|
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Where do you plan on getting the fish to do this? The MN DNR can't even meet their own stocking quotas for the few lakes we have much less have fish to expand the range in MN. Do people expect them to come from MN? I would say that there would be a HUGE outcry if fish were being shipped over to WI when our own needs aren't being met. I would lead that fight.
It also seems to anyone that's read anything about this arguement that the WI DNR is incapable of maintaining a viable broodstock population with WI strain. How does anyone expect them to do it with Leech Lake strain fish?
Stocking Leech Lake strain may be a viable solution to the "small fish problem" in some peoples minds, but it seems to me that nobody has thought out the logistics. Maybe the WI DNR has and that's why they're dragging their feet.
Fire Extinguisher in-hand.
|
|
| |
|
| Tonka was supposed to get 3000 last fall,,,it got 300 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | We got 500 from a private hatchery in MN last fall to stock into Petenwell. We had ordered them in July, and he told us there were several people/clubs that would take them if we didn't want them. I agree with you. There has to be a supplly. Anyone in MN reading this, with a few unused shallow ponds in their backyards might want to reconsider using them for duck ponds...... |
|
| |
|
| Long Lake and Wild Rose hatchery has them I believe. That's where the Green Bay/Winnebago fish come from. |
|
| |
|
| i know the Monona fish were purchased from a private farm (MN Muskie Farm?) and i'm pretty sure the ones for Wissota were purchased as well. so not being taken from the MN state fishery supply.
i'm not sure where the WI DNR is planning to obtain fish for the 10 study lakes in NW part of the state.
as the lakes getting LL strain fish increase, the pressure on the supply will clearly go up...good opportunity for someone to make some money raising fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The fish in the Long Lake are being eliminated with an open season soon. By the time it begins, the estimated population will be less than a dozen fish, so it doesn't really seem like the DNR is working too hard at keeping the Leech Lake strain going there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7039
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Dumb question: where is the $$$ going to come from?
Fish are not cheap, and to create a viable (that will be able to reproduce) population in lakes over 500 acres, I'm guessing you're going to need at least 1/4 a fish/acre to survive each year (and knowing that only a smaller percentage than most of us think of even fish in the 14-16" range actually survive to sexual maturity) to create that population. So if you're going to need that 1/4 of a fish/acre, and its a 1000 acre lake, and allowing for 25% survivability to sexual maturity (and thats being liberal)....how many fish is that, and how many years would it take to create that? AND, at $10 a fish (again, being liberal), how much is that going to cost.
Also, how are these fish going to escape the spear? Are the habitats in these lakes suitable to natural reproduction? How are these fish going to survive long-term when the size limit is 34", and we're already saying (by saying there arent older, larger fish) that catch and release isnt working?
No one doubts that the LL fish grow to 40" faster, but the Nancy Lake situation demonstrates that creating a real viable, self-sustaining population, is not something so easily done. My thought is that putting these fish in to create the opportunity to catch larger fish in the next 6 years is do-able, but to create a self-sustaining population will be a much bigger undertaking.
So, where is the money going to come from? The DNR is strapped for funds already, and I know from observation that fisherman (especially muskie fisherman) lose their collective minds when license fees go up, and if this is a 'muskie only' proposition, and muskie fisherman only make up a small percentage of those who actually buy a license. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Slamr
I think at this point all you'd have to do at any of the club meetings is say "leech strain fish", "10 dollars each" and pass a hat around. It's not going to be cheap, and there are logistics to consider, but I can honestly say if it was my home water I'd happily throw in $100 without even thinking about it, and I'm sure a LOT of other guys would too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | lambeau - 2/16/2006 7:48 AM
"i know the Monona fish were purchased from a private farm (MN Muskie Farm?) and i'm pretty sure the ones for Wissota were purchased as well. so not being taken from the MN state fishery supply."
-Lambeau, where do you think they get their muskie fry? They are using fry that they purchase from the MN DNR. So whenever orders are placed with them to have fish exported to other states when there are orders that can be filled in MN, they are infact taking fish from MN. There's a lot of politics here that I don't want to get into at this time and I respect Rob and his business too much as they've been a good supplier to work with.
"as the lakes getting LL strain fish increase, the pressure on the supply will clearly go up...good opportunity for someone to make some money raising fish!"
-You have to get the fry to get the fish. You can only get the fry from broodstock. If you have no broodstock you have no fry and a fish can only product so many eggs. Also, raising fish is WAY more difficult then anybody here realizes. Being involved into what has to happen to get a good yield has shown me that it's VERY easy to say "raise more fish", when in reality it's a monumental task to do it right and in a cost effective manor. Just throwing fry in your backyard pond will not work.
So again, where are the fish going to come from?
Edited by Muskie Treats 2/16/2006 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | John is right. The DNR has determined to leave the muskies in Long Lake a few years longer than they originally stated they would. This has caused a nightmare. The shallow-minded lake association (you'll soon realize I don't care for lake associations very much. Typically no scientic data behind anything they say while they rake the weeds from "their" shoreline so their rich grandkids can swim) sorry, anyway, the lake association on Long Lake has hated the muskies from day one. They want all of the fish dead now! They stated that the fish are reproducing (not true) and that they ate all of their panfish. (I caught a limit through the ice earlier this year, population seems to be fine) It is likely that once an open season with a size limit is allowed. They'll whack every one of them. I wish they would just shock it and transport the fish to Winnebago. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | By the way, the fish stocked in Green Bay are from lake St Clair, not Leech. As with any subject where we as the public declare we know what to do and demand that our desires are immediately met, it usually turns out that there is WAY more to any one or several issues than meets the eye. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| we don't need no stinkin minnesota fish! We have great lakes spotted.they're badd a$$ enough. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 145
Location: Eau Claire, WI | The one thing I don’t understand is why the WDNR refuses to look at creating our own source of LL strain eggs. Nancy Lake is in the St. Croix Drainage where these studies are going to be performed. It has a reminent population of Leech Lake fish that performed well there. There are no other strains of muskies present in lake Nancy besides the LL strain thus maintaining the purity of the fish. We do have a perfect candidate here for a LL brood lake to help us be self sufficient.
If in 10 years when the LL / WI strain side by side evaluations in the St. Croix drainage conclude that the LL strain performs well there and it compliments what the MN DNR is doing in the St. Croix River and the drainages connected we are still at square one. We have no source of LL strain eggs without depending on the MN DNR. If we stocked Lake Nancy along with the other lakes in the study, by the time the study was completed we would have our own source of LL eggs to move forward with. The WDNR did already successfully harvest eggs from the first planting of Nancy and successfully raised them in the Sponner Hatchery. It could be done. It worked once before. If for some reason the LL strain fails in the St. Croix River Drainage, we have lost nothing.
|
|
| |
|
| where do you think they get their muskie fry? They are using fry that they purchase from the MN DNR. So whenever orders are placed with them to have fish exported to other states when there are orders that can be filled in MN, they are infact taking fish from MN.
are you saying that the MN DNR is filling orders for fry to a private business before meeting their own needs for stocking?
if true, no one is "taking" fish from MN...the DNR is selling them off for profit.
and it's hardly the buyers fault if they are willing to do so!
Edited by lambeau 2/16/2006 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
| The one thing I don’t understand is why the WDNR refuses to look at creating our own source of LL strain eggs...If we stocked Lake Nancy along with the other lakes in the study, by the time the study was completed we would have our own source of LL eggs to move forward with.
this makes good sense.
however, it seems the DNR's assessment of L.Nancy specifically was that it wasn't a suitable brood lake. i know, i know...this is hotly debated, but clearly the DNR doesn't see this particular lake as the one they'd be using.
finding suitable lakes (plural...per the DNRs current plan based on genetics recommendations) for use as a brood source and creating a viable, self-sustaining population would be smart planning in the event the 10-year study is a success.
has there been any talk that the lakes in the study itself could act as brood lakes for wider distribution of LL fish after the study is complete? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Lambau, I'm not saying it's the "buyers" fault. It's the system. A system that will be changed if George and I have our way. If it does, then where will the fish come from? |
|
| |
|
| Treats,
I'd have to agree that if the Wisconsin DNR is going to move ahead with taking eggs/fry/fish from the Minnesota DNR without starting a plan to become self-sufficient as soon as possible - it would be irresponsible on the part of the WDNR. Minnesota can benefit from this too, as Minnesota could use some fishing pressure relief, and this is a way to do it.
I've mailed letters suggesting the DNR create a brood lake - but like most things, it's not up for discussion. (Nancy was not determined an unsuitable brood lake - it was determined to have an insufficient population. Of course we feel they stopped netting just as the large females showed up,but thats been discussed over and over)
People from Wisconsin and Minnesota share the Upper Mississippi river drainages. I feel if it's best for us all to work together.
Thinking about it realistically - The MN DNR would only need to milk one or two more females to get enough eggs for all of Wisconsin. My understanding is that the limiting factor in MN lakes getting fish has been public and private hatchery and pond space. If I was the MN DNR, I'd ask that the Wisconsin DNR put some skin in the game by establishing brood lakeS, and attempting to actually take spawn from the existing MS strain Muskies in this state. (Lake Neshonic - from another post - should be considered for a brood lake if it does not have Muskies today)
Wisconsin clubs that would like to continue to purchase Muskies should also contact private hatcheries about raising this fish for them in Wisconsin.
I think it'd be best not to start a Minnesota/Wisconsin fight over this, just as it should not be a fight between the fisherman and DNR. Minnesota could use some fishing pressure relief, and this is a way to do it.
Everyone is better off if we work together.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | heres another point to ponder. one of the issues raised at the hayward meeting(from what i've read) is about the loss of tourism revenue to other areas with better "quality" muskie fishing. wouldnt it then be irresponsible for the MN DNR to send that increased business for MN back to WI in the form of better fish, at least from an economics standpoint? |
|
| |
|
| I reguards to what Slamer said, "where is the money going to come from?" What if the state of WI started a "muskie stamp"? Proceeds would go directly into improving the states muskie fishery. Similar to the Great Lakes Stamp which is such a sucess story.
Just curious about everyones opinoin?
Lee Tauchen |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lee,
That would be a Conservation Congress request, and would be REALLY tough to get done. Not that the muskie anglers wouldn't approve, but most of the vote at the CC hearings is from other interests, and usually very ANTI anything that represents an additional tax or charge. It would take a huge effort, and we couldn't even get enough folks out to vote to pass an obviously beneficial trophy lake 50" minimum proposal a couple years back. Not many walk the walk when it comes to actually getting out there and representing the Muskie angler's interests.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Lee,
i know thats somethingthats been put forward in the past. from what i remember the DNR was reluctant to do it because of all the logistical headaches. if it was required to simply fish for muskies, you'd end up with alot of pike fishermen. if it was a harvest stamp, many wouldnt buy it as they dont intend to keep a fish.
also the cost associated with producing the stamp negates some of the monies brought in, although perhaps with electronic licensing, that wouldnt be an issue.
it would also have to be protected from other user groups then saying moeny for muskies efforts could only come from stamp dollars instead of general fund, which could possibly lead to a decrease in funding.
there are many issues to be considered from what i recall.
that being said, it would be cool to be able to colect the stamps and associated artwork wouldnt it?! |
|
| |
|
| It's the system. A system that will be changed if George and I have our way. If it does, then where will the fish come from?
how are you hoping to change it?
if a ready supply of fish was MN was slowed/stopped, it would obviously force the WI DNR and private clubs to reconsider current practices.
this could be good/bad:
a) have to create own brood source (good)
b) abandon LL strain study (bad)
i'd be all for a muskie stamp if the money was guaranteed to be used for muskie only purposes, and not simply tossed into the general fund. other stamp programs have had varied success on this, with some being preserved for that resource and some getting "raided". |
|
| |
|
| I have a real problem with all the dicussion on "costs".
Since we are already raising Muskies - there are no additional costs in raising fish. (Unless we want more, but I think the discussion centers on replacing existing "unspecified" strains with MS strain Muskies. If we want more muskies, there are more costs no matter what strains are used)
The only real additional cost is in procuring MS strain eggs. Since the MN DNR is already netting Muskies, we simply have them "squeeze a couple more". Yes there are costs here for the MN DNR - Possibly the Wisconsin Muskie clubs provide a grant (of about $3000/year) to the MN DNR that allows the MN DNR to raise a few more Muskies to be stocked in MN lakes.
Under this scenario, everybody wins. This includes the Wisconsin DNR that has to squeeze less fish. The Muskie clubs win because they get the fish they want cheaper from the Wisconsin DNR than they would from a private fish farm. Minnesota fisherman get more Muskies stocked from the MN DNR.
If we have brood lakes, we are self-sufficient in five years. There are answers....everything doesnt have to be a fight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| we had a brood stock in long lake for the Great lakes strain, those fish are now being erradicated out due to locals not wanting them there anymore.
We now get our stock from actual fish in the system. Getting a broodstock going of another strain would be cool if you can find somewhere to do it.
but like muskie treats says, why would MN give up their own fish to help out WI in something we have a hard time doing anyway?
I believe with the leaps and bounds that the dnr has made with our great lakes spotted program it will only be a matter of time before they stock those guys in lakes that are in need of serious adjustment. These fish have a growth rate that blows away just about all other strains.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO BOTHER WITH MN FISH? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | We're hoping to be able to make the DNR accountable for it's stocking practices. It blows our minds how we can continually miss our stocking goals yet have over 10,000 muskies sent out of state via 3 party sources. I don't have a problem with people purchasing fish because it's a free market system once they go to a fish farm. I just want our DNR to take care of MN before it sells it's fry to everyone else in the world. If we're not hitting our goals then we need to keep more and more fry until we can hit the numbers on a regular basis. We're NEVER going to be able to add new waters in MN until our muskie production increases.
Another way that we're trying to work with the MN DNR is through hatchery improvement. Right now we're getting a list of improvements that MI chapters can contribute to. We figure the easiest way to increase the amount of fish is through more efficient hatchery practices. I believe that it was the Bemidji ponds that were improved and their yield went up by around 10%.
Also, you'd need WAY more the 2 fish to get enough eggs for WI. On a typical year I think we end up getting around 200,000 to 350,000 fry to hatch. Of that about 10% make it to fingerlings. Of that about 10% make it to maturity. Remember, we barely have the personal and financial resources to maintain the current levels much less grow the program (another issue we're working on). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| Also in response to the muskie stamp- I think this would be the biggest step in the right direction of keeping fish safe from being harvested. The normal joe fisherman isn't going to buy a stamp if he doesn't plan on fishing for them, so when he hooks one walleye fishing and can't keep it to feed the familly, well, you get the point.
In turn, if he does buy one, that is just more revenue for the state to feed a fish or two. I would probably bet my house that any conscious musky guy/gal would purchase a stamp if they new it was helping out our fishery. 5-7 bucks, man who hasn't blown that on half a bait before? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I found Castmaster's point about MN not wanting to necessarily return its newfound tourist dollars back to Wisconsin particularly interesting. I can certainly understand the frustration Wisconsin business people have watching part of their livelihood move west. Hell, I'm from Wisconsin. However, if I'm a MN resort owner that's been watching this from afar, and I've seen my income go up due to guides and tourists crossing into MN, I'm not so sure I want my state to declare, "here's a better fish, let us help you get back on your feet." Especially if the shortages previously mentioned are a fact. It might be easy to squeeze a few more fish as someone pointed out, but I could see many MN businesses saying "hey, squeeze 'em here, here, and here, instead of Wisconsin." As someone new to musky fishing I've followed this debate for the last six or seven months. When I see a thread like this pick up momentum, I can't help but wonder if there might be some economic subtleties that might not seem so subtle to MN businesses when it comes time to provide the resource.
That's a rookie opinion on the economics of the situation. There very well be much I'm missing, but I'm in a competitive business myself, and when it comes to their paycheck, people have a tendency to look out for themselves, and who can blame them.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Treats,
no doubt Minnesota should take care of Minnesota first.
However, there has to be a point where eggs can be taken from Muskies when it would not affect Minnesota's Muskie production. If done properly (with funding) it could even increase it. This should be a requirement before fish farms get involved or the state of Wisconsin. You guy's need to take care of yourself first - no doubt about it! (I disagree on how many fish need to be squeezed - although I meant 2 females - do you know how many female muskies Minnesota uses each year?)
Your points speak volumes about why Wisconsin needs to have it's own brood lakes.
All the fans of Great Lakes fish - I lOVE EM TOO! You know where the ones in the Fox River/ Green Bay came from? Hundreds of miles to the East in the state of Michigan.
Bob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | yup, the fish in Long lake are Great Lakes spotted, not to be mistaken with Leech Lake fish. The DNR only got a couple small males in all of their nets this past spring out there, and are getting enough from the bvery waters they are stocking, to need Long and its whiny Lake Ass. anymore. The Lake Ass. should be happy, though, for the DNR propped up a lake with walleye, Bass, and Pike to numbers that were never before seen in it. I am thankful too. Both for the DNr improving the laes' overall fishery, and for the lake association not beleiving there are any fish left in it. I will be headed there again Saturday......
That said. As I was doing the work for the Petenwell project, I was told that the WI DNR planned to use 'spare' hatchery space in the state of WI to propogate the breed. I am a bit ignorant to alot of it, but in my dealings with raising fish, lack eggs and fry have never been the issue. Rearing ponds, space to raise the fish, and funds to feed them was always the issue. Maybe WI(after giving Pete much of the surplus of course...) could someday help MN with its program. With WI cutting much of its Brook Trout program, is some of that space available? Could one of the larger rearing ponds be used for brood, as is done at some of the private hatcherys?
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/16/2006 3:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Treats
It is my understanding that the WDNR has already made arrangements with the MDNR to obtain eggs from Minnesota. The Leach Lakers that Wisconsin stocks next year will be raised in Wisconsin by the WDNR. The fish will no longer be purchased from private farms. They made this arrangement after the WDNR determined that Nancy could not be used as a brood source. This should not affect the amount of fish that the MDNR produces in Minnesota at all. As Bob has stated they will just be milking some fish for the WDNR. It sounds like Minnesota has production issues of their own, I fail to see how the MDNR giving the WDNR some eggs affects the amount of fish that the MDNR produces. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Slamr
Nancy lake was stocked only 3 times. Nancy lake has the best (only) natural reproduction of any musky lake with northern pike in the same management area managed by the DNR out of Spooner. The other lakes in that area have been stocked countless times with Bone Lake fish and still have no natural reproduction and definitely do not have self-sustaining populations even with countless years of stocking, not just 3 times. And, as many of us already know, the Bone lake fish stocked into these lakes rarely if ever grow large. The Nancy lake muskies definitely do grow large. When the DNR says that Nancy lake does not have sufficient natural reproduction to become self-sustaining compared to lakes in WI that do, they are comparing it to lakes that either have self-sustaining populations of small growth muskies such as Spider Lake, Tigercat Flowage, Moose, Mud/Callhan, or lakes that have been stocked for many many years which do have some natural reproduction, however none of them are in the same management area as Nancy Lake. If Nancy lake would have been stocked at the same rate that we stock Bone lake fish in lakes in this same management area, it is very likely it would have easily become a self-sustaining population.
Name just one muskie lake in WI (with a population of northern pike) that was created using Bone Lake fish and is completely self-sustaining through natural reproduction after being stocked only 3 times. How about 5 times. 10 times. 30 times. Name just one lake.
Lambeau
Using the study lakes as possible future brood lakes for the MS fish is not a good idea because all of them have already been stocked countless times over the years with Bone Lake fish. I have a hard time understanding why the DNR selected lakes that already contain populations of adult Bone lake fish already for these studies. They have either already decided that they would not establish brood lakes for MS fish because they never have or never will consider stocking them even after the studies are complete, or it was just poor planning. Like Bob stated, he has asked them why they would not start creating a brood like for MS fish now, but the question goes unanswered. Nancy lake is the obvious choice. It was stocked 3 times. 1st stocking was from eggs from Leech lake. 2nd time was with eggs from Wolf lake. 3rd time was with eggs taken directly from Nancy lake itself and raised at the Spooner hatchery. It already has adult fish we could use to get started with. The fish have been reproducing there. But unfortunately, it was not stocked enough times to establish a large enough adult population to be able to sustain itself through natural reproduction only. Even Mn lakes need to be stocked more than 3 times to become self-sustaining populations.
----------------------------------------------
Nancy lake is the obvious choice for a brood lake for MS fish and could be used right now. It only has Ms fish. It is located close to the hatchery. They netted adult spawning fish there last year. They started netting way too early when water temps were still too cold and did not get any muskies until the last several days in a row when they started netting large spawning muskies each day including a large fish over 49". Once they got this fish they stopped and pulled the nets and raced out of there. THEY CLAIM they netted every muskie in the lake. The only way they could possibly know this is if they drained all the water out of the lake and counted them laying there. So there is no way of knowing how many more muskies and and how big they would have been if they would have kept the nets there longer instead of pulling them after netting large muskies several days in a row and then leaving just after netting a 49"+ muskie. 2 of the male muskies netted there were larger than the largest female muskie they netted in Bone lake. There is no good reason not to use Nancy lake right now with the adult fish available there and start stocking it again to establish a large enough adult population to sustain itself. Waiting for the studies to be completed before locating a brood lake, stocking it, and then waiting for the fish to mature and to establish an adult population to get eggs from will only delay things another 6 years minimum from the time the studies are done. Of course thats assuming that they actually do decide to continue stocking them. Besides, think about the politics involved in getting a lake to use. Muskies in a new lake? Not easy. Nancy lake has them already and only pure non-mixed MS fish. It should be our brood lake today. Waiting and stalling does nothing for people like myself that want to return home to fish NW WI and have a legitimate chance at cathcing a 50" here before I die. Using Nancy lake now to get eggs from is a no brainer. At the minimum, it would reduce the need to rely on MN for eggs and provide a brood source for taking eggs from now.
Edited by Lockjaw 2/17/2006 7:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| Send us some eggs, and we'll send you our Governor. They can even be dogfish eggs.
I know that Wisconsin and Missouri traded turkeys for grouse many years ago. Seems like the 2 DNR's should be able to get along, but I agree that the 'home team' should be taken care of first. But I really think that there should be a spirit of cooperation between neighboring states. Since both states could benefit long term....you won't have all of us Wisconsinites coming over there and pounding your lakes if our lakes were better.
Hell, the 2 States had to battle over Mississippi River walleye regulations in the past, like a walleye knows when he swims over The State Line.
Muskie Stamp? I'd welcome it with open arms along with tighter limits and other regulation changes, but our DNR has to start thinking along those lines. I know the spring hearings matter, but I believe that the fishery biologists should be able to have a little free reign. I don't remember voting on all of the past deer and fish permit increases, but they happened. I'd gladly plunk down 20 bucks or more for a stamp if it meant a better future of the muskie fishery.
I'm all for a major stocking program of spotted muskies, whether they are from the Great Lakes or Minnesota. Brood lakes would also be a great idea. But it's all a moot point if they get a piece of steel stuck through their skulls when they mature. You'll never have sustainable reproduction as long as the spawners are allowed to be plucked from the waters. You don't have to look any further than the walleye numbers to know that is fact.
Beaver
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | A couple of things, I believe (I may be wrong here but this is how it happens at the woodruff hatchery) the way it is done is the DNR milks the fish and raises the fry, once the fry are a certain size they move them to rearing ponds. They can’t put all the fry into the rearing ponds because there isn’t enough space to allow all the fish to continue to grow, so they have a number of choices they sell the fry to Fish Farms, the farm continue raising the fish to fingerling and then sell them, they sell or give the fry to another state, or they stock the extra fry local waters.
I don’t think getting more eggs is even an issue as they are probably producing more fry than there ponds can handle.
Look at the fry stocking number if there is lots of musky fry stocked annually in MN than getting fish in extra ponds should not be an issue. By the way most biologist agree that stocking fry is almost useless, it would be much better if some group tried to raise the fish to fingerling.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 2/17/2006 8:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Treats:
It is my understanding that MN has NO problem getting enough "fry." In fact, it is their normal practice to stock their "excess fry" into the Mississippi River once they have all they can use in the hatcheries.
Gary |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Lockjaw and others-
It blows my mind that folks thump the table that WIDNR has screwed up the genetics of the states fishery and then out of the other side of their mouth they scream they want to start using Nancy Lake as a brood Stock lake NOW. What do you think this will do??? What I am saying, there are only a few (relatively) spawnable muskies in that lake....do they have a good distribution of genetic make up to support a healthy brood stock program? According to Dr. Sloss no. AND as a layman, they have only been stocked from a very small genetic pool (three stockings, possibly all from three females??). If you used Nancy lake, in its current state, you would run the risk of NEGATIVELY affecting the genetic makeup of the fish over even a short period. You would potentially do EXACTLY what you are claiming the WIDNR has done over the years?? Look at the practice of MN and how they manage their brood stock....
I am not saying the State couldn't move a little faster on some fronts...but these guys know muskies a heck of a lot better then any of us...maybe, just maybe they know what they are talking about.
Nancy Lake maybe a decent lake for a brood stock....but definately NOT in its current state. I sat through the discussions with the DNR on this very topic. I assure you they are VERY concerned about taking Dr. Sloss's recommendations for generating good genetic distribution seriously and want to apply it to both the WI stocking and Leech lake stocking.
Cory
Edited by C.Painter 2/17/2006 9:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Gary, that doesn't happen that often. Maybe a 2-3 times every 10 years from what I've heard. Even still, between what our chapter is working on and what we at the MMA are going to try to do with the DNR to increase fish production for existing and new fisheries, we're going to need all of the hatchery's capacity. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Cory
To say there are only a few spawnable muskies in Nancy lake may or may not be true. We don't know. No one can come to this conclusion by going in there with nets way before they even start spawning and pulling nets over and over again looking for spawning muskies and finding none because they are net ready to spawn yet. Then all of a sudden they are there every day for about a week straight and then they pull the nets while they are still coming in and leave and say they netted every muskie in the lake so there are not enough there because we lifted the nets "X" number of times and only got "Y" number of fish. What if they would have timed it right by waiting longer and then went in there found spawning muskies the 1st day and every day after for 2 weeks straight? This could have been the case had they not went in way before the fish were even spawning and start lifting nets with nothing in them. I mean come on. If I went to Bone lake and put nets out a month before they are even ready to spawn and lifted the nets 2 times a day for a month straight before I got the 1st one and then pulled the nets after a few days while they were still coming in I could say the same thing about Bone lake. And we all know there are a lot of muskies in Bone. Whats would be the difference here?
I don't see any similarities between spawning a few PURE (non-mixed) MS strain muskies from Nancy, to spawning a lot of Bone lakes many MIXED strain muskies from all over WI. I don't ever recall saying the DNR messed up anything by spawning only a few female muskies from a small genetic pool of fish in Bone lake. Quite the opposite I would think. Also, I am not saying that we should use only eggs taken from Nancy lake for stocking in WI. I'm saying it could REDUCE the need for getting eggs from MN to get things started here. There is a difference. We could be stocking MS fish raised from eggs taken from MN lakes into Nancy lake and other lakes at the same time we are taking eggs from adult fish in Nancy lake and stocking them in these other lakes as well. This could help accomplish a few things. 1) Help boost the population in Nancy to a level that it would not require stocking. 2) Create the diversity your talking about in Nancy as a future brood stock lake that we could get even more eggs from in the future. 3) Help create the diversity in the other lakes that are being stocked from eggs taken from both the MN lakes and Nancy lake. What is so dratically wrong with that idea? The eggs used for the 1st two stockings in Nancy lake were taken from two different brood lakes in MN. The 3rd was from eggs taken from Nancy lake itself. So the fish in Nancy lake are made up of fish from 2 completely seperate brood sources already. So between the Nancy eggs and the MN eggs you would have the diversity going into the lakes being stocked with the fish raised from them. Is this right or wrong? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
| Other than the WMRT, who says that the nets where pulled too early, not enough, and in the wrong place? Can you and the WMRT get an actual fisheries PROFESSIONAL to come out and inform the public that the sampling work on Nancy Lake was done incorrectly?
It just seems like a lot of the reasoning behind the WMRT's belief comes from their assertations about the 'great fishery that was created at Nancy Lake', but the WDNR PROFESSIONALS are disputing this claim. No offense to you, Bob Benson, Larry Ramsell and the rest of the WMRT brain trust, but not a one of you has any formal training in fisheries biology. To say that the WDNR is wrong because they did X, Y, and Z wrong, without any real scientific evidence, nor any fisheries biologists backing these statements that they did anything wrong, is just a CRIME!
Why is it a crime? Because you're using layman's reasoning to answer a scientific situation. And doing so in a situation where you might be affecting where WI tax payer's dollars go, thats a whole nother crime.
But, your group has decried any sort of new studies, any new information gathering, any research to find out what science says about these situations. So, I guess these crimes dont apply to you, because you don't think that science is valid in the cases that it disproves, or future science will disprove, your theories. It worked there, so it must work here, is enough for you. Wasnt that the reasoning for putting FL. strain bass in alot of northern waters? How did that work out?
The Chocodile
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Calm, folks, calm. We are all after the same thing here, let's keep the discourse civil.
As to the nancy lake discussion, start here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22...
That one has also been beat near to death. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Chocodile:
We were told by the DNR Research Scientist in charge of the Nancy Lake netting that they removed their nets "because they needed them for egg taking in Bone Lake." That simply is NOT true! The hatchery crew have their own nets and research has their own nets and the research nets were NOT used in Bone Lake after they were removed from Nancy Lake!!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
| Larry,
That doesnt prove anything other than they didnt feel like just telling you "we're done working here, we've concluded our work here". It doesnt prove anything was done but the state officials making it clear that they dont have to fully disclose everything they do, just because you want them to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
What was the basin water temperature when the nets on Nancy well introduced, how many times were the nets moved, and what was the basin water temp when the nets were pulled? How long were the nets in, and how long are nets USUALLY left in (average) for this sort of survey? How many fish were captured in each net per day? Was there a population estimate done? Thanks, sir!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | We don't have to get those fish if we want more spotted muskies. There are plenty more then enough females in bay of green bay to get eggs from. Is there a reason we can't use them?
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pfieff,
Yes, those fish are from Lake St Claire. |
|
| |
Question to those that want to stock Leech Lake strain in WI