George, and a couple other Lake X waters here? Same fish. I don't know.
The lakes I have mentioned were stocked in:
230 acre lake, 1972 and 1976, total 800
George was stocked 13 times from 1972 to date, with 7534 fish mostly 11" in length. Both George and little lake X were stocked in '72.
Pelican was stocked 17 times since '72 with 33.826 fingerlings and one stocking of 100000 fry. '72 and '76 fish were stoked in Pelican also, same as little lake X.
Tomahawk was stocked 27 times since 1972 with 1,934,037 fry and fingerlings. Obviously, the number of fingerlings was WAY smaller than the number of fry.
Moen was stocked 6 times with 3820 Muskies. Stocking dates coincided with little lake X one year, and followed 1 year later for another stocking, both from Woodruff.
Spider Lake, a favorite of mine for action, almost never puts out a large fish. It was stocked in 1975 with 100 fish. Good numbers there, too. My son did get one that was 46, I think. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Steve, thanks for sharing observations of large muskellunge in your area that are likely the direct products or progeny of fish reared in the Wisconsin hatchery system. It continues to amaze me that these fish are categorically labeled as "mutts" or "runts" by Larry Ramsell and his faithful followers, with the clear implication that most have been genetically compromised to such an extent that they lack any realistic chance of achieving trophy size under the right conditions of environment, prey availability, and angler catch/harvest pressure.
I have a couple observations to share also. I am attaching a few photos of Butternut Lake (Price County) muskies caught by fishing buddies of Senior WDNR Fish Biologist Skip Sommerfeldt who lives on the lake. Most of these robust, trophy-size fish were caught in the early 1990s when musky density was still low enough (less than 0.5 fish per acre) to allow some of those present to achieve their biological potential for large size. The length of each fish and its date of catch are implicit in the file name for each photo. The adult muskellunge population of Butternut Lake is comprised of an unknown mix of native fish and those supplementally stocked for decades from the Wisconsin hatchery system. If these fish were going to be genetically compromised with respect to ultimate size attainment by the 100 years of within-state source mixing well-documented by Mr. Ramsell (and acknowledged by me before the WMRP Team ever went to Madison to plead their case), then I would think these fat 50-inch beauties at Butternut would not have existed in the early 1990s. Not surprisingly, we stopped seeing many trophy muskies in Butternut as adult density doubled to 1.0 per acre in 2003 (high natural recruitment of muskellunge despite a concurrent doubling of northern pike electrofishing capture rate), adult condition factor declined, and adult growth rate declined.
So here we have a lake in the heart of Wisconsin musky country, Butternut Lake in northern Price County, that has a rich tradition of producing trophy muskellunge despite all the supplemental stocking of Wisconsin hatchery "mutts" right up until the time (mid 1990s) when adult density simply became too high to feed all the hungry mouths. (I think we DID make a mistake by stocking too many fish. We quit doing so in 1999.) These fish have consistently demonstrated natural reproduction and recruitment in the presence of a significant population of northern pike (see photos in earlier post). And yet, when we proposed to "thin the garden" so to speak and move some of these fine Butternut Lake fish to Lac Courte Oreilles (pending a determination of genetic compatibility) where more adult muskies are desired by anglers and needed to eat northern pike, we were ridiculed and chastised for proposing to stock "mutts" into a lake that our critics claim is already ruined (not true, but that's their claim); and we are told we should stock an exotic strain that can recruit successfully in the presence of northern pike, as if the Butternut Lake fish have not been doing so all along. We are also told that we "have no plan" to deal with northern pike, and yet I can think of nothing better to do with EXCESSIVE northern pike than to feed them to hungry muskies. The resistance to trying this plan defies all logic, but probably is necessary for those who have staked their reputations on the notion that in-state source mixing has ruined Wisconsin stocks genetically and that only fish from Leech Lake, Minnesota can save the day.
I will be roundly criticized for bringing these truths forward. So be it. The day I stop telling the truth in order to avoid uncomfortable situations will be the day I retire; and that day is nowhere on the horizon. Steve, I will attach the photos after posting and assume you'll place them here. Thank you, sir!
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
(Butternut 48-Inch Musky 6-91.jpg)
(Butternut 48-Inch Musky 7-91.jpg)
(Butternut 50-Inch Musky 10-92.jpg)
(Butternut 50-Inch Musky 11-93.jpg)
(Butternut 50-Inch Musky 11-93 (2).jpg)
(Butternut 53-Inch Musky 9-89.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Butternut 48-Inch Musky 6-91.jpg (22KB - 628 downloads)
Butternut 48-Inch Musky 7-91.jpg (21KB - 565 downloads)
Butternut 50-Inch Musky 10-92.jpg (36KB - 682 downloads)
Butternut 50-Inch Musky 11-93.jpg (36KB - 542 downloads)
Butternut 50-Inch Musky 11-93 (2).jpg (65KB - 503 downloads)
Butternut 53-Inch Musky 9-89.jpg (28KB - 627 downloads)
| |
| | |
| Dave,
I have to take exception to a statement you made in your last post.
Your statement: >>>>The resistance to trying this plan defies all logic, but probably is necessary for those who have staked their reputations on the notion that in-state source mixing has ruined Wisconsin stocks genetically and that only fish from Leech Lake, Minnesota can save the day. >>>>
Fish from Leech Lake are one of thier suggestions but not the only one as you made it seem. They also, and as thier first option, was to harvest eggs for propagation from only large fish. They have also stated that if a non- mixed source of large growing fish can be found that those fish be used as a source of broodstock. Larry has also given some ideas where to look for some large fish for eggs here in WI.
To make the statement you did above is not quite telling the whole story in my opinion.
As to the genetics of our fish being altered by previous stockings.......Brian Sloss will hopefully be able to answer that question for all of us. The mixing of fish from all over the state cannot be disputed, only the results of such mixing.
Have not yet been able to obtain any more info on the Pewaukee fish but the search continues. Hopefully someone from the Milw. Chapter can shed more light.
Fred J | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | fred J,
The idea of collecting roe from only 'large fish' has been rejected out of hand for reasons already discussed about a dozen times on this forum, I think that one is defintitey out.
Plenty of reasons, including diversity, difficulty and cost of trying to execute what you suggest, etc. It's been discussed in detail, I think, last winter.
OK, let's say you suggest that from Pelican. Or The Chip. What is the difference between the 40" females, 34" females, and 50" females from that water genetically? | |
| | |
| Steve,
The difference is at least from a 50" female you KNOW that the off-spring at LEAST has a chance of getting "the big gene". But if you get eggs from a 34" or 40" female... BECAUSE OF THE STOCK MIXING DOCUMENTED... we DON'T know if the off-spring are going to get "the big gene".
Dave,
In response to this, "And yet, when we proposed to "thin the garden" so to speak and move some of these fine Butternut Lake fish to Lac Courte Oreilles (pending a determination of genetic compatibility) where more adult muskies are desired by anglers and needed to eat northern pike, we were ridiculed and chastised for proposing to stock "mutts" into a lake that our critics claim is already ruined (not true, but that's their claim); and we are told we should stock an exotic strain that can recruit successfully in the presence of northern pike, as if the Butternut Lake fish have not been doing so all along."
Sorry Dave, we don't want "adult" muskies, we want TROPHY muskies! And please define how "Exotic" a MS strain musky is compared to say the other "exotic" species have been planted in Sawyer county lakes? Shall we open up that history box? Stocking a MS strain musky is in LCO is no more harmful than say... brown trout? | |
| | |
| Dave
Those are some nice fish in those pictures. I have a few questions though. What makes you so sure those fish were stocked from a hatchery? Do you believe they are from Bone Lake broodstock? Is it possible that the fish in these pictures did not come from any hatchery at all? Could the fish in the pics be remnant large fish that were always there? If they did in fact come from a hatchery then which eggs taken from which lake are they from? Could they be the result of eggs that were used 4 years in a row from the Chippewa Flowage in 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 and the fingerlings that were then stocked back into Butternut? 21% of the total eggs used from 1969 thru 1972 came from the Chippewa Flowage and 3,550 fingerlings were stocked into Butternut at the same time. Most of the eggs used just before and just after this time were taken from Bone Lake. The timing that these fish were caught at these sizes would be about right for these fish to be from the 1969-1972 stockings which would included eggs taken from the Chippewa Flowage. Coincidence? Or could those fish be the result of eggs that were used from the many other lakes during this same time? Like Butternut lake itself? Or Grindstone lake? Or Big Moon lake? Or The Flambeau Flowage? Or LCO? Or Cedar lake? I would include Spider lake and Bone lake in this variety of possibilities since they were also used for eggs during this time but because neither of them have any sort of history of ever producing large fish I think its safe to rule them out at least. So that leaves at least 8 possibilities. But then there is the possibility of them being from two different strains of fish that were stocked in Butternut earlier and spawned together. And which two strains would those have been? Now we have to look even further back into stocking records and add even more possibilities. So which one of these many possibilities is responsible for these large fish? My best guess is they are not hatchery fish at all. My next best guess is they were from raised from eggs taken from the Chippewa Flowage between 1969 & 1972. Is your best guess that they came from a hatchery? If so, then which eggs from which lake do you think they are from? | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| MuskyMonk - 12/3/2005 11:46 PM
Steve,
The difference is at least from a 50" female you KNOW that the off-spring at LEAST has a chance of getting "the big gene". But if you get eggs from a 34" or 40" female... BECAUSE OF THE STOCK MIXING DOCUMENTED... we DON'T know if the off-spring are going to get "the big gene".
Dave,
In response to this, "And yet, when we proposed to "thin the garden" so to speak and move some of these fine Butternut Lake fish to Lac Courte Oreilles (pending a determination of genetic compatibility) where more adult muskies are desired by anglers and needed to eat northern pike, we were ridiculed and chastised for proposing to stock "mutts" into a lake that our critics claim is already ruined (not true, but that's their claim); and we are told we should stock an exotic strain that can recruit successfully in the presence of northern pike, as if the Butternut Lake fish have not been doing so all along."
Sorry Dave, we don't want "adult" muskies, we want TROPHY muskies! And please define how "Exotic" a MS strain musky is compared to say the other "exotic" species have been planted in Sawyer county lakes? Shall we open up that history box? Stocking a MS strain musky is in LCO is no more harmful than say... brown trout?
Monk, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the existence and/or influence of a "the big gene" as you put it. At a two-day continuing education workshop sponsored by the American Fisheries Society a few months ago, Dr. Sloss (one of the instructors) told me there are probably 10-15 genes in the muskellunge genome that interactively code for protein production in a way that influences growth rate and ultimate size potential. Angler confusion is understandable, because past genetic studies have sought to differentiate populations by measuring the frequency of occurrence of different forms of just a handful of genes that code for the production of certain enzymes, none of which are KNOWN to have anything to do with growth rate or ultimate size attainment. If muskies in the sampled population were growing slowly, it was then assumed by some that the handful of genes examined somehow PROVED this was a "small growth" strain. It's just not that simple.
Dr. Sloss, Dr. Moyer (the other instructor from Oregon State University) and every other fish geneticist in the country strongly advocate that the first priority of selecting wild broodstock should be to maximize genetic diversity. That means taking good numbers of many sizes of fish from many lakes over a period of time that spans the spawning period. (This is what the Wisconsin DNR is gearing up to do next spring, at Dr. Sloss' recommendation.) Why the focus on genetic diversity rather than simply size? If we use only the biggest fish available, it's possible that those individuals could lack an allele (one form of a gene) that might allow some individuals in the population to adapt to future changes in environmental conditions such as climate, habitat, or newly introduced disease organisms. There was a large die-off (disease mechanism unknown) of muskellunge last year in the Thousand Islands Region of the Upper St. Lawrence River. Things like this happen. We want our musky populations to have the greatest possible chance to adapt and thrive under changing conditions, so genetic diversity must take priority over domestication (managing for one or more traits like size that we find to be immediately gratifying).
You also said you want TROPHY muskies in LCO. So do the stakeholders in our summer 2005 visioning session for LCO. So do anglers polled in other surveys. That's why our upcoming fishery management plan for LCO will contain objectives for density (0.2-0.3 adult muskellunge per acre) and size structure (5-10% of those captured in spring fyke net samples to exceed 50 inches in length) that reflect those trophy fishery aspirations. Prominent members of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. were AT the visioning session for LCO and helped us to SELECT those objectives. So I think I know what is desired. Now we (DNR) have to try to make it happen. Step #1 will be to try to tip the balance of the esocid community in favor or muskellunge over northern pike. Since we don't have a magic bullet to make northern pike go away, we think our best chance is to stock something that will eat them, in addition to providing a much-desired boost in muskellunge catch rate at LCO until recruitment (artificial or preferably natural) can be restored to a level that will sustain the adult density objective.
How exotic are Leech Lake strain fish to the Upper Chippewa Basin? Well, they are not here now. They were never here as far as we know. I think that classifies them as an exotic strain. A great fish, to be sure, but not one endemic to the area for which I am responsible.
Regarding opening up the "history box" on brown trout at Round Lake, be my guest. But you probably are unaware of the most recent history. We also met with Round Lake fishery stakeholders last summer and heard two things that will be reflected in the upcoming fishery management plan for Round Lake. First, we heard that very few people care about or want brown trout in Round Lake. Second, we heard that stakeholders in that fishery WANT more of a musky fishery there. In the past, it was the squawking of a handful of vocal opponents of muskellunge that forced the Sawyer County biologist to de-emphasize muskellunge there and seek to find some alternative to capitalize on the productive potential of Round Lake. As it turns out, we need to quit responding to small numbers of squeaking wheels and respond more to the desires of an informed majority whenever it is ecologically possible and desirable to do so. In the future, brown trout will not be stocked into Round Lake, and we will be doubling the stocking of muskellunge. I find it sadly ironic that I have been harshly criticized by the WMRP Team and their supporters for initiating this "touchy feely" process to involve local stakeholders in the planning of local fisheries, when in fact that very process is leading us to an increased emphasis on muskellunge management. Maybe time will reveal the sincerity and wisdom of our actions. I sure hope so.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Sorry Dave, we don't want "adult" muskies, we want TROPHY muskies! And please define how "Exotic" a MS strain musky is compared to say the other "exotic" species have been planted in Sawyer county lakes? Shall we open up that history box? Stocking a MS strain musky is in LCO is no more harmful than say... brown trout?'
It was extremely focused public pressure form a few that instigated stocking trout in Round. There wasn't a native population of Brown Trout there, right? The WMRP is requesting and in fact several muskie clubs and groups have begun stocking Leech Lake fish in waters with no native muskie population, and the DNR is stocking several waters in the St. Croix as well. What's the difference? Mr. Ramsell has stated his group DO NOT WANT LL fish in lakes where there IS a self sustaining native muskie population( I have multiple emails stating that). Am I missing something here? I also strongly suggest you watch the Dr. Casselman video, did you do that yet? It is an incredibly educational piece and will assist you in getting some of the issues clarified.
'The difference is at least from a 50" female you KNOW that the off-spring at LEAST has a chance of getting "the big gene". But if you get eggs from a 34" or 40" female... BECAUSE OF THE STOCK MIXING DOCUMENTED... we DON'T know if the off-spring are going to get "the big gene".'
That is indicative of the type of 'just do it our way' commentary that makes this discussion difficult at times. Your argument sounds reasonable if one knows or cares little about the reality of the situation, but Daves answer is the same I got from biologists here in NC WI, from Madison, from Ontario, Illinois, and Kentucky. I think he covered that one pretty well, and the recent WIDNR report on the direction of the management program did as well.
OK, now it's stock mixing that is the sword held high as one charges down the street. I made a couple points and asked a couple questions a bit back, how about taking a shot at those?
EO,
That is the same argument that Larry hit me with last winter (after openly accusing me of making the information up) when I pointed out that the muskies in my area (proven by the research done by the WMRP to be mixed to the point of not being able to compete with pike, grow large, or reproduce) seem to compete with pike populations well, grow VERY large, and do so in lakes where the population was and is introduced and maintained by stocking with stock swown by the new document released this week to be 'mixed'; yet do much poorer in other waters. Come ON guys, how COULD that be?
'Remnant muskies', etc, doesn't explain large fish at the numbers the confidence levels discussed at the symposium and in all the research documents I have read suggest from each year class in some waters, and very few or none in others. Dr. Casselamn's presentation explains it nicely, and he's about as good a source of information as one might be able to get.
Have you watched the Casselman video yet? We have alot more on the way, good stuff you will find very interesting.
The server holding the necessary information is down right now. As soon as I can access it again, I'll list what's there and refer to the recent document supplied by Mr. Ramsell.
| |
| | |
| (off topic)
i was going to print this thread out and re-read it top-to-bottom today while watching football...but even the "printer friendly" version would be 70 pages long. i guess i'll stare at the monitor instead! | |
| | |
|
Dave,
You made the following statement a couple of posts above in regards to the decline of trophy muskie in Butternut.
>>>>>Not surprisingly, we stopped seeing many trophy muskies in Butternut as adult density doubled to 1.0 per acre in 2003 (high natural recruitment of muskellunge despite a concurrent doubling of northern pike electrofishing capture rate), adult condition factor declined, and adult growth rate declined. <<<<<<
Then 5 post later (your next post) you state the following in regards LCO.
>>>>>Step #1 will be to try to tip the balance of the esocid community in favor or muskellunge over northern pike. Since we don't have a magic bullet to make northern pike go away, we think our best chance is to stock something that will eat them, in addition to providing a much-desired boost in muskellunge catch rate at LCO until recruitment (artificial or preferably natural) can be restored to a level that will sustain the adult density objective. <<<<<
This would lead me to believe that the muskies in Butternut were not able to have an impact on the pike pouplation in Butternut. Both the pike and muskie populations doubled. What would make us believe that those same muskies when placed in LCO will have an impact on the pike population?
Fred J | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What do you suppose the Pike population might have done with no muskie competition in Butternut? Do you disagree with several folks who claimed just a bit back there were very LOW numbers of Pike in Butternut? What you said in your last statement isn't logical. Also, please keep comments you select to question, no matter the source, in context. It's a known fact muskies eat pike, and another that pike have invaded LCO. The introduction from Butternut would add adult fish in numbers that should have a negative impact on the pike in LCO and a positive impact on angling success. What is your suggestion to assist in accomplishing the objectives mentioned? | |
| | |
| Steve,
I am sorry if you take exception to my post. It is not an excersize in fingerpointing, not imflammatory, contains no vulgar language and was pertinant to the discussion. Those two statements seem to conterdict themselves and I was only asking for a better explanation.
I would assume that the pike population in Butternut would have been larger without a muskie population. But I am still not confidant that Muskies are very capable of controlling pike populations. I don't agree or disagree with the folks who claimed there was a small population of pike in Butternut, I have no idea of the pike population therefore I cannot comment. I feel my comment is logical. Muskies in the Chip have also been unable to keep the pike numbers under control. (This I feel I can comment on as I fished the Chip extensively for over 20 years until this last year). I don't see where I used those statements out of context. They are direct quotes with directions to where they were taken from. If you disagree then we will have to agree to disagree. Your last question I will leave unanswered. I don't have a suggestion, only trying to be fully informed on the plans that have been suggested.
I sincerely wish that Dr. Sloss's work was now complete so we could all have a better understanding of all of the impacts. I too am sick of all the back and forth on these issues.
Fred j | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I apolgize if it seemed that way, I didn't 'take exception' to the questions, I simply couldn't figure out where you were going with them. The comments you copied and pasted from Mr. Neuswanger had direct explanations attached in the posts they were pulled from. Monk's response was out of context and looking to start an argument. It was the combined flurry of that activity from EJ and Monk that caused my reaction. I could go point by point to indicate how badly, by whom, and with which agenda this conversation has been steered in directions not the original point at all, but everyone here can see that easily enough. After all, this discussion was about Nancy Lake, right?
The context of the first quote was simply that populations of both increased (as an answer by Mr. Neuswanger to direct comments that pike were NOT an issue in Butternut), no insinuation that one totally dominated or controlled the other, and the context was that the Butternut fish displayed NR despite a population of pike there, which again was challenged.
I don't think that there was any indication in the second comment that the LCO pike population would be 'controlled' by muskies, just that an introduction of adult muskies might help tip the balance. Obviously, there would be 500 more adult muskies than before the transfer.
I'm not at all tired of the discussion; I feel it's constructive, and am pleased with the current atmosphere allowing for a reasonable exchange. I intend to keep it that way, even if I seem a bit overbearing at times.
| |
| | |
| Steve,
Point taken. No hard feelings on my part at all.
Upon further thought I do have a suggestion on controlling pike populations espically in lakes where they have been introduced, not native and are a problem. How about making pike fishing more apealing on those waters by establishing a no minimum size and no bag limit.
I don't know if this is even feasible, but it may be a good, low cost option to persue. I know in my area of the state icefishing for pike with tip-ups is a very popular sport. If these lakes were promoted to ice fisherman it may work. Not being an icefisherman myself I don't know if that scenario would be incentive enough to get enough pike fisherman harvesting fish to make a difference or not. What do you think the concensus of the icefisherman would be? Would this affect thier choices as to where they would fish? Would it be possible for them to harvest enough pike?
Fred J | |
| | |
| I'm afraid once again you have it wrong Steve.
You say: "Mr. Ramsell has stated his group DO NOT WANT LL fish in lakes where there IS a native muskie population( I have multiple emails stating that)."
Steve, why did you leave out the most important word in that statement and once again try to change what we have said? The word you left out was SELF-SUSTAINING!!
We have never said that LL fish should be stocked in any waters with any SELF-SUSTAINING populations. There is a difference you know. But nice try.
We have said that there would be no harm in stocking any waters that require stocking to maintain a musky population and where there is no chance of muskies making thier way into any other waters from that water that do not require stocking. LCO is an example of this. There is no self-sustaining population in LCO and it requires stocking. All waters that muskies could possibly make it into from LCO also require stocking.
Please stick to the truth from now on. | |
| | |
| From the MN DNR website:
"Efforts to stock muskies to control stunted panfish populations generally have failed. Muskies seem as ill-suited to the task as do northern pike. When muskies were introduced to one Wisconsin lake, the number of yellow perch increased while their size decreased. Muskie actually appeared to contribute to the problem they were thought to correct. In another Wisconsin experiment, muskies were stocked in a lake filled with runty bluegill. Though the muskie fattened up quickly, the bluegill population showed no effect."
And we are suppose to believe that muskies will be able to do this with pike? Apparently we are suppose to believe that Butternut muskies will prefer eating LCO pike to Butternut pike? This defies all logic to me. I wonder if they will prefer eating LCO pike to LCO ciscoes as well? Can anyone give me just one documented example proving muskies were able to reduce or control pike populations anywhere?
| |
| | |
| "Monk's response was out of context and looking to start an argument."
Sorry to burst your bubble Steve, but that wasn't the intention for my post. Starting an argument on a message board is about as productive as banging my head against a wall.
The point of my last post was this:
1. Tell me how you can determine if when you get eggs from SMALL muskies, the resulting muskies will grow big? Especially when the history of a lake stocking is in question.
2. The goal for LCO is to produce trophy muskies. Other than showing me decade old pictures of fish once in butternut, how can the current butternut stock attain that size. Again, show me the proof that this will be the result (since that seems like a common question in this debate).
3. I don't quite understand the use of the word "exotic". I understand Dave's explanation.... but the fish can be classified as a MS strain fish and the Chippewa River is a drainage of the MS.
4. I brought up the brown trout example as an instance in which our DNR made a decision to stock a true "exotic" fish.
Not trying to start an argument, just provide my opinion. But I do commend you on highlighting the Stocking Timeline published by the WMRP. In my line of work, facts tend to lend to the best decisions. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJohnson,
I am truly sorry I left out the term. I've changed the original comment. Someone run over your pet turtle today?
No one said the muskies will 'control' the pike population, the idea is they definitely will help. Mr. Neuswanger, am I correct there?
No one ever insinuated or said the muskies were to be stocked with pike predation as a primary goal; it's likely to be an 'added benefit'.
Comparing efforts to stock muskies to control a stunted panfish population (many times those efforts involved hybrid muskie stocking, by the way) to the statement that adding 500 adult muskies to LCO would perhaps help tip the balance back in favor of the Muskies is apples/oranges, and not what was intended. An unrealistic comparison and another classic change of context, IMHO.
FredJ,
Ice anglers definitely do take a large number of pike from waters where tip up fishing is popular. Might be one way to help!
Monk,
Read your own post again. One might pose questions in a less agressive manner if you don't want folks to interpret them as I did, 'bursting bubbles' notwithstanding.
And very simply put, perish the idea of only stripping 'large' muskies, that's been covered to death and has been clearly answered why that is a really bad idea and might not get you what you want at all. You read the answer, if you don't like that answer find me another fisheries biologist who will disagree with it. I'm ALL about listening to the scientific backing behind what you've proposed, the benefits those scientists supporting the idea list, and why they differ so much from the main stream fisheries folks on the issue. If there is sound management practice and good science supporting taking spawn only from large individuals, I'd support the concept. So far, I've seen none, and it's been covered ALOT.
I beleive that your second issue was also addressed. I'd do it again, but that's a waste of my time, you didn't even consider the explanation offered the first time.
The answer to your brood stock selection question was provided in this thread and several others, and the plan under Dr. Sloss's recommendation is going to be implemented as mentioned.
The use of the term 'exotic' should be self explanatory. It was also addressed in that post. Here's the quote:
"How exotic are Leech Lake strain fish to the Upper Chippewa Basin? Well, they are not here now. They were never here as far as we know. I think that classifies them as an exotic strain. A great fish, to be sure, but not one endemic to the area for which I am responsible."
Not much confusion there, I don't think.
Yes, I know, neither were Brown Trout. Here's what I said:
"It was extremely focused public pressure from a few that instigated stocking trout in Round. There wasn't a native population of Brown Trout there, right? The WMRP is requesting and in fact several muskie clubs and groups have begun stocking Leech Lake fish in waters with no native muskie population, and the DNR is stocking several waters in the St. Croix as well. What's the difference?"
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Neuswanger mentioned the density he would like to see at .2 to .3 adult muskies per acre in his above post. As I understand it, the angler diary reports and other indicators ,ay show a very low current density. The proposed introduction would represent about .09993, or about .33 to .5 of the desired density. I'll leave it to Mr. Neuswanger to correct my math, but I think I'm close, so there should be plenty of 'room' for the proposed introduction.
| |
| | |
| "One might pose questions in a less agressive manner if you don't want folks to interpret them as I did"
That was the point of my second post, not to ask the questions again. I read AND understood your answers.... don't nec. agree with them... but appreciate your time nonetheless. And I wanted to clarify that the POINT of my post was not to start an arguement. I'M NOT OUT HERE TO START AN ARGUEMENT!!!
But that in a nutshell is the Catch-22 with message boards. Brings people together to communicate... but yet in way, they still don't. I'm sure if we were sitting across from each other this entire discussion would last 20 minutes instead the what.... 3 weeks?
On to a response to your comment...
"It was extremely focused public pressure from a few that instigated stocking trout in Round. There wasn't a native population of Brown Trout there, right? The WMRP is requesting and in fact several muskie clubs and groups have begun stocking Leech Lake fish in waters with no native muskie population, and the DNR is stocking several waters in the St. Croix as well. What's the difference?"
My response: There is an economic impact in the potential stocking of the MS strain. There is a tradition to recapture (mainly in NW WI) by stocking the MS strain. That isn't the case with brown trout. That's the difference. And if stocking MS strain fish in non-native waters, creating ultimately has a positive economic impact and restores a trophy tradition to badly needed areas.... then I'm for it. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
Cool, on the 'no argument' thing.
We will disagree on the Leech Lake fish until I can find a couple good biologists and scientists who think introduction of LL fish in LCO and surrounding waters is a good idea. By the way, my feelings on this have been called lots of things, including bias. Nope, not bias, just what I've been able to glean from studying the subject best of my ability, which I admit is 'only what it is'. I have repeatedly asked the folks supporting LL fish in LCO, etc, to get an opposing scientific position presented by a few fisheries biologists. SO far, nada. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Fred J - 12/4/2005 10:51 AM
Dave,
You made the following statement a couple of posts above in regards to the decline of trophy muskie in Butternut.
>>>>>Not surprisingly, we stopped seeing many trophy muskies in Butternut as adult density doubled to 1.0 per acre in 2003 (high natural recruitment of muskellunge despite a concurrent doubling of northern pike electrofishing capture rate), adult condition factor declined, and adult growth rate declined. <<<<<<
Then 5 post later (your next post) you state the following in regards LCO.
>>>>>Step #1 will be to try to tip the balance of the esocid community in favor or muskellunge over northern pike. Since we don't have a magic bullet to make northern pike go away, we think our best chance is to stock something that will eat them, in addition to providing a much-desired boost in muskellunge catch rate at LCO until recruitment (artificial or preferably natural) can be restored to a level that will sustain the adult density objective. <<<<<
This would lead me to believe that the muskies in Butternut were not able to have an impact on the pike pouplation in Butternut. Both the pike and muskie populations doubled. What would make us believe that those same muskies when placed in LCO will have an impact on the pike population?
Fred J
Fred, allow me to tell a story for the sake of illustration.
Once upon a time there was a 1,000-acre body of water named Mutt Lake. DNR biologists documented an average of 500 adult muskies in Mutt Lake over a 10-year period, and at the same time they were able to capture 3 northern pike per hour of electrofishing (indicating a significant presence, but probably low density of pike if they had been able to perform an actual population estimate). Then conditions changed for muskies and pike for various reasons. The number of muskies doubled to 1,000 during the most recent decade. Concurrently, DNR biologists found themselves capturing 6 northern pike per hour of electrofishing compared with just 3 during the previous decade (still probably just low-moderate density, but a doubling nonetheless in what they were able to measure).
Enter the hapless DNR fishery management supervisor (that would be me). He is confronted with skepticism about the presence of northern pike in Mutt Lake by an angler who has fished for muskies but never caught a pike there. The hapless DNR guy is confronted because the presence of northern pike is inconsistent with an idea heavily promoted by this angler and his friends that the muskies in Mutt Lake are not only runts (cannot grow big due to previous source mixing in the state's hatchery system) but also are unable to reproduce and recruit successfully in lakes with northern pike, like the Good Muskies of the West. The hapless DNR guy is now uncertain what to do, because he knows that muskies got big (over 50 inches) in Mutt Lake until they became too numerous to grow well, and that they reproduced and recruited excessively, despite a likely increase in the low-density northern pike population as reflected by a doubling in their electrofishing capture rate. In the absence of a better idea, he decides to share what he knows about this situation, hoping that all the good anglers he serves will see that some common generalizations about size attainment and recruitment may be unfounded.
But as luck would have it, the good anglers do not want to hear this contradictory evidence. If it were true, much of what they have been aggressively asserting over the past few months would come into question, and that would be uncomfortable for them. And so, the hapless DNR guy (who should have been able to predict this, but often is naively optimistic about people) hears no acknowledgment from his angling friends that things may not be as simple as they seem. Instead, the subject is changed to a question regarding the likely ineffectiveness of these muskellunge in controlling northern pike if some of the surplus numbers in Mutt Lake were moved to nearby Super Mutt Lake with hopes of establishing such dominance there. The DNR guy is perplexed again, because the muskies in Mutt Lake never failed to maintain dominance over pike. Yet because the electrofishing capture rate of pike doubled concurrently with a doubling in muskellunge density, it is now postulated by his angling friends that these muskies are unlikely to be useful in establishing fish community balance in Super Mutt Lake. The DNR guy realizes that he is looking at the key element in this isssue -- the ratio of muskies to pike, rather than their absolute number, which is difficult to measure accurately anyway. But he is unsure how to help others understand.
The hapless DNR guy knows that pike eat muskies and muskies eat pike. He does not know if Super Mutt Lake can ever have enough muskies to suppress the pike population to the point where muskies can once again recruit there naturally, as they did before pike appeared. But he figures it's worth a try, especially since better ideas are in short supply. He is encouraged by one kind angler's suggestion that a promotion of pike harvest in Super Mutt Lake may be in order -- perhaps in the form of an ice-fishing contest. This sounds like a good idea worthy of incorporating into the lake's developing fishery management plan. But for now, the DNR guy has a source of muskies (Mutt Lake) that have demonstrated their ability to grow large and recruit in the presence of pike; and he will try to use them to help establish fish community balance if they turn out to be genetically compatiple with the muskies in Super Mutt Lake. Our story ends with the hapless DNR guy making one final attempt at his keyboard to bring these ideas together, so that the good people he serves might one day understand and support what he is trying to do on their behalf. He remains cautiously optimistic. He will never learn.
| |
| | |
| Fair enough Steve, like I said before, no sense in arguing on the internet.... RARELY is anyone ever convinced their position is wrong due a post from another. Just my personal observation. And like I said before, I'm sure if we met somewhere and talked about this face to face, we would chat about this for about 30 minutes, shake hands and be on our way.
Clarification though, I understand the idea of taking eggs from a differing range of muskies. However, Due to Dr. Sloss' initial recommendations to the DNR, it looks like over recent years, the DNR was not doing this. And more than likely we were getting eggs from only smaller fish. I'd like to see how many 50"+ females were netted over the last 10-15 years? Probably not many. I'm not a proponent of only getting big fish for stocking.... but there should be some in the sample. That was more to the point of my initial response to your "What's the difference between 34"-40" fish and 50"+". Especially when you throw "genetically" into the mix. Because like the Chip, there is a DISTINCT possiblity that there are fast, large growth strains and small, slow growth strains currently co-existing in that lake. And without real-time genetic testing, we wouldn't know what that 38"er is.... genetically. But if there is a 54" flopping in the net, then there is a fairly decent shot that one has the "Right Stuff".
And as for the potential of the Butternut muskies... pictures from 12-16 years ago is not conclusive to me. In fact, there may be a possibility that John Myre's experience on LCO in which he related the capture of a 50"+ fish that was tied to a stocking originating from the Chip may have been similiar to these captures.
Those fish that were documented from 1989-1993. Butternut was the recepient of over 2,500 fingerling between 1971 and 1972. During those two years, 23 of 69 quarts of eggs (33%) were taken from the Chip. Could it be a possibility that the progeny of those eggs ended up as the pictures being touted as proof of large growth? It would put those fish at 18-22 years old... very well could be? Subsequently, Butternut lake was stocked with the Bone/LCO fish that hasn't had the greatest success. So can we conclusively say that the lack of growth is based on increased populations. I don't know... and we don't know.
What I would like to see is the genetic testing comaparing a fat 52"er from the Chip vs. the 34" fish from Butternut. If you can show me THOSE two fish are similar, then I would be for the transfer.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
You cracked me up, sir; great way to get your points across to us all.
I sincerly hope the hapless DNR guy never does learn, and keeps trying very hard to serve us fishermen who so frequently know little to nothing about the subject matter we are trying to understand. I feel it is not only a great deal that the hapless DNR guy WANTS us to understand, but that he is willing to break the mold somewhat despite numerous and unrelenting naysayers, and post answers to the friendly anglers' questions here on the MuskieFIRST biology and research board. Many of us appreciate the conversation more than you will ever know.
It's never easy for a public official to intentionally place the crosshairs of the Public Know Little gun on the old forehead(especially when there is no mandate or job description that demands it), but like your sessions with stakeholders trying to determine direction based on what is wanted and what is needed your communication with us all here is in my very humble opinion a refreshing and VERY positive step in good DNR public relations and solid involvement for the area stakeholders in potential management goal determination and future strategy for your area's waters.
| |
| | |
| The DNR guy realizes that he is looking at the key element in this isssue -- the ratio of muskies to pike, rather than their absolute number, which is difficult to measure accurately anyway. But he is unsure how to help others understand.
hmmm...i'll choose to see the humor in your response, Dave, and not interpret as "dumbing-down"...i was a bit put off at first though - and i'm prone to see things YOUR way.
so: help me to understand WHY the ratio of pike:muskies is a key issue at hand in helping muskies achieve more of their potential size. i understand it in relation to successful reproduction (more babies, less eaters), but i don't understand how it relates to trophy potential for muskies. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| LAMBEAU: help me to understand WHY the ratio of pike:muskies is a key issue at hand in helping muskies achieve more of their potential size. i understand it in relation to successful reproduction (more babies, less eaters), but i don't understand how it relates to trophy potential for muskies.
DAVE: First of all, Mike, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on the use of humor. Just trying to lighten things up a bit here. Those of us who love muskies shouldn't be squabbling so vehemently among ourselves...
To address your question about trophy potential, our logic is this: LCO probably can support only "so many" pounds of esocid biomass before the esocids themselves suffer (poor condition and reduced growth rate) or other members of the fish community suffer (e.g., yellow perch size distribution is known to be adversely affected by high numbers of hungry adult esocids). If we can all agree that there is a theoretical carrying capacity for esocids that has some basis in reality, then our idea is very simply to begin displacing northern pike biomass with muskellunge biomass. Encouraging angler harvest of pike, as suggested by Fred J, is one promising way to begin reducing northern pike biomass. Another strategy is to transfer adult muskellunge from a lake where their carrying capacity has been exceeded, and hope that they will eat some small and mid-size northern pike while anglers are harvesting more of the bigger pike but releasing the muskies. (It would help if EVERYONE stopped using swallow rigs with suckers.) Another strategy may be to enlist the aid of our tribal partners in harvesting more northern pike by their traditional methods while voluntarily giving the muskies a breather until esocid community dominance shifts. We have not approached them about that yet, but a meeting is being planned where that subject will be on the agenda. Another strategy may be to construct some artificial substrates that will ensure musky egg hatching success in a traditional spawning area (Musky Bay) where habitat deterioration may have compromised one major source of natural musky reproduction within the lake. There are other habitat strategies that may facilitate musky RECRUITMENT as well. Taking all of these strategies together, it is not unreasonable to me that we might be able to shift esocid community biomass from pike to musky while staying within the overall carrying capacity (whatever that may be) of the lake for these top piscivores. Do we KNOW it will work? No, but I have tried many things in my career that have never been done before, and some of them worked, like establishing one of the best musky fisheries in the lower Midwest in a 530-acre reservoir in northeastern Missouri where many people felt we were trying to do the impossible. Sometimes we must take calculated risks. This is one we are willing to take, though I must remind everyone that negative results of genetic compatibility testing could still scrap the entire transfer project, in which case we would be more reliant on the other strategies mentioned.
Mike, please let me know if this answers your question. Bottom line is this: Muskies can and do get huge in LCO. (There just aren't enough of them.) Muskies used to get huge in Butternut before there were too many of them. If we can find the right number of human predators and adult muskies to assume dominance over pike without overrunning available sources of prey for muskies in LCO, we may just be able to accomplish the aforementioned objectives of 0.2-0.3 adult musky per acre with 5-10% of all 20-inch-and-larger muskies over 50 inches long. It's a balancing act, to be sure. That's fishery management.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| that's an understandable and incredibly good answer, actually!
thanks so much for your time here in educating and discussing, we all know you don't have to do so and appreciate the fact that you are.
one follow up question: what controls will you put in place to make sure that you don't exceed the esocid carrying capacity of the lake?
my understanding is that your goal is to shift the balance in favor of muskies by adding fish, while at the same time keeping the total esocid (pike + muskie) density relatively low to avoid a Butternut situation. is the current density low enough that 500 adults muskies might push the esocid balance without impacting the predator/prey balance as well? you mentioned the fact that LCO can probably only carry so many pounds of esocids and still produce big fish.
thanks again!
Edited by lambeau 12/5/2005 2:33 PM
| |
| | |
| One last question for Dave. Is then our objective for trophy lakes '0.2-0.3 adult musky per acre with 5-10% of all 20-inch-and-larger muskies over 50 inches long'?
If that is the trophy management goal, I'll support that.
But then that got me thinking about the Chip... my favorite body of water.
15,000 acres, .3 adults per acre gives us 4,500 adult musky. Lets say in a given year, 15% are caught. Thats 675 adult musky caught. If we want a goal of 5-10% of fish over 50", and if we are conservative, thats 33 fish over 50" that should be caught out of the Chip on a yearly basis. This last year I know of one caught in June, one in August and another in the tournament in September. Thats three that I have knowledge of and I'm sure there probably is a few other fish caught that might not have been reported. So lets say 6 or 7 total.... maybe.
What are we to make of this? The forage is there, the habitat is there, I think the Chip fish still reproduce and recruit somewhat. There are plenty of good fisherman on that lake to land those fish IF they are there. I tend to think that if we were to see those numbers of 50's coming out of the Chip (30 to 40 fish, minimum) we would probably know about it.
Just something to chew on in terms of what might be the potential cause. I know that tribe does spear the Chip. I know that some people may still do single hook musky, although they may be using circles. But is that enough to limit the upper end to the point where we see only three (maybe seven) 50"+ fish caught during the season? | |
| | |
| Sorry, that was my post, another brain cramp. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| LAMBEAU: one follow up question: what controls will you put in place to make sure that you don't exceed the esocid carrying capacity of the lake?
my understanding is that your goal is to shift the balance in favor of muskies by adding fish, while at the same time keeping the total esocid (pike + muskie) density relatively low to avoid a Butternut situation. is the current density low enough that 500 adults muskies might push the esocid balance without impacting the predator/prey balance as well? you mentioned the fact that LCO can probably only carry so many pounds of esocids and still produce big fish.
DAVE: Mike, because we don't know how to estimate carrying capacity exactly, we will have to "play it by ear" by monitoring the growth rate and condition factor (relative plumpness) of fish after the prospective transfer. But I have some reason to believe that, at least initially, we will be nowhere near carrying capacity for muskellunge at LCO. The last actual musky population estimate conducted in LCO by the DNR Treaty Assessment Unit in 2000 suggested that adult musky density was only .05 per acre (1 per 20 acres). That's quite low in comparison with most musky waters. Support for this assessment exists in the form of 2000/2001 creel survey data and 2004 volunteer angler diary data. In the 2000/2001 creel survey, interviewed anglers targeting muskellunge caught a musky every 67 hours (compared with the Wisconsin statewide average of 25 hours). In the 2004 angler diary project, participants caught a musky every 76 hours of directed effort. All these observations lead us to believe that muskellunge density is relatively low at LCO -- certainly lower than desired. If there are only 250 adult muskies in LCO currently (.05 per acre), and if we are actually able to move as many as 500 adults (0.1 per acre) from Butternut Lake to LCO, then the total adult musky density may increase to 750 fish (0.15 per acre) in LCO. That still falls short of the 0.2-0.3 adult fish per acre that we believe (professional judgment) a lake like LCO can support and is the objective we agreed to strive for in our meeting with local stakeholders.
So the question then becomes, how many northern pike are out there, potentially occupying the niche that muskies would otherwise fill. The WDNR Treaty Assessment survey in 2000 suggested there were 2-4 northern pike per acre that averaged 23 inches long (moderate density). In the 2000-2001 creel survey, it took the average pike angler only 2.3 hours to catch a northern pike, which also averaged 23 inches long -- corroborating an assessment of moderate density. In LCO, even a moderate density of northern pike seems to be too many for muskies to achieve their desired potential in the fishery. So, it's a calculated risk, but we think a combination of adding some adult muskies and harvesting more northern pike, combined with doing some habitat work, could tip the balance in favor of muskellunge and help us to achieve musky fishing objectives.
Obviously I cannot go into the rationale for each management decision in this kind of detail, but hopefully this example provides a window through which you, Mike, and other interested anglers can view the thought process that leads to some of our proposed actions. Thanks for your interest and support.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| Obviously I cannot go into the rationale for each management decision in this kind of detail, but hopefully this example provides a window through which you, Mike, and other interested anglers can view the thought process that leads to some of our proposed actions.
compelling.
from one state employe to another, thanks for taking the time.
my own work for the state is highly specialized, greatly misrepresented in the media, and hugely misunderstood by the public. and if i were asked to justify the decisions i make in how i do my job on a daily basis i would simply laugh and say, "because i know what i'm doing and you don't."
it's fair of us to ask our fisheries people to explain things to us, but also understandable that you've got limited time in which to do so and lots of other more/equally important work to be doing. thanks for going above and beyond in describing your approach.
agree or disagree, people can't say you haven't been open about your management.
you comport yourself as a true professional and are a great example of why WI needs to trust the
professionals to manage the resource. | |
| | |
| My question stands for Dave. Is the prescribed 'trophy' goal for LCO applicable to the Chip. And if so, how would you rate its performance against that standard given the number (or lack thereof) of 50"+ ers that lake has given up in recent years. Are we on target with the Chip or do actions need to be taken there as well. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | When was the size limit raised to 45" on the Chip? | |
| | |
Posts: 52
| Can't say that I saw a lot of humor in any of it. LCO fish are way, way, way down and the spawning habitat has been dramatically reduced.
Edited by lakesuperiorkid 12/6/2005 12:08 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| In response to LAMBEAU's last post:
Wow, Mike. Every once in awhile someone says something that makes the communication efforts seem worthwhile. My wife is a busy teacher, but I asked her to take a moment to read your posts, just so she could see that the personal time I spend here is not always in vain. (Fortunately for me, she is a musky angler too!) Thanks for your kind words of encouragement.
I'm curious to know what you do for the State, but I don't expect you to announce it here. Send me a PM or an e-mail sometime and let me know, if you're so inclined.
Edited by Dave N 12/6/2005 6:25 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| lakesuperiorkid - 12/6/2005 12:14 AM
It reads good but for someone who posted that there has been only one event of mixed stocking in Wisconsin, I have to ask what you do know. The Time Line from DNR material says something entirely different than what you gave people at the Visioning sessions. I know this is DNR employess talking to each other. Past that, I doubt you can really go any further.
Mr. Turnbull, your assertion here that I have ever "posted" or even THOUGHT that there has been "only one event of mixed stocking in Wisconsin" is nothing short of absurd. I sat down with Larry Ramsell over lunch at Louie's Landing on Moose Lake BEFORE he and his WMRP friends ever went to Madison to plead their case. In that meeting, I acknowledged that in-state source mixing had occurred; I expressed my appreciation to Mr. Ramsell for his volunteer efforts to bring all that information together; I even told him that his initiative probably moved the DNR along the road to improved broodstock handling faster than we would have moved without his prompting. I also told him that his compilation of historical stocking records would be helpful to Dr. Sloss in interpreting the results of his ongoing muskellunge genetics study. Finally, I told him that neither I nor my colleagues nor any fishery scientist in North America could conclude at this time that in-state source mixing had compromised the ability of Wisconsin hatchery-reared muskellunge to grow large or reproduce successfully. He has continued to push for action beyond the limits that science can support, and so this issue continues to elicit public debate. It's not about acknowledgment of source mixing. It's about INTERPRETATION of the IMPACT of that mixing. I have said this many times in various posts here and elsewhere.
What Frank Pratt distributed at the Sawyer County lake fishery visioning sessions last summer was labeled as a SYNOPSIS of past and current fishery management. According to my dictionary, a SYNOPSIS is "a brief or condensed statement giving a general view of some subject." We had neither the time nor the intent to distribute a comprehensive stocking history or management plan at those sessions; we were there to DEVELOP a plan. One important element in that process is to review recent fish population data and fishery management activities so that participants can see "where we are" before discussing "where we are going."
Mr. Turnbull, in the future, if you want to know what I have written or said, please read it directly or ask me; don't take the word of my critics. If you want to know what is happening at our visioning sessions, come participate in them and help us to determine the future of our fisheries, rather than taking wild potshots at the process from the sidelines.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| Gentlemen,
It would appear that we have some new folks visiting and commenting, so it might be a good idea to briefly cover the rules of discussion here. Please allow us to state them for everyone's benefit, so we no longer have to sidetrack into defensive allignments, and instead spend our time and effort in carrying on good conversation and creating good information flow.
No personal vendettas, attacks, or bashing. Please do not make wildly speculative comments that insinuate, lead to, suggest, or indicate a vendetta, attack, or bash. Do not call anyone names. Take caution not to speculate negatively in a manner that might be considered a poorly veiled personal attack, or a facet of a personal vendetta.
In more simple terms, if you think your comment might be over the edge, it probably is.
This protocol, gentlemen, isn't 'bias' toward any idea, information, organization, or event. It is a simple, easy to understand set of rules that should allow for and in fact ENCOURAGE reasonabe conversation and exchange of ideas and information. This has been our policy since we published our first page. OutdoorsFIRST Media is a full time, fully staffed media company, and we take our position in this industry and our responsibility to our visitors seriously. There will be no virtual bar room fights here.
Thanks to all for an excellent and continuing conversation! | |
| | |
| Steve,
2003.... However, angler harvest isn't nearly the issue it is on the Chip as say in the 70's and early 80's. But if you talk to those that have fished the lake over the past 30-40 years, the consensus is that there are fewer "super fish" (i.e. in excess of 52") now than back then. I would venture to say the release rate on the Chip is probably around 97-98%. So using my completely arbitrary catch number of 675, if three percent of kept fish fall into the range of 45-49", you still are talking an overall number of 20 muskies kept. Is that enough to limit the upper end to a point of no returns beyond 50"? If the Chip is performing to a trophy goal of a 5-10% 50" population, then there should be 200-400 50"ers there to be caught. And like I said before, there are good fisherman there to catch them. So to see a virtual handful in a given year lends me to think we are underperforming on the lake in some how. Is genetics an issue? I don't know. Is ultimate escoid carrying capacity an issue? I don't know. Has something ecological changed to cause fewer big fish? I don't know. Is combined angler harvest (single hook fatalities and tribal spearing included) the reason? I don't know.
Thats why I ask the question.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
I don't either, but I have commented that it's a probable mix of some or all of the above. I have heard remarks from some of the anglers over there that they have seen improvements in overall size, have you heard any comments along those lines or is that possibly wishful thinking?
If the largest fish in the Chip, overall, are mid 50" class, that would represent a very small number of supertankers as a percentage of the total population as discussed in Dr. Casselman's symposium presentation, that's for sure. Harvest, especially in some areas here in Wisconsin, has been shifting over the last decade to limited harvest, and mostly the larger/largest fish. I wonder if the process of convincing the anglers to let those hawgs go and get a replica made is not yet reflected in surviving and as a result captured and released big fish there? Add winter spearing, which is largely unreported, spring spearing, and plain old mortality from handling and it's amazing any fish reach supertanker size at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought that about a 10% capture- by- angler rate of the population of the largest fish in any system in any one year is pretty good, I'll have to look into that more. I should be able to use angler diary and creel data to get a general idea, I suppose. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| MuskyMonk - 12/5/2005 9:33 PM
My question stands for Dave. Is the prescribed 'trophy' goal for LCO applicable to the Chip. And if so, how would you rate its performance against that standard given the number (or lack thereof) of 50"+ ers that lake has given up in recent years. Are we on target with the Chip or do actions need to be taken there as well.
Monk, the goal and objectives for the Chippewa Flowage musky population are somewhat different than those for LCO. Here's what we developed at the visioning session on June 17, 2005. Members of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. were in attendance:
GOAL: A musky population of moderate-high density with a moderate proportion of memorable-size fish and a low proportion of trophy-size fish.
OBJECTIVES (specific, measurable parameters that are based upon early spring fyke netting):
Density: 0.3 TO 0.4 adult muskellunge per acre (slightly higher than LCO)
Size Structure: RSD-42 = 30-40% and RSD-50 = 3-5% (slightly lower than LCO)
RSD means Relative Stock Density, and in the case of muskellunge is the proportion of all fish greater than or equal to 20 inches long that are also over the stated lengths of 42 (memorable size) and 50 (trophy size) inches.
These objectives reflect local stakeholder and midwestern angler desires for a significant trophy aspect to the Chippewa Flowage musky fishery. The only species more important to Chippewa Flowage stakeholders than muskellunge were walleye and black crappie.
Monk, I wish I had a better answer for the second part of your question, regarding where we are now in relation to where we want to be. The 15,300-acre Chippewa Flowage has several distinct lake basins (west side) and tributary streams (east side) that make this one of the most interesting but difficult waters to sample anywhere. The effort required to make an accurate mark-recapture population estimate here is monumental and currently is scheduled by our region-wide Treaty Assessment Unit to occur only once every 12-13 years. Ultimately, we need to find a way to INDEX musky density here by using less intensive sampling procedures on a more frequent basis. The short answer to your question is that we don't have much information about current status, but now we at least have clear objectives.
Anecdotal information is always difficult to interpret, but in 2004 the Sawyer County Record published photographs of 10 muskellunge reported to be over 50 inches long by the anglers/guides who submitted those photos. I have no idea what that says about the actual proportion of fish over 50 inches long, except that there obviously are some. The Pro Muskie Tournament Trail had an excellent event on the Flowage in 2005, but fishing may have been uncharacteristically good that weekend. Many anglers believe that the size distribution of muskies caught in the Chippewa Flowage has improved considerably over the past 10-20 years (from mostly 30s to lots of 40s), but they believe top-end fish are more difficult to find. We know there are some huge fish out there -- potential record-breakers, but those are rare beasts. Details about what we know and what we still need to learn will appear in the Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan this winter. I'd better get cracking on it...
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| Thanks for the response Dave
.
I agree that its a difficult lake to census, there is a lot of dead water and active areas come and go on a yearly basis. Plus with the new crib program, fish may be using different areas of the lake. One thing I look back to was the tagging program that took place in from I believe '79 to '86. If memory serves me, I think on order of 1,600 fish were tagged and subsequent recaptures tracked during that timeframe and beyond. Could something like this be initiated again? Might go hand in hand with Dr. Sloss' genetic study. And I would assume Dr. Sloss will be sampling Chip fish (especially a few of the big girls).
Just running the numbers again, and thats what I do, I'm a numbers guy.... the low end population of 50"s would be 90 (15,000 x .3 fish/acre x .02 50" population). And our high end population of 50"s would be 300 (15,000 x .4 fish/acre x .05 50" population), that would put an average 50"'s population at about 195-200. If we go with Steve's 10% capture rate of upper echelon fish, then we may expect to see about 20 on an average year. Obviously less in a poor year, more in a good year. And if in 2004 fisherman boated 10 during a good year and say 5/6 this year (not so good), then I would say we may be opperating a bit under the low end range.
I do agree with you on the potential of the Chip. My Dad and I have, sadly, lost some big fish out there (40++ pounders). And you don't have to talk long to those that have fished that lake to realize that 5-6 footers have existed. Love to see one of those get plucked for genetic testing 
On a side note, will the Chip Management Plan include ideas on how to contain the millfoil out there. Its getting to a point I can't throw to many of my favorite spots.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Monk, thanks for sharing your personal experiences and insights on the Flowage.
You asked, "On a side note, will the Chip Management Plan include ideas on how to contain the millfoil out there? Its getting to a point I can't throw to many of my favorite spots."
DAVE: We are aware of the milfoil problem. It seems to be particularly obnoxious on the east side, and it is forcing people, including me, to change presentations. Where once I could gurgle a hawg wobbler across the top of places like Pete's Bar at night, I now have to fish elsewhere at night or work the edges and pockets with different lures by the light of day. As you know, Eurasian watermilfoil has a nasty habit of growing to and across the surface, making surface lure presentations impossible in areas where surface fishing over the tops of cabbage beds was once possible (and fun).
Because aquatic plants are an integral part of the habitat affecting fish populations, I know that our fishery management plan will address the issue. However, I am not optimistic that Eurasian watermilfoil can ever be reduced significantly in the Chippewa Flowage without using the "nuclear option" of dramatic drawdown that almost guarantees a severe winterkill of fish in parts of the lake, as occurred (but was little publicized) in 1995. Even severe fluctuation in water level (with all the inherent risk of winterkill) offers no guarantee of milfoil eradication. Because this will be a complex issue from both an ecological and socio-political standpoint, I am seriously considering contracting an outstanding retired fisheries professor from Virginia Polytechnic Institute who now lives in our area to provide us with an analysis of the situation and perhaps even assist with water level negotiations with Xcel Energy. He has great experience doing research on hydropower projects, and he speaks the language of power company executives. If we do contract for his services, it will be to develop a holistic recommendation for water level management that identifies the best possible regime for all species of importance -- walleye, black crappie, muskellunge, and bluegill being foremost on that list, in that order. What this means for milfoil remains to be seen.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Supervisor, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 12/6/2005 4:04 PM
| |
| | |
| I have 1 question for Dave N. and 1 question for Steve W.
Question for Dave N.
Do you believe that there are any muskie strains in NW WI in which none of the muskies from these particular strains have the potential to grow to 50" regardless of what lake we put them in and the amount or type of forage available? If yes, what strains are they and/or what lakes do they now or did they at one time exist in?
Question for Steve W.
Have I broken any of your rules of conduct in this post?
Thanks | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJohnson,
Nope! | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| EJohnson - 12/7/2005 7:04 AM
I have 1 question for Dave N. and 1 question for Steve W.
Question for Dave N.
Do you believe that there are any muskie strains in NW WI in which none of the muskies from these particular strains have the potential to grow to 50" regardless of what lake we put them in and the amount or type of forage available? If yes, what strains are they and/or what lakes do they now or did they at one time exist in?
Question for Steve W.
Have I broken any of your rules of conduct in this post?
Thanks
DAVE: Mr. Johnson, I'm afraid you are way ahead of me in believing there may be multiple strains of muskies in NW WI, and that we might know anything of great value about the differential physiological capability of such strains to attain a size of 50 inches under any particular set of environmental conditions. I think my uncertainty is best explained by the selected quotes below from Dr. Sloss' research proposal entitled: "Identification and Delineation of Muskellunge Stock Structure in Wisconsin and Neighboring Watersheds." Here are the paragraphs that I find most relevant to your question, copied and pasted directly from the paper (ALL CAPS added by me to call attention to especially important words or phrases):
DR. SLOSS: "Research on several potential strains in Wisconsin (Hanson et al., 1983; Younk and Strand, 1992; Margenau and Hanson, 1996) found the differences in certain performance characteristics of muskellunge strains were the result of a complex array of factors that included environmental and genetic influences. The inclusion of genetic influences by the authors suggests the differences among the PUTATIVE strains are at least partially heritable and thus, encoded in the DNA of the specific strains. This implies genetic divergence of the strains with subsequent local adaptation contributing to the apparent performance differences. Despite some measured differences among the strains, THE QUESTION OF HERITABLE SIZE DETERMINATION REMAINS OPEN TO MUCH DEBATE. It is undoubtedly a question of genetic and environment interaction making the resolution of the issue difficult to resolve at best.
The study of Koppelman and Phillipp (1986), in particular, showed an apparent structuring among populations that were consistent with their degree of geographical isolation. Nevertheless, THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE INITIAL GENETIC RESEARCH EFFORTS due to low sample sizes and low levels of polymorphism at the employed markers.
Despite these previous research attempts, WE STILL LACK BASIC INFORMATION regarding levels of genetic diversity within muskellunge populations within Wisconsin, knowledge of the genetic stock structure of Wisconsin muskellunge, and the IDENTITY OF VARIOUS STRAINS OF MUSKELLUNGE.
I propose a four-year research program aimed at directly addressing key research need one (stock delineation; see above) and providing supplemental evidence for a larger effort aimed at research need two (propagation). This effort will survey and document the contemporary genetic diversity present in Wisconsin’s muskellunge populations and several populations from neighboring watersheds. This DATA WILL BE USED TO PERFORM GENETIC STOCK IDENTIFICATION THUS ADDRESSING A KEY INFORMATION GAP IN OUR CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF MUSKELLUNGE: WHAT CURRENT STOCKS ARE IN PLACE IN WISCONSIN AND WHAT ARE THE STOCK BOUNDARIES? Knowing this information will allow direct management of muskellunge based on a well-defined stock structure."
DAVE: Because I am not a fish population geneticist like Dr. Sloss, I would not even think of trying to improve upon his analysis of this situation or his plan to begin filling the gaps in our knowledge. I hope all who care about muskellunge will support this important work.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| Okay, I'll bite.
Mud/Callahan & Spider lake.... more than likely a small growing strain. Hopefully Dr. Sloss has one of those lakes in his sample to validate what NOT to stock. Chip Flowage/River fish... more than likely there is, SOMEWHERE, a strain that grows big, quick. Again, would like to validate that as well. Those are my "beliefs", no more true or false than anyone else's, but historical evidence tends to lend SOME proof.
As far as millfoil, Dave, pick up the red phone and push the button. I'm all for going "nuclear". I agree that it does open the potential for winter kill, but I believ in 1995 there were a number of lakes (natural) that winterkilled. One of my favorite bass and crappie lakes was devasted (thankfully came back), so I think that the conditions for that year were pretty severe.
| |
| | |
| Do you believe that there are any muskie strains in NW WI in which none of the muskies from these particular strains have the potential to grow to 50" regardless of what lake we put them in and the amount or type of forage available? If yes, what strains are they and/or what lakes do they now or did they at one time exist in?
thanks Dave for a reasonable non-answer to this. clearly Dr. Sloss is working to find some answers.
3 questions for EJohnson:
what do you believe re: strains and locations?
what is the anecdotal evidence that you have to support those beliefs?
what is the scientific evidence that you have to support those beliefs?
Edited by lambeau 12/7/2005 3:40 PM
| |
| | |
| Lambeau,
Here's my .02 cents worth on the questions you posed to Ejohnson:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what do you believe re: strains and locations?
Answer: I believe there were historically at the least 2 “strains” of muskies in WI. One would be a small growing “strain” located in waters such as Spider Lake, Mud/Callahan, and Tigercat. The other would be a large growing “strain” located across the native range. This large growing “strain” may be made up of additional “strains” but all have the capability to reach large sizes. (Great Lakes Strain, Wisconsin Strain, Mississippi River/Leech Lake Strain)
what is the anecdotal evidence that you have to support those beliefs?
Answer: Spider Lake, Mud/Callahan and Tigercat have historically only produced small fish. Anglers there very seldom break the 40” mark. Other lakes in WI have historically produced many fish in excess of 50” and breaking the 40” mark occurs commonly. Having fished the Chippewa Flowage and other area lakes for over 20 years I never knew anyone or heard of anyone catching a large muskie out of those three lakes. Fish 40 inches and larger are caught everywhere else in the area.
what is the scientific evidecne that you have to support those beliefs?
There are DNR reports that confirm that the fish in Spider, Mud/Callahan and Tigercat do not commonly achieve 40” in length in their entire lifetime. Even when fingerlings were removed from Spider Lake and placed in LCO the Spider fish did not grow to large sizes as noted by Leon Johnson of the WDNR in a 1971 report.
Even after the WDNR planted Spider with 2,100 white suckers 15” in length in 1966 and another 10,000 white suckers 10” in length in 1968 to increase the forage base, the Spider Lake fish did not grow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal belief is that over the course of many years we have introduced the small growing “strain” into lakes where they were not present before. This was done by using this small “strain” as a source of eggs and milt for the hatcheries on a number of occasions. These hatchery fish were then planted throughout the state including into other broodstock lakes that never contained that small “strain” before. Over the course of time this mixing has affected the size structure of our broodstock lakes as well as the size structure of our hatchery fish. Brian Sloss’ work will hopefully give us the answer.
I do believe there are some of the pure large growing “strain” fish still out there. I believe they exist in the Chippewa Flowage, portions of the Chippewa, Flambeau and Wisconsin Rivers and other waters. I do not know if there is enough of a population to target for hatchery purposes or how it could even be done.
Fred J
| |
| | |
| Here's my .02 cents worth on the questions
Fred, thanks for your response.
in the spirit of lively and friendly discussion i'll offer this point/counterpoint:
even if the information about size discrepancies in the waters you described was collected/disseminated by the DNR, it is still only observational data. it clearly does indicate a real issue going on in those particular waters! however, it does not scientifically describe the reason for it happening.
ie., there could be many reasons which potentially explain it: strain, forage, density, etc.; each of which are all only hypothesis until somehow scientifically tested and either proven or disproven.
therefore i would place this into the category of information (rather than scientific evidence) along with the fisherman observations about the fish in those waters that you provided.
my sense of things in that area, based on your response, other things i've heard, and some time spent fishing area waters, is that there is plenty of anecdotal information to suggest that "something is going on" with those fish.
some people have hypothesized strain as one possible explanation, but other people have made other hypotheses such as water quality, forage, density, etc.
i'm now satisfied that there's enough reason to form a hypothesis about strain as one possible explanation. i'll grant others their due by acknowledging sufficient reason to form alternate hypotheses as well.
Mr. Neuswanger's answer (quoting Dr. Sloss's research proposal) was that the scientific evidence does not exist at this time to be able to say either way whether divergent strains are or are not present.
i'm asking to be shown any scientific evidence that others might have supporting the existence of a "slow growing" musky strain in Wisconsin that is different from the "fast growing" strain you suggested exists.
Mr. Johnson? Mr. Ramsell? Mr. Benson? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Lambeau, for your reading pleasure check out the following link. Remember the eggs where taken for this report back in 1984 a time, if I am not mistaken, when there was still a good population of large fish being caught out of LCO.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational...
Also check this report out.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/publications/PUBL_RS_572_...
I think much of the thoughts on WI different strains comes from these two reports.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/8/2005 11:18 AM
| |
| | |
| which i've read, thanks for providing the links again.
re: IR 418
- Mississippi strain fish were consistently longer and heavier at age than Shoepack, LCO, or Minocqua fish and "considering the common habitats, these differences appear inherent to the strains and not the result of environment."
- other studies intended to examine growth rates in different lakes should be interpreted cautiously due to the confounding effect of habitat and population genetics.
- the differences observed between the two Minnesota strains provide evidence of the problems associated with stocking fish of unknown genetic qualities...each has it's own unique characteristics well adapted to a local environment.
re: RR172
- low numbers of captured fish in study lakes made data analysis/conclusions limited and difficult
- poor size structure of Mud/Callahan fish likely result of combination of environmental and genetic factors
- it is unknown whether size effects remain until later ages; larger size at stocking of LCO fish likely a contributing factor
- a Mud/Call female measuring less than 26 inches at age 7 is appalling; data suggests some fish that measured less than 30 inches were as old as 17 years
some of my thoughts:
- clearly different strains of muskies exist in the world and in the region. incontrovertible.
- Minnesota definitely chose the right path to meet their dual program goals of stocking fish that grow large and reproduce successfully in their waters.
- in Wisconsin, there are different strains of muskies in different areas of the state. a clear management goal is large-growing fish that successfully reproduces.
- Mud/Call fish appear to be a slow/small-growth strain adapted to a unique high-density local environment and shouldn't be used more broadly to meet Wisconsin's goals of large growth and successful reproduction.
- Mississippi strain fish, in a limited study in Nancy Lake, are known to grow big but failed to reproduce sufficiently to be considered successful in that lake. ie., they only met one of Wisconsin's two goals when placed in that particular lake. testing them in more and other waters will allow for broader generalization of results and give us better information about their utility in Wisconsin. of course, that will take some time.
- circumstantial and historical information exists that points to the mixing of brood sources (and therefore strains) across drainages in Wisconsin. one can infer that multiple strains could therefore still exist within given bodies of water. infer...hypothesize...but not know for certain what's there right now without appropriate testing.
- we need to do the proper testing: Dr. Sloss's genetic research is intended to determine: a) what's out there and b) where it's at. this is exactly the kind of information necessary for good decision-making. "some fish i caught/didn't catch" is only good enough to suggest a need for research, it isn't actually evidence in a scientific sense.
******* imho, we should be supporting the sensible and evidence-based path being followed, even if it's the "slow road". the same applies for the side-by-side comparison testing of MS fish in designated waters; slower but smarter.
i'm sure you can tell the approach i favor...here's some examples/research that says WHY.
- when evidence came forward that showed DDT was harmful and carcinogenic, the United States banned it. the U.S. went even further and effectively banned it worldwide through sanctions against countries that used it, etc. well, subsequent research has proven that DDT is actually not that harmful and the alternative pesticides were more harmful to agricultural workers because they were highly toxic when handled improperly (something DDT was not, and the workers didn't have training to do). the alternatives are also not nearly as effective, and therefore, more people have died as a result of the banning of DDT than ever died as a result of it. the world (espeically poor countries) is worse off now because of a "quick" decision based on limited information.
Hayes, Wayland Jackson. "Pesticides and Human Toxicity." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 160 (1969): 40-54.
Wildavsky, Aaron. "But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues". Cambridge: Harvard University Press: 1995.
- same story on the issue of powerlines and cancer: quick, bad decisions.
Park, Robert. "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud". New York: Oxford University Press: 2000.
- similarly, people who thought they had good ideas and quickly implemented them only managed to screw things up and put nature out of balance in Yellowstone.
Chase, Alston. "Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park". New York: Atlantic, 1986.
***** intellectuals were given a chance to improve the environment in simulations. those who did well gathered information before acting, thought systematically, reviewed progress, and corrected their course often. those who did badly clung to their theories, acted quickly, didn't correct course, and blamed others when things went wrong.
Dorner, Dietrich. "The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations." Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 1998. | |
| | |
| for the sake refreshing this in people's mind:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/musky/Brood%20Stock%20Plan%203...
i really believe this plan matches the principles i was speaking about above, namely an informed and carefully planned approach, based on solid evidence. believe it or not, the state really does WANT to have, where possible, a self-sustaining muskie fishery that produces trophy fish!
selected highlights:
- stop using limited and non-recruiting populations for brood stock. replaced by use of naturally recruiting populations in 10 different lakes per GMZ (5 different historically identified GMZs at this point prior to completion of Dr. Sloss's research outlining if and where strain differences exist), to support a genetically robust population mix. also use of more fish to take eggs/milt from, same reason.
- when collecting eggs, take them from lots of different fish. not just the "easy" ones, but also not just those "big" ones. "it is an absolute must to avoid...discrimination in relation to selecting the individual for spawning." take from fish during 3-5 periods of time during the spawn and a diversity of sizes of fish. again, to ensure genetic robustness and avoid accidentally (or purposefully!) selecting for traits. selecting only for size might be nice, but it risks bringing other non-adaptive traits along with it.
- broodstock lakes will be protected from selective harvest (ie., taking of big fish) by raising size limits.
the two critiques/complaints that i'm hearing boil down to:
a) i want it now.
- refer to my last post. that's a recipe for disaster.
b) Mississippi (LL) strain fish are better
- in Minnesota, yes. in Wisconsin, not known yet. see point "a".
- there IS value in protecting our naturally reproducing, native strains. all sides have agreed to this.
am i on track here? | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lambeau,
If one was to distill the thousands of words I have typed on this issue over the last year, I'd say we agree. I have never trusted 'quick fix because I said so' public pressure scenarios because of exactly what you allude to, many times those quick fixes lead to failure and 'look over THERE!' style finger pointing.
I believe in listening to the experts, entertaining ideas from the public and getting feedback on those ideas from the experts, and I definitely believe in informed common sense, logic, and good applied science. I believe those things go inextricably together, most cases. Public influence isn't a bad thing, if that influence leads to a better understanding by our public officials of the goals we would like to see attained in management plans for our fisheries, wildlife, and forests.
| |
| | |
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Great discussion.
I think the WI Brood Stock Mgmt Plan will put WI on the right path and I'm really excited to see what lakes will be choosen for WI broodstock.
I'm also excited to see what the results of the genetic research turn up.
Grass,
Edited by Grass 12/8/2005 7:49 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| LAMBEAU asked: "am i on track here?"
Dead on, Mike. Excellent synopsis. You, Steve, and many other contributors to the MuskieFIRST Research Forum have been critical thinkers and great listeners. You've all asked me some challenging questions, to be sure, especially at the beginning of these discussions. But you've taken the initiative to acquire a remarkable depth of understanding of a complex problem outside your areas of personal expertise. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your open-minded pursuit of what is known, your acknowledgement and acceptance of what is not known, and the time you have taken to help your fellow anglers and public servants like me to move toward consensus in conserving (preserving and wisely managing) Wisconsin's musky fisheries.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| Dave N, sorry for the delay but I needed to verify something.
You stated that Mr. Turnbull's assertion that you had ever even thought the mixed stocking was a one-time event was absurd. Quite honestly, I had the same impression as Mr. Turnbull. I attended a meeting where you gave a presentation that seemed intended to show that the stocking situation was not as bad as some think. Much of the material was designed to show that a one-time stocking would have little effect on the genetics as most of the muskies would not reach spawning age. There were various mortality figures but as there were not enough handouts, I dont have those available.
I left the meeting thinking you were not doing your homework as the idea that it was a one-time event was absurd. If I misunderstood the intent of the presentation, I apologize but much of the material was based on a one-time mixed stocking. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Guest - 12/11/2005 5:44 PM
Dave N, sorry for the delay but I needed to verify something.
You stated that Mr. Turnbull's assertion that you had ever even thought the mixed stocking was a one-time event was absurd. Quite honestly, I had the same impression as Mr. Turnbull. I attended a meeting where you gave a presentation that seemed intended to show that the stocking situation was not as bad as some think. Much of the material was designed to show that a one-time stocking would have little effect on the genetics as most of the muskies would not reach spawning age. There were various mortality figures but as there were not enough handouts, I dont have those available.
I left the meeting thinking you were not doing your homework as the idea that it was a one-time event was absurd. If I misunderstood the intent of the presentation, I apologize but much of the material was based on a one-time mixed stocking.
Guest, if you're talking about the presentation I gave to the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. last spring, then I'm afraid you misunderstood and others have subsequently misrepresented my use of a demonstration regarding the likely impact of a one-time source-mixing event. Leading up to that meeting, it HAD been strongly implied in various statements by the WMRP Team that EVEN ONE stocking of an allegedly slow-growth strain into a PARTICULAR lake would forever compromise the genetics of muskellunge in that lake. My demonstration was intended to show that such an event did not necessarily spell disaster for THAT lake. That was the scope of my demonstration, nothing more. (By the way, MuskieFIRST posted that analysis here, so I'm sure you could read it again if you wish.)
At that meeting, I never stated or implied that there has been only one instance of source mixing in the history of Wisconsin muskellunge propagation. THAT would have been absurd. If you do not believe me, ask the President of the Chapter or anyone else who was listening carefully to what I said. Even by the time of that meeting, many of us assumed that much of the evidence of source-mixing that Mr. Ramsell had already summarized from DNR stocking records was accurate. The fact that source-mixing occurred many times was not questioned at that meeting, nor has it been questioned by me or by my DNR colleagues since. And since that time, Mr. Ramsell has added to the history in a way that may aid Dr. Sloss in interpreting the results of the current genetic stock characterization study. I've stated these things over and over in web forums, radio interviews, and presentations to various groups. The issue at the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. meeting was the INTERPRETATION OF IMPACT of a source-mixing event for any given body of water. My demonstration was to aid in understanding the actual mechanisms behind such an event. Please don't read more into it.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| Well, I am glad to know that THAT lake is safe. I apologize, it was a nice presentation and informative, even if it did little to address the real situation.
I might have been more charitable but after seeing the WMRP being put at the same level as some people who wanted browns in Round Lake (see hapless DNR manager post) and after seeing my original post of this question deleted...was it the use of the word "lambasting"?, I have even less patience with these games than usual.
Mike Hohm | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe that the explanation to your question was sufficient; I knew you and several others didn't understand this, and were taking the entire subject matter badly out of context. I'm assuming that portion of this conversation is closed.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/12.11.2005/931/Hypothetica...
If you don't understand or agree with answers given, ask specific questions if you wish, but refrain from untoward remarks, please.
As to your question to me:
Mr. Turnbull was a very negative and frankly very soon unwelcome participant here. He was unfriendly, obnoxious, and untoward. I spent an entire weekend deleting nasty remarks from that particular source, and I have much better things to do with my time. He offered a few good points and then turned absolutely sour when answers were given that he didn't like.
I think it was comments from Mr. Turnbull, again out of context and attack oriented, that prompted the post you are referring to with Round Lake and Brown Trout. It's that type of exchange that causes the entire conversation to derail, and that isn't going to happen, not here.
This is a place where you can ask any reasonable question you wish as long as you stick to the rules of fair debate. | |
| | |
| This is a place where you can ask any reasonable question you wish as long as you stick to the rules of fair debate.
Mr. Worrall, you're generous to a fault.
considering the personal (and imho, libelous) attacks leveled at yourself and MuskieFirst at a location somewhat "west" of here on the internet, the fact that you continue to leave this space open for discussion on these issues is simply amazing.
back to the subject of stock mixing:
- as Mr. Neuswanger points out, a "one-time event" is not disastrous. ongoing mixing could be, assuming the mix involved the "bad" genetics for slow growth as outlined in the analysis article.
- it's very clear from the historical records (special thanks to Mr. Ramsell for collating them so neatly) that stock mixing was not a "one-time event", but an ongoing practice due to convenience, need, or other factors.
- assuming it therefore had an impact on some/many/all/??? waters, how do we discover what that impact was exactly?
- brings us back to the need for careful scientific research delienating the genetics, doesn't it?
to those who are opposed to this approach, please help me to understand what it is exactly that you don't like about it. seriously, i'd like to hear and try to understand your perspective. at times it's hard to find this information when it's covered up by vitriol.
Edited by lambeau 12/11/2005 11:56 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Guest - 12/11/2005 8:45 PM
Well, I am glad to know that THAT lake is safe. I apologize, it was a nice presentation and informative, even if it did little to address the real situation.
I might have been more charitable but after seeing the WMRP being put at the same level as some people who wanted browns in Round Lake (see hapless DNR manager post) and after seeing my original post of this question deleted...was it the use of the word "lambasting"?, I have even less patience with these games than usual.
Mike Hohm
Mike, apology accepted. I do believe the presentation addressed ONE element -- the intended element -- of the real situation. As I recall, it took 2 hours just to cover THAT. But you are certainly entitled to feel otherwise.
Regarding the WMRP, I have no idea if they are "on the same level" as those who opposed musky management in Round Lake. (The small Round Lake group was not pushing FOR brown trout by the way; that was the fish manager's response to the minority anti-musky sentiment at the time.) I try not to make personal judgments about people I don't know well. I drew the analogy only because those two small groups had both used the same TACTIC -- that of trying to force professional fishery managers in the DNR to do something we believed was unwise. In the case of muskellunge and brown trout at Round Lake many years ago, it worked. But now that I am here, folks need to know that such tactics will not influence me. I want broad public input on desired outcomes -- goals and objectives. Our professional fishery management team will select, negotiate, implement, and sell the strategies (regulations, stockings, habitat preservation or manipulation) needed to achieve them.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| "- brings us back to the need for careful scientific research delienating the genetics, doesn't it?
to those who are opposed to this approach, please help me to understand what it is exactly that you don't like about it. seriously, i'd like to hear and try to understand your perspective."
lambeau:
It was Mr. Neuswanger that made the answer clear to your question several months ago on this forum when he stated that the genetic testing will not answer the questions of growth, reproduction and behavior.
Isn't THIS afterall, what this is all about?
Genetic testing will determine stocks and mixing. According to the draft broodstock management plan, the "preferred" lakes for egg taking are native, self-sustaining lakes (if genetic testing shows that they aren't mixed badly). In the case of NW Wisconsin, the choices for even consideration, are few, and the one noted in DNR musky committee meeting minutes, Moose Lake, is a known small growth lake. I don't believe that using native, self-sustaining lakes with small growth fish like Mud, Callahan, and the Spider Lake Chain, are going to make musky fishermen happy or return them to NW Wisconsin to fish for them. Genetists are basically preservationists, regardless of ultimate growth of the fish. Beyond that, it is out of their hands. | |
| | |
| Lambeau wrote: "brings us back to the need for careful scientific research delienating the genetics, doesn't it? to those who are opposed to this approach, please help me to understand what it is exactly that you don't like about it. seriously, i'd like to hear and try to understand your perspective. at times it's hard to find this information when it's covered up by vitriol."
Monk: Lambeau, I am NOT against careful scientific research (including FIELD OBSERVATIONS). What I DO want to see is DECISIONS made based on that research.... as was unfortunately not the case (by Wi, but MN did) in 1982... and subsequently in the Nancy lake study.
As CLEARLY stated by Dr. Sloss... I hope the following statement is adhered to:
"Given the vast majority of muskellunge fishing is targeted toward trophy fish, a switch to stocking a faster growing strain that also exhibits larger mean size at age is a logical management decision".
Not my words, not your words, not WMRP words, not the DNR words... but those of the scientist employed to study the issue as an impartial party.... BUT couldn't have been said any better! | |
| | |
| Sorry, that was my reply above. | |
| | |
| How to condense almost a years worth of topics, thread derailments, spin and animosity into an answer for Lambeau.....
This is the beauty of the internet. I saw one reference recently where it was said that the WMRP is against the research. Then Lambeau's question. Mr. Turnbull said it might be a waste of time and I suggested that Dave N. was worrying about the wrong thing. Neither of these would lead me to believe that the WMRP or myself is against the research. Just one of those things about the internet that makes this harder.
I am not against the research. I imagine if you asked the members of the WMRP and their supporters, you would find many of them are not against the research either. IF it turned out to prove nothing, well, money has been spent on stupider....is that a word?...things. Could turn out to provide a wealth of info. But while waiting for the results ( 9 years to choose brood lakes) why not put the LL fish into a few more places where the natural reproduction is limited or non-existant? If it doesn't work out, well, nothing else was either. So while the genetic study is probably worthwhile it is also a reason to do, for the most part, nothing.
( Yes, yes, I know, Butternut comparison and possible transfer.)
Early on, one of the reasons given for not stocking LL fish was the need to protect the native strain. That argument has been blown out of the water, at least as I see it. If it has been decided that taking only large fish has been ruled out (LCO as example, possible native remnants) then why not try some LL fish. The genetics are botched up, some major spawning grounds deteriorated.....bah..I am just rehashing all the old arguments. We have all read the stuff.
I guess it comes down to this.
There is some science being performed.
Some are for waiting until all the results are in.
Some are for expanding the LL fish stocking to other lakes, those in need of help. ( not every lake that has enough water to avoid freeze out over the winter. Though I imagine there are some who are for that.)
I don't worry about trophys. I mostly fly fish for muskies and I try to find places where I won't see anybody all day. That's my idea of musky fishing. Most people don't agree with me. They want big fish sooner or later. Many of them go to other places to find them now. That's painful to some business's in the area, to what extent, I don't know. It's hard to measure what is not there.
Lambeau, I hope that helps some. Hard to explain it without rehashing old stuff. Short version, not against the research, just against the delay.
| |
| | |
| Oop, that was my post above
Mike Hohm | |
| | |
| Lambeau, I hope that helps some. Hard to explain it without rehashing old stuff. Short version, not against the research, just against the delay.
that does help, if for nothing else by reminding everyone that we do so much better when we're talking about ideas and not sniping at each other.
what are your ideas for accomplishing the research goals in a quicker way?
you mentioned the stocking of LL strain in the meanwhile.
but this is actually happening...
if we could have large-growing Wisconsin strain muskies present in larger numbers in Wisconsin waters, perhaps by getting rid of those with "bad" genetics, would there still be the same demand for the LL strain?
Edited by lambeau 12/12/2005 12:07 PM
| |
| | |
| lambeau, the "problem" is WHERE to get Wisconsin fish with large growth potential (notice I didn't say "genetics"). That is the problem faced in trying to find suitable brood stock lakes. All have been mixed. Are there ANY that grow large fish that are pure enough to trust? BIG question. | |
| | |
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have had a couple biologists ask why anyone thinks the LL fish are a 'pure' strain. I don't know the answer to that one, alittle help?
Define 'pure', and describe why the adaptations those fish have made to the waters they are native to will necessarily mean equal success for those fish in waters here in Northern Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter. There's part of the rub, I think, if one was to distill some of the concerns.
By defining LL fish as 'pure', one must also define shoepac as 'pure', correct? What matters is the ability to get big, and fish in LCO and the Chip have shown they can and in fact still do. I know, I know, those are 'remnants' of the more 'pure' fish that were there according to the claims from some. Let's prove that out through Dr. Sloss's work, and show the differences genetically between those and fish from let's say, Pelican Lake in Oneida County, Bone Lake, Pewaukee Lake, and the Madison Chain, and for that matter fish that were caught in the past from LCO and the Chip, Bone and Round, etc.
Keep in mind that the cross drainage stocking that has taken place is not necessarily cause/effect for any single trait, including excessively slow or poor growth. I was roundly dressed down in the past for suggesting that the muskies here in Oneida County show GREAT growth rates and potential, wouldn't that be a GOOD thing to have those fish stocked over there, by the same logic that calls for LL fish? They do get large, obviously, big fish are getting caught from waters that are maintained by stocking, and some that were stocked to create a muskie fishery. I know of a half dozen off one lightly fished 500 acre lake in the last three seasons over 50", and a several off a 200 acre puddle that has excellent NR, yet was stocked only twice, and had no muskies before stocking. I know of two this year from there in fact, both 40# class pigs.
What was the largest fish in the study from the second Minnesota Lake? Waconia produced some very impressive fish, what about the other lake? I ask that only to make a VERY broad point, that the same strain of muskies will not perform equally in every body of water.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Guest - 12/12/2005 2:35 PM
lambeau, the "problem" is WHERE to get Wisconsin fish with large growth potential (notice I didn't say "genetics"). That is the problem faced in trying to find suitable brood stock lakes. All have been mixed. Are there ANY that grow large fish that are pure enough to trust? BIG question.
Lets say there are NO completely natural lakes left in Wisconsin in any of the zones, the plan says: “Efforts should focus on identifying genetically ‘healthy’ and reproductively vigorous muskellunge populations that require no supplementation for consistent recruitment.” I think the goal is to find lakes that currently have naturally reproducing populations, that doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t stocked at some point in the past.
I think it’s important to remember recommendation number 3 of the proposed “Brood Stock Plan”:
3. When collecting eggs, use a nested stratified, random design across spawning season and fish size. It is an absolute must to avoid size, age, spawning time, sex ratio, weight, etc., discrimination in relation to selecting the individual fish for spawning. The most pressing of these issues in relation to muskellunge is time of spawning and size of fish. It is, however, permissible to avoid sick or deformed fish when selecting spawners.
If #3 can be satisfied on any particular lake chosen, as a brood source, then I believe we will be OK. The fish in the lake have to have a good cross section of all possible heritable traits, size, weight, spawing time, etc. And then fish need to be randomly selected, which is all in the plan. I truly believe this plan is exactly what Wisconsin Musky fishermen have been waiting for, it's not a silver bullet and it will take some time, but I beleive it is the right path. Proactive management as apposed to reactive management.
Musky fishermen need to be ready to step up to the plate and help out in any way we can, because it is going to cost more money to run the hatcheries in this fashion and we may have to volunteer some time or money to make it happen.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Mike:
I think you are forgetting that if the lakes chosen fit the criteria, but do not have fish that grow to trophy sizes in the population, the only result can be more small fish. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I would say that if a lake has no fish that grow to trophy size it should not be used as a brood stock lake as they would not be able to collect eggs across all fish sizes. One of the criteria for a brood stock lake should be the ability to produce fish across the entire size range of musky.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| |
|
