|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | The Nancy Lake thread evolved and branched into many different places, this is one area I would like to explore a little more.
MuskyMonk posted the following question in the Nancy Lake Thread:
“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.”
I think this is a very interesting question, and it sparked a few more that I have.
I don’t think the Butternut and LCO fish will have a problem matching up, considering the following data, compiled from the WMRP time line:
From 1990 through 1999 the Spooner hatchery used 116 quarts of eggs from Bone Lake and 154 quarts eggs from LCO, 37 quarts came from other sources.
From 2000 to present the Spooner hatchery used 136 quarts of eggs from Bone lake.
With the amount of stocking done on Butternut in that time frame I don’t think the 500 adult fish will have a problem matching with the LCO fish.
WHAT IF…….the genetic testing being done on the Butternut and LCO fish show them to be genetically similar enough to go ahead with the transfer, but say tests are done on that fat 52 incher from the Chip or on a tissue sample from Cal Johnson’s fish and they come back non- similar. What would be (should be) done then?
Much of this arguing back and forth about the fish comes back to the strain theory. Will the genetic work being done prove or disprove that theory?
I’ll leave it at that for now, but I have more questions running in and out of my head.
Thanks!!!!!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Exactly what I was thinking Mike. If we are going to do genetic testing, lets test the BIG GIRLS and BOYS see what we got. That way we might be able to id a large growing Wi strain while we are at it. | |
| | |
Posts: 52
| I think I can add some information for you on the Chip fish. Through some diligent historical research I was able to find some validated historical information that sheds some light on the issues of stocking, the Chip fish and nothern pike. The first hatcheries near the Chip began as the efforts of the Hayward local businesses in 1922 and the Hayward Rod and Gun Club, before the DNR became an agency I believe. The first stocking was brook trout, some 25,000. In fact, the efforts of these two groups would secure hatcheries and fish propagation well into the future. There first efforts were rearing ponds and beginnings of the several hatcheries and the push to install what became the Winter Hatchery that sources tell me put out millions of musky eggs and fry. (There brood stock was the fish below the Winter Dam of which one DNR biologist would confirm as being 100 to 300 large musky.) In 1927, the Club became increasing interesting in the fish below the Winter Dam and the lack of the fish ladders to allow what was called "extremely large fish" to get over the dam to their native spawning grounds. The Club pressured the agencies to get permisssion to net the fish and lift them over the dam. This I find did happen. The next step was to declare was on NSP for a sum of money to begin stocking the Flowage. They won and the Club and the State joined into an effort to begin the work. NSP signed a check for $6,000.00. I have on solid reference to problems with northern pike in 1931 at the Sand Lake rearing pond were bass were raised. I have the name of the man hired to clean up the pike problem.
As you look at the Chip today take out the Flowage and follow the river downstream and you find accounts of some photos of extremely large musky. Follow it down further and you enter the Mississippi River where we are told the Miss. strain is also a resident. Tragically, daming the river and loss of downstream habitat had a great affect on these large fish, let alone overharvesting. The photos from the 1937 to 1939 show a tragic change in river habitat. What I always found interesting are these accounts of large fish below the Winter Dam and so one can perhaps assume that the Chippewa River itself was a source for the great Mississippi Drainage. Unless they dropped from the sky the musky came up river from all accounts.
What is even more interesting is the 1932 to 1936 era. I can get into that later. The Winter hatchery put out a lot of musky and if you follow the stocking records, you will see that once stocked, that lakes therein show musky up and into the 50-inch range, often 10- to 12-years later.
Recent information from several sources does show that the stocking of musky happened across drainages and from lake to lake. For example, fish from the eastern side of the state found themselves stocked in the area like the Chippewa River Drainage.
As the DNR looks for a possible candidate, I hope they look where I ended up and also look at the fact that LCO was connected to the Chippewa River Drainage via the Couderay River system. My question is are they not the same fish? Same river system?
Edited by lakesuperiorkid 12/5/2005 7:28 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 52
| I really do not think that you need to go to those extremes. The information is in the 1936 to 1938 era where the source of Cal's fish no doubt came from. The owner is not going to allow scales samples. There sure was a strain if you will growing in the river system.
I'll be passing this information on once its all collected. | |
| | |
| Brian Sloss MUST test some large 50"+ fish from NW WI waters...and see how they compare to the Spooner hatchery fish and...fish in our waters.
if the genetics are different, it would have serious implications.
if the genetics are similar, it would have serious implications.
we must be prepared to accept those implications, whichever way they turn out, even if they don't match our preconceptions of what the results will be...
i too, assume Dr. Sloss knows what he's doing. is it possible to get an update on his methods and find out whether he will be examining large historical or modern specimens as well as more readily attainable ones? | |
| | |
| Of course we can "assume" but what does it hurt to verify where and to what extent large specimens will be sampled? I would love to see if we could get a sample from a 50"+ LCO fish and bounce it off the tests from Butternut.
Lets get genetic profiles of 50"s sampled throughout the state and see how they compare to the hatchery fish. Then lets sample some MS strain fish and see how they compare. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It will be interesting to see the what fish are tested, from where, and from what period in history to the present. Monk, good points, I'm sure Dr. Sloss knows what needs to be done. | |
| | |
| I as well I'm sure Dr. Sloss knows what needs to be done. And as a concerned fisherman who cares about the quality of resource in Wisconsin, I will be eagerly awaiting his report for critical review. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, has a project plan been developed for Dr. Sloss’s research. There is a cost so I am assuming there is a plan. We don’t need to see the entire plan here, but I think it would be good to revisit the goals and how accomplishing those goals will help the musky fishery in Wisconsin.
There are many people who say this study is a waste of money. I don’t think it is, this could be the best thing to happen to musky management since they first realized there was a problem 100+ years ago and started supplemental stocking in this state.
Which brings me to another quick point. People can say all the bad things they want about the WDNR and how they screwed up, but where would we be if there was NO stocking over the last 100+years? We would have a bunch of empty dead lakes, because there are two many people exploiting them, the only way to keep them around is through management. Managing Mother Nature is an extremely complicated, dynamic proposition. Make one change and it can affect 100s of variables. I read a very interesting story on the management of Yellow Stone National Park since it’s inception(I will try to post it if I can find it). Not an easy task with many unintentional mistakes over the years. Managing a lake is no different and these guys have to manage over 15,000 in the State of Wisconsin.
I think it’s very important to support the use of the best available technology now and into the future.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'll see what I can do to get the information you requested. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Man it really all is out there if you just take the time and look. Thanks Steve, but you can disregard my last question, it wasn't that hard to find once I looked.
The following is a link to Dr. Sloss’s project plan:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/fish/musky/Identification%...
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bingo, that's it. You beat me to it by about ten minutes! | |
| | |
| Thanks Mike for the find, good reading. A few comments that I would like to point out.
1. If I read correctly, it looks like we are going to test 3 to 4,000 specimens over 60-80 lakes. Seems like a good sample. Should get a fair assesment on their targeted objectives of size structure, population and condition of each fishery. Especially when other data is gathered.
2. "Genetic Testing Has No Boundaries!" Nice to see that we are going outside the imaginary, man-made state lines to hopefully get a complete picture. Minimum of 6 populations outside Wisconsin, including Leech Lake strain populations will be tested. No use of the word exotic was noted so that lends me to think that all populations will be evaluated on a equal footing. Again, nice to see that we are referring to the "Mississippi River Basin" and we are not limiting our scope within the state.
3. "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". AMEN.
4. I'm glad that "trophy size" was at least referenced to be 50".
5. I can see the WMRP's timeline being VERY useful to Dr. Sloss in achieving #2 objective.
Additional questions:
1. After reading this, and given the scope of this plan, would it be fair to say that the Butternut transfer be placed on hold until Dr. Sloss' work is done? That was my point that started this thread (Thanks Mike!). Even if the Butternuts match LCOs, how do we know they are the RIGHT fish to stock. Seems like that determination will come at the end of the study. I'm for delaying this action for 2 to four years until more is known. There might be a better solution.
2. In the Brood Stock Mgt. plan, 2012 was slated as the year to review the results of LL stocking. I would challenge that this could be moved up a couple of years. | |
| | |
| It would be great if we could get an update on what waters (in state and out) Dr. Sloss has slated for testing. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Just noticed this thread, guys. I'm not going to speculate about what we will do in the wake of each possible outcome of Dr. Sloss' study, but I wanted folks to know that we will certainly be providing him with some samples from BIG muskellunge in order to see if they exhibit genetic characteristics that differ from fish of average size.
I have a sample of dessiccated eggs from a 55" long, 25" girth female muskellunge taken by spear from LCO in late April of 2005. If there is extractable DNA in those dessiccated eggs (very likely), we will learn something about that fish. There will be others.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 12/6/2005 1:37 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Dave, what is the plan for the genetic comparison of the LCO and Butternut fish? I am assuming not every fish is going to be tested, but some sample size of each. Have these samples already been taken? If the fish come back compatible, when will the transfer take place? Will the 500 adult fish from Butternut be marked so they can be monitored. Will any samples of historic fish be completed as part of these test or is that strictly part of the overall Gentics study.
MuskyMonk, I don’t know if it would be a good idea to wait if the fish come back compatible, even if they don’t match historic fish. If this happens it will be a long time before a solution to that problem is found as living fish that do match historic fish would need to be found. (Remember this a hypothetical, as we don’t know what will be found)
I don’t see how the transfer will make anything worse as those fish most likely came from LCO in the first place, or from LCO via Bone. Apparently there is space, and forage available for the 500 adult fish. The transfer will serve a definitive purposes, it will take pressure off the Butternut system and it will improve the musky pop. in LCO even if there not immediately trophies. During the 4 year genetic study the Butternut fish in LCO can be watched, in 4 years maybe some of them WILL grow big, maybe not. After completion of the Genetic study the DNR should know exactly which fish to start flooding into LCO.
There are immediate problems in both Butternut and LCO, the transfer will be an immediate booster shot without adding a new variable. Stocking Leech Lake fish into LCO would be adding a new variable.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Mike,
More times than not I think we are on the same page. To me the Butternut idea is obviously a quick fix. If we are going to do genetic testing to validate the transfer, then this testing should take place in the context of Dr. Sloss' work (i.e. a minimum of 50 samples from each lake). I too would assume that a stratification of the sampling take place (bigs and dinks).
But this brings up an interesting quesiton. What if the 50 Butternut muskies show there is a consistent strain among that population, but we find there is a variance in the LCO sample (i.e. different strains)? Would we still go ahead with the transfer because the Butternut muskies are similiar to a portion of the population in LCO? Just wondering.
Mike, that's more to my point. I agree it would be a shot in LCO's arm to plant the Butternuts in there... but it just seems like the cart is getting ahead of the horse... to a degree. What we know now, would we still want to have planted those 1,800 Bone lake fish in the Chip this last Fall? My answer would be no. I hope I don't have the same feeling about the Butternut transfer and have to double our efforts to correct a situation. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| MIKE: "Dave, what is the plan for the genetic comparison of the LCO and Butternut fish? I am assuming not every fish is going to be tested, but some sample size of each. Have these samples already been taken? If the fish come back compatible, when will the transfer take place? Will the 500 adult fish from Butternut be marked so they can be monitored. Will any samples of historic fish be completed as part of these test or is that strictly part of the overall Gentics study."
DAVE: We collected samples from 50 muskies at Butternut last spring. Those frozen fin tissue samples will be sent south to Stevens Point this Friday. We will also send down over a dozen frozen fin tissue samples taken from LCO in 2005. Literally hundreds of dessiccated scale samples taken in previous years at LCO (spaced about a decade apart) have already been sent to Dr. Sloss by our researchers at Spooner. The plan has always been to apply PIT tags (providing individual fish ID) to any fish we are able transfer from Butternut to LCO. I'm still not sure all the logistical planning will come together for spring 2006; we first need to see some test results, then gear up to do the work if there is enough time before ice-out.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for the answers.
The current train of thought has tapered off so I figured I would ask the following question, I figured I would put it here as it kind of fits into genetic management.
Recommendation #4 of the DRAFT Wisconsin Muskellunge Brood Stock Management Plan reads as follows:
4. Each facility should spawn 19 to 26 females (and 57 to 78 males) each year. Spawning should involve exactly 3 males per female, and families should be kept separate (don’t spawn the males or the females with any other fish). Roughly the same number of eggs should be taken from each female. Efforts should be made to spawn the target of 26 females if at all possible. All spawned fish should be marked and sampled for genetic material.
We have touched on this a little in the past, but I still don’t have a clear understanding. In the above recommendation it says “Roughly the same number of eggs should be taken from each female.” That statement confuses me.
Doesn’t natural selection favor large fish, in that the larger the fish the more eggs the fish produces? This is not the case for other creatures. Bigger mammals don’t produce more young. It just makes sense to me that if a 30” fish produces 20,000 eggs and a 50” fish produces 200,000 eggs, the bigger fish has a better chance of having more eggs fertilized, thus more offspring, from that fish, will grow to maturity. Shouldn’t that be taken into consideration when eggs are taken for hatchery operations?
What is the reason for taking the same number of eggs from each female? From my layman’s perspective that’s not how it happens in a nature.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| What is the reason for taking the same number of eggs from each female? From my layman’s perspective that’s not how it happens in a nature.
interesting point.
the described reason for taking the same number of eggs per female is to avoid incidental favoring of any one fish's genetics over the others and insure genetic diversity. prevent inbreeding that could happen by selecting for size and incidentally getting some unknown non-adaptive vulerability along with it.
but you're right, doesn't this happen in nature?
i suppose that's why a given lake might be devastated by an environmental change that an isolated population isn't genetically robust enough to adapt to.
so...when supplying fish for stocking, the need for diversity outweighs the process of natural selection occuring in a single population?
| |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | MRoberts - 12/14/2005 8:28 AM
TWhat is the reason for taking the same number of eggs from each female? From my layman’s perspective that’s not how it happens in a nature.
In nature, nearly EVERY fish gets a chance to spawn, more or less insuring genetic diversity; when we as humans intercede, we're already dealing with a subsample of the popluation (you can't possibly handle every fish in the lake). So in order to maximize genetic diversity within the subsample of the population, you need to insure all (or as many as possible) portions of the population's genetic makeup have a chance to be included in the progeny. This is particularly true when dealing with fish that aren't all that numerous in an assemblage to begin with.
S.
Edited by sorenson 12/14/2005 5:20 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I agree “you need to insure all (or as many as possible) portions of the population's genetic makeup have a chance to be included in the progeny.” I think the way in which they are proposing to take eggs from a diverse group of fish covers that. I am sure the 19 to 26 females and 57 to 78 males will cover many different sizes and shapes. I am not saying take only eggs from large fish. I am asking, why not take eggs in the same proportion as mother nature does when all the fish in the lake get a chance to spawn?
What concerns me is will the playing field be artificially leveled by taking the same number of eggs from each fish regardless of size. Can’t diversity still be accomplished by developing some table, based on egg production/size and then eggs (and milt) can be collect based on that. There is a reason a large/old fish can produce 8 to 10 times the amount of eggs as a small/young fish.
Hypothetical: Lets say sometime in the future they are taking eggs and in the sample of 19 fish there is 1, 10 year old 33” female, and there is one 55” 10 year old female.
If those fish were left to spawn in lake x the 33” female would drop her 20,000 +/- eggs and the 55” female would drop her 200,000 +/- eggs into the lake. The big girl starts out with a 10x better chance of having her young survive to maturity. But lets say the big girls are dumb(don’t know how to hide or avoid predators), maybe the eggs aren’t as viable, or for any other other possible reason less survive, as a result 10 years down the road you again have 1 10 year old 33” female and 1, 10 year old 55” female, each the only decendant.
Now hatchery personnel, come and take the same amount of eggs from the 33” female as the 55” female, They are grown in the hatchery and ponds and stocked into Lake Y, if all other factors remain the same, 10 years down the road what are the chances that 55” has any progeny left?
Doesn’t it make more sense to take 10 times the amount of eggs from the 55” as the 33”? Thereby keeping the playing field equal. Keep in mind that is all hypothetical, I don’t know for sure how many more eggs a big fish produces compared to a smaller one. But I am sure there are people out there that do. And I bet a table could be developed where x ounces of eggs/milt are taken from 33 to 38 inch fish and y ounces of eggs/milt are taken from 39 to 42 inch fish and so on and so on, So that the required totals can be reached from the 19 fish. All 19 fish of different sizes and shapes are still in the sample.
We don’t know why fish have evolved such that the bigger they are the more eggs they produce, but they have. I still haven’t heard a good reason for removing that evolved advantage from the equation in a stocking situation.
I hope that helps explain a little better where my point of view on this subject is coming from.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/15/2005 9:16 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | I see what you are getting at Mike, and I don't necessarily disagree w/ you in principle. The hard (nearly impossible) part is deciding whether the 33" fish you are taking eggs from is 10 years old or 4 years old. That fish may actually have MORE potential than the 55 incher that may be 26 years old (or 10 years old; we really don't know). You don't know unless each year class of fish has an easily identifiable and unique mark from which to age it. By taking an equal number of eggs, you manage to take some of the variability out of the equation so you can better identify what factors are influencing your management.
Sorno | |
| | |
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Hey, quick question (being that no one is able to AGE a muskie while in the boat): where are studies that confirm that a big muskie puts out eggs/milt that result in bigger muskies? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Slamr: Upon a quick review I believe that this article shows that eggs/milt for big fish result in more big fish.
http://www.msrc.sunysb.edu/people/munchpdf/Conover&Munch_Science02....
It is also very interesting in other ways. Not musky specific, but there’s more studies on other fish than muskies.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/15/2005 1:28 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
|
Mike, keep in mind that the marine species of Menidia referenced in the article you shared have a generational turnover time of less than 2 years. Muskies can live up to 30 years. Imposing a selective pressure against faster-growing Menidia by harvesting most or all of the biggest ones in the breeding population before they breed is quite predictably going to have a measurable impact in a relatively short period of time. With muskellunge, individuals that are genetically pre-disposed to attaining trophy size (either due to fast growth or great longevity) are members of the adult breeding population for many years, possibly decades (thanks to catch-and-release and restrictive harvest regulations), before they are ever removed from the population by harvest or natural mortality. There is undeniably something to be learned from the article you shared, but we need to be careful not to over-generalize its applicability to other situations (not that you have done so, I'm just recommending caution to others). By the way, I believe it's a good idea to include some of those "big girls" in our hatchery egg-taking operation, as long as we're getting a diverse mix of all sizes/ages over the full spawning period from a number of lakes with self-sustaining populations.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Totally understand your point Dave, I believe this research report was used in the past to try and make a different point. I was just trying to show that, there is documentation out there that in some fish, bigger fish breeding will produce bigger fish, ON AVERAGE. Not every fish produced will be bigger.
The size issue was not really the point of my question it was more about the number of eggs produced. Here are two more articles that talk about size of fish and egg production. Again not specific to musky, but interesting as it relates to fish on a whole. And as Dave suggested they need to be read with caution as they relate to Muskies.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/oldfish2005.html
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/reproduce2005.html
After reading more and more on this topic, it is becoming very clear why Canada went to there huge size limits on the lakes they think have world record potential. I think it will be very important to protect the brood stock lakes in a similar way. In Wisconsin I doubt we can get 54” size limits, but 50” should definitely be the goal on the future brood stock lakes.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Seems to me I made this point in arguement for slots. Lets protect the bigger fish and harvest some of the smaller. Does it ring a bell?
Don Pfeiffer | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Don,
After reading the links I found, I remembered that them or something similar had been used in the past as an argument for slots. I can understand that point, and I think there are some in the DNR who would maybe give slots a chance.
But here’s the problem, fundamentally in musky fishing, they require a shift in thought process. Catch and Release has taken hold, and until last summer I was all for slot limits as a compromise, allowing people who wanted the ability to keep smaller fish to do so and protecting the fish that made it to the lower end of the slot.
When we approached the Pelican Lake Properties Owners Association with a proposal to do SOMETHING, to protect the Pelican Lake musky, we offered up three options 45” limit, 40”-50” protected slot and 50” limit. Overwhelmingly the 100+/- people at the meeting wanted to do SOMETHING, of those, over 2/3 of the people thought the 50” limit would have the best chance of protecting all the fish, the longest. I believe the consensus was, most people who care already are catch and release fishermen, (remember this was a properties owners association not a group musky fishermen) and with all the other good eating fish in the lake there is no reason to provide a lower slot on an already low density fish. The choice was made to protect all the fish to a true trophy size.
I am sure there is a place for slot limits, but with Musky I think the best option is high limits, unless there is a problem like Butternut. If a slot was implemented on a lake like that good luck getting die hard musky fishermen to keep any muskies. I just don’t see it happening. I still think the best place for a slot in Musky fishing is in a compromise situation when you’re trying to keep everyone happy. But I’ll tell you right now the biologist don’t like using a slot, like that, as many feel it is a backdoor to high limits. I say use whatever tools we have available to protect these fish. So our kids kids can enjoy the kind of fishing we have.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Its all in the education of the people. They have to be informed of the reasons a slot would work, not just given a vote. They no doubt voted without the information needed to make a vote on facts and not of the heart.
The slot is a hard sell but if you really want quality fish and not quantity the choice is simple. I never thought it would be easy but still keep plugging away at it. I'd love to talk to that lake association. Pelican is just about in my backyard.
Pfeiff
| |
| | |
| Don,
i think that using any approach as "the" answer is somewhat myopic. i believe we do well to move towards lake-specific strategies rather than state-wide limits, and that we be open to a variety of approaches.
i've read the arguments for slots before, and i can understand the application of them to lakes with stunted growth, high density populations. thin the competition so remaining fish have room to grow. then protect those fish that manage to reach a certain size.
however, for low density populations with good NR, what's the need? a high minimum limit seems like the most sensible approach for those lakes, and the science is telling us that low density populations produce the biggest fish when they are able to live a long time. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Another very interesting article, on a much broader genetic simulation. If you are not interested in the technical info, scroll down to the Discussion part of the article and you will get the main points for the article, the discussion is right before the tables and figures.
Man if I was as obsessed about walleyes as I am about muskies, this stuff would interest me even more, but considering all our fish have been managed by minimum size limits for the last 100 +/- years you have to wonder. What really is the reason for the many lakes with stunted panfish populations, is it a response to over harvest and these size-selection differentials, how much has the last 100 years of fishing pressure on Wisconsin lakes contributed to this with panfish, walleye and Musky.
What I get from this article is that two things that really increase susceptibility to this selection differential. They are short spawning time which I would say both walleye and musky have and compressed fishing seasons. I would venture to say neither have a compressed fishing season, unless you factor in the spring spearing. That is a pretty compressed season and large numbers of fish are removed during that time. It adds another very scary variable to these equations for Walley and Musky.
I believe this is just more proof that very high minimums and slots should be serious management strategies considered by the DNR.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDG/is_2_103/ai_n148395...
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| |
|
Genetic Testing and Study - Questions?