|
|
Posts: 760
| I realize that this has been a long and heated debate but would it be fair to compare the strains by introducing both into a new system,one that has no muskies. This could answer the question which strain could establish itself,spawning,growth rates,etc. I personally, have not taken sides but just want to develop the best trophy fishing opportunities. If the research is there and proven,why not use it? It seems that leech strain fish could probably do well in certain lakes where wi. strain fish could do well in others. Rice lake has been my go to lake for the past 5 years. It is a very good fishery,one the dnr could be proud of. Prairie lake,part of the Chetek Chain is almost identical to Rice,in physical characteristics. I think wi. strain fish could grow large there. But then look at Big Round lake with its deep open water and I feel leech strain fish is the way to go. Its just like in fishing, choose the right lure to get the job done! Kdawg | |
| | |
| hi ken,
take the time to read through the various discussion threads on this issue in this forum.
there's a lot of information available, you'll have to sort out for yourself what parts are good/bad and what you personally believe to be true and the best course of action.
there are many links in those threads to DNR research projects in MN and WI, so you can go straight to the source material, some of which describe previous studies of the kind you're asking about. | |
| | |
Posts: 7039
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "I feel leech strain fish is the way to go."
You feel that way, a number of people in groups with a vested self-interest feel that way, and a few others feel that way. None of the scientific community feels that way. If they do, they are not saying so publically. | |
| | |
| Just to clarify, in the now frozen Chetek Chain thread, my first comment about
side by side studies in which the Leech strain was found to perform better than
the WI strain, the studies I was refering to were the side by side studies that
were done in waters in the Mississippi River drainage area, which nearly all of
NW WI is a part of. Those side by side studies were conducted by experts from
the MN DNR that do work in fisheries management for the MN DNR. There was no
interpretation of the data or results of those studies by anyone other than the experts
that performed the studies. They concluded that the Leech strain performed
better. Not me. That is not a case of me selectively interpreting the data. It's
a case of sharing what the experts in fisheries management found in those
studies.
In my second mention of side by side studies I was simply saying that side by
side studies show that some strains perform better than others. I was not
refering to any particular strain or studies done in any particular area. Some
do better than others in certain areas, that is all. One strain might perform
better than another in one area but the opposite could be true in another area.
Hopefully that clears up the selective interpretation of my post. | |
| | |
| [MNDNR Fisheries experts] concluded that the Leech strain performed
better.
are you sure on that one? really sure? in the "i just looked it up so i'm really sure" sense?
my recollection (memory only, i have NOT re-read it just now so i could easily have this wrong) is that the MN experts conclusions were that Leech strain and WI strain fish performed relatively equally on growth and reproduction factors, with both outperforming the Shoepack strain.
my memory is that their preference was to use a fish native to their Mississippi drainage in the case that growth, survival, and reproductive considerations were approximately equal, thus they selected Leech strain for stocking in MN waters.
i don't have time right now to re-read those studies since i'm packing for a fishing trip for the weekend and going to a movie with my wife, but i will - and i'll correct myself if i'm wrong, and provide citations if i'm right. anyone else with a bit of time who could provide the relevant quotes/citations would be much appreciated.
Edited by lambeau 8/16/2006 5:11 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Again, partial truths. We covered this carefully, completely, and while the WMRT was being challenged to find ONE working fisheries biologist from ANYWHERE who would support the platform and accept your information, charts, and conclusions as presented at the Hayward meeting last winter, you and your group spent a few weeks bashing the DNR fisheries manager over there(by the way, that gentleman is a highly respected scientist with a LONG and impressive resume in muskie management) me, MuskieFIRST, and my family on Pastikas web board. I don't care to have that sort of thing beginning again. Call it what you will but this subject is closed until some results of current work are available from the scientists and working DNR folks involved. Anyone interested can read the HUGE volumes debating the subject in our archives.
We had more than one conversation with fisheries biologists and scientists from Minnesota, Canada, WIsconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky, and other areas encouraging MuskieFIRST to continue the debate to it's possible conclusion given what IS known by the scientific community about muskies, genetics, and stocking practices. We have, in my opinion, reached that point.
Here's an article one might read to assist in deciding where this debate truly is positioned in reality.
http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2006/aug06/musky.htm
| |
| |
|
Side by side comparison