|
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Excerpt:
A meeting to discuss muskellunge genetics and stocking issues was held at the Hayward High School Auditorium on the evening of February 13, 2006. Over 150 local anglers, guides, and business owners attended the meeting, which was sponsored by the Hayward Visitors and Convention Bureau (HVCB). Presentations illustrating different viewpoints were made by Steve AveLallemant, Northern Region Fisheries Supervisor for the Wisconsin DNR, and by Bob Benson and Larry Ramsell of the three-member citizen group calling itself the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project (WMRP) Team. Presentations were followed by a lengthy question-and-answer period. Most questions were directed to Mr. AveLallemant of the WDNR. Time constraints and a desire to maintain a positive atmosphere kept the answers friendly and brief, resulting in post-meeting interest in hearing the rest of the story from the DNR by many attendees. The next day, Cheryl Treland, President of the HVCB, formally requested that DNR provide more detailed responses, in writing. We agreed. On March 2 we received an audio cassette recording of the meeting from HVCB Executive Director, Linda Clifford. Audience questions are transcribed as accurately as possible below; and detailed answers to those questions are provided on behalf of the Wisconsin DNR. We were unable to avoid using some of the specialized language of aquatic ecologists and fish geneticists in our response, so a Glossary of Terms is attached. We appreciate the opportunity to further explain our beliefs and management decisions. We want Hayward area anglers, guides, and business owners to know how seriously we take their concerns and our responsibility to conserve this valuable fishery resource today and for future generations.
Read the entire document here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.16.2006/1025/Tape-Recor... | |
| | |
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | WOW....my head hurts after reading all this.
BUT, it definately lays out some sound judgement as to the steps that are being taken and why.
Thanks for all the work to put this up.
Cory | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Now that I am done with the trivia...I can finish reading this.
Thanks for putting this up Steve. I read some of it yesterday and found it very interesting. | |
| | |
| The inaccuracy of One particular statement in this document makes me wonder just how much more Mr Neuswanger does not have right?
A post I made on Pastikas site in answer to someone asking if many of the resorts going condo on the flowage would lead to lack of places to stay and lack of resort business. Somehow Dave took it and turned it around to fit his agenda?
Yes I did make the statement that the resort business in Hayward is alive and well and that most of the resorts are filled by March.
However this was a general statement not referring to musky anglers and was instead referring to summer vacationers and tourist trade. The resorts are pretty much full from early June to Labor day.
Where there seems to be a shorfall is in the month of May and again in September and October. This is likely due to smaller walleye bag limits on many alkes and YES the lack of as many musky anglers on many lakes!
Dave, please if you must take one of my statements, do not do it out of context!!!!! I know what I said and it not only refered to the resorts being full in the summer but had nothing to do with the musky fishing.
But you conviently left out that info. | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's your comment, John. If you said this, then you said it, and you can't expect that the statement will only be interpreted or read by people you like or agree with.
'There are some resorts going condo on several lakes, however I have not heard of more that 2 or 3 on the flowage. This happens in most cases not because of a lack of business but instead as a result of simple economics and higher property values. Also just because a resort goes condo does not mean that it will cease to operate as a resort, infact most of them still rent cabins and provide services as they always have done. Don't worry about finding a place to stay and enjoy the area, Actually the resort business is doing quite well in the Hayward area with very few exceptions and most resorts are or will be booked up by the end of March.
John H. Myhre
www.wiscnorthlandoutdoors.com'
Here's the question you answered:
'I have been fishing the Chip for the past 35 years. I recently heard a rumor that numerous reosrts are closing on the Flowage. Is this true? If so which ones?'
Here's the quote from the q&a:
'Regarding economic losses, we wonder what an independent professional economist would say about calculating county-wide economic losses based upon an estimated decrease in one activity (guided trips for trophy muskellunge) without examining what, if any, income-producing activities may have increased as a result of concurrent changes in local fishing opportunity. For example, might there have been a compensatory increase in unguided trips by people who are thrilled to catch 40-inch muskies, which are now more numerous than ever in Sawyer County? Arent those average musky anglers spending money at local resorts, bait shops, restaurants and gas stations too? Did anyone try to measure their increased contribution, if any, to the area economy? In response to a posted concern about Chippewa Flowage resorts by a visitor to Pastikas web forum on 2/27/06, a well-known local fishing guide, resort owner, and outdoor radio talk show host replied, ' Actually the resort business is doing quite well in the Hayward area with very few exceptions and most resorts are or will be booked up by the end of March.'
That's what you posted to Pastikas, and how that post was quoted in the DNR quote, in complete context. I fail to see any misuse of that statement in the q&a.
Can't have things 'both ways', John. There was no inaccuracy in the quote, nor is it out of context. I think the question, statement, and following queston by the DNR is valid, and your comment used EXACTLY in context.
| |
| | |
| Steve;
In essencey You are correct, but still wrong, in what was said but when it was said it had nothing to do with people staying at resorts to musky fish!
When you read the post you will see that it had nothing to do with muskie fishing and as such left a lot out. If I had known I were to be quoted for that purpose I would have included a lot more info that at the time did not feel needed.
If Dave would have done any research or is simply asked me or anyone else he would have found that, yes the resorts are full in the summer between June and Labor Day but have a lot of openings in May, Sept, and October. While the lack of anglers in May is likely due to lower walleye bag limits and the perception that there are less walleyes, which is a whole other subject. All you need to do is venture out onto any of the lakes in the fall to see why. Simply, there are less muskie anglers out there.
Now I am not trying to blast Dave here or saying that all is bad with our musky fishing. We actually have a good number of smaller lakes that are now maybe better than ever but the big lakes like LCO, Grindstone, and Round are simply not even close to where they once were or should be. Could be lots of reasons for this but the fact still remains they need fixing. Still, with all what is going on with the fisheries and media, northern Wisconsin is losing avid musky anglers to elsewhere and replacing them with maybe more less avid anglers who fish for everything, including musies some, and also with people who do not come to the north to fish at all. For whatever the reason this is in fact costing WI tourism it once had in the months of May. Sept, and Oct.
But again, as for quoting me on the resorts, what he did was not right. What's right is right and we all need to be as accurate as we can when we are in a position of putting info out to everyone else. | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You posted what you posted, and it ws quoted elsewhere. What, if someone wants to repeat what you said on that forum elsewhere, they are supposed to call you up and ask if what you said was is open to some other esoteric interpretation? Your comment was in answer to an angler saying he had fished the Chip for years; that angler didn't comment on what he was fishing for, and neither did you.
You said the resorts in the area are doing well and are booked by March in most cases. The claim the Q&A was answering was that there are millions of dollars in losses to Minnesota muskie angling opportunities, and the challlenge is, in essence, 'we would like those claiming that to prove it out, seems way high to us'. The idea here is that it isn't just 55" muskies that draw resort clients; it's good multi-specie angling opportunities and much much more. The question was if indeed the numbers that have been thrown around are correct, and here's the gist:
''Regarding economic losses, we wonder what an independent professional economist would say about calculating county-wide economic losses based upon an estimated decrease in one activity (guided trips for trophy muskellunge) without examining what, if any, income-producing activities may have increased as a result of concurrent changes in local fishing opportunity."
| |
| | |
| Steve;
I responded to the post with the info they wanted, nothing more. If you respond to a post do you not do the same? Or always include info that may not even be relative? Just because I responded to the poster does not infer I would or should either.
No, I do not expect everyone to contact me every time they want to quote me but if I were drafting as important of document as this one, if I were in that position I would and I expect the same from anyone who wanted to quote me.
The fact still remains that he left out a lot that was not there, whether intentionally or not, that should have been included.
As for response to his speculations, I can't speak for specific dollars lost, that's just not my expertise, but as a guide who has spent more than a quarter century plying the Hayward area waters can tell you that there simply are not as many anglers in the fall as we once had and that they are spending less money on guides as well as some other things. That is fact and real! Not speculation.
That being said, I never said that tourism was not good, because it is in the summer even if it has changed considerably in it's base, however it could be better if we had what we once had in the spring and fall and from what I am seeing from the DNR is that they refuse to acknowledge that at all but instead come up with suppositions surmising how great everything always is. | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Left out alot that was not there. Exactly my point. If you do not want to be quoted verbatim, I would suggest you don't post comments on message boards, John.
Where did the DNR say how great ANYTHING is or is not in the Q&A? I see a question and somewhat of a challenge to those talking losses in Hayward area tourism in the millions. I have no idea if those figures are even approaching any reality or if they are possibly less than actual, but those statements have been made, and the response was what it was, a question as to whether an economist might agree.
| |
| | |
| Steve;
I guess I am not supposed to post to simply answer someones basic questions without also posting a whole bunch of negative and non pertinent info without fear of someone bending my statement to mean whatever they want it to??? Come on!
As for the DNR part, that is not why I posted in the first place and really don't want to get into it but as long as you asked, did they not say in the response they wanted to work with the VCB to get their viewpoint out, and are you abosolutely sure thier viewpoint is 100% correct ? Way too many variables and factors involved here to be 100% sure.
What is fact is that there is a problem on some lakes and that same problem as well as perception there is a problem everywhere could also be the reason for the loss. The cost in actual dollars I agree is speculation but it has to be considerable from what I am seeing and hearing. | |
| | |
| John,
are you saying that the area resorts used to be full in September and October?
are you also saying that summer business used to be largely muskie-fishing related, and that this has been replaced by more general fishing/vacationing tourists?
ie., Memorial Day - Labor is full as ever, but that there used to be enough fishing-only business in the fall to fill all those resorts up and this is no longer coming to NW WI?
my "gut" tells me that resorts aren't full in the fall like they are in the summer, and never have been, no matter who the customer base is - but i've got no evidence/experience to base this supposition on.
if you're experience is different, that is quite interesting. does anyone have any real numbers (booking histories perhaps?) to substantiate this?
Edited by lambeau 3/20/2006 1:22 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Who said anything about my perception of either viewpoint? No one 'bent' your statement, sir. You posted EXACTLY what you posted, it's right there to read, in answer to a question which is also right there to read. It isn't murky, unclear, or cryptic, it's what it is. I'm saying only that you can't expect a quote like that to be interpreted any differently than it was, and you certainly shouldn't demand or expect that it should be because you want it to mean different things to different people.
| |
| | |
| Lambeau;
No I did not say the resorts all used to be full up in the spring and fall but most of them have more openings then than they used to have! Just are far less anglers and musky anglers out on the lakes in the spring and fall too. Guides were booked more too.
Also I never said it was mostly a musky based business in the summer, maybe more fishing in general and musky than it is today though.
Sheesh!!!! Maybe need to add a disclaimer to all future posts ? | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| I stand by everything I wrote in the Q&A document, including the accurate quote of a noted area fishing guide, resort owner, and radio talk show host. I never mentioned him by name, but I guess he decided to come forward on his own. His choice.
What is MUCH more interesting to me is the additional analysis I've been able to do with the excellent tagging study data that Rick Bruesewitz has been kind enough to share. Rick is MDNR's Treaty Assessment Biologist on Mille Lacs. Here's a quick summary of his data:
Shoepack Lake fish were stocked in Mille Lacs before 1984. Only fish from Wisconsin were stocked from 1984 through 1987. No fish were actually stocked in 1988. The first Leech Lake fish were stocked in 1989, including a few yearlings of the 1988 year class. Fish were captured, tagged, and aged by MDNR during 1996-1998. Recaptures have been noted ever since. All 13 fish reported to date as recaptures over 50 inches long were from the 1984-1987 year classes (Wisconsin fish). Also, 19 of 26 fish (73%) 45-49 inches long originated as Wisconsin fish stocked during 1984-1987. These are the "Wisconsin hatchery mutts" that the WMRP Team has assured everyone cannot grow fast or get big because of bad genetics. Really?!
The irony of all this, of course, is that much of the outstanding trophy musky fishing in Mille Lacs and other Minnesota lakes over the past five years is probably associated to some extent with the stocking of Wisconsin hatchery fish during 1984-1987, before the Leech Lake broodstock lakes came online for statewide propagation and stocking. We're glad the Wisconsin fish are providing such exciting fishing in Minnesota. And for everyone's sake, we hope the Leech Lake fish displace the Wisconsin fish completely in the years ahead so that outbreeding depression does not compromise the chances for natural reproduction, sustained good growth, and survival to trophy sizes of future generations of Leech Lake strain fish in their native waters.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 3/20/2006 10:02 PM
| |
| | |
| John Myhre - 3/20/2006 4:32 PM
Lambeau;
No I did not say the resorts all used to be full up in the spring and fall but most of them have more openings then than they used to have! Just are far less anglers and musky anglers out on the lakes in the spring and fall too. Guides were booked more too.
Also I never said it was mostly a musky based business in the summer, maybe more fishing in general and musky than it is today though.
Sheesh!!!! Maybe need to add a disclaimer to all future posts ?
actually John i was asking questions because i didn't know the answer and i figured you did.
i wasn't editorializing.
thanks to your information, i have a clearer picture of things now.
why do you believe less muskie anglers are fishing the Hayward area in the fall?
were these traditionally MN anglers who are now fishing closer to home?
if so, do you believe that addressing the issues with the lakes you listed (LCO, Round, Grindstone, etc) will lead those anglers to leave closer waters such as Mille Lacs in favor of NW WI?
what would like to see happen in order to recover the lost numbers of muskie fishermen in the area?
(disclaimer: i'm not saying those issues shouldn't be addressed, i'm just hoping to get a perspective about the economics of things in the area from someone who depends on them for a living)
Edited by lambeau 3/20/2006 7:15 PM
| |
| | |
| Lambeau;
What I feel we have lost are some of the more avid musky anglers in search of bigger fish. No I don't think they were necessarily MN anglers but from all over. Why, just look at any of the musky media and the positive promotion going on for some of the areas where there has been the big fish boom going on.
Whatever can be done should be done to bring some of those bigger lakes that historically produced the biggest fish back to where they once were. If that were to happen, yes it would probably bring some of those anglers back. We may never know. At least we still have a good number of lakes that are better than they were but still those lakes are only producing a good number of mid 40 inch fish and a few bigger. Those larger lakes were always better for the bigger fish in the past.
Dave N;
You've read what I had to say so I won't go into that again except to say that I was informed that someone had suggested you contact me before you quoted what was siad in the post just to ensure you had the right info. As I said before, that post was simply to help someone who was concered about the availability of lodging out with a little info and as such referred to the busy time when loding can and does fill up in the summer. Not the spring and fall when there are more openings available. At the time I did not think that info was needed.
Yes a few of the resorts that cater more towards fishing are booked up more then but there are lots more resorts that are not all that busy too.
If you had asked me I would have provided you with more info and also told you that there are plenty of openings in the spring and fall, more than there used to be anyways. I would have been happy to filled you in on all this but even though someone suggested it you did not ask. I'm sorry if it might offend you but I just don't like for something I said under a totally different set of circumstances being used for something else without all what was not said being included. | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John
WHERE was all this other stuff you didn't say? I posted your entire comment on Pastikas, the whole thing and the question ( from a fisherman, not a jet skier or power boater), nothing excluded, including what you didn't say. Wow. Talk about trying to play both ends against the middle. Sorry John, it just makes me crazy when someone plays both sides of the fence. Not so much when ON the fence, just when both sides seem to be the destination, depending on who's reading.
I suggest you look at that SAME media and all the NEGATIVE press about your area. Look no further, there's a large portion of your problem, IMHO.
Resort owners demanding we leave the 34" limit on when we propose a 50" trophy only protection for many lakes because thay WANT harvest of smaller fish to support tourism, then complaining when big fish are available elsewhere but not at home as much as desired. That is Minnesota next if they don't protect those fish. | |
| | |
| Steve;
Just what part of this is too hard to understand? I am not as you say playing both sides of the fence. I simply said I had a problem with Dave using what was said under a totally different set of circumstances in his document. He was even told by someone else that It might be a good idea to contact me before using it. The only problem with his using it is that it does not accurately tell the whole story as that post related to the summer period only. Do you not think accuracy is important?
You respond however you want but I grow tired of disussing it, my point has been made.
I only respond to this to support the Hayward area and get accurate info out, myself I do just fine and stay as busy as I want, just would like to see a few more bigger fish in some of the lakes.
Yes there has been way too much and in many cases undeserved negative about WI in general and this area as well. I particularly do not like it however, we were losing some of those avid musky anglers before all this. Probably not because of the fishing here as much as what has happened in MN. Like they say, if you build it , they will come.
As for the resorts wanting to keep the 34 inch limit, that's your problem over East. For the most part we do not have problems getting larger size limits established here. I have said all along that harvest is a significant issue we have to look at but then I think stocking practices and genetics are too. Lots of issues involved. | |
| | |
| Dave - "All 13 fish reported to date as recaptures over 50 inches long were from the 1984-1987 year classes (Wisconsin fish). Also, 19 of 26 fish (73%) 45-49 inches long originated as Wisconsin fish stocked during 1984-1987. These are the "Wisconsin hatchery mutts" that the WMRP Team has assured everyone cannot grow fast or get big because of bad genetics. Really?!"
Question for Dave - Where was the spawn taken from that was used for the WI muskies that were stocked into Mille Lacs? Do you know if these WI fish that were stocked into Mille Lacs and other MN lakes you seem to believe are doing so well were the result of spawn taken directly from Bone Lake only, the same lake and fish the WDNR has been using for stocking in NW WI the last 35 years? You might want to check that out before claiming they are the same as the "Wisconsin Hatchery Mutts", A.K.A. Bone lake fish, that the WDNR has stocked for 35 years all over NW WI.
This kind of reminds me of how in the past, and even this time around with the studies to be conducted in the St. Croix drainage, how the WDNR always takes spawn from lakes OTHER than our brood source lake, Bone lake, when they are going to be doing side by side studies or growth studies with other fish. Why would the WDNR suddenly take spawn only from lakes other than Bone lake, our brood source lake for NW WI for the last 35 years, and only when they are going to do these kinds of studies? It makes no sense at all to use spawn taken only from lakes other than the one we actually are using as a brood source for all of NW WI for the last 35 years unless someone believes there is a need to do this for some reason. Would doing this possibly skew the results of the studies one way or another and perhaps hide the truth about how the fish actually being used in our hatchery and for stocking in NW WI would really perform against the competition? I find it very interesting that since Bone Lake became the brood source for the WDNR stocking program for all of NW WI 35 years ago, each time the WDNR has done side by side studies or growth studies against other fish, the WDNR used spawn taken only from lakes in NW WI OTHER than Bone Lake. The muskie stockings that were carried out specifically for these studies were the only times the WDNR took spawn from any lakes in NW WI other than Bone Lake in the last 35 years. Is this just a coincidence?
Why has the WDNR avoided using spawn and/or fish from Bone Lake every time they have done these kinds of studies over the last 35 years and apparently again for these new studies?
John M.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Muskie First. I see you have been welcomed here with open arms by everyone lurking in the land of denial. | |
| | |
| It makes no sense at all to use spawn taken only from lakes other than the one we actually are using as a brood source for all of NW WI for the last 35 years unless someone believes there is a need to do this for some reason.
which by inference suggests that you believe the WDNR has been knowingly, intentionally using fish that would not grow big.
and yet the WDNR has changed their brood source practice this year based on good science.
when you're convinced that someone is "out to get you" (especially a large institution) it tends to skew the way you see everything they do.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Muskie First. I see you have been welcomed here with open arms by everyone lurking in the land of denial.
how is posting something like that helpful?
how does it make you look like someone people would want to hold discourse with?
i'm a part of MuskieFIRST and i don't consider myself "living in denial", nor do i think it about you. | |
| | |
| The Chippewa Flowage has been stocked with more than 3 million Bone Lake muskies over the last 35 years. Is that good science? If the DNR is not able to get the eggs they need for the hatchery from there then Bone Lake will be used as a backup even though Dr. Sloss has said they should not be using Bone Lake. Is that good science? Maybe he should have said not to use muskies from Bone lake or any other lake that has been stocked with over 3 million Bone lake muskies instead?
Just wondering why when the DNR has done any side by side studies or growth studies against other fish, why they have always elected to take spawn from lakes other than the lake that has been used as our brood source for muskie stocking in all of NW WI for the last 35 years. Instead they take spawn taken from other lakes and use those fingerlings for these studies? That is a legitimate question I would think. And I'm not sure if this would be considered good science either. | |
| | |
| Dave - "Only fish from Wisconsin were stocked from 1984 through 1987. No fish were actually stocked in 1988. The first Leech Lake fish were stocked in 1989, including a few yearlings of the 1988 year class. Fish were captured, tagged, and aged by MDNR during 1996-1998. Recaptures have been noted ever since. All 13 fish reported to date as recaptures over 50 inches long were from the 1984-1987 year classes (Wisconsin fish). Also, 19 of 26 fish (73%) 45-49 inches long originated as Wisconsin fish stocked during 1984-1987."
Another question. How do you know that the fish that were tagged in 1996-1998 were WI fish? From the info you have provided here they apparently were not tagged when they were stocked so how can you be so sure of this? There were also LL fish there from 1989 on. They could have been LL fish unless you left out some info.
Also, how did they age these fish in 96-98? You know as well as I do that aging fish older than about 5 years of age using scale samples can be very inaccurate. How were these fish aged?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJ, I believe that is information the MNDNR provided, perhaps Dave can go into more detail.
I'm really weary of the constant attack on this forum by your people. I've known John for many years and think he's a great guy, but will not leave unchallenged conspiracy theory double standard rhetoric in this discussion. If you have a problem with staying to the facts and away from personal attacks or negative rhetoric that is not germane to the discussion that's unfortunate, but MuskieFIRST won't alter our posting policies and permissions or our editorial policies to make you or John or anyone else feel warm and fuzzy. | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John,
If you research the subject, you will find some resort owners on the Chip and from other lakes in that area were dead set against a size increase during the first attempts to increase trophy lake limits to 50". It's a Wisconsin problem, and isn't an east or west thing. | |
| | |
| In 1981, the Wisconsin DNR did a "growth study." That year they did NOT take eggs from Bone Lake that year! Why?
In 1984 (the first year of Mr. Neuswanger's Mille Lacs stocking example above), the Wisconsin DNR did growth studies with the MN DNR. They did NOT take eggs from Bone Lake that year! Why?
The Minnesota DNR had their OWN Wisconsin strain brood stock lake. Where did those fish come from? Was it "those" fish that were used to stock Mille Lacs???
Did the MN DNR's "Wisconsin strain" muskies come from IOWA? And if so, where did those fish come from??
Many questions, but obviously those answers weren't researched before Mr. Neuswanger made his "finding!" | |
| | |
| brain function research with people who hold strong partisan political views found interesting results.
when exposed to information from the "other" side of the political fence, it was perceived as threatening and the emotion-centers of the brain were highly activated; the cognition portions of the brain were not activated much at all.
that's right, when given information that doesn't match their pre-existing beliefs, people respond based on their feelings and don't think.
when the genetic mapping project is completed on WI muskies, we'll actually have information to think about and make meaning from in regards to where fish were taken from and whether or not that impacted the results of side-by-side growth studies.
throwing mud in each other's faces is more about feeling than thinking...
Edited by lambeau 3/21/2006 8:18 AM
| |
| | |
| Steve:
Thanks for the compliment, however I am not part of any conspiracy theory as you put it. I simply had a problem with what I felt was incomplete and inaccurate info being used to draft an important document.
Yes the reisistance to size limits is a WI thing but we seem to have less of a problem over here with it as evidenced by the percentage of our lakes that are managed with size limits of 40 to 50 inches. On a side note to that, some of the lakes that have the 50 inch limit are the same ones that once produced good numbers of big fish but not are not???
As for the conspiracy theory thing you brought up.
While I don't want to believe such things could go on, I can also see where some are coming from.
I personally believe that our DNR personel want to see the best they can in our natural resources, however they are part of a Bureaucracy that has in fact done quite a few things that could cause some to think otherwise.
I could go into citing some instances and names but I still have to much respect for a lot of DNR people to do that, and I do mean that!
Just wish the DNR as a a whole would learn to accept responsibility when they do make a mistake instead of coming up with a myriad of other reasons why it went wrong and shifting the blame.
Also wish they would accept the fact that there are a lot of folks out there with an IQ higher than minus one and that some besides them have good info and some ideas worht pursuing. | |
| | |
| You know all this bickering doesn't need to happen if our lakes are just plain and simply stocked. Is the Mississippi strain or the WI strain better? Yes and no......but we need fish stocked either way. Why is one of the best lakes in the country for producing huge muskie (Round Lake) sitting with an unfishable population right now? That is unexcusable!!!! Now I know you like to back up the DNR Steve, but if you haven't seen what has happened up here you might want to listen to Eric and the WRMP just to get a few of our lakes to the fishable populations they once were. If you have spent your whole life up here you could have seen what was and now discracefully what is. Is it because of overharvest, spearing, or natural reproduction? No!!! Stocking can be used to combat all of that just the same way Cave Run does it, White Bear in MN does it, and many other areas have also. Are we losing fall muskie fishermen? #*^@ right! Why would the people that used to fish LCO and Round Lake even think about coming up here now? Unless a boat ride is their preference there is no need to waste the hours on those lakes these days. I think you would have a little different view on things if this were Pelican or the Goon that were totally overlooked. What if the DNR stopped stocking Pelican? I think you'd be just a little upset about the whole thing. Well we, meaning the people that know the lakes and area up here, know a little more than you do just as you know way more than I do about Pelican. Sometimes you just have to let the John Myhre's of the world rant a little because he actually knows what he is talking about. Might not say it right in the heat of passioon, but he knows nonetheless.
Is the strain a problem up here? More so, stocking in general is a problem.
I like our DNR agents up here and maybe it's beyond their grasps. There could be other problems we don't know about in the system.
Sorry for the rant,
Ty | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Curious - 3/21/2006 7:42 AM
In 1981, the Wisconsin DNR did a "growth study." That year they did NOT take eggs from Bone Lake that year! Why?
In 1984 (the first year of Mr. Neuswanger's Mille Lacs stocking example above), the Wisconsin DNR did growth studies with the MN DNR. They did NOT take eggs from Bone Lake that year! Why?
The Minnesota DNR had their OWN Wisconsin strain brood stock lake. Where did those fish come from? Was it "those" fish that were used to stock Mille Lacs???
Did the MN DNR's "Wisconsin strain" muskies come from IOWA? And if so, where did those fish come from??
Many questions, but obviously those answers weren't researched before Mr. Neuswanger made his "finding!"
Another Oliver Stone....now it is a 35-year-old conspiracy, this is pathetic.
When the WMRP first appeared I was a supporter 100%…after listening to their rhetoric over the last year I am now a 0% supporter.
Can somebody from the WMRP answer a few questions for me?
1. Wasn’t it part of your mission statement that you wanted to have eggs gathered from the Chippewa Flowage? Wasn’t that listed as a preference over the Leach Lake strain? Isn’t that is what is being done this year? Yet, you guys don’t seem to be satisfied. Lockjaw seems to be implying that the side by side study that is starting this year should use Bone Lake brood. What is with that?
2. Wasn’t the WMRP opposed to the work being done by Dr. Sloss? Didn’t you guys change your tune on this position AFTER you found out he was telling the WDNR that they should change their brood lake?
3. Does the WMRP believe in Dr. Casselman’s maximum growth work? That each body of water has it’s own maximum growth rate?
4. Does the WMRP believe that Muskies, regardless of strain or should I say perceived strain, will perform better in lakes when they are first introduced into a lake?
5. What does the WMRP feel about the Bone Lake “mutts” performing very well in Rice Lake?
6. What does the WMRP have to say about the performance of the Leach Lake strain in Illinois?
7. Does the WMRP have the support of any fisheries bioligist’s? Anywhere?
| |
| | |
Posts: 190
| SLAMR I agree with, it is apples and oranges when we consider number of lakes and quantity stocked. But it comes down to the same thing I think, a program that works for a given area and people that are willing and interested in finding that program and making it possible along with identifying the problems and solving them the best way possible big or small. Like I said I am an outsider and this is an outsiders point of view not meant at bashing or pointing fingers but also a point of view from a vacationer and a serious musky fisherman that very much enjoys the chance at huge fish.I do not think anyone can challenge the overall beauty of the Hayward area but that mixed with better genetics would keep me coming back with my son as he grows into the fisherman he is trying to be for many years to come...........Doug | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ty,
Chill, dude. I am not 'supporting' the DNR, I am supporting fact and reasonable debate while attempting to force unruly behavior into the time-out corner. It's possible to debate this with out uncalled for accusations, which is what got my friend John in hot water with me. He took the ill advised WMRT tact in his first post here in attacking the DNR because he didn't like a QUOTE HE MADE being re-quoted EXACTLY IN CONTEXT. Here's what he posted:
"Dave, please if you must take one of my statements, do not do it out of context!!!!! I know what I said and it not only refered to the resorts being full in the summer but had nothing to do with the musky fishing.
But you conviently left out that info."
John, read your own post, you were and are out of line by any measure of reasonable debate. That's not discussion and debate, it's exactly what Lambeau indicated in his last post. If you don't want quotes used in public, don't post quotes that CAN be. That's the press, my friend, and you need to be accountable at all times if you choose to be a public representative of that community. The question you answered was posed by a fisherman, and it could have been a Muskie angler, no one knows.
As far as 'letting people vent', that's a slippery slope in this business. If folks think they can indiscriminately throw stones based on emotion and perception, the entire discussion becomes what I call 'train wreck'; basically just a fight. That's a terrible atmosphere in which to have a discussion where there is any chance of reality coming to light or consensus and positive action undetaken as a result. Yes, this forum is tightly moderated, and for good reason. EJ likes to attack that, which is indicative of why he has a problem with us in the first place; it's a self fulfilling prophesy if one starts out with an emotional attack and ends with an emotional attack. When that isn't present, things flow here pretty well.
Stay to facts, keep the discussion civil, don't get personal, and don't 'accuse'. This is a State issue, as has been indicated, and isn't just one or two DNR folks responsibility. The issues are complicated and hard for the average guy to get his arms around, and therefore easy to muck up by appealing to the emotional side of things. It's my job to see that doesn't happen. SOme folks see that as bias, but if you were to look carefully, you'd see it's nothing more than my desire to keep the discussion on a reasonably professional level.
TY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The DNR------ HAS----- stopped------ stocking------Pelican Lake-----and many others in this area. They quit stocking my favorite lake several years ago, and will not for at least another dozen years. With the kill rate there in the hundreds per year as recently as the late 1990's and the safe harvest rate closer to 40, it's obvious that the lake cannot withstand this pressure and hold any sort of fishable trophy potential, or for that matter a decent population of muskies due to poor NR. Norm Wild, Mike Roberts, and I (Mostly Mike and Norm, I just do the media stuff and offer support wherever I can) have embarked on a crusade to get a 50" limit on Pelican, working WITH the DNR and Pelican Lake Association, supporters AND detractors to get the facts out and a vote on this April's ballot. It is there, and we'd appreciate your help with this subject when it comes to vote this April 10th.
I could have chosen to attack everyone I could think of and blamed them for the decline that is inevitable in Pelican, but instead chose to join two very dedicated conservationists in an effort to protect this valuable fishery, enlisting the help of the same folks many are demonizing, getting ALL the facts, and in the end, hoping we can get all this past the Conservation Congress this Spring. If we don't, IMHO Pelican is done for.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| EJohnson - 3/21/2006 7:15 AM
Dave - "Only fish from Wisconsin were stocked from 1984 through 1987. No fish were actually stocked in 1988. The first Leech Lake fish were stocked in 1989, including a few yearlings of the 1988 year class. Fish were captured, tagged, and aged by MDNR during 1996-1998. Recaptures have been noted ever since. All 13 fish reported to date as recaptures over 50 inches long were from the 1984-1987 year classes (Wisconsin fish). Also, 19 of 26 fish (73%) 45-49 inches long originated as Wisconsin fish stocked during 1984-1987."
Another question. How do you know that the fish that were tagged in 1996-1998 were WI fish? From the info you have provided here they apparently were not tagged when they were stocked so how can you be so sure of this? There were also LL fish there from 1989 on. They could have been LL fish unless you left out some info.
Also, how did they age these fish in 96-98? You know as well as I do that aging fish older than about 5 years of age using scale samples can be very inaccurate. How were these fish aged?
These are all questions that I asked (more diplomatically, of course) of the Minnesota DNR biologists who provided me with the information about Mille Lacs and the Minnesota musky program in general. The questions were answered to my satisfaction. I am 100% confident of MDNR's judgement and interpretation of these data, as reported. If anyone has a problem believing this information because it is SO inconsistent with the WMRP allegation that most Wisconsin-source fish are incapable of growing fast or getting big due to 100+ years of mixing "slow-growth strains" in our hatchery system, then I suggest they contact the Minnesota DNR and get the Mille Lacs story from the MDNR biologists themselves. It's obvious that some people are not going to believe me, so the logical solution for them is to go directly to the source of the information. The Minnesota biologists I consulted with about all this (Younk, Reed, and Bruesewitz) definitely know what they're doing.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 2752
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | lambeau - 3/21/2006 8:17 AM
brain function research with people who hold strong partisan political views found interesting results.
when exposed to information from the "other" side of the political fence, it was perceived as threatening and the emotion-centers of the brain were highly activated; the cognition portions of the brain were not activated much at all.
that's right, when given information that doesn't match their pre-existing beliefs, people respond based on their feelings and don't think.
when the genetic mapping project is completed on WI muskies, we'll actually have information to think about and make meaning from in regards to where fish were taken from and whether or not that impacted the results of side-by-side growth studies.
throwing mud in each other's faces is more about feeling than thinking...
Lambeau- Thank you! Are you also a "pet psychic"?
Have fun!
Al | |
| | |
| Dave
I figured you would choose not answer that question. But not answering actually says a lot.
What about the WDNR not using fish raised from Bone Lake, our brood stock lake, for its growth studies in the past? Why was this done? Got an answer for that one?
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| EJohnson - 3/24/2006 11:53 AM
Dave
I figured you would choose not answer that question. But not answering actually says a lot.
What about the WDNR not using fish raised from Bone Lake, our brood stock lake, for its growth studies in the past? Why was this done? Got an answer for that one?
Mr. Johnson,
I just completed a 20-page document answering musky angler questions about this issue. Your current question is really for the Minnesota DNR. It is their judgement being questioned here, not mine. You seem to be pretty fond of them, so I suggest you give them a call. I don't want to speak for them.
Speaking of answering questions, is anyone from the WMRP Team going to respond to the questions posed by Troy Schoonover (Bytor) in his earlier response to "Curious" on this thread? Those were some good ones. I'm curious to hear how the WMRP would explain some of the inconsistencies and contradictions referenced in those questions.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 3/24/2006 3:54 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Eric,
Quoted---
'These are all questions that I asked (more diplomatically, of course) of the Minnesota DNR biologists who provided me with the information about Mille Lacs and the Minnesota musky program in general. The questions were answered to my satisfaction. I am 100% confident of MDNR's judgement and interpretation of these data, as reported.'
How is that not an answer? Mr. Neuswanger specifically says he got the information he posted about the Mille Lacs fish directly from the MNDNR biologists, and that they can be contacted if you don't want to take his word for it.
Give them a call. Dave listed names, so finding those numbers shouldn't be too difficult, I wouldn't think.
As to the last question, isn't it the WMRT premise that ALL fish from all hatcheries in Wisconsin are hopelessly genetically 'mixed', and are all basically unable to grow to large size or grow fast? Isn't that part of the stock mixing timeline summary and a basic premise of your groups entire platform? And what studies are you talking about, specifically? Why would it be any different, from what your group has claimed, if the fish in any study were from the Hatchery in Woodruff? | |
| | |
| Mr. Neuswanger:
I believe Mr. Johnson's question was for you/WDNR regarding why eggs were not taken from Bone Lake during study years 1981 and 1984, questions I asked earlier, along with others that to date you have not responded to.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Steve:
Please don't take this wrong, but you seem to have selective memory when it comes to what the WMRP has said. We have never said that "all" hatchery fish cannot grow large or fast. We have cited Art Oehmcke's work of the 60's and the "huge" average size difference he found between various brood stock lakes of the Woodruff hatcher..."most" with an average female size of 33 inches and "some" with an average female size of 44 inches!
On your side of the state, where multiple brood sources have been used continuously, you still occasionally get the "good stuff."
Over here in the NW, it is no secret that LCO is for all intents and purposes "dead" and any eggs taken from it in the past quarter century or more are nothing like what LCO "used" to have, unless they happened to capture one of the few remaining native strain fish. Bone Lake was the PRIMARY brood stock lake for the Spooner hatchery in 44 of the last 49 years! Two of those "execption years" were noted above; 1981 when a growth study was done, and 1984; when MN/WI growth studies were done.
As was asked and not answered, WHY did the DNR "not" take eggs from Bone Lake during those two study years, as well as a third example in 1994, when the Illinois Natural History Survey Genetic study was started, and again eggs were NOT taken from Bone Lake; WHY???
I don't believe that those are unfair question to ask answers of from the DNR, do you?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/24/2006 6:36 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I just have trouble some days keeping up with the landscape as to what the WMRT means about which fish are genetically no good anymore and why. I don't have time tonight to drag out all the commentary, but will try in the next few days to locate each point.
What did that study indicate, and why would it be important that fish from Bone were used as you insinuate? Where were those fish from, and what significance is there to attach to that information? Who made the decision to use fish from those sources? Since you are here demanding answers about what happened in 1982 or so from a DNR representative who's been here a couple years, let's hear your iterpretation of the genetic study done in the early 80's, and what the conclusions of that work were. Let's also investigate why fish were selected from the waters they were. Let's hear your interpretation of the results from the genetic study in the early 80's, and the results of 94 work, let's hear the answers you get from the scientists that did that work, too. Give 'em a call.
Then I'd like tio hear why fish did and are doing so well in Rice Lake and why they are doing so well in Mille Lacs. I'd also like you to call the MN DNR, those names are in a post above. Ask them if the representation of those Mille Lacs fish is correct.
| |
| | |
| why would it be important that fish from Bone were used as you insinuate? Where were those fish from, and what significance is there to attach to that information? Who made the decision to use fish from those sources? Since you are here demanding answers about what happened in 1982 or so from a DNR representative who's been here a couple years, let's hear your iterpretation of the genetic study done in the early 80's, and what the conclusions of that work were. Let's also investigate why fish were selected from the waters they were. Let's hear your interpretation of the results from the genetic study in the early 80's, and the results of 94 work, let's hear the answers you get from the scientists that did that work, too. Give 'em a call.
to me the inferences are pretty straightforward, and valid (to a certain point): the vast majority of fish stocked into NW WI are from Bone Lake brood (44 of 49 years, according to Mr. Ramsell's research), yet the fish used in growth studies are not from Bone Lake brood.
IF one assumes that genetics are key to growth, and IF one assumes Bone Lake fish and study fish from other area lakes have different genetics, and the WI strain fish did favorably in those growth studies, then those studies cannot be seen as evidence about the the Bone Lake fish growth potential.
that's basic good science; however predicated on a number of big IFs.
regardless, it leads to the following conclusions:
1) Bone Lake fish are inferior and shouldn't be used for brood
2) non-Bone Lake fish are better and should be used for brood instead
3) non-Bone Lake fish compare favorably to Leech strain fish in side-by-side studies
but wait! the DNR is changing it's practices on this issue.
they are no longer using Bone Lake fish and are using the "better" fish for brood stock, the same fish which compared favorably to the Leech strain fish in the side-by-side studies.
is there a reason to keep beating on it other than sticking our tongues out at the DNR?
by changing their practice based on input from a genetic scientist, what they are saying in effect is that they were doing it wrong in the past.
what else is being looked for on this one?
you can't disqualify the side-by-side growth studies validity by saying the DNR was using non-Bone Lake brood when the DNR has switched to using non-Bone Lake fish for their brood - fish which HAVE performed favorably when compared to Leech strain fish. the MN DNR chose Leech strain because they were a good performing LOCAL fish, not because they did better than the WI fish. if we've got a comparably good performing LOCAL fish of our own, why not use it?
is the goal of the WMRP to get better fish into area lakes or to get Leech strain into area lakes?
isn't the DNRs changes to practice going to improve fish quality?
Edited by lambeau 3/25/2006 2:13 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's what has created some of my questions about the inference LCO, Bone, or Minocqua fish were or were not used in studies, and what possible point the folks asking are trying to make.
WMRT:
'Since Bone Lake has “been managed for muskellunge since 1935.” (Cornelius & Margenau 1999), if there were any stockings into Bone Lake in 1935 thru 1938, they would have had to have come from direct transfers of netted fish from Lac Court Oreilles (there is no “direct” mention of the Bone Lake population being established this way in any literature we have reviewed to date. Johnson did say in TB #49 that the initial “introductions” in Bone Lake were from LCO). After the initial stocking, Bone Lake could have also received muskies from Wisconsin River drainage stock via the Woodruff hatchery as well. Due to the poor stocking records of that period, we will likely never know. What we do know though, is that the LCO stock was NOT pure in 1935, and if fish were netted from LCO for stocking into Bone, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of those fish were fish of the Wisconsin River drainage after “at least” two years of stocking LCO from the Woodruff Hatchery!'
And:
'We feel strongly that the current state of our brood stock MUST be corrected IMMEDIATELY! To return to the “glory days,” the Wisconsin DNR “decision makers” must acknowledge that over 100 years of stock “mixing” has indeed created a statewide “hatchery strain” of muskies. Only “selective egg taking” from remnant large growth potential native stocks, or an immediate switch to the only known pure stock of large strain muskies left in existence, the Mississippi River strain, can return Wisconsin to its rightful place in the muskie world. We MUST begin NOW. Wisconsin Musky Tourism and future trophy muskie fishing depends on it!!'
And:
'In all likelihood every lake in NW Wisconsin that was stocked in 1956 received Big Spider lake Muskies. (I'd like the DNR to comment on that also.) Since LCO was still a brood lake, these BSL fish undoubtedly left LCO to be stocked all over the state in later years in any case.'
And:
'
Since I have it handy, let's go back again to the statement in TB #49 (I know it is not included in the graphs there, as that study didn't get specifically into that aspect. However, I believe the statement: "Essentially, the known-age muskellunge in the three lakes (LCO, Bone, Big Spider) were derived from Lac Court Oreilles brood fish. Even muskellunge spawned from BONE LAKE in later years were from this strain, because the initial introductions had been from Lac Court Oreilles. THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OCCURRED IN 1956 WHEN MOST OF THE FINGERLINGS STOCKED WERE DERIVED FROM A SLOW-GROWING POPULATION OF MUSKELLUNGE FROM BIG SPIDER LAKE."
The sentence preceding that last sentence in the quote refers directly to Bone Lake ONLY. '
And:
RE: Dr. Sloss's work, which is employing new techinques, equipment, and science not even imaginable in 1984--
'This new genetic sampling proposal will do exactly the same thing with the Wisconsin stocks that have been created and mixed, as well as stocked into native-natural muskie lakes in Wisconsin over the past 130 years!'
And:
'Your reply to Bob regarding "outbreeding depression" is intersting. We have heard that elsewhere also. However, what those gentlemen need to consider, is that ever since those Big Spider Lake fish were stocked in LCO and Bone Lake and became mature, they have been spawning those fish, raising them at the hatchery and stocking them right back into Bone and LCO. They didn't "disappear" as some have suggested. We contend that those fish are the ONLY fish they are getting viable eggs from during years they take eggs at 38-42 degrees.'
And:
'
You missed my point completely. I was NOT referring necessarily to cross-breeding, although it IS known to happen. My point was that once the Big Spider Lake fish got mature, about 1960 or 1961, it is entirely reasonable to assume that in the egg taking process, especially in Bone Lake, a NON-native lake, they did in fact continuously take eggs from BSL fish, raise them in the hatchery and stock them back into Bone Lake (and LCO) EVERY YEAR. Pretty hard for them to "disappear" when they are continuously propagated! '
And:
'Spider Lake fish were taken from Spider Lake (a lake with no pike and a lake where the muskies do not grow) and put into LCO in 1956 (a lake with better environments and a history of producing extremely large fish) and 19 years later they found 19 year old Spider Lake fish in LCO that were still in the low 30 inch size. 33 inches if I remember correctly. Then fish were taken from LCO and put into Bone Lake. What fish were taken from LCO and put into Bone lake? Pure LCO strain? Spider Lake strain? Or a mixed breed of the two? Or possibly a combination of all three? Based on the size structure of the fish in Bone lake, I know what my guess would be.
Another thing is this. The DNR needs to explain to the WI public what thier definition is of "mixing". They have told us directly to our faces that they do not know what we have for a muskie strain in WI due to the mixing of strains over the years. Now they turn around and say there has been no mixing?
Also they say that they are using "wild fish". This doesn't mean squat! The MDNR could have kept using its "wild strain" of Shoepack fish and still be in the same situation WI is in. The DNR needs to explain what thier definition is of "wild fish" to the WI public. Even if they are "wild fish",....why would we want "Wild fish" that do not grow large or naturally reproduce? I don't. I'll take a pure strain thats been proven to grow large and has successfull naturall reproducion over the "wild fish" that we are using everytime single time'
And:
'Ramsell: Yes they did, and that has been a major point of contention throughout these past months. That they are "wild" is a given. However, the DNR's own Research Scientists studies have on multiple occasions indicated that they have indeed been "mixed" in BOTH hatchery systems. There was mixing within LCO "before" they moved some fish to Bone Lake and created a musky population there and, again, in 1956 they stocked the KNOWN (again DNR Research Scientists studies) small growing stain muskies from the "allopatric" stock in Big Spider Lake into both LCO and Bone. In addition, DNR hatchery stocking records indicate that fish from the Woodruff hatchery in the Wisconsin River drainage have ALSO been "mixed" with Bone and LCO fish in 2000 (as far back as we obtained records). YES, they have indeed been "mixed!" If they "meant" to say that they have never been mixed with fish from outside of Wisconsin, that may or may not be true. We are still following up on information in that regard. Unfortunately our neighbors cannot say we have not mixed "our" fish with theirs.'
And:
'
Earlier, as I was reveiwing the Woodruff hatchery sheets, I missed one that was printed on two sides. I 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!!
Is it any wonder our trophy fishing has declined? It is EXACTLY as we have maintained all along. Our muskie stocks are so mixed up, and with small strain stocks to boot, that there is no way to sort it all out. Overstocking with the only known pure Mississippi River strain left, as Minnesota did, is the only sure way to fix it! It has been extremely successful there, and it can be here in Wisconsin too.'
And:
'NOW, STILL MORE "NEW" FINDINGS:
After I finally had time to figure out an acronym, I discovered yet another interesting stocking fact from 2004. In addition to the Woodruff hatchery doing some stocking in the Spooner hatchery waters of the Chippewa River drainage, there were 17 lakes in Lincoln, ONEIDA, and Vilas county that were stocked from the Spooner hatchery mixed small strain stock into the Wisconsin River drainage waters in 2004.
I know Mr. Worrall usually plays devils advocate, but this continual hatchery stock mixing across drainages, a seeming trend, leads to a logical question. Is the DNR intentionally trying to create one large homogeneous "hatchery strain" of muskies in Wisconsin, in order to close down one hatchery? Please don't take this as an accusation, rather just a simple question. If this is the plan to save additional budget dollars, the tax-payers have a right to know. Since muskie stocking was cut 50% two years ago and some are saying another 25% is in the works, it certainly makes one wonder.'
And:
'I personally think your question leads directly back to "what" was stocked. Research Report #172 (1996) clearly shows that Minocqua strain muskies (Wisconsin River drainage-Woodruff hatchery) were stocked into Butternut Lake (Chippewa River drainage-Spooner hatchery responsibility). This, combined with other "mixed strain" stocking from the Spooner hatchery, to me, defines the problem. I am not discounting possible "overstocking," but I still believe that the fish being stocked to be more of a problem than the numbers.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. the premise is clearly submitted that the fish in all drainages are hopelessly 'mixed' and are as a result incapable of good and sustained growth.
Where DID the study fish in the questions by Curious (apparently Larry) and demands made by 'Guest' come from? Minocqua? LCO? The Wisconsin River? Read the above again. And the results of one of the studies, in the early 80's, was that as I uinderstand it, indicating that the ONE gene studied was inherent in those fish as it was in Shoepac fish? Did it also indicate the Leech fish had that same characteristic?
Wouldn't it be fair to say that the capacity of the science of the day back in 1984 and for that matter the 1990's isn't even CLOSE to what geneticists can do with the equipment, techniques, accomplishments and understanding of the field today? And WHAT will the scientists, as even more technology is developed and the field of genetics advances, know TOMORROW? Would't it be fair to say what was strongly supported by the scientific study and community of yesterday might be radically different than what is accepted as fact today, and that that might be subject to the cold hard light of new science tomorrow? I'm trying to express a rather simple principle that all working scientists are keenly aware of; working with the still proven science of yesterdayand discarding that which has been disproven or influenced by advance while performing the science of today and addressing the research for the advancement of today's science for tomorrow....I might not have said that as well as I need to, but I hope the reader gets what I'm shooting at here.
And I again ask, of what significance is the question about using fish other than Bone Lake fish in a couple studies? What is the origin of Bone lake stock? How does that in ANY way indicate some weird grand conspiracy by BOTH the WDNR and those involved in those studies???
lambeau,
It appears that the fish in Rice Lake are from the stock that is accused of what is listed above. According to what I can find out, so were the fish stocked in Mille Lacs, they were certainly Wisconsin fish from what is described above as "one large homogeneous "hatchery strain" of muskies in Wisconsin" at one point. I'm still having trouble seeing how the premise clearly put forth can be what it's claimed.
If one was to take this as intended by the author, the Butternut fish that are on the docket for potential transfer to LCO should be netted and sent there this April, no questions asked, as those fish are, basically, one and the same as the LCO population at this date. I believe Dr. Sloss will let us know if that is fact. If it is fact, it doesn't mean this is a result of 'mixing' as is claimed, look at the responses by scientists, and the symposium documents for reference, I'm sure I can get you more to read if needed.
The fish in Rice Lake, a secret until this year, are unquestionably from NW Wisconsin sources. If the premise that the fish from there are as represented as above, the success of this initial 'new reservoir syndrome' success would be highly unlikely to impossible, just like Lake George, the Moen, the Wisconsin River, and other waters kicking out more 50's now than in the past. My little Lkae X REALLY would be an anomoly.
Here is my debate position, nutshelled :
The WMRT doesn't have to be correct, just emotional and loud because they answer to no one. They don't NEED to be careful and absolute, prove anything at all, or even be qualified to analyze the data with management goals in mind, which they are not. They can pick out information that reads well to support their platform, and ignore that which doesn't. I have emails from some of the most respected fisheries scientists, geneticists, and fisheries managers in North America, all encouraging MuskieFIRST to keep the subject debatable and as open and honest as is possible allowing the facts to be presented. I've REALLY tried to do exactly that. Those claiming to have a silver bullet fix can claim whatever they wish, and then demand the DNR prove or disprove sometimes wild, sometimes irresponsible, and always overstated and loaded with attack verbage and demonization cue material. I have said this before; that is an IMHO distasteful tactic used in the filed of politics all the time. Look it up. Google the concept, there's a huge reading base available. They insult the scientists openly, and attempt to decide for ALL of us what should be done with a very complicated management strategy and force the issue by threat. From the very beginning they have told those in the DNR that they can agree and do so immediately and without condition and be made 'heros' or expect 'WAR' and be made villians. That, sorry to say, is a fact. The focus has shifted from accelerated evolution, to Big Spider Lake fish to conspiracy theory to economic disaster and all points in between.
Lambeau once gave the perfect response to all that. Instead, the folks responsible for the Muskie management here listened, looked at the work already in process since 1998, and actually DID cooperate with reasonable and measured work by Muskie Clubs and groups. The results are posted. Mr. Neuswanger has withstood repeated attacks, ridiculous and unseemly statements, and has attempted to answer all questions here and elsewhere pertaining to his management area, sometimes reacting just a bit but always offering the science, reason, and application of both to the present and future management goals and plans. Whether one agrees or doesn't, one certainly should respect his steady temper and above the call desire to educate the public. You see, the DNR DOES have to be correct, careful, and absolute as is possible, cannot USE emotion and demonization as an effective debate tool if they want to retain credibility, and other than a couple times where tempers really flared, the entire DNR has done a pretty good job of holding the fort. I hope that the continuing discussion can be held to a higher standard, for the sake of the reader here, and our understanding of this subject and the beliefs of all sides of the issue.
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Could the the WMRP please answer these questions.
Bytor - 3/21/2006 1:32 PM
1. Wasn’t it part of your mission statement that you wanted to have eggs gathered from the Chippewa Flowage? Wasn’t that listed as a preference over the Leach Lake strain? Isn’t that is what is being done this year? Yet, you guys don’t seem to be satisfied. Lockjaw seems to be implying that the side by side study that is starting this year should use Bone Lake brood. What is with that?
2. Wasn’t the WMRP opposed to the work being done by Dr. Sloss? Didn’t you guys change your tune on this position AFTER you found out he was telling the WDNR that they should change their brood lake?
3. Does the WMRP believe in Dr. Casselman’s maximum growth work? That each body of water has it’s own maximum growth rate?
4. Does the WMRP believe that Muskies, regardless of strain or should I say perceived strain, will perform better in lakes when they are first introduced into a lake?
5. What does the WMRP feel about the Bone Lake “mutts” performing very well in Rice Lake?
6. What does the WMRP have to say about the performance of the Leech Lake strain in Illinois?
7. Does the WMRP have the support of any fisheries bioligist’s? Anywhere?
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Here’s my opinion on LCO and maybe some of the other lakes in the area. I have gone back and forth on the Leech Lake Musky issue, but right now it’s a moot point.
FACE FACTS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET LEECHERS INTO LCO ANYTIME SOON?
So what can be done NOW!
It’s already protected with a 50” limit.
You can’t do anything immediate about the pike.
You can’t do anything immediate about the spearing.
You can’t do anything immediate about natural reproduction.
What can be done? STOCK THE $HIT OUT OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The WMRP claim that the bone lakers, don’t reproduce anyway, especially in LCO so why not dump as many fish as possible into the lake NOW. Support the Butternut transfer and it’s like stocking over 7500 fingerlings and you don’t need to wait the 5 to 7 years for them to reach a fun size. There are so many ifs and buts we all just don’t know, maybe they won’t reproduce there, if that’s the case maybe down the road leechers could be stocked there cross that bridge later. Maybe with it’s forage base it will start producing trophy fish again, if enough can make it through the gauntlet there.
Petition to remove the silly 2500 fish limit form LCO and any other lake that may need more fish per year, raise the money and STOCK, STOCK, STOCK.
Let the biologist figure out the genetics, in the mean time STOCK what you can and try and save a fishery that everyone says is DEAD!
Here’s an interesting idea for a study:
Look at the stocking level on Rice Lake over the last 10 years.
Match that on LCO over the next 10 years and see if it make a difference.
I understand totally different waters, but if LCO has the forage to sustain it, give it a try what is there to loose on a lake everyone, including the WDNR admits has serious problems. No baby steps needed and if you can’t take the leap in the Genetics direction, why not try leap in a different direction.
Ty mentioned Pelican in his post and I can tell you if Pelican ever reached the point that LCO is apparently at, this is what I would be pushing for. Hey maybe stocking LCO with Leechers would be a good idea, it doesn’t matter any more that battle is lost, move on and try to make a difference NOW!
Have a pike tourney, and fry, on LCO and use the money raised to stock MUSKY. The first annual “Fillet a Pike, Stock a Ski festival”
Just my opinion, but I don’t see the constant arguing going anywhere.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey Mike,
I'll have a copy of the LCO management plan tomorrow from Dave Neuswanger. Give me a call!
There is a plan to move 500 adult fish from Butternut over to LCO, if Dr. Sloss says it's a good transfer. That will do some of what you are talking about, but even that has been a subject of heated debate.
| |
| | |
| Steve,
Will you be able to post the plan on the site? Have been EAGERLY awaiting this... and other lake plans... for months. Would love to see the measurables that have been set forth.
Going off fuzzy memory here... due to the fact I remember what the post was in which Dave responded.... but what were the lake goals? .5 fish/acre, 5-10% of population over 50"s?
That and what SPECIFICALLY the DNR plans to do to measure against those criteria is of GREAT interest.
And lets not stop there... what about Round, Chip and Grindstone. Steve, maybe you can get those plans up as well. | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, Monk, and everyone, here's the link to the article.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.28.2006/1033/The.WDNR.L... | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I scanned though most of the Management Plan and had a question.
I like the Goals:
A muskellunge population of moderate density with a moderate proportion of memorable-size fish and a low-moderate proportion of trophy-size fish.
Objective 1.1: 0.2 to 0.3 adult muskellunge per acre in population estimates.
Objective 1.2: Of all muskellunge 20 inches and longer captured by fyke netting in early spring, 30-40% should be 42 inches or longer (RSD-42 = 30-40%).
Objective 1.3: Of all muskellunge 20 inches and longer captured by fyke netting in early spring, 5-10% should be 50 inches or longer (RSD-50 = 5-10%).
It then goes on to talk about status and management strategies first paragraph says a lot in my opinion:
“We have been unable to document natural recruitment of muskellunge in LCO since musky spawning habitat deteriorated in Musky Bay and northern pike became well established 30-40 years ago. Stocking has been required in recent decades in order to maintain even a low-density population of 200-600 adult fish (based upon seven mark/recapture population estimates during 1967-1997). Stocking quotas were reduced in 2001 from annual to alternate-year requests for 2,500 large fingerlings (10-12 inches) to reflect the belief that catch-and-release under the 50-inch minimum length limit implemented in 1998 would reduce adult mortality and the need to stock. LCO is one of many local waters currently included in a ten-year (2002-2012) statewide stocking evaluation designed to determine if lower stocking rates can accomplish desired objectives.”
It then outlines the strategies, I will try and thumb nail them:
1A Genetic testing to determine if LCO muskeis have changed over time. Makes sense.
1B Restore spawing habitat. Again makes sense.
1C Lower pike population. Good.
1D 500 adult fish infusion, from Butternut. Now were talking!!!! Immediate results! Also includes working with the Tribe for research purposes, very good.
1E Eliminate Swallowed, single-hook sucker rigs. No brainer!
1F 50” minimum on all connected waters. Again total sense!
1G Improve Frequency and quality of monitoring. Very smart.
Those goals are all great, but in my mind there is one missing. THE STOCKING STRATEGIE, maybe I missed it but most of the goals outlined have to do with evaluating and protecting existing musky stock, only 1D outlines a strategy for increasing current musky numbers considering there currently is NO natural reproduction.
If anglers and DNR personnel all agree that “low angler catch rates for muskellunge are a problem at Lac Courte Oreilles; and not enough trophy-class fish are being seen or caught by anglers.” Isn’t it time to pull LCO out of the “ten-year (2002-2012) statewide stocking evaluation designed to determine if lower stocking rates can accomplish desired objectives”, and say on LCO they CANNOT? Then use higher stocking rates to get the population to the desired .2 to .3 fish per acre as outlined in Objective 1.? This can be done while the other goals are implemented and hopefully 5 to 10 years down the road there will be a naturally reproducing population of musky in LCO that can take advantage of the benefit of all the goals.
I probably have no business commenting on LCO as I know nothing about it other than what I have learned here and from friends, but Ty asked Steve “what if this was Pelican?” To be honest that is what I use as motivation. What if this was Pelican or another of my favorite lakes in this Area? By the way the problems on Trout Lake seem very similar to LCO other than maybe the spawning grounds issue. But if this was the lake I know the most about, Pelican, this is the type of stuff I would be looking for and the questions I would be asking.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Mike,
We agree.
I LOVE the objectives, and glad they are on paper.... because beleive me, I WILL hold Dave's office to those objectives.
The plan, as it relates to musky, is somewhat vague. I agree, the Butternut transfer at best, puts us at .15/acre. Our goal is .2 or .3 per acre. How do we close the gap? Increased stocking? Are we hoping the Butternuts increase NR? If so, are we going to do YOY surveys to validate this? When and how often would those surveys occur? What would our expected results be? How far along is Dr. Sloss in his assessment of the Butternut/LCO comparison? Shouldn't we have results by now?
Additionally, I like the idea of doing a angler dairy, but why only every three years? If you get the participation for year 1, why not do it yearly? Wouldn't it make sense to do it yearly?
And how often will the Spring fyke netting be done? Yearly, every other year, every three years? And what short term results are we expecting from the fyke nets to confirm whether or not the methods employed are tracking towards our objectives? Is there a list of criteria that should be met, say after a period 5 years, that would tell us if we are heading towards those size ranges?
And do we have to have a limit on Northern on LCO? Could we expand it to 10 or 15, or no limit at all? Wouldn't that send the message, "Come to LCO and get the Northern out of here".
Sorry for the barrage of questions. Just would like to see this lake improve. Wouldn't mind every now and then trailering the 2 miles to LCO instead of the 20 to the Chip. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Mike, thanks for your kind words and excellent feedback (good summary of the LCO musky objectives and strategies). You raise a good question about whether stocking should be increased; and I must admit that I am not 100% certain of our position to "stay the course" on the statewide project evaluating musky stocking density and periodicity. I WILL say this: It is quite possible that we could double the stocking of 11-inch muskies and accomplish little more than feeding the larger esocids (particularly the pike) in LCO. It seems that VERY few of the 2,500 fish currently being stocked into LCO every other year are "running the gauntlet" successfully and contributing to the adult stock. We may one day be able to identify a threshhold for each system above which NO amount of stocking will result in higher adult density. (Keep in mind that 2,500 is no small quantity to stock, even in alternate years. Mille Lacs rarely gets more than 4,000 fish annually, and it's 26 times the size of LCO.)
Occasionally (but rarely) I'm 99% sure of things. This is not one of those times. But I usually support an action if I'm at least 70% sure it's the way to go. In this case, I'm about 80% sure that additional stocking of 11-inch muskies into a strong population of big pike won't help much. I think we need to try the Butternut Lake transfer (which you support), and then do our best to reduce pike density while concurrently working to improve natural spawning and nursery habitat for muskellunge. We want to "get the bed made" for muskies so they can reproduce and recruit naturally once the main predators on their young have been reduced significantly.
Reasonable people could disagree on this approach, but this is what we have chosen to try. We will appreciate your support, and we will consider changing strategies if our approach fails to produce positive results.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| If it is the Pike that are our main obstacle, I for one wouldn't mind getting more aggressive with our strategies? Again, love the objectives... there is no reason the lake should not be at those levels. But if Pike are the restricting constraint, lets hit the red button! No possession limits, get the Tribe to spear the hell out of them in the spring, hold weekend pike tourny's... whatever... lets take the gloves off and hit 'em hard. If we made a conserted effort, I think we could make a sizable dent in that population in one season. Heck, I'd even forgo some of my limited time in Hayward to drag my limit out of LCO.
Take care of Musky Bay and other habitat and stock it to the gills with 'Skis. Preferrably ones that get big and fat. Hopefully Dr. Sloss will tell us what they are.... and not too soon. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for the response Dave, I can see where you may be correct about the break even point, how would you ever quantify and measure that. Also wouldn’t at least every year be better than every other year. I understand cost is a major concern, but let the local musky clubs help, DNR stocks one year clubs stock the next year and if the clubs want the put in more than the 2500 let them, it’s their money not the tax payers. Give them something positive to do and they will be less likely to be constantly crawling up your back side I would bet.
Also what about stocking yearlings, again I know money would be a issue, but I know they are doing it with success with the Great Lakes Restoration project. Again I bet the clubs would help, maybe they could even raise the fish, I know in central Wisconsin some clubs have built ponds and raise the muskies for the Pete themselves, why not do some of that in the northern part of the State.
Again thanks for the responses, I will be in Florida until the 10th if I can get on a computer I will try and check in, but I bet I will have lots of catching up to do when I get back. Probably at work also.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Lambeau, Thanks for the link. A lot of good info here. Do the resort owners really believe that more people will come with a 34" Minimum size limit? I think in MN, they feel more people would come if they had a chance at a 50+" fish. I may be wrong. At a local lake near me, a lot of fish were being harvested, including three this past year that were over 54". A 40" Minimum size limit is enforced on that lake, and it was brought to the attention of the DNR to maybe up it a bit. Instead, they decided to start stocking more fish. Another lake near Park Rapids, MN had a lot of 48"+ fish being harvested. After a bunch of people spoke to the DNR, got signatures, and so forth, the MN DNR made it the first Catch & Release only lake in Minnesota. Anyway, thanks again Lambeau. | |
| | |
| Bytor I've addressed your questions below.
Let me say that Larry, Eric and I may all have slightly different opinions on some of these topics and I'm sure you can find something somewhere that disagrees with my answers, but I've tried to answer your questions directly. We all agree that the fine fishing that is being created by the Wisconsin DNR in the Fox River/green bay and by the Minnesota DNR everywhere in Minnesota could be duplicated in nearly all areas of Wisconsin by stocking fish that are proven to grow large everywhere they are stocked.
If you don't feel I answered any of your questions please rephrase them and ask again.
Bytor - 3/25/2006 8:54 PM
Could the the WMRP please answer these questions.
1. Wasn’t it part of your mission statement that you wanted to have eggs gathered from the Chippewa Flowage? Wasn’t that listed as a preference over the Leach Lake strain? Isn’t that is what is being done this year? Yet, you guys don’t seem to be satisfied. Lockjaw seems to be implying that the side by side study that is starting this year should use Bone Lake brood. What is with that?
Answer: Our mission statement was that we would like to see large fish from the Chippewa Flowage. This is not what is happening this year. We stated we wanted large fish used because we believe there are fish capable of growing to large sizes there. We also believe there are smaller muskies there that are incapable of growing to large sizes. These smaller muskies that Wisconsin DNR studies have shown are not capable of growing large sizes swim down from Callahan lake, the Tiger cat Flowage and Moose lake via connecting rivers. If you take Muskies of all sizes as the DNR plans, you will be continuing the mixing of smaller strains into our brood stock.
We all have different feelings on whether we use Bone Lake fish or fish from the Chippewa flowage in the upcoming growth studies. I feel we know how the Boners don't grow, and i personally prefer the chip for brood stock and the growth studies - for now. The DNr does not want Bone lake fish in the growth studies for obvious reasons - they know they don't grow as fast of the Mississippi strain.
Where I'm disappointed is that we are still stocking Mixed WI strains into great Lakes drainages and into the St. Croix drainage where the Mississippi strain would be the native fish. Also remember that no matter what happens with the growth study, if the Mississippi strain continues to show larger growth as they did in all previous studies - the WDNR has stated they won't be stocked in the Chippewa and Wisconsin river drainages. I'm not certain why biologists would state that before genetic work even begins......
2. Wasn’t the WMRP opposed to the work being done by Dr. Sloss? Didn’t you guys change your tune on this position AFTER you found out he was telling the WDNR that they should change their brood lake?
Answer: I still oppose waiting for the genetic testing before stopping the stocking of fish that have unknown genetic qualities into the St. Croix river drainage and Great Lakes drainages. We can get known quality fish for the Great Lakes and St. croix drainages today at little or no additional cost. I am in favor of genetic testing and work on Muskellunge everywhere. I'm OK with waiting for genetic tests in the native range, particularly on waters with Natural Reproduction. While I do support Dr. Sloss's work, I think it'll have little effect in improving our fisheries as the genetic work will tell us nothing about Growth, survival or natural reproduction. It will only tell us if fish are "related". Genetic testing on the chip will likely show that the fish there are related to Muskies from LCO, Big Spider Lake, and Bone Lake as these are 3 brood sources for the chip. They will also be related to Moose Lake, Tiger Cat and Mud/Callahan. Since they are all related, we get to use those fish as brood stock. That is my understanding of how the genetics tests will choose our brood stock. I support the study, but I don't like the looks of how it will improve our fisheries, if anything it actually frightens me in NW Wisconsin.
3. Does the WMRP believe in Dr. Casselman’s maximum growth work? That each body of water has it’s own maximum growth rate?
I believe that every fish has a different maximum growth potential. I believe that two different fish in the same body of water may have different growth potential. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not the lake that influences growth the most, it's the fish.
There are certainly extremes that can be cited - a muskie in a goldfish bowl with no food is not going to grow regardless of genetics. If this does not answer your question, please rephrase and ask again.
Bytor - a question for you: Do you believe in the ultimate growth work the MN DNR did in their strain comparison that utilized the same science that Dr Casselman created?
4. Does the WMRP believe that Muskies, regardless of strain or should I say perceived strain, will perform better in lakes when they are first introduced into a lake?
I believe this is generally true, but not nearly to the extent that we are led to believe. Muskies grow fast and large in places like Leech Lake, Winnie, LOTW, Rowan, Fog, Eagle, Wabigoon and Georgian Bay where they have existed for thousands of years. They haven't shrunk just because Muskies were there before the current generation. Every Muskie lake Minnesota surveys turns up large 48"plus MS strain Muskies regardless of when they were introduced, or whether there were Muskies in them prior to the Mississippi strain being introduced.
5. What does the WMRP feel about the Bone Lake “mutts” performing very well in Rice Lake?
I believe that Rice Lake and Nancy lake were stocked approximately the same time. (The 1st Rice stocking was the same year as the second Nancy stocking.) Nancy started producing Monstrous fish by the mid 90's when the largest fish in NW Wisconsin's Lucky 13 contest had the champ come out of Nancy one year and 2nd place the year before. It took another 10 years before Rice Lake even hit the radar screen although they were stocked at approximately the same time. To this day there are more large Muskies found in Nancy lake netting surveys than in Rice Lake netting surveys. I believe the Fishing on Rice Lake is overhyped by the people on this site. I live near it and I've fished it and know many others that have too. I believe that we can stock fish that can reach 50 inches in ten years or we can stock fish that only one or two may if they live 20 years. I believe we have a choice to make. A guy who worked at a ranger dealer in Rice Lake used to fish Rice lake a lot, he always showed me pictures of 38 inchers from Rice, and then he'd show some bigger fish from Minnesota. After he started fishing in MN, he moved there and I've not seen him since in Wisconsin. Not even on Rice Lake. There are some nice fish caught in Rice Lake as there are throughout Wisconsin. There would be many more if we stocked fish that grow Larger, like we do in the Fox River(GB) and in Minnesota.
6. What does the WMRP have to say about the performance of the Leech Lake strain in Illinois?
I believe the Mississippi strain has performed very well in Illinois in some places. They have done great in Places like Storey, Snake Den and Evergreen, ask the Illinois DNR. The jury is likely out in other places, but I don't believe anything that is based on visual inspection of Muskie strains (no spots). I'm not positive they are the best fish for Illinois waters as it's a very different climate than we have up here in the Upper Mississippi drainage of Wisconsin and Minnesota. They have not done well in the pond studies of project Green Gene, but I've seen more information expalining why than is made light of here. Florida strain bass don't work well when taken out of a warm climate, but they work wonderful when taken hundreds or thousands of miles away to similar climates like Texas and california. I think Illinois (DNR and Muskie clubs) is doing a good job with their Muskie program, they want to do the right thing.
7. Does the WMRP have the support of any fisheries bioligist’s? Anywhere?
Answer: Yes. Biologists across the state of Wisconsin have supported many of our initiatives. Many at the Wisconsin DNR give the WMRP a lot of credit for getting the funding for Dr. Sloss work, the new growth studies and brood stock plan. I've not heard a single person at the DNR suggest that the WMRP is not responsible for many of the changes that are going on in the Muskie program. The Wisconsin DNR invited the WMRP to be the main focus of the statewide Muskie committee meeting - largely because they believed and supported many of our ideas. WMRP members have also been present at and worked with the WDNR at two other Statewide Muskie committee meetings. Many WDNR biologists are supporting the stocking of Mississippi strain muskies across many areas of the state. Nearly everyone at the WDNR supports the WMRP's contention that we should be stocking Great Lakes strain muskies into all Great Lakes drainages. The biggest difference that the WMRP and the WDNR seem to have is that the DNR is fine with letting the current generation of 35 plus year old muskie fisherman die while they fail to make the changes that have proven successful in Minnesota and the Fox River drainage of Wisconsin. I think we can stock proven large growing fish into many areas while these studies go on and we protect native fish. We can do both, we should do both.
The WMRP also has written support from many different Muskie clubs and orginations from Wisconsin and other states.
Bytor, I hope that your questions have been addressed. If you have others, post them. In fairness I hope that you'll answer mine too.
thanks,
Bob | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Bob thanks for the reply. I think that all the changes that are taking place in Wisconsin are a direct result of the work of your group and I applaud your efforts. I just have a problem with the tone that your group has been displaying. Although I was very happy to see Larry’s last post regarding the LCO lake management project. I feel more will get accomplished if everybody works together. Insulting the WDNR and their employees will not get it done IMO.
Bytor - a question for you: Do you believe in the ultimate growth work the MN DNR did in their strain comparison that utilized the same science that Dr Casselman created?
Yes I do Bob, I believe that the LL fish do grow faster and have a slightly higher maximum growth potential than the barred fish of Wisconsin. Where I do disagree with you slightly is that I believe the growth potential of the lake is very significant. If all we want is the biggest fish, we should be pushing the GL fish instead of the LL fish. I think the GL fish show the greatest potential for maximum size.
Bob-“Our mission statement was that we would like to see large fish from the Chippewa Flowage. This is not what is happening this year. We stated we wanted large fish used because we believe there are fish capable of growing to large sizes there.”
I believe that the use of large females only has been discussed by the experts and I am not in a position to question them on this one. Altough I see why you are concerned given that so many Bone Lake fish have been stocked in the Chip. Personally I believe the native fish are easily identified, they do not have the bars like the bone lake fish and they are more of a goldish color. Maybe Dr. Sloss could identify these fish and those fish could be used to create a new brood lake.
Bob-“I still oppose waiting for the genetic testing before stopping the stocking of fish that have unknown genetic qualities into the St. Croix river drainage and Great Lakes drainages. We can get known quality fish for the Great Lakes and St. croix drainages today at little or no additional cost. I am in favor of genetic testing and work on Muskellunge everywhere.”
I agree with you on this one. The GL drainages should have GL fish and the St. Croix drainages should have LL fish. The MDNR should not be putting LL fish in the St Louis river, IMO. I would like to see the two states work out an agreement where Wisconsin took over all the stocking of the St. Louis with GL fish and Minnesota did all of the stocking in the St. Croix with LL fish. Wisconsin barred fish should not be stocked in the St. Croix river. Is this still being done? I do believe that the Gile Flowage( GL drainage) is getting GL fish in it this year. If that is true that would be a positive change.
| |
| | |
Posts: 7037
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Is there any chance the WMRP can back up their claims with actual numbers, names, etc.?
The WMRP puts out claims that do not seem to be backed up by anything beyond words. Who are your biologists in support of your initiatives? Where are the pictures of the monsterous fish coming out of Nancy Lake? Who are these anglers, what are their names? Where are the huge numbers of fish netted in Nancy Lake? Please supply these so that we can support you. Please supply recent (as in within the last 5 years) scientific information that supports your theories.
You demand action by people who live by budgetary numbers, scientific support, and actual proof of the theories that are put into action. I believe, as do many whose tax dollars and license fees donors, those who would be paying for the programs you advocate, deserve this. | |
| | |
| Bytor,
I think the tone thing has been way overplayed, and wish everyone would let it rest. It's difficult to talk openly about these subjects on message boards without it turning ugly. (See the post above) Internet message boards aren't the real world - I think if you'd take the time to attend a musky Committe meeting or somewhere where we meet in person you'd see what's really happening out there. The perspective on things is amusing at times. Our message is that we believe with some stocking changes our trophy Musky fisheries in Wisconsin can rival Minnesota and Ontario. Somehow that get's twisted into "there are no big Muskies in Wisconsin". If we believed that there are no Big Muskies in Wisconsin why would we be asking them to take eggs from big Wisconsin Muskies? It's kind of funny when you think about it.
There is nothing we'd rather do than work with the DNR, in fact we've been doing just that for the last two years. Much of the work we've been doing also falls under our respective MI clubs, you just don't see that publicized.
I agree with you also on the Great Lakes fish, and there may be a bigger opportunity to do that immediately than the MS strain. If you believe in the Drainage based plan that the WDNR is going to take several years to implement, The Great Lakes strain makes sense on the Eastern Side of the state, and along the Lake Superior drainage waters. There are many lakes in Vilas county that drain North to Lake Superior (Crab, Presque Isle, and others I believe). The St.Croix/Mississippi drainage would seem a fit for the Mississippi strain. I'd love to see a growth study on a Central Wisconsin lake between the GL and MS strain (WS too if necessary) to decide what is the better fit. From a fisherman's perspective I'd like to see the largest fastest growing fish stocked in all non-native waters.
I believe in the drainage based plan, I just believe it can be started today - with little to no additional cost. no Need to wait even one year. Despite some uninformed people making noise about the costs, the WDNR has acknowleged in Muskie committee meetings that since we would be raising fish anyway, so there is no additional cost to raise the same number of Muskies of another strain. Since the WDNR (and MN DNR) has signed on to the New Great Lakes Charter to manage the Great Lakes as single ecosystem, there is hope that we can see the GL program expanded soon.
You stated:
" Personally I believe the native fish are easily identified, they do not have the bars like the bone lake fish and they are more of a goldish color. Maybe Dr. Sloss could identify these fish and those fish could be used to create a new brood lake."
Selecting them from appearance is just as bad as selecting for size according to Dr. Sloss (IMHO - I don't want to quote him direct). Essentially selecting for any single trait is considered bad. (I have mixed feelings here as Fisherman often selectively remove only large muskies where there are high size limits - why isn't this bad?)
you also stated:
"I do believe that the Gile Flowage( GL drainage) is getting GL fish in it this year. If that is true that would be a positive change. "
I'd agree wholeheartedly,but I don't believe its true. If it is, I'd like to see what we can do to help. The WDNR has some amazing success stories out there, this would likely end up as another one. The fisheries the WDNR created in the Fox River and Green Bay and Nancy Lake are world Class fisheries created by the WDNR and they should be applauded for it.
You also mentioned in your post that you feel size selection is bad, yet professional Musky breeders like Kalepps fish farm breed from size. They select the larger Males and females for brood stock which explains why lakes stocked from those sources often see larger fish coming through than from the lakes that only get stocked from Brood lakes like Bone. It's why Kalepps stands behind their fish, while the NW Wisconsin brood lake (Bone) was abandoned before genetic and growth studies are completed. There are many fisheries/breeding/genetic experts out there that donot work for the WDNR - and to be clear there many fisheries/breeding/genetic experts out there that DO work for the Wisconsin DNR, and we are appreciative of them.
Thanks for the note Bytor,
I'll try to check here more often as I find time.
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
I don't think Slamr's questions were in any way out of line or negative. I think he asks some very pointed and well placed questions.
WHY is Slamr's post 'ugly"? He asked you to prove out your position, a totally reasonable request.
Here's a few from me:
1) Why is it best to stock 'fastest growing' fish? Are there not other important considerations? Isn't it true that when considered over a long term (lifecycle) the Wisconsin fish compare favorably with the LL fish in Minnesota waters? Is six years a long enough time to indicate overall fitness, maximum growth, NR in the correct environs, and trophy potential? Is 'faster' always 'better' in the long term? Why, sir, is the upper confidence level on Wabigoon so much lower that the St Lawrence? Shouldn't both reach the maximum size quickly, if they are 'pure' strain spotted muskies? Why does it take so long for the Wabigoon fish(up to 20 or more yars) to meet that upper confidence level, and are they inferior to Lake St Clair fish? Or are the LSC fish inferior to the St. Lawrence fish? If that's so, why wouldn't we want St Lawrence fish for ALL our waters? isn't it true that Dr. casselman feels the next world record will come from the St Lawrence, and that the upper confidence lveel there is CONSIDERABLY larger than even Georgian Bay?
2) What makes a Leech lake fish more suitable for waters in NW Wisconsin? What makes it 'pure' as claimed? What benefit to the waters in Wisconsin is that? Doesn't Dr. Casselman state clearly that an important trait to encourage is sustained growth over a long period of time? Doesn't he state that SOME waters will NEVER support trophy fish? Have you listened to his presentation at the Symposium we have here? Has anyone actually proven that the fish you are so set against CAN'T grow to trophy range in a reasonable timeframe under the proper conditions, or that the fish you like WILL grow fast and survive well in a far more sterile and lees buffered environment may Wisconsin Lakes have?
3) Didn't the 'no big fish in Wisconsin' retribution comments stem from frustration created by direct commentary from your group at one point even claiming fish in the 40# class I and others have caught were 'purely anecdotal', and only 'remnants' if indeed they WERE real? I can find that commentary and repost it if you like. If the fish in Rice Lake are over hyped, who is over hyping the size structure? Are you saying that the representation that a strong trophy population exists in Rice is not fact?
4) Why would we look to stock GL fish from St Clair in any of the managed muskie waters in North Eastern WI or NC Wisconsin? Those are NOT native fish to this water, and don't belong here, IMHO. Why would they be better suited to survive in the waters close to where I live than the fish already here? What is wrong with the fish already here?
5) A statement you made indicates you feel high size limits select for large fish to be harvested (agreed, that's the entire idea I'd say, no harvest until the fish reaches trophy status and has reproduced multiple times), and you ask why that isn't a bad thing. You CAN'T be going back to the original accelerated evolution argument, can you? Are you suggesting that placing a 50" limit on waters that can grow trophy fish is harmful? If so why would Canada use an even LARGER limit?
6) You continually refer to Nancy as a total success, yet NR was not good enough to develop Nancy as a brood stock source or sustain the population, and overall, it was determined that using Nancy for that purpose would not be viable. The last test netting didn't produce any 'monsters' in Nancy, despite the fact it was done in the temperature range into the mid 50's in the basin with twice the nets and almost three times the normal length of time for the survey. See the Nancy Lake thread, it's carefully discussed there.
7) How did your group help acquire funding for Dr. Sloss's work? Didn't your group initially represent that work as a waste of taxpayers money, and a waste of time? Did your reversal of that opinion create a funding stream, and if so, how?
8) What part, in exact terms, of your groups platform or recommendations are supported by WIDNR Biologists, and who are those biologists; what district are they from, and how might i speak to them? How about some references, so they can be checked to confirm your claims? That would seem to me to be a very good thing for the WMRP to provide.
9) No one I can find in the Muskie fisheries management field suggests that selective breeding for 'size' as you put it is either a good idea, or economically feasible even if it WAS a good idea. Can you find a working Muskie fisheries biologist who suggests that should be done; breeding primarily selected large fish from a population, and if so, who might that biologist be so I might speak to him/her?
Bob, this isn't getting 'ugly', it's asking you to prove out your claims. That's to be expected..... | |
| | |
Posts: 7037
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Your lack of answers to my question again shows that the WMRP, though full of passion and a desire to create a fishery with bigger fish, doesnt really have tangible evidence and support of experts in accordance with their theories. Or maybe they do, but do not feel it necessary to share with the muskie public. Either way, again, for this one muskie fisherman, you have missed an opportunity to prove legitimacy to me. | |
| | |
| I thought the MN DNR was bad......
My Muskies Inc. Chapter wanted to pay for some heavy duty aluminum "Know the difference" signs to be placed at the local Muskie lakes' public landings. These are the signs that show the differences between Northern Pike and Muskie. They said they'd rather we didn't, and I think it was because it's got to the point where they almost don't want people to know there are even Muskies in some of these lakes, because then they'd have to deal with the "Muskies are eating all the Walleyes" guys. They even started stocking less Muskies into an Alexandria area lake because a guy started a "No more Muskies" club. He felt that Muskies were eating all the Walleyes. Well why don't they just come right out and say they agree with him, as stocking less fish is saying that anyway! They're ridiculous sometimes. I see your frustration, Slamr. | |
| | |
| 1) Why is it best to stock 'fastest growing' fish? Are there not other important considerations? Isn't it true that when considered over a long term (lifecycle) the Wisconsin fish compare favorably with the LL fish in Minnesota waters? Is six years a long enough time to indicate overall fitness, maximum growth, NR in the correct environs, and trophy potential? Is 'faster' always 'better' in the long term? Why, sir, is the upper confidence level on Wabigoon so much lower that the St Lawrence? Shouldn't both reach the maximum size quickly, if they are 'pure' strain spotted muskies? Why does it take so long for the Wabigoon fish(up to 20 or more yars) to meet that upper confidence level, and are they inferior to Lake St Clair fish? Or are the LSC fish inferior to the St. Lawrence fish? If that's so, why wouldn't we want St Lawrence fish for ALL our waters? isn't it true that Dr. casselman feels the next world record will come from the St Lawrence, and that the upper confidence lveel there is CONSIDERABLY larger than even Georgian Bay?
answer: This question is a bit convoluted - i"ll try and be clear: If it's a choice between fast and slow growth - excluding other factors - Fast is better than slow. There are other inportant considerations, many of them. Fish that grow to a large size fast are indeed large. Many fish that grow slowly never reach large sizes(documented in Wis, MN and ON - casselman)
It is not true in any scientific research papers that the growth of Wisconsin strain compares to MS strain in Minnesota or Wisconsin waters. I do not believe six or ten years is long enough to fully evaluate muskellunge growth, but this what is the Wisconsin DNR's growth study - so you may want to ask them. I do believe 6 to ten years will provide enough information to make good decisions (it worked well in Minnesota). In regards to the wabigoon vs. St. Lawrence growth: I don't see why the growth should be the same.....they are different fish from different waters. Low sample size of fish from what lake or the other could have an effect. vastly different temporal climates could also have an effect. You are wrong that either should reach the maximum size quickly, I know of nowhere that Muskies reach "Maximum" size quickly. Large - yes, Maximum - no.
I don't feel that Wabigoon fish or LSC fish or MS fish are inferior to St. Lawrence Muskies or any other. I'll take any of them in just a few waters here in NW Wisconsin. I feel that when you sorted out the world record issue, the two largest muskies of the last 20 years were caught out of Georgian Bay. (Williamson and Obrien) Casselman may be wrong, then again he may not be. If you use a drainage based paln like Wisconsin is moving towards, the G-bay, St. Clair and St. Lawrence fish would be in the same genetic Management Unit. By the way The fish in Green Bay/Fox River are said to be growing EXTREMELY fast by the WDNR. I think this is good, don't you?
2) What makes a Leech lake fish more suitable for waters in NW Wisconsin? What makes it 'pure' as claimed? What benefit to the waters in Wisconsin is that? Doesn't Dr. Casselman state clearly that an important trait to encourage is sustained growth over a long period of time? Doesn't he state that SOME waters will NEVER support trophy fish? Have you listened to his presentation at the Symposium we have here? Has anyone actually proven that the fish you are so set against CAN'T grow to trophy range in a reasonable timeframe under the proper conditions, or that the fish you like WILL grow fast and survive well in a far more sterile and lees buffered environment may Wisconsin Lakes have?
answer: Wisconsin research papers show MS strain grows faster with a larger projected growth in Wisconsin waters. From a fishermans perspective this makes them more suitable to provide a trophy fishery. The Wisconsin and Minnesota DNR hired the INHS to do a study on Muskie genetics and stocking history and that 1997 study indicated that that is one of very few(only) sources of fish that had not been stocked from other sources. Sustained growth over a period of at least ten to 12 tyears is required to grow a record class muskie - yes, Dr. Casselman stated this. He did not state that slow growth over a sustained time is required. Yes, I've listened to it, it's a good presentation, where is the Hayward presentation you promised?
Exactly what fish am I set against? I would like to answer this.
I'm for any and all proven large growing fish to be stocked. As far as I can tell there are no places where Great Lakes or MS strain Muskies have been staocked that they fail to reach large sizes. Bone is not a sterile lake - it's actually very fertile and the DNR last year could not net even one female muskie larger than the male Muskies in Nancy lake. (WDNR netting data.)
3) Didn't the 'no big fish in Wisconsin' retribution comments stem from frustration created by direct commentary from your group at one point even claiming fish in the 40# class I and others have caught were 'purely anecdotal', and only 'remnants' if indeed they WERE real? I can find that commentary and repost it if you like. If the fish in Rice Lake are over hyped, who is over hyping the size structure? Are you saying that the representation that a strong trophy population exists in Rice is not fact?
I don't know where the no big fish thing came from. I never said it, and I don't recall Anyone I know ever saying it. The very first thing we asked the WDNR to do was to use eggs from LARGE WISCONSIN MUSKIES. I think the Rice Lake fishery has been over-hyped on this website - I may be wrong. Some people have asked me to display pictures recently - even though they have been on public display twice. I have spent the last 4-5 years looking for a picture of a 50"plus muskie from Rice Lake and have yet to find one. I live 7 miles from Rice Lake and am there every week. I talked with the WDNR biologist in charge of Rice lake last year and he told me that he had never seen one either. Very close he said - yes. Do I believe there have been 50" fish caught from Rice Lake - yes it's been stocked for 20 years. Some of the Muskies we stock can grow to 50"in 20 years. I believe every lake in Wisconsin is capable of growing large Muskies. I just wish every muskie we stocked was capable of growing to large sizes like the WDNR stocks in Green Bay and MN stocks everywhere.
4) Why would we look to stock GL fish from St Clair in any of the managed muskie waters in North Eastern WI or NC Wisconsin? Those are NOT native fish to this water, and don't belong here, IMHO. Why would they be better suited to survive in the waters close to where I live than the fish already here? What is wrong with the fish already here?
I'm saying if the lake drains into the great Lakes we should stock great Lakes Muskies - It costs nothing more to do this.. The fish from Bone Lake and the Oehmcke strain are not native to those waters either. If it's OK to stock other (WS/MS) strains into Great Lakes drainages where they are not native than it should be OK to stock other strains into other drainages. Let's be consistent - that's what I'm looking for. The WDNR has even set up GMU's that indicate stocking GL strain into GL waters is the long term thing to do. The fish from Lake St. Clair are not native to Green Bay or Wisconsin. They come from another lake 700 miles away in another state - Michigan. I think the Wisconsin DNR is doing the right thing by getting large growing fish from another state - especially if they don't have them here. It's worked tremendously thus far.
"What is wrong with the fish already here?" What is wrong with what fish? please be clear in your questions, there are many fish here.
Sorry out of time, will stop back as time permits. Thanks for keeping a nice tone and not spinning things out of control. It's refreshing to see.
thanks,
Bob | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't 'promise' a Hayward tape, I promised to cover the event; which I did. It was supposed to be about a couple hours at max and ended up being four complete tapes. That isn't a video, it's a movie. Have a production compnay in your pocket? Most of it was IMO a rather disorganized blast of misinformation and questions that couldn't, if one wanted to keep any spirit of cooperation in place, be answered there. We decided to allow a Q&A to be posted, which it was. I won't be developing the video, as it is now IMHO interesting, but not critical to either position.
I'm still working the PWT in Winneconne, and will respond with assistance from a corps of biologists as soon as I can. I will say that your answers are actually NON answers, and will show you exactly how I come to that conclusion as soon as I have the time.
You 'selected' questions to answer. What about the others?
Anyone who suggests that Dr. Casselman might be 'wrong' in his assessment of the Upper C limit on the waters discussed at the Symposium based on absolutely NOTHING but a guess needs to get back to some research.
I still fail to see ANYTHING rude or untoward in Slamr's questions. You can certainly avoid his questions, and I'll ask them. Avoid or spin the answers, and I ask again, and if it takes all summer, we can finally get to some form of reality in the discussion. I'll reference answers from the biologists I have willing to help, you can do the same. Here's my difficulty; I hear about the tremendous support fro your platform from your group, insisting many scientists support the program. Yet I get multiple emails from scientists suggesting we continue to push for reality, not PAC rhetoric, in the discussion. I ask for the WMPT supporting scientists and biologist contacts so I might reconcile those ideas from that group against that of the group I hear from. If they want to remain anon, I respect that and will honor that idea, I simply want to talk with them and get their perspectives for this discussion. I also see a strong tendency in some of the WMRT discussions to misuse data, misinterpret what the data means to a scientist long term and short, and to try to apply data to the platform that simply isn't as represented. I think Dave Neuswanger has done a fine job of correcting some of the misconceptions, but the use of that WMRT data interpretationas if it's iron clad fact continues, witness the 'growth graphs' displayed at the Hayward meeting.
Did the WMRT have an effect on focusing attention to the Muskie Program here in Wisconsin? Yes, to their credit, it did, but in both a good and a bad way. Whether you like anyone to mention the acid and unfriendly decorum of the group for a large portion of their campaign, it was and still, in your case, is there. I'm an editor of a fairly sizeable media source, and listen to all sides on the phone, via email, and in print. I don't hear the same level of vitriol from the folks who oppose your platform in portion or part, nor do I see it when responding to direct and tough questions. I told the group when you started you need a PR expert to help you, and that comment still stands. You have marginalized your own platform by trying to diminish or demonize anyone strogly questioning the science or claims, and that was a serious public relations error. If Norm, Mike, and others had chosen that PR path in trying to get a 50" limit on Pelican, we would still be on the phone trying to apologize to the Lake Association and the DNR.
GL strain. What does that mean? Describe it for me, and let me know the difference between the GB fish and those in, say, Huron, Erie, or other great Lake waters. the fish I am speaking of here in NC WI are in our lakes like Pelican, Moen, George, Crescent, Minocqua, Tomahawk, and many many others. I don't want your group trying to get our fish replaced with those from Lake St Clair, its an easily contested notion that 1) It doesn't cost more 2) Is needed or wanted here 3) Would result in a fishery any better than what we have. Winnebago and green Bay are, according to the Green Bay area biologists, a perfect match for the GL fish stocked there, and I'm betting Pelican, or Big Sand, or North Twin are not. It's not going to happen, thank god, so WHY beat that horse and attempt to arbitrarily and personally mandate/decide what fish need to be stocked based on a pure layman, average joe guess? You know what the best science of the day says about the population in Bone, and you also know that diversity, not 'mutts in Bone' is the main force behind using multiple waters for egg collection. Please, if one is out there, give me a quote from any fisheries based geneticist or scientist stating the Bone or LCO fish are of poor genetic makeup and are not acceptable fish, cannot grow to large size under proper conditions, etc..
As an aside, I took two perch from a lake that never produces many over 5". Added them to my 100 Gallon aquarium. Fed them, and took good care of the water chemistry. They are now, in just a year and a half, near 10" and incredibly fat. Explain that for me.
Many fish? What proof of that do you offer? Are you suggesting indeed that the fish raised in Bone, or in Minocqua, or in LCO, CANNOT grow large and grow large in a reasonable timeframe ANYWHERE? What proof do you have, and be careful here to consider ALL the well thought out and scientifically backed pitfalls made to date in this lengthy and sometimes sublime debate, those are your land mines, and you continually step dead on 'em. | |
| | |
| sworrall - 4/21/2006 9:24 PM
I didn't 'promise' a Hayward tape, I promised to cover the event; which I did. It was supposed to be about a couple hours at max and ended up being four complete tapes. That isn't a video, it's a movie. Have a production company in your pocket? Most of it was IMO a rather disorganized blast of misinformation and questions that couldn't, if one wanted to keep any spirit of cooperation in place, be answered there. We decided to allow a Q&A to be posted, which it was. I won't be developing the video, as it is now IMHO interesting, but not critical to either position.
Possibly a reference to this:
Wade,
I have two mini DV tapes that are going to present some very interesting timeline challenges, and an audio track that is extremely varied due to the fact the stage microphone was not properly used. The audio and video needs to be edited into our format, and encoded for the web using programming OutdoorsFIRST wrote. I don't recall seeing anywhere that we intend to edit any of the actual audio/video content, do you? What we shot you will hear and see.
The entire presentation will be published here, in a timeframe and format that fits our schedule. I understand your desire to speed this along, but the issue is here, has been for a year, and isn't going to suffer at all from MuskieFIRST taking the time do do the entire presentation right.
-----
Steve Worrall
OutdoorsFIRST Media
Question: Have a production company in your pocket?
Answer: YES I do. And, I made that known and offered help if needed. It was rejected because "The audio and video needs to be edited into our format, and encoded for the web using programming OutdoorsFIRST wrote." Any amateur video post-house can deal with these issues. I offered to help to present fairness. It would seem the reality of this night will forever be controlled. It would have been easier to simply say, NO! If you weren't there you can't see it later.
The reason this is such a divisive issue is pretty clear, if you don't agree with what is "couched" by the circle here, you will be vilified, edited, slammed or made to reiterate your position until you are worn out. I think if everyone had a chance to see & hear this meeting, the true timbre of the people being discussed, ad nauseam, would be plain to see for anyone interested minus any spin control, distortions and opinions from people who have NO idea what is going on in Sawyer County unless fed the information from preferred channels. Every time I see Bob posting endless rebuttals and corrections to the "spin" presented as fact, it saddens me. For instance, Nancy Lake evidence is routinely posed as the reason the WMRP's position is anecdotal. And yet, when Rice Lake's "success" is touted it seems equally anecdotal. And it IS! Somehow the people that actually fish these lakes are dismissed in favor of opines from folks that aren't even in the area.
Personally, I think the WMRP should rename itself the Sawyer County Musky Restoration Project so the herd mentality to pick their agenda to shreds will be unable to lump their dissenting positions into a Wisconsin-wide argument. Work locally, think globally. Cliche´or not, it solves an awful lot of these needless, time-wasting, tit-for-tat posts. Give the guys a little credit already. If the WMRP did not start themselves on fire, the WDNR would not have noticed they were in the room. | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wade,
As I said in that PM, (which by the way now indicates any personal message you get is potentially public, something I have not chosen to do with communications from both sides yet something the folks from the WMRT or their supporters have done repeatedly)) was accurate, except there are four tapes total. Once the Q&A was proposed we decided to go with that due to the fact the charts, diagrams, overhead presentations and other items used by both sides were shuffled from stage to floor, and were not clear or frequently not visible on the tape, and the audio was, as I said, poor. The Q&A listed the questions exactly, and the answers exactly. What is your problem with that? I think the story of the night has been pretty well defined. If you have another version, feel free to post it here and anyone who wishes to may feel free to react.
You are speaking as if the WMRT has explained and established answers to the questions posed backed by experts, and defined clearly. They haven't. I would like them to, it would help their position immensely. I have countless emails from biologists and scientists and the public across the country asking MuskieFIRST to continue to encourage the open and fair challenge of many of the representations made by the WMPT. I try to ask fair questions, and ask for fair answers, not accepting reference back to the same items pretty much dismissed by those who are the scientists and biologists.
The last survey on Nancy was FAR from anecdotal. FAR. I posted the biologists and work crew statistics and comments, which were greeted with 'no, that didn't happen, THIS did' from members of the WMRT. Sorry, the survey was done correctly, and was actually excessive based on surveys done in other waters and states INCLUDING Minnesota. Look back to the Nancy Lake discussion.
I have a pretty good idea what is going on in Sawyer County. I do fish there, every year. I read the letters to the editor, took the personal attacks on Pastikas, and received a LARGE number of nasty emails from select supporters and members of the group, all because I asked for the facts, the truth, and all in a 'timbre' that can be accepted as fair debate, not PAC style noise or distraction. I spoke to scientists from Canada, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, New York, and more. I attended the Symposium and asked questions, and witnessed a WMPT presentation there that was perhaps the most divisive piece of public display I have ever seen. Fortunately, the presenter is a consummate professional, and knows when to moderate position or at least restate position in more acceptable terms for the betterment of the ideal AND how to play a crowd. He missed his calling; he would have been a great Mayor. Interestingly, I asked MANY of the same questions of the DNR here in WI and elsewhere, and received ANSWERS in a reasonable tone. None agreed with the WMRT. NONE. I asked them in the beginning, the middle, and yesterday to provide contact information for scientists and biologists supporting the entire platform. No answer yet, but it may be coming.
From the start this discussion has been laced with negative to the sublime from the WMRT, look at the threads. OF COURSE they would be summarily dismissed by many biologists and scientists, they approached lifetime fisheries professionals as if they were no more than uneducated hacks stumbling around trying to hold on to a job. The attacks on Dr. Sloss by the group supported by comments by a Minnesota supporter were almost incomprehensible. That stance has somewhat reversed, but in a very strange and intangible manner, with out apology to the office or the scientist.
Approaching the scientific community as laymen, and telling them that they have two choices
1) Back our platform and we will make you heroes
2) Don't back it and we will go to 'war' with you and ruin you in the court of public opinion....
Is just plain rude. That beginning tactic also has a tendency to move journalists to center in heck of a hurry. I see a refreshing moderation in platform and hope its real, not just another distraction. In the meantime, much has been accomplished, both by the anglers, activists, DNR, and public in the muskie management and study arena, unquestionably as a result to a degree of the WMRT debate. I feel much has been done as a reaction by anglers and others in an attempt actually get something positive done instead of accentuating the negative. Also, much has been done by the WMRT, no one is arguing that.
I see forward movement here, mostly IMHO a result of the ACTUAL impact of the Hayward meeting, an effort to answer the posed public's questions in true, real terms, and a new spirit of cooperation between the parties, at least a couple of them. I'm hoping that the success the group has had raising awareness would encourage them pursue a more realistic platform, based on the reality presented by the real science of the matter. So far, some moderation might have occurred, but challenging Dr. Casselman's statements in his Symposium presentation even SLIGHTLY based on anything the WMRT has said or platformed, or a personal layman's attitude is beyond the pale, sir.
There's no 'circle' here, there is just a debate. If you disagree with anyone's stance or position, go ahead and state the case as you see it, don't attack and suggest only what MuskieFIRST agrees with can be posted or accepted here, that’s a load of manure. What is the spin you refer to? The continuous requests to provide basis in fact, supporting science and biology instead of personal interpretation? Some ask for answers and backing, support and proof, and we get a response like this. I think it is unwise to call reasonable questioning 'herd mentality to pick apart the agenda'; that sounds exactly like the sort of thing you accuse the 'herd' of, and all in the same sentence. If Bob wants to end the rebuttals, he needs to focus his answers to the questions asked, ALL of them, and use support information form the biologists and scientists he claims support the platform instead of personal layman interpretation of complicated scientific data that has been repeatedly challenged as misdirected at beast, and plain inaccurate at worst, by his distractors.; that's how this sort of thing works, sir. Prove the position, back it with professional's support and statements, and see how the professionals compare ideas.
By the way, there were others recording the meeting. Maybe they'd be happy to provide you with the material. You can then create a publication in your studio, encode it for the web, and place it there on your own website in whatever form you wish.
If the WMRT HAD 'started themselves on fire', it would have been an extrordinarly bad idea unless someone was standing quite near with a bucket of water. | |
| | |
| More answers to the questions.....as time now permits.
5) A statement you made indicates you feel high size limits select for large fish to be harvested (agreed, that's the entire idea I'd say, no harvest until the fish reaches trophy status and has reproduced multiple times), and you ask why that isn't a bad thing. You CAN'T be going back to the original accelerated evolution argument, can you? Are you suggesting that placing a 50" limit on waters that can grow trophy fish is harmful? If so why would Canada use an even LARGER limit?
Answer: I believe that selectively removing only large fish from a system and then breeding the smaller fish that are left will lead to smaller fish. Any proffessional breeded will tell you that is likely to be the case with any animals. That is why race horse breeders breed fast horses, not slow ones. They keep fast horses, and sell their offspring or keep them to breed. They don't make glue out of champion racehorses and breed their slower cousins.
Canada based their size limits on ultimate size of the average female Muskie (not a perfect system, but close.) They have places whereyou cannot keep any Muskie regardless of size also (I like this better). In Wisconsin we typically only protect Muskies that begin breeding at small size (under 40" in most cases) and use them as brood stock while allowing the large ones to be targeted. A point that is often made by people at the MN DBR is that larger fish avoid the nets while smaller fish are more easily captured. If the MN DNR is correct, then any netting program automatically selectively targets the smaller fish. For this reason Minnesota began using larger nets several years ago.
6) You continually refer to Nancy as a total success, yet NR was not good enough to develop Nancy as a brood stock source or sustain the population, and overall, it was determined that using Nancy for that purpose would not be viable. The last test netting didn't produce any 'monsters' in Nancy, despite the fact it was done in the temperature range into the mid 50's in the basin with twice the nets and almost three times the normal length of time for the survey. See the Nancy Lake thread, it's carefully discussed there.
Answer: I see no question here. Nancy Lake provided the largest average size (46.8 inches)of any Muskie netting survey that I have ever seen in Wisconsin. No one at the WDNR that I have talked to has seen one better. Even the Male Muskies netted in Nancy Lake were larger than the females netted out of the perrennial NW Wisconsin Brood lake last year. I believe these are facts - if you dispute these, please do so with evidence.
7) How did your group help acquire funding for Dr. Sloss's work? Didn't your group initially represent that work as a waste of taxpayers money, and a waste of time? Did your reversal of that opinion create a funding stream, and if so, how?
AnswerWe brought the attention to the WDNR (first) and then the public to the fact that our brood stock selection needed changing. The WDNR used this attention to secure the money for this project. (Dr. Sloss had been doing similar genetic work on Brook trout along Lake Superior previously.)Our first reccomendation in NW Wisconsin was to get out of Bone lake and net large fish out of the Chippewa flowage (or LCO and Grindstone I believe). Check the WMRP website for dated documentation on this. Where is the WDNR netting today? The Chippewa flowage! They have already netted larger fish than I can find documented in Bone Lake since 1954! The WDNR has many times cited that the WMRP is largely responsible for this. The most recent example of WDNR acknowledgement of the WMRP influence is the Hayward presentation by Steve Avellallemant and the WDNR in Hayward, where Steve stated repeatedly that the WMRP is responsible for many of the changes that are happening. Please post the tape on your website as promised. I know that people on this site have offered to help you in the past. I know that you are busy, (as are most of us) but you told us all you'd have the tape up. (I won't bring it up again, because I don't want you to become angry.)
There may have been a statement out of frustration by a memebre of the WMRP that initially called the study a waste of money, all though I personally do not recall making that statement. There may be members that still consider it a waste of time and money, but I personally support any Muskie study, I do not support waiting for more studies to start doing the right thing today. The WDNR is on the right track, the problem is the train is moving way too slowly. (Some places it's best to move slow, others it can be a waste of time and money. For instance, they did not need a genetic study before going 700 miles East to another state to find fish for Green bay.) This past winter Dr. Sloss invited Larry and I to meet with him in Steven's point, and we accepted. We were able to provide him with a lot of information that he did not have access to and he gave us an overview of what his genetic study would/can do. There is nothing in his genetic work that is aimed at brining us larger getting fish in Wisconsin. It is not the intent of his study to do that - read the overview of his genetic study to confirm this. I believe the fact that the study will not have any impact on more large muskies is what drew the comments (15 months ago) you base your question on. Members of the WMRP continue to support the WDNR behind the scenes on both a personal level and within other groups such as local MI clubs. Just because there is a difference of opinion on some things does not mean we are not/can not work together on other things.
8) What part, in exact terms, of your groups platform or recommendations are supported by WIDNR Biologists, and who are those biologists; what district are they from, and how might i speak to them? How about some references, so they can be checked to confirm your claims? That would seem to me to be a very good thing for the WMRP to provide.
Steve Avelallemant again at the Hayward meeting voiced this from the WDNR. His leadership position would include those working beneath him including Dave Neuswanger. We recommended that the WDNR get out of Bone Lake and into places like the Chippewa flowage and they have. We have recommended that the WDNR expand the Great Lakes stocking program and they have and are continuing. (pers. communications with the WDNR.)
9) No one I can find in the Muskie fisheries management field suggests that selective breeding for 'size' as you put it is either a good idea, or economically feasible even if it WAS a good idea. Can you find a working Muskie fisheries biologist who suggests that should be done; breeding primarily selected large fish from a population, and if so, who might that biologist be so I might speak to him/her?
There are many very successful programs across the United States that believe breeding fish for size is a good idea. The Texas ShareLunker program is a prime example. I would agree that in Minnesota it is not "necessary" because they have a place like Leech Lake where essentially all the fish grow big and has not been stocked ith smaller strains of Muskies. I consider Kalepps fish farm to be part of the Muskies fishery management program. I am told they select fish for size as the WMRP suggests. Kalepps fish farm has likely provided many of the large fish that pop up across Wisconsin over the past several decades. This past winter a 56" muskie passed away at Kalepps. (May she rest in peace). The reason that I would like to see them select for size is that in places like the Chippewa flowage you have some very large fish and some fish that come down the Chief and other rivers that are genetically incapable of growing to large sizes. By not selecting the smaller fish (THAT ARE PROTECTED FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES BY 45 INCH SIZE LIMITS) we may avoid mixing in these smaller strains into our broodstock. There is a WDNR research paper out there that concluded genetics are at least partially if not entirely responsible for these fish not growing. (One paper is by Leon Johnsons, and another by Terry Margenau.) For clarification - while the WDNR is not slectively breeding Muskies (today), no one there including Dr. Sloss has said it will not lead to more large Muskies. I have not seen the WDNR say it is not economically feasible to selectively breed muskies, but up to now they have not asked for any assistance from the Muskie clubs in this area that are willing to help. Where they have asked us to help, the clubs have come through. Part of the funding for PIT tags in the growth studies are coming from 1st Wisconsin's Adopt a musky program - as one example. Many clubs across the state are doing the same. I would like to invite MuskieFirst to support the desire of the Muskie clubs in this part of the state to add more waters of proven large growing Muskies into NW Wisconsin, as many of these same people supported the desires to raise the size limit on Pelican Lake.
One important note here - Steve Worrall did contribute a day of guiding and a night of lodging to a Muskie club in my area. It went for a pretty high price - I stayed in the bidding right until the very end! The proceeds will go towards the clubs spotted Muskie stocking program. I am proud to say that the club very much appreciates Steve's contribution even though he has not voiced support on this website of the club's desires to get more Muskie lakes stocked with proven large growing Muskie strains.
Have a great day,
Thanks.
Bob | |
| | |
| Steve,
I was going to videotape the presentation myself until you told us all you were going to do it. Now you aren't - I'm Ok with that, because it's your website, but don't blame the rest of the world because you aren't keeping your word. Just tell us you don't want to post it. After the presentation you stated that the WMRP was courteous and on their best behavior, today it's the most divisive presentation you have ever seen.
Now you advocate people not throwing water on us if we are on fire? LOL!!
Cabin fever must be getting to you, I hope you get out and load up on some panfish. I'm hoping to take the kids out today myself.
I will keep posting here because I find the group of people here to be very interested in this topic. I will continually make every effort to keep the conversation civil in spite of the personal attacks.
Thanks,
Bob
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In response to the short post above:
You have the timeline and what was actually said incorrect, here you go:
1)' I attended the Symposium and asked questions, and witnessed a WMPT presentation there that was perhaps the most divisive piece of public display I have ever seen'
I didn't see you present a speech or paper at the Symposium, Bob, so I must be speaking about another presentation.
2) 'If the WMRT HAD 'started themselves on fire', it would have been an extrordinarly bad idea unless someone was standing quite near with a bucket of water.'
That was a comment meant to point out that no one had to 'set themselves on fire' and an intentional play on that overblown and over dramatic comment. Setting yourselves on fire WOULD be an extrordinarily bad idea unless someone was standing by with a bucket of water. Protests of that sort are usually posed against tyrants and religious persecution, not disagreement with the scientific community over a fish. If I had heard you WERE going to set yourselves on fire, I'd have been happy to toss on the water myself!  | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The post and answers are rife with leaps in interpretation of the data, and statements again mostly comprised of personal opinion. I'll answer those one by one when time permits, so we can get back to a level playing field. Bob, I have no personal problem with you or your group, I respect Larry, don't know you much but am sure you are motivated by a desire to make things better, and think the rest of the group are probably nice folks to take a day on the water with. My problem with all of this is that the science has been bent to breaking by your group, and absolutely no accountability seems to be necessary for you to command something to be fact or order something to be done, or take a shot at someone questioning your assertions.
I suggest you take a step back and keep answers to facts you have, listing how you arrived at those facts and who in the scientific community supports those conclusions.
As far as the tapes go, this wasn't exactly a studio setting; sometimes things don't go as well as planned. We have hundreds of video clips that didn't work, and will never see the web. See above.Someone else recorded that presentation, get the recordings and place them on your web property. They are pretty bad, hard to hear and understand, and not what would be considered acceptable for publication, but have at it anyway. The tone and complete gist of that meeting was reported here, including a Q&A, and your responses. If you have an official document in response, send it to me and we'll post it.
My responses to your answers to Q's:
'Answer: I believe that selectively removing only large fish from a system and then breeding the smaller fish that are left will lead to smaller fish. Any professional breeder will tell you that is likely to be the case with any animals. That is why race horse breeders breed fast horses, not slow ones. They keep fast horses, and sell their offspring or keep them to breed. They don't make glue out of champion racehorses and breed their slower cousins.
Canada based their size limits on ultimate size of the average female Muskie (not a perfect system, but close.) They have places where you cannot keep any Muskie regardless of size also (I like this better). In Wisconsin we typically only protect Muskies that begin breeding at small size (under 40" in most cases) and use them as brood stock while allowing the large ones to be targeted. A point that is often made by people at the MN DBR is that larger fish avoid the nets while smaller fish are more easily captured. If the MN DNR is correct, then any netting program automatically selectively targets the smaller fish. For this reason Minnesota began using larger nets several years ago.'
1) There isn't a single...NOT ONE... document I can find by any reputable fisheries biologist that suggests breeding large individuals only or selectively breeding only large muskies in the way you describe is a good idea. Race Horses no longer have to survive in the wild, right? Evolution had horses as smaller, WAY slower, and one heck of allot tougher than a race horse that was bred FOR speed. That practice is full of pitfalls. Tendons break in legs bred to be longer than what evolution selected, failures are common in the breeding process, and only a very select few really shine. Many ARE retired to oblivion. Selective breeding in show and sporting dogs is another example, these animals wouldn't survive well in the wild at all, and are not engineered to do so, that's nature's job. Displacia in the hips, disease tendency, and much or all of any one litter failing to make the grade is common. A dangerous game to try to apply to the wild, and not very realistic. Minnesota’s netting program isn't anywhere NEAR as comprehensive as Wisconsin's, and that is a fact. Are you saying Wisconsin fisheries managers are using nets that are too small, or that Minnesota was and changed that practice? How does any netting program automatically select small fish?
Everything I have read, listened to and watched from the scientific community suggests diversity is the key, making sure as best as is possible all sizes are represented in the spawn collection process. This isn't my opinion, no one CARES what my opinion is. No one cares what YOURS is, either, let's get the facts out there and set personal opinion aside, if you can do that.
'Answer: I see no question here. Nancy Lake provided the largest average size (46.8 inches)of any Muskie netting survey that I have ever seen in Wisconsin. No one at the WDNR that I have talked to has seen one better. Even the Male Muskies netted in Nancy Lake were larger than the females netted out of the perrennial NW Wisconsin Brood lake last year. I believe these are facts - if you dispute these, please do so with evidence.'
There were no young fish present at all in the last Nancy Lake netting survey, and only a very few fish were captured. Of course if only a couple fish are captured, and NO young fish were found, the average will be much larger. It's simple math, and easy to spin to suit your purpose, but one shouldn't use that Nancy Lake number as an average and represent it as what is desired, it ISN'T! If this was a the last of a population disappearing in, say, Pelican, after most of the population had been harvested or died from other causes, and no acceptable NR had occurred, I'd say the lake was about done in as a muskie fishery unless stocking begins again in earnest.
The basin temperature was in the mid 50's when the nets were removed, and the number of nets, time in the water, and overall survey was THREE times that of what is usually done on water that size. Here's a comment from Mr. Neuswanger about the current work on the Chip--"Frank Pratt and his crew are netting the east side, and my crew is netting the west side. I'll mention the bog situation to Frank, but I recall from a conversation I had with him last night that he has already moved that net out of Kavanagh Bay (and several other locations) to sites further south with cooler water temperatures where he hopes the females are not already spent. (Frank is starting to catch many females that have already released their eggs in the northeastern bays of the Flowage, where water temperature is now averaging 55-56 degrees F.)"
That's temps in the bays. The Nancy Lake survey indicated same temps in the basin. Bay temps were unquestionably warmer. Read it, it's posted in the discussion about Nancy Lake.
'We brought the attention to the WDNR (first) and then the public to the fact that our brood stock selection needed changing. The WDNR used this attention to secure the money for this project. (Dr. Sloss had been doing similar genetic work on Brook trout along Lake Superior previously.)Our first recommendation in NW Wisconsin was to get out of Bone Lake and net large fish out of the Chippewa flowage (or LCO and Grindstone I believe). Check the WMRP website for dated documentation on this. Where is the WDNR netting today? The Chippewa flowage! They have already netted larger fish than I can find documented in Bone Lake since 1954! The WDNR has many times cited that the WMRP is largely responsible for this. The most recent example of WDNR acknowledgement of the WMRP influence is the Hayward presentation by Steve Avellallemant and the WDNR in Hayward, where Steve stated repeatedly that the WMRP is responsible for many of the changes that are happening. Please post the tape on your website as promised. I know that people on this site have offered to help you in the past. I know that you are busy, (as are most of us) but you told us all you'd have the tape up. (I won't bring it up again, because I don't want you to become angry.)
There may have been a statement out of frustration by a member of the WMRP that initially called the study a waste of money, all though I personally do not recall making that statement. There may be members that still consider it a waste of time and money, but I personally support any Muskie study, I do not support waiting for more studies to start doing the right thing today. The WDNR is on the right track, the problem is the train is moving way too slowly. (Some places it's best to move slow, others it can be a waste of time and money. For instance, they did not need a genetic study before going 700 miles east to another state to find fish for Green bay.) This past winter Dr. Sloss invited Larry and I to meet with him in Steven's point, and we accepted. We were able to provide him with a lot of information that he did not have access to and he gave us an overview of what his genetic study would/can do. There is nothing in his genetic work that is aimed at brining us larger getting fish in Wisconsin. It is not the intent of his study to do that - read the overview of his genetic study to confirm this. I believe the fact that the study will not have any impact on more large muskies is what drew the comments (15 months ago) you base your question on. Members of the WMRP continue to support the WDNR behind the scenes on both a personal level and within other groups such as local MI clubs. Just because there is a difference of opinion on some things does not mean we are not/can not work together on other things.'
Dr. Sloss had already compiled one of the most comprehensive collections of Muskie genetic markers in the world before your group initially lit into him. I don't see ANYWHERE that the WMPT had any influence on the funding decision. Did you have an impact overall? As I said, yes you did, but let's stick to facts here. The DNR was already several years into a re-evaluation of the Muskie program in Wisconsin, and you know that. There is a solid chance that Dr. Sloss would have done much of the work anyway, with or without your group's influence. There were statements from your group continually calling his work a waste of tax dollars, and in obvious support of those claims, Greg Ide and one of your members attacked the proposed work and suggested Dr. Sloss was simply trying to retain a position and get a big, juicy grant. Look it up, you know where it is on this site and Musky Hunter. When it became clear what the benefits WERE of the study and Dr. Sloss's recommendations, your group did an abrupt about face ( in politics it's called a flip flop) and now claim your influence was responsible for the project funding. That is another opinion by your group not supported by the timeline or the facts. Did the overall hubbub have an influence? Probably, but WHAT could your group have accomplished if all that negative energy was focused on the positive??? As far as his work not directly causing the fish in Wisconsin to grow larger, that again is a gross misunderstanding of how Dr. Sloss's work will be applied by the scientists looking for more comprehensive information about what we have here in Wisconsin as a gene pool and what that means for management, stocking practices, and much more. Dr. Sloss's work is a piece of that puzzle, and was never represented to be more than that. His recommendations to use multiple sources for spawn collection has more, by my read, to do with the diversity mentioned earlier in this post than it does with dismissing the Bone Lake fish as incapable of reaching trophy size due to a genetic deficiency. That one is still on the table and open to debate, as that area is where your group has seriously manipulated and selectively interpreted available data. As far as members supporting the DNR, see the comments on this board, Pastikas, and Musky Hunter. I see continuous attacks in letters to editors, papers over there, websites, and emails, and rude and untoward commentary including a personal attack on me accusing me of bias because my son Keith is an LTE for the Woodruff DNR. It's tough to see that support you speak of in the public, Bob, and right now that is where you are, right here on MuskieFIRST in front of the public. Let's get the folks mentioned you are supporting, what they are doing that you support, and move the conversation in a positive direction. This isn't a slam on you or your group, it's an accurate observation of the writings and postings from the last year. I did say it's getting better, and did say I hope that is a trend and not another temporary tactic. A difference of opinion isn't the problem. A difference of the WMPT's opinion exists with much of what is considered to be the science of fisheries management, and that sir, isn't just opinion.
'
There are many very successful programs across the United States that believe breeding fish for size is a good idea. The Texas ShareLunker program is a prime example. I would agree that in Minnesota it is not "necessary" because they have a place like Leech Lake where essentially all the fish grow big and has not been stocked with smaller strains of Muskies. I consider Kalepps fish farm to be part of the Muskies fishery management program. I am told they select fish for size as the WMRP suggests. Kalepps fish farm has likely provided many of the large fish that pop up across Wisconsin over the past several decades. This past winter a 56" muskie passed away at Kalepps. (May she rest in peace). The reason that I would like to see them select for size is that in places like the Chippewa flowage you have some very large fish and some fish that come down the Chief and other rivers that are genetically incapable of growing to large sizes. By not selecting the smaller fish (THAT ARE PROTECTED FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES BY 45 INCH SIZE LIMITS) we may avoid mixing in these smaller strains into our broodstock. There is a WDNR research paper out there that concluded genetics are at least partially if not entirely responsible for these fish not growing. (One paper is by Leon Johnsons, and another by Terry Margenau.) For clarification - while the WDNR is not slectively breeding Muskies (today), no one there including Dr. Sloss has said it will not lead to more large Muskies. I have not seen the WDNR say it is not economically feasible to selectively breed muskies, but up to now they have not asked for any assistance from the Muskie clubs in this area that are willing to help. Where they have asked us to help, the clubs have come through. Part of the funding for PIT tags in the growth studies are coming from 1st Wisconsin's Adopt a musky program - as one example. Many clubs across the state are doing the same. I would like to invite MuskieFirst to support the desire of the Muskie clubs in this part of the state to add more waters of proven large growing Muskies into NW Wisconsin, as many of these same people supported the desires to raise the size limit on Pelican Lake.'
Again, this goes to selective breeding issues. We are discussing Wisconsin Muskies here. I'd suggest you look deeper into the Texas, Florida, and California bass issues, much more complicated than the single program you mention, but that's a different issue. You are again claiming there IS a 'smaller strain' the needs be avoided, and that is part of the core disagreement many have with your platform. Be careful making sweeping comments like 'concluded that' when interpreting a research document, and take care not to selectively introduce one piece of work to try to prove a concept that we have 'mutts' across the state that cannot reproduce and cannot grow to trophy size. As far as no one saying selective breeding won't lead to larger muskies, why in the world would any fisheries manager or scientist even bring that up? It's survival, adaptability, environment, and the FACT that intentional selective breeding for a single trait frequently brings unintentional results far more negative than the desired trait sought that might be brought up, I'd say. That is another land mine I spoke of earlier.
I would take issue with the idea that many of the folks who supported the 50" limit on Pelican would then think we should introduce GL fish there, I sure wouldn't. So supporting a size limit here wouldn't then equate to supporting the entire platform of the WMRT there, would it? Parts, yes. Work that actually gets something done like the pit tags, yes. MuskieFIRST is a media publication, not a PAC or club. We DO support a more aggressive management program everywhere muskies swim, and conservation ethics to match, but more importantly we support dissemination of the facts and bringing the entire and complete story to the public. That's what we do. I DID support the 1st Chapter personally, you mentioned it above, and would do so again in a minute, it's a great group of anglers. I don't recognize the First Wisconsin Chapter MI as synonomous with the WMRT. Supporting that chapter doesn't mean I agree with everything the WMRT says. There seems to be a problem separating issues, and the WMRT needs to work on that a bit before they 'invite' MuskieFIRST' to participate in anything they have on the docket.
We already have volunteered to raise the money to test the Butternut fish for the proposed LCO transfer. If it's needed, we will do exactly that.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| STEVE WORRALL ASKED BOB BENSON: 8) What part, in exact terms, of your groups platform or recommendations are supported by WIDNR Biologists, and who are those biologists; what district are they from, and how might i speak to them? How about some references, so they can be checked to confirm your claims? That would seem to me to be a very good thing for the WMRP to provide.
BOB BENSON RESPONDED: Steve Avelallemant again at the Hayward meeting voiced this from the WDNR. His leadership position would include those working beneath him including Dave Neuswanger. We recommended that the WDNR get out of Bone Lake and into places like the Chippewa flowage and they have. We have recommended that the WDNR expand the Great Lakes stocking program and they have and are continuing. (pers. communications with the WDNR.)
TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT: Neither Steve AveLallemant nor I support any part of the WMRP Team's misinterpretation and misrepresentation of scientific data and reports; nor have we taken any subsequent action as a result of WMRP Team recommendations. At the Hayward meeting, Steve was being diplomatic and simply stating that actions begun by Dr. Sloss and the Wisconsin DNR BEFORE this controversy began probably were accelerated in time by the attention brought to this issue by the WMRP Team. I said the same thing in a private conversation to Mr. Ramsell over a year ago -- before the WMRP Team ever made their first presentation in Madison. I suggested that he be pleased with his contribution to that extent, and I recommended that he support our efforts going forward. Until very recently, that has not been the case. (I am pleased that Mr. Ramsell has not sought to undermine our recent efforts.) But the controversy of the past year has cost me and my colleagues much valuable time that could have been better spent moving forward on many fronts in fishery management. So please, Mr. Benson, PLEASE do not imply that a diplomatic remark by my supervisor somehow equates to WDNR's eventual enlightenment and endorsement of the WMRP Team's platform or recommendations. We want to move forward in a more cooperative spirit, but let's not rewrite history. As far as I can tell, Mr. Worrall's actual question was never really answered. Who ARE these fishery biologists who supposedly support the WMRP Team platform and recommendations??? I've talked to several in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ontario; and I can't find any WMRP Team platform supporters among them.
Also, for the record, neither I nor my colleagues have any reason to believe there is anything wrong with the the muskellunge in Bone Lake. We did NOT move our broodstock operation out of Bone Lake this year because we believe or acknowledge that those fish are genetically incapable of growing well and achieving a large ultimate size. We suspect those fish are fine in that regard, just TOO NUMEROUS to attain trophy size in Bone Lake -- similar to Butternut Lake in Price County. The REASON we are not using Bone Lake this year is that Dr. Sloss and we have agreed that we should set up a 5-year rotation among broodstock lakes IN ORDER TO IMPROVE GENETIC DIVERSITY among muskellunge being stocked in Wisconsin. (Going to ONE lake ALL the time runs the risk of inbreeding depression.) Based upon Dr. Sloss' recommendations, we have made other adjustments to our broodstock selection program, including increasing the number of females from which eggs are to be taken annually (19-26 per hatchery) and ensuring that 2 or 3 DIFFERENT males are used to fertilize the eggs of EACH female, and that we obtain genetic information from all brood fish. That presents some serious operational challenges, but we found a way to meet them this year on the Chippewa Flowage. We went to the Flowage this year for broodstock NOT because the WMRP Team recommended it, but because we (DNR) felt it probably was a source with great genetic diversity; and we wanted to obtain current information about the musky population for purposes of completing the overall Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan. So again, Mr. Benson, let's not rewrite history by stating or implying that the WMRP Team is RESPONSIBLE for these operational changes based upon WDNR concurrence with your assessments and recommendations. We had our own reasons for making some changes. I will report on the completed Chippewa Flowage broodstock collection program as time permits.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| A question for Dave N. (or Steve W. if he can find the answer from another fisheries person):
Dave wrote something that had me a bit concerned and quite frankly didn't think about it he addressed it in his post. Let quote him and then pose the question.
"The REASON we are not using Bone Lake this year is that Dr. Sloss and we have agreed that we should set up a 5-year rotation among broodstock lakes IN ORDER TO IMPROVE GENETIC DIVERSITY among muskellunge being stocked in Wisconsin. (Going to ONE lake ALL the time runs the risk of inbreeding depression.)"
The one thing that caught my attention is the last sentence in parans. Given the fact that Bone Lake was used for much of the last half century as a source of brood stock for the Spooner hatchery, and at times was the near exclusive source, could we have a situation in which we produced a situation of inbreeding depression?
If, over the course of the past 40 to 50 years, we pulled our brood stock from a limited source and restocked that progeny back into our brood lake and into lakes that received the same progeny year after year, would that in itself be a condition condusive to inbreeding depression?
We know that Bone lake fish do not successfully reproduce in Bone lake and elswhere. We know at the very least that based on the netting data from Bone lake, the fish there haven't achieved large growth. Are these signs of inbreeding depression, and if so, how can we determine that.
I for one am glad that the DNR moved to the Chip for brood stock. However the heck the decision was made, it was the RIGHT one. No shakes about it, stripping a 51", 40+Lb. fish would have never happened had we continued in Bone lake. That at least gives me some comfort that we have high potential material going into the program.
My next question would be what are the other 3 or 4 lakes that are going to be put in the brood stock rota for Spooner?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk,
In fact, I believe that Bone/LCO/Sawyer County Source fish HAVE been proven 'genetically' capable of reproduction; they just don't do well on that front in waters where NR isn't supported by the environment. Look at it this way, the spawn is collected by the DNR and successfully raised. The eggs hatch. My question is why they DON'T hatch successfully in Bone or other lakes where NR is poor? Are some of the eggs hatching, but the YOY disappearing because of multiple factors including predation by Pike, Bass, etc? There's been a considerable amount of discussion on this subject during the debate, and I think many of the answers are contained there.
| |
| | |
| Steve,
Fair enough on the "fish not reproducing" issue. I guess what caught me off guard was the statement that "going to one lake all the time runs the risk of inbreeding depression". I guess maybe the jist of my question was that since we "went to the Bone Lake well" A LOT over the last half century, would that in of itself open concerns of an inbreeding issue? Did we, based on the stocking data, provide enough genetic diversity to the mix in the past to counteract the fact that Bone Lake was a primary source (and sometimes vast majority source) for broodstock? And if there were instances of inbreeding depression, what would be the signs?
I am interested in seeing how the DNR decides upon the broodstock lake rotation. Lakes like the Chip that have recruitment AND big girl reality seem to be a no-brainer choice. Problem is, how many lakes in Chippewa River basin side fit that bill... and can we get the numbers we need to meet the stocking goal? Guess will find out. Just hoping that in the coming years we are able to identify places in which a 40lber loaded with eggs finds its way into the fyke. I'd hate to have significant gaps in our stocking process where that isn't the case. | |
| | |
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think Dr. Sloss's work will give us part of the answer on that issue. The DNR will also be acquiring samples from Kalepps to compare. | |
| |
|
Wisconsin DNR Answers Hayward Muskie Stocking Meeting Questions!