|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Recently published Wisconsin management plan for Lac Court Oreilles in Sawyer County, Wisconsin, take a look! Thanks to the authors for approving publication at MuskieFIRST.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.28.2006/1033/The.WDNR.L... | |
| | |
| Good to hear something is finally being done to help this great lake get back to being a great fishery  | |
| | |
| Makes sense, have the tribe come in and harvest the pike. They'll certainly pass up a muskie swimming by.
Bye bye muskies!
Ty | |
| | |
| I still do not believe pike are the problem here in Hayward. Just call it as I see it. I could ramble on as to why, but the simple solution is to stock extended growth fish the way the the metro area does. We have the manpower and resources. Don't see why it's a problem.
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| TY SENNETT: Makes sense, have the tribe come in and harvest the pike. They'll certainly pass up a muskie swimming by.
Bye bye muskies!
DAVE: Ty, the Tribe is already spearing LCO, both on-reservation and off-reservation. They harvested 14 muskies last year in the off-reservation portion of LCO alone, including one fish over 50 inches long. We are simply suggesting that they re-direct some their spearing effort toward northern pike, and we are asking them to voluntarily pass on big muskies unless they want a personal mount, like any sport fisherman might want.
TY SENNETT: I still do not believe pike are the problem here in Hayward. Just call it as I see it. I could ramble on as to why, but the simple solution is to stock extended growth fish the way the the metro area does. We have the manpower and resources. Don't see why it's a problem.
DAVE: Well, many anglers and all fishery scientists disagree with you. Pike DO pose a problem for musky recruitment in certain waters. Please feel free to stop by the Hayward office sometime, and I'll copy for you the journal article by Mike Dombeck and others that will help you to understand why pike are a problem in some waters and not in others.
When you say "we" have the manpower and resources to stock extended growth fish, who is WE? I ask this because the Wisconsin DNR does NOT have the manpower and resources to stock extended-growth fish (I assume you mean fall yearlings that are 16-20 inches long?) in any significant number of waters. If there is some secret cache of hundreds of thousands of dollars out there to make this happen, please let me know.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/2/2006 9:01 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I've spent a significant number of hours since the early 80's studying the law that brought us to where we are today and looking at the actual impact of the spearing harvest. The social impact has FAR outweighed the actual impact on the fishery, IMHO. The answers for our mutual future do not lie in continued hostility, even if it's fairly benign.
I think a continuous and unrelenting spirit of cooperation with our shared resource partners would be refreshing and positive, and would be one heck of alot more proactive than continued social stratification. IF anyone has the resources for trying a stocking program with larger, older muskies, perhaps it's GLIFWC (http://www.glifwc.org/) in cooperation with our DNR and our sport fishing clubs. If at first we don't succeed...
I believe the larger fish stocked in the Metro Twin Cities area were raised by the Twin Cities Chapter MI; if I am incorrect I'm sure someone will let me know. That club has ALWAYS cooperated one way or another with the stocking program there, supplementing and assisting any way they could, up to raising their own fish. THAT's the way to get something done; proactive involvement. That club has really a model for action instead of words over the years, IMHO, much like the Milwaukee and Madison chapters.
What might be a plan to get larger, older fish stocked? How would one see a goal of stocking older fish accomplished, given reality? Would a stock transfer if approved by Dr. Sloss of 500 adults be exactly what we are looking for?
Increasing harvest of pike might be a good thing, I'll leave that to the biologists. I know one thing; if the limit is removed, ice anglers will pound them. Most ice anglers are out for the experience AND a bag of fillets, offering to make that bag of fillets larger to unlimited will definitely get the attention of a few folks.
HABITAT!!! What about that? WE screwed that up, not the tribes or the DNR, property owners did that fighting the conservationists all the way. It's not as fun to take shots at those folks, but lawns to the edge of the water, leaking septics, fertilizer applied in excess, clearing brush and shoreline and ultimitley destroying the spawning habitat is at least as destructive as spearing and probably alot more so, I think. No one is demonizing those folks though. Interesting, isn't it?
| |
| | |
| Dave, I really do not feel the Pike are a problem on the Chip. What do they harm? They create a healthy alternative to those that come up here and are not catching many walleye or Crappie. As of last year they were on a downward cycle anyway on the Chip. If you are going to rely on natural reproduction on the Chip good luck. With the amount of panfish out there Pike are hardly the problem. So basically if you do not stock fall of the year muskies why stock at all? You're feeding the panfish muskie fry.
You also talked about changing the largemouth bass population in an earlier thread. Why not use the Muskies Inc. money and the many small ponds to create mini-hatcheries through Muskies Inc. and the DNR like the MN metro? I can't speak for Muskies Inc., but isn't that what they are around for?
Gotta go,
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Ty Sennett asked a couple questions that I'll try to answer here...
TY: Dave, I really do not feel the Pike are a problem on the Chip. What do they harm? They create a healthy alternative to those that come up here and are not catching many walleye or Crappie. As of last year they were on a downward cycle anyway on the Chip.
DAVE: Ty, if you go back to your first post on this, you'll see that your original statement wasn't about the Chip; it was about the Hayward area in general. That's what I was responding to. Pike ARE a threat to the survival of young muskies on some lakes, particularly the big clear-water lakes with stable water levels in the Hayward area like Lac Courte Oreilles, Grindstone, Whitefish, and Round. Pike are LESS of a problem, in that regard, in shallower, dark-water flowages with fluctuating water levels. Please don't ask me to explain why that distinction exists; because the answer is detailed, and we really don't understand it completely.
TY: If you are going to rely on natural reproduction on the Chip good luck.
DAVE: Well, we have been relying upon natural reproduction in the Chip since it was impounded. Without it, the Chippewa Flowage musky fishery would not be what it is today. Natural reproduction of muskellunge could be even better with fewer northern pike. When we asked two groups of local people (~20 at the visioning session and ~130 at the property owner's picnic) about their species priorities on the Chippewa Flowage, pike ranked LAST on a list of 8 species people wanted to fish for. Pike also rank low (under 5 percent) on statewide angler preference surveys. You and I may like them (I fish for pike sometimes), but we (DNR) cannot base policy on the personal preferences of one young guide and one old fishery biologist. I think a musky fishery can co-exist with a low-density population of northern pike on the Chippewa Flowage, but high numbers of pike would be bad for muskies, which is a top-priority species there. If we want to achieve high-priority objectives, we have to make choices and trade-offs.
TY: With the amount of panfish out there Pike are hardly the problem. So basically if you do not stock fall of the year muskies why stock at all? You're feeding the panfish muskie fry.
DAVE: First, panfish have never been shown to prevent natural reproduction or recruitment of muskellunge. In fact, I could develop a long list of lakes with high panfish populations that have high or even excessive natural reproduction of muskellunge. Second, we DO stock "fall of the year" muskies. That is ALL we stock -- 10-12" musky fingerlings that neither panfish nor largemouth bass can eat.
TY: You also talked about changing the largemouth bass population in an earlier thread. Why not use the Muskies Inc. money and the many small ponds to create mini-hatcheries through Muskies Inc. and the DNR like the MN metro? I can't speak for Muskies Inc., but isn't that what they are around for?
DAVE: Largemouth bass can be as big a factor, or bigger, in reducing the survival of young, naturally spawned muskies as northern pike. I'm worried about largemouth bass in the Flowage, not because they can eat the large (10-12 inch) musky fingerlings we stock in the fall of the year, but because their dramatically increased numbers may be cutting into NATURAL reproduction of muskellunge AND walleye. Finally, this is not the Minneapolis metro area. We don't have MDNR's metro area staff here. We have one fishery biologist and one fishery technician for all of Sawyer County. It takes much more time than you think to coordinate the effort of volunteers: identifying and preparing functional on-site rearing ponds; arranging the fry or small fingerling stockings into those ponds; answering questions and facilitating supplemental feeding of minnows in those ponds; advising volunteers or physically helping them get the fish OUT of those ponds with special gear once they've reached stocking size; and the list goes on. If we had only muskies to manage, we might have some time to coordinate more of what is called "extensive culture" of muskellunge by volunteers (as opposed to "intensive culture" of muskies by DNR hatchery personnel).
I had a good meeting with the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. last night. Wish you could have been there, Ty. (I think about 25 people attended.) We spent a couple hours looking at data from Mille Lacs and Lake of the Woods, and discussing what that information means to us locally. Despite past disagreements, I felt that folks there gave me a real chance to explain what we know, what we DON'T know (even more important), and how that knowledge influences DNR policy. Thanks to Mike Persson (Chapter President), Larry Ramsell (Chapter Vice-President) and others for making it an enjoyable and productive meeting.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/5/2006 6:24 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dave N & all:
I too thought last nights MI meeting was very productive and informational, and appreciate Dave's taking his personal time to be there and visit with us regarding the issues that are very important to the folks not only in the Hayward/Sawyer County area, but muskie angling tourists as well.
The move to the Chip for egg taking this year, engineered by Dave, will be the most important thing that has taken place here in more than a quarter of a century! Not only will, in my opinion, the eggs taken for the Spooner Hatchery operation contain at least a large percentage of the best available in NW Wisconsin, but additional data and information that Dave and crew have plans to gather too, will be invaluable for future use.
It was also suggested to Dave that he attempt to accelerate the Butternut Lake transfer of 500 adult muskies to LCO this year as was originally planned instead of losing yet another year with the plan to get on top of the northern pike, while at the same time providing additional opportunities for muskellunge anglers. Should money or manpower be an issue, our Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskie's, Inc. stands ready to assit. Let's "git 'er done!"
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell | |
| | |
| I give up! What I say doesn't matter anyway. I don't work for the DNR so my input doesn't count.
Pike are NOT the problem and in ten years when nothing has changed pike still should not be to blame. I'm not backing up pike, I just don't want to see pike as the scapegoat, then bass as the scapegoat, then crappie.....
Here is why Pike are not the problem then I'm done; Chief Lake on the Chippewa Flowage was stocked regularly in the early eighties. Whether it's on record or not I don't know but I was there when they dumped them in every year off of Daggett's boat launch. They were in the 12 inch range. During this time the northern pike population was high in Chief lake. Higher than anywhere on the lake. Chief lake became the best area to fish for muskies in the late eighties and early nineties. We boated up to 16 fish in one day in chief lake, but the average was about three or four per day. Most were in the 30 to 35 inch size range. I didn't see or hear of any stocking for many years in the chief lake area from the late eighties on. The fishing in Chief lake went downhill very fast in the nineties when most of those origional stocked fish died off to natural and human causes. The natural recruitment in Chief Lake is not enough to sustain a fishable population.
Pike weren't a problem then and they are not a problem now. If you stock Chief lake the way it was stocked back then you create (create being the key word) a healthy fishery. If you do nothing, pike become the highest predator on the food chain and YES they dominate. When you take out pike next smallmouth bass and largemouth bass will dominate. Instead of concentrating on taking a fish(northern pike) out of a system that has been there probably as long as the muskie, let's try putting some muskies in.
Dave, good luck with however you handle the Hayward area. I wish I would have heard about the muskies Inc meeting. I have been a member of a chapter that puts the majority of it's money toward stocking. I feel my money is well spent that way.
Ty
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Larry I am glad to hear that you are embracing the gathering of eggs from the Chip, I thought that is what the WMRP wanted in the first place.
Keep working together and you guys will get the improved fisheries up there that we all desire. Very glad to hear that you guys had a productive meeting with Dave. He appears to be an excellant fisheries manager IMO. Keep up the great work Dave. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ty:
Your "veiled shot" at the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskie's, Inc.;
"I wish I would have heard about the muskies Inc meeting. I have been a member of a chapter that puts the majority of it's money toward stocking. I feel my money is well spent that way."
is errant and unfounded. I don't have the total numbers at my immediate grasp, but the Hayward Chapter has poured MANY, MANY THOUSANDS of dollars into stocking muskies into Hayward area lakes, including the Chippewa Flowage as a result of the annual fall tournament. We currently have nearly $16,000 in our stocking fund from just the previous two tournaments! This money too will go to enhance the local fisheries.
Since our meetings are usually advertised in the paper and meeting information is sent to all members, it is unfortunate that you missed the notice's and Dave's great presentation.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell, VP
Hayward Lakes Chapter of MI
| |
| | |
| Ok Larry and you have a nice day now.
Bye now,
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 255
| O.K. I am going to throw my hat in the ring here only because I would like to help. I hate to see 2 great fisherman like Larry and Ty disagree on this. I have great respect for both of you.
I have been fishing LCO for musky for about 20 years now. I would still consider myself a novice musky fisherman and know little in comparison to Larry and Ty. My family owns a place on LCO and I have been going and fishing this lake for about 30 years. I can definetely say that I have caught a ridiculous amount of pike from this lake while trying to catch musky. To this day I have caught only one really large musky (53 incher in 2003) in 20 years. I have caught less than 20 musky total during this time. Again, my limited experience and time spent on this water are limited to about 3 HARD fished weeks a year total. More recently I have really worked hard to learn more and expand my knowledge and improve my chances of catching or even seeing a decent musky on LCO with disappointing results. I have started to look at other lakes to fish in the area and back in Illinois to satisfy my itch for musky. I would hate to see more and more people look to other places to fish for musky. A lot already have unfortunately.
I have read the LCO management plan and I was really excited at first. I was going to catch as many pike as I could this season and harvest as many as the law would allow and spread the word about the benefits. I am not really sure what to do. I have really thought that LCO has been over populated with pike for years and understood this to be a huge problem for musky reproduction. I also think that the Musky Bay issue is a big problem too. My neighbor on LCO has been fishing LCO for 60 years and he tells me that you could just about walk across shallow areas of Musky Bay on the backs of musky in the spring. That might be stretching the truth a bit but, something has definetely changed in the past 40 or 50 years.
I would really love to see the LCO Managemetn plan work and work soon. It is not for me to say that it will work or not but, from an angler that loves musky fishing something needs to be done and done soon. LCO is an unbelievable body of water with incredible potential to become a great musky lake again. It really needs a quick short term goal and long term goals that work. I think the LCO Management plan may be on track.
I hope this gives you somewhat of an outsiders perspective. I really look forward to LCO being a great musky lake again!
Tom Tarasiuk | |
| | |
| Tom, I just want you to think of one thing. What really good muskie lakes in the northern half of wisconsin/Minnesota and into canada doesn't have a really high pike population? The majority of them do. Don't let our DNR hide behind pike. They are not our problem.
Larry doesn't care for me so don't worry about us arguing. Some people will never get along. Doesn't bother me. I wasn't ripping on our Muskies Inc. group even if it sounded that way. They have little they can do up here. I just stated I put my money where it would be used.
I really hope LCO is turned around. The biggest problem I see is the DNR's fish per acre logistics. Their view is of a low population lake. Good luck to you Tom. You have a great lake just waiting for fish.
Ty
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I would like to respond much the same way. I understand the personalities at work here, and don't have a problem with that, but it's a popular lake we are discussing and the plan the DNR has posted to address the concerns they have and the public has. Ty has done alot for that area and deserves absolute respect, so has Larry. Let's focus on the LCO plan and see what ALL OF US as anglers can do to help execute same as quickly as possible.
Ty,
No one is 'hiding' behind the 'pike invasion' problem there. I'll let Dave address this better, but I would comment that the issue was raised without any quarter given whatsoever as a PROBLEM the DNR HAD to respond to. I read the posts, listened to the questions at the Hayward meeting, and heard a near attack there that the DNR had NO plan to reduce the horribly destructive pike population. On one hand 'it's the pike' and the DNR is ignoring this problem. What the heck are they going to DO about them, the slackards that they are (tongue in cheek here) is the demand; YET on the other hand they are 'hiding behind the pike' when they describe what is well accepted and fairly well documented science abut pike/muskie interaction. Let's see you operate in that atmosphere, and provide well thought out, scientifically accurate and sound answers to both sides.
Then there is the strong negative commentary from the public about the lack of trophy fish in LCO. Dr. Casselman and many other experts clearly say that a low density muskie fishery with good NR and good forage with regulations in place that allow for the muskies there to get old are the keys to growing true trophies. Isn't that what the entire meeting in Hayward was about; Hayward area trophy muskies? So a plan is designed addressing those concerns from a reality and science base, and guess what the reaction is....
Those answers are exactly what I read about in the LCO plan, and I see it as written to address EVERYONE'S concerns, so it's easy to take issue with an answer to a question you do not believe should have been asked. The question was not only asked, it was forcibly rammed into the discussion.
I think that the LCO document covers what is IMHO one of the truly mitigating factors, the destruction of spawning habitat for muskies and the process of that destruction resulting in spawning habitat that favors pike, assisting in causing a population imbalance. Yes, pike do eat muskies on a scale that is undeniable, and that until the muskies are too big for the pike to prey upon. Muskies eat Pike, too. The desire, unless I am missing something, is to return LCO to a self sustaining muskie water. That is covered pretty well in the document. There is also a plan for the DNR to transfer 500 Butternut Lake Adult muskies to LCO if Dr. Sloss approves the genetic compatability. Look at it this way, 500 muskies at 6 years of age as adults backs up to a stocking of 12" or a little bigger muskies in the thousands, and provides an immediate reverse in balance between the pike and muskie population in stead of waiting for the thousands of stocked fish to grow up. That plan has encountered some pretty stiff opposition too, so what IS it should be done according to the 'public'? Everything and nothing, that's what, if you read all of what's been said. | |
| | |
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | Steve,
I think your last post did a great job in summing up a big part of the current problem on LCO, i.e. the habitat changes in Musky Bay that have virtually eliminated musky spawning in LCO. In light of that I think it would be a good move to transfer the 500 adult Butternut fish, assuming the DNR researcher confirms their genetic health and compatibility with existing LCO stocks. If the transfer has the desired effect of additional predation on smaller pike it might give stocked muskies a greater chance of survival. With the current balance of pike to muskies in LCO it sounds like the currently stocked fingerlings do not have much of a chance and that is why the recruitment of stocked fish has been so low. Liberalizing the limits on pike and encouraging harvest are also likely good ideas. The most important thing, however, in the long run will be to restore the musky spawning habitat in Musky Bay. I have read the DNR report as posted on this site and I must say that even though this is probably the most important part of restoring the musky fishery it is also probably the most difficult to achieve.
I have never fished LCO or any of the other Hayward area lakes and I would certainly defer to Ty or Larry because of their expertise. I'm too am not certain that the presence of Northern Pike is the problem. It seems that we are not really talking about the mere presence of Northern Pike in LCO as being the problem, but rather the imbalance between Northern Pike numbers and Musky numbers and the imbalance between Northern Pike spawning habitat vs Musky spawning habitat.
Fisheries biologists tell us that Northern Pike are not native to many of the waters in Northern, WI that have always had native musky populations. I take this at face value. I know that introducing Northern Pike in certain waters where they are not native can have a devastating effect. Consider the Kawartha chain in Southern Ontario. This system is perhaps the best system for numbers of muskies in all of North America. Certainly it is not trophy water in the class of LOTW, Lac Seul, Eagle, Ottawa R., Niagara, or St. Lawrence. Northern Pike are not native to the Kawarthas and only began appearing in some lakes in recent years through navigable lock access on the Trent-Severn waterway. Where Northen Pike have begun to take hold in the Kawarthas the effects on Musky populations have been devastating. The musky population on Canal Lake in the Kawarthas has been devastated by an infestation of invasive Northern Pike. On other lakes in the Kawarthas where Northern Pike have yet to take hold Musky populations are as strong as ever.
One difference between the Kawarthas and most of the musky lakes in Northern WI is that muskies are not stocked in the Kawarthas. They are totally dependent of natural reproduction. I fear that excessive stocking for years on many WI lakes has not only led to overpopulation on some lakes (such as Butternut), but has also led to unrealistic expectations on the part of some anglers. We need to get away from the notion that fish come from the hatchery truck. Stocking undoubtedly has its place in maintaing our fishery here in WI, but it will never take the place of habitat preservation and enhancement on our Northern Lakes.
Tom Ramsey
Member Milwaukee Chapter Muskies Inc | |
| | |
| Steve, I understand what you are saying. I just don't trust that anything will change. Would you take advice from a cattle rancher that let his herd diminish to nothing? Well you'd be a rootin' tootin' goll darn fool for that partner. Not calling you a fool Steve, just a stupid anallogy.
I know the DNR has it rough. Lots of people want lots of things. Tough to make everyone happy. Maybe they'll make the muskie fishers happy and maybe not.
Gotta go work,
Ty
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ty,
You are still off target. No point in arguing it here, i'll see you on the water this summer eventually, and offer my point of view over a cold one. | |
| | |
| I know I'm probably wrong on how I word things. I do stand behind how I feel though. I just don't understant why northern Wi is so far behind on things like rearing ponds and stocking larger numbers per acre than MN and IL. I'm not saying flood the waters with fish, just something.
Ty | |
| | |
| Just seeing this thread, so I guess I'll throw my $.02 in.
LET A NEW AGE OF GLASNOST BEGIN!!! (Standing Ovation)
Glad to see that Dave and Larry are finding some common ground. Everyone with an interest in Sawyer Co. wants to see things improve... and to have the MI chapter and the DNR cooperate I think will go a long ways.
1) Agree with Larry that the move to the Chip for brood stock should have a positive impact, when compared to past results of the Bone lake brood. Even though I have expressed the desire to see the Flowage improve with regards to trophy production, I think if you were going to get stock from any lake in Sawyer Co. with a chance of having "the right stuff", the Chip probably is the best bet. I have "seen" the potential in the Chip (unfortunately not in my net as of yet), so I do think that the "goods" are there.
2) Also, agree again if we are going to do anything with LCO, lets start sooner than later. I sincerely hope that after the transfer does go through, we see some movement on the other strategies (pike reduction, habitat restoration). My fear is if the other strategies are not implemented after the transfer, we end up where we started.
I still have questions about what the impact of any genetic findings will be from Dr. Sloss. But I guess that is a completely different topic to address. I'd love to see someone do an expose' on any preliminary findings from Dr. Sloss. Reading the research plan that he put together last year, it was unclear to what extent Dr. Sloss would be reporting in terms of status updates/prelim findings. Seems like something right up your alley Steve!
Again, LOVE the objectives with LCO. Now we need to act on the strategies to get it done!
From the discussion here, it seems like Dave's presentation to the Hayward MI included a bit more that was not discussed in the LCO plan... any chance of posting the presentation here?
| |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Interesting thread but have to question the genetics of the Chippewa Flowage fish. How much natural reproduction goes on there and how many of the fish in the lake are either stocked or coming down the river?
I remember BEFORE the northern pike infested the lake, and there were fairly abundant numbers of immature musky spread all over the lake to both the good and not so good spots. As the pike became predominant species on the lake, and I believe they are predominant in terms of numbers at least, for top of the line predators, that number of juvenile musky sank like a stone.
I am very curious as to what the reproductive success is on the flowage any more? In my mind I cannot believe that it is anywhere near what it was in the 70's, when fish were harvested hard and yet recruits were lined up to get on the good spots. What are those numbers exactly? | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| I have seen a few more comments and questions since I last checked in. I hope folks will understand if I am unable to respond any time in the near future. In a nutshell, it is time to act. Muskellunge are spawning or preparing to spawn throughout northern Wisconsin. It is Easter Sunday. DNR crews (including me) will be on Grindstone Lake from 10:30 a.m. until later today, fyke netting walleyes and muskellunge for purposes of developing population estimates for both species. When that is completed, one crew must run the fyke nets on Lake Winter where we are recapturing muskies that were marked (fin-clipped) last year, thus allowing us to complete our population estimate there. Another crew is on Musky Bay of Lac Courte Oreilles, where collection of walleye eggs (for hatchery production) and walleye fins (for genetic stock analysis) have been completed, but where we must still capture 18 muskellunge to complete a 50-fish sample for genetic stock analysis. (Dr. Sloss' graduate student needs more modern-day samples than have been collected to date, so we must get more if we expect to know by fall if we can move muskies from Butternut to LCO.) Of course, everything happens all at once at this time of year. We are scheduled to begin the Chippewa Flowage musky sampling and broodstock collection project tomorrow, when a joint Management/Hatcheries task force will set 12 fyke nets in the East Basin and 12 fyke nets in the West Basin (thanks to pre-operational intelligence provided by several area guides and residents). That means we could have 3 major surveys going concurrently in Sawyer County alone. If not for tremendous help from the Spooner Hatchery, the LCO Conservation Department, and an adjacent DNR fish team in Park Falls, we could never pull it off. It's still going to be a good trick. Weather is always an unpredictable factor. We will all be working 60-80 hours per week for the next couple weeks trying to make it all happen. As you hopefully can see, coordinating and participating in all these surveys will not allow me or anyone else from DNR's Northern Region to continue discussing the finer points of what should be done to improve musky fishing. It is time to act. Happy Easter everyone! Eat a slice of ham for me!
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/16/2006 8:25 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Wow Dave, you have a great job...you gotta go to school for that? 
S. | |
| | |
| Hey Dave, that fyke net in Kavanagh bay is going to be a problem when the wind switches. The main bog will be tight against the channnel comming in to the bay tomorrow when the wind switches. Hate to see the net trapped back there. The bog is about fifty acres so moving it with a boat is not possible. It moves by the wind. The only time it is open is on an east wind which is rare but is why they were able to get back there. If you need help with anything let me know.
That part of Kavanaugh is low on population anyway. If you want I can show you a bunch of other spots that are much better. Love or hate me I do spend more time than anyone out there so I can show you the best spots for nets. I want to see you guys get the most out of your time out there. There are a couple bays that have many many fish and are small enough to fyke the entryways.
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Thanks for the advice and offer of assistance, Ty. 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.) Frank and his crew have done exceptionally well in the first two days of netting in the northeastern bays, capturing 31 muskies on Day 1 (Tuesday) and 20 muskies on Day 2 (Wednesday, yesterday) in only 10 fyke nets -- far exceeding the average Wisconsin fykenet capture rate of 1 adult musky per fyke net. He already has a quota of genetic samples and more fertilized eggs than the hatchery needs. But he and I are continuing the effort for a variety of reasons, one being to increase the number of females from the current number spawned (10) to the desired number (26) for purposes of maximizing genetic diversity among the fish we ultimately culture and stock. I'll mention to Frank that you are available to help with ideas if he is uncertain about net sites in the southeastern quadrant of the Flowage. Obviously he has a pretty good eye for quality net sites.
This evening I hope to have some photos ready to share of our netting and spawning results on the west side.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/20/2006 6:28 AM
| |
| | |
| Wow, sounds like you guys kicked some serious butt on the Chip! Good to hear.
I can't remember reading it here or in Dr. Sloss' initial paper, but what was the target stratification in terms of size for the netting?
Good luck the rest of the way.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Thanks, Monk. I'm not sure I understand your question exactly, but we had several numerical objectives to meet and various protocols to follow, as shown below:
At least 10 quarts of eggs from a total of 26 females (critical) -- As of today, we have eggs from 18 females and far more eggs than are needed for production at the Spooner Hatchery.
3:1 ratio of males to females when fertilizing eggs with milt (important, but 2:1 ratio works if most males are fertile) -- We are using 2-4 males with each female.
50 fin samples for genetic analysis -- We now have 76 from the East side and 27 from the West side, to date. I wanted enough to statistically test for sub-populations.
Fish of ALL sizes to be spawned, without bias -- So far we have used females ranging in length from 30.1 inches to 51.0 inches. We got the big girl yesterday. She weighed 40.9 pounds at 51.0 inches AFTER we relieved her of a quart of eggs. Overall, the fish (including males) are amazingly heavy for their length.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/21/2006 5:42 AM
| |
| | |
| Dave,
Thanks for the update, definitely glad to see you guys got the big girl. As for clarifying my question, let me take another stab at it. What I was wondering is if there was any ideal size distribution of fish that Dr. Sloss provided for the egg collection process. Meaning, was there some type of "bell" curve distribution in which we could strive for, something along the lines of (following numbers completely arbitrary);
30% of eggs from 30"-40" fish
50% of eggs from 40"-45" fish
15% of eggs from 45"-50" fish
5% of eggs from 50"+ fish
Again, I didn't catch anything here or from Dr. Sloss' initial papers that said something along those lines, but was wondering if something like that was provided. From my memory, I believe I recall reading his comments stating that "fish of all sizes, throughout the spawning run (i.e. temp ranges) should be sampled."
I understand that at the end of the day you only have so much control over what swims into the nets and what fish you get stock from... and that you have to get enough material to meet the stocking goals. But just wondering what might be done in the future to analyze the process.
I definitely like the fact that you guys are going "above and beyond" in terms of the numbers you are sampling, both from a genetics standpoint and brood stock standpoint. Hopefully you guys get your 26 females required and are given the chance to fill that goal. From the large sample you have, it will be interesting to see the genetic results, and what trends may establish themselves.
Other questions if I may, do you think the male/female ratio you have seen in your netting is consistent with your expectations?
Another thing I noticed, it seems as if you have almost a 3 to 1 ratio in neeting between the East and West sides? Is that due to a difference in the number of nets on each side (maybe due to more spawning locations on the East), or is there a population trend showing more fish on the East vs. West?
Great stuff, hopefully you guys get a few more big fatties in the next few days.
Dave N - 4/21/2006 5:32 AM
Thanks, Monk. I'm not sure I understand your question exactly, but we had several numerical objectives to meet and various protocols to follow, as shown below:
At least 10 quarts of eggs from a total of 26 females (critical) -- As of today, we have eggs from 18 females and far more eggs than are needed for production at the Spooner Hatchery.
3:1 ratio of males to females when fertilizing eggs with milt (important, but 2:1 ratio works if most males are fertile) -- We are using 2-4 males with each female.
50 fin samples for genetic analysis -- We now have 76 from the East side and 27 from the West side, to date. I wanted enough to statistically test for sub-populations.
Fish of ALL sizes to be spawned, without bias -- So far we have used females ranging in length from 30.1 inches to 51.0 inches. We got the big girl yesterday. She weighed 40.9 pounds at 51.0 inches AFTER we relieved her of a quart of eggs. Overall, the fish (including males) are amazingly heavy for their length.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| As for the "heaviness" of the Chip fish, definitely something I have noticed as well. Whatever they are eating, it sure is putting on the weight. | |
| | |
| Dave, good to see everything is going good out there on the Chip. The warm weather must have them spawning early again. We took a ride yesterday and saw quite a few muskies up shallow. Most looked really tore up on the east and west side. One was still full of eggs I'm guessing, really fat and couldn't move well. That one was a mid-forty incher in about a foot of water.
Good luck,
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's a couple photos from the project Mr. Neuswanger sent.
(Musky Project Neuswanger Releasing 51.0-Inch Female.jpg)
(Musky Project Tub with 51.0-Inch Female Musky 4-20-06.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Musky Project Neuswanger Releasing 51.0-Inch Female.jpg (238KB - 213 downloads)
Musky Project Tub with 51.0-Inch Female Musky 4-20-06.jpg (222KB - 207 downloads)
| |
| | |
| Three words...
Be-u-tiful! | |
| | |
Posts: 89
| new to the stocking scene - why not take most of the eggs from proven genetics (the 50 incher) big + big = big, unknown + small = either unkown or small? We had some folks in as guest speaker on gentics in the wild (birds of prey) for Earth Week at our school- all interesting stuff. Thanks | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read the comments about what Dr. Sloss has said and why diversity is so important. One big fish doesn't=big offspring, and there's way more to it that that. Lots to read here that will explain most of your question. | |
| |
|
