|
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read the report here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/10.30.2006/1124/Update.On....
MuskieFIRST would like to thank Dr. Sloss and the Department of Natural Resources for preparing and supplying this Report. It is not necessarily standard procedure to create updates as research of this magnitude progresses, and we appreciate the time and effort extended. Dave Neuswanger also was instrumental in providing this document for publication. Thanks again, sir!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules of Discussion:
Questions about the Report by Dr. Sloss may be posted to this thread. Questions only, please! If and when an answer to your question is available, we will post it.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Lots of questions.
What does this mean for the transfer of fish from Butternut to LCO? On hold for further study. Not going to happen. Will happen anyway.
How is it possible there is such a difference in genetic markers, considering these lakes have had fish stocked from the same hatchery over the last 20 +/- years.
Does this mean that stocked fish are not reproducing at all, in any lake.
Have any samples been collected from the big Wisconsin strain fish currently showing up in Mill Lacs, What is the suspected origin of those fish?
Thanks for the update,
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think Dave said they will not be transferring the fish, even though the report does mention it may not cause any problems.
Looks like the idea that the stockings from Spider, Bone, and Callahan didn't create a 'hatchery strain' in the lakes studied, if I'm reading this right. LCO has remained consistent to what was there before the stocking from what I see reported.
'1) the LCO population appears to have avoided significant genetic impact from this stocking, and 2) the genetic approach being used can identify impact from the introduction of stock fish in this system thereby strengthening the findings of no impact from the two stocking events in question. Efforts are underway to confirm the genetic identity of fish from the 1976 sample to ensure this scenario is indeed correct.'
Would be good to get some samples of thos Mille Lacs fish just to see! | |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Bone Lake fish are different than LCO. Is that correct?
Are they going to stay away from Bone as a brood lake? | |
| | |
| I'll post some more questions once I'm home from work and have a chance to digest all that was said. But I did want to challenge you a bit on the hatchery strain topic.
While there doesn't appear to be evidence of a hatchery strain existing in the lakes that were stocked, tested and compared to Bone (Butternut and LCO), one might conclude that a hatchery strain was developed at Bone lake, especially since it was significantly unique from LCO.
If Bone was supposed to be similar to LCO due to its stocking orgins, why is it now classified as a completely divergent population? The only conclusion I can think of is the stock mixing that was done to create and sustain the brood lake ultimately transformed that population from one being similiar to LCO, to one being a unique population. And the fact that Bone lake is not a natural recruiting population, could this be evidence of outbreeding depression. Especially if there may be evidence that the LCO strain has survived over the last 50 years and continuing a natural recruiting population in LCO.
Very interesting stuff. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My question would be how a 'hatchery strain' would be created by stocking LCO fish in Bone and adding other fish from other sources, if the Spider/Callahan/Bone/Woodruff stockings had no significant effect on the LCO fish? Maybe the original fish stocked in Bone were from more than one source, say Grindstone, or another lake? Seems like a very short time frame for that much difference between Bone and LCO. Must remember the paragraph following, though:
'In other words, we cannot say if the levels of divergence we are observing among these populations are consistent with a normal between-population level of genetic difference that occurs within a single stock of WI muskellunge. This is not out of the question. Stocks are not simply significantly different populations, but represent a combination of unique populations that share enough genetic similarity to be managed as a genetic unit. If this was the case, the data, while showing significant differences between populations, would not necessarily mean a successful translocation.'
And wouldn't the changes in the genetics between LCO and Bone Lake fish occur only if the Bone Lake fish WERE reproducing?
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Mike Roberts asked the following questions:
MIKE: What does this mean for the transfer of fish from Butternut to LCO? On hold for further study? Not going to happen? Will happen anyway?
DAVE: Not going to happen any time soon, if ever. The muskellunge in these two lakes are different to a statistically significant degree. Based upon what we know now, it would be irresponsible to proceed with the transfer, so I have cancelled it for 2007. When all the genetic testing is completed in a couple years, we'll have a better handle on the biological relevance of these statistically signficant differences. We'll be able to see the full range of genetic variation across northern Wisconsin. If it turns out that most lakes differ by about the same degree that Butternut differs from LCO, and if that difference ultimately is judged to be biologically irrelevant, we may reconsider a stock transfer between the lakes. But until then, we are going to play it safe and assume that we might harm LCO by moving adult fish there that did not evolve in that lake and might not perform as well as the record-producing genetic stock that did evolve there.
We will still look for a home outside the native range of muskellunge in Wisconsin for some of the overabundant fish in Butternut; but we don't have one lined up yet. At LCO, we will focus more on reducing the density of northern pike. Dr. Sloss' results suggest that a very limited amount of natural reproduction and recruitment of muskellunge may be happening at LCO -- so low that we fail to detect it with our usual method of fall electrofishing. If there are places on LCO where musky eggs will survive and hatch (likely, in my opinion), we need to reduce the moderately high pike density (2-4 adults per acre currently) so that young muskies (2-12 inches long) have a fighting chance of surviving to adulthood.
MIKE: How is it possible there is such a difference in genetic markers, considering these lakes have had fish stocked from the same hatchery over the last 20 +/- years.
DAVE: Maybe stocked fish have not been surviving at the rates documented in past studies. Or perhaps they survive but do not reproduce as successfully as fish that evolved in each system. We don't know. These results surprised even the geneticists to some extent, but the results are clear. Hopefully someday we will understand why.
MIKE: Does this mean that stocked fish are not reproducing at all, in any lake?
DAVE: No, not necessarily. But it certainly casts more doubt than existed previously on the extent to which stocked fish contribute to musky populations in which there is some natural reproduction and recruitment by the fish that evolved in each system.
MIKE: Have any samples been collected from the big Wisconsin strain fish currently showing up in Mill Lacs, What is the suspected origin of those fish?
DAVE: You'd have to ask the Minnesota DNR that question; but I know they intended to capture fish from Mille Lacs in spring of 2006 and send samples to Dr. Sloss for analysis. We know that any muskellunge stocked into Mille Lacs from 1984 through 1987 originated in Wisconsin (mostly Kalepp's Fish Farm), and Kalepp's broodfish came from a variety of sources in north central Wisconsin.
I hope this answers your questions, Mike.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 10/31/2006 6:31 AM
| |
| | |
| My point exactly. If Bone Lake fish were reproducing with other genetically different strains (Mud, Spider, whatever), isn't that situation in which the risk outbreeding depression occurs? If Bone Lake fish do not recruit at this time, is it an indicator of such a situation? And if the Bone Lake fish do not share the genetic profile with any of its documented "source" waters, would we say that a unique population developed?
| |
| | |
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Dave,
When do you think the genetic info from the Chippewa Flowage will be available?
Thanks,
Corey Meyer
Edited by muskymeyer 10/30/2006 3:46 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Cory,
The report indicates a late 2007 date for further information, I believe.
Monk, I think you ase getting just a little ahead of the data here. The Bone Lake fish were unique; that was listed as 'interesting'. I'll let Dave answer my questions as he has time, which should answer yours. I again ask, how would fish from the lakes you mention cause what you suggest if there is low to no NR IN Bone, and when they didn't effect the same brood stock in LCO? Would it not be more likely we are looking at a multiple source stocking in Bone originally? Not too sure about this one!
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Corey, here is a direct quote from Dr. Sloss' report under the heading of "Genetic Stock Identification of Wisconsin Muskellunge:"
"No preliminary data on this project is or will be available until the release of the interim project report in fall 2007." I know that includes data collected from muskellunge on the Chippewa Flowage and many other waters in spring of 2006.
We are lucky to have a popularized summary of what Dr. Sloss knows thus far. Normally, research scientists do not open up their work for public review (including possible misinterpretation and criticism) until they have actually published their results in a scientific report or professional journal article. But Dr. Sloss knows how intensely interested everyone has become in this subject. It was very considerate (and voluntary) of him to provide this much information at this point in time. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Steve Worrall asked, "My question would be how a 'hatchery strain' would be created by stocking LCO fish in Bone and adding other fish from other sources, if the Spider/Callahan/Bone/Woodruff stockings had no significant effect on the LCO fish"
DAVE: First, I really don't think the term 'hatchery strain' applies in this situation, which probably is why Steve put it in quotation marks. That terminology usually is reserved for situations in which captive broodstock are held in a hatchery and bred over multiple generations, usually resulting in young fish that do not compete well with wild fish when stocked. (Past trout rearing and stocking practices in Wisconsin provide the best example of that phenomenon.) Bone Lake muskellunge are wild fish with their own genetic characteristics that now differ significantly from those of their presumptive founder population -- the muskellunge of LCO. Why do Bone Lake muskies differ from LCO muskies after only 50-60 years in Bone Lake? Nobody really knows at this point in time. But ONE hypothesis (mine only) is that relatively few LCO fish were used as broodstock for the first Bone Lake stockings, comprising an incomplete copy, if you will, of the LCO musky genetic stock. In other words, Bone Lake may not have received the full complement of genetic diversity LCO had to offer, and so the populations look different today and perhaps have been different from the start. It's this very concern (about genetic diversity) that led to a new protocol regarding the number and method of mating of adult broodstock -- implemented last spring for the first time on the Chippewa Flowage where we mated ~26 females with ~3 unique males each. All this aside, I am speculating about why LCO and Bone are different today. I do so only to point out that there is more than one possible explanation for some of the things we have just learned. I don't see much value in speculating further.
It's time for folks to acknowledge that the handful of instances in which some eggs were taken from Mud-Callahan and Big Spider had no measurable impact on the genetic stock structure of muskellunge being propagated in Wisconsin. They clearly had no impact on LCO, probably because muskies stocked back in the 1950s when most of that mixing occurred were only 5-6 inches long and were not as likely to survive in the wild as the 10-12 inch fish we stock routinely today. Anyway, I am glad to know that LCO fish look the same genetically as they did back when Cal Johnson caught his momentary world record there in 1949. You won't see us (DNR) doing anything intentionally that would endanger the integrity of the genetic stock that produced THAT fish.
I think Bytor (Troy Schoonover) asked if we were done using Bone Lake as a source of broodstock. Possibly, but not because we think there is anything inherently wrong with them. The new protocol developed by Dr. Sloss and adopted by WDNR requires each hatchery (Woodruff and Spooner) to rotate annually among five different waters that have fish of all sizes AND significant natural reproduction. We have not documented much natural reproduction at Bone, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. I don't know enough about Bone Lake (outside my management area) to comment further, but I think I've answered Troy's question.
OCTOBER 31 AMENDMENT: I need to clarify something important about the Bone Lake genetic results to date. My first paragraph above is a bit misleading (unintentionally). I just re-read paragraph 3 of Dr. Sloss' report more carefully. Note that fish sampled from Bone Lake were all young-of-year fingerlings from a single year's hatchery production (2004). Dr. Sloss did that comparison merely out of interest to see if the fish being stocked into Butternut, LCO, and other study lakes were genetically different or similar to the adult populations sampled in those lakes. They were not, which causes us to wonder if the genetic stocks in Butternut and even LCO may be more heavily influenced by natural reproduction than we thought previously. But if we want to know the true genetic make-up of the Bone Lake muskellunge population (not just the young fish propagated in one year by spawning a sub-sample of adults), then we need to sample a representative cross-section of Bone Lake adults, just as we did for Butternut and LCO. (I don't think this has been done yet.) This would eliminate the inherent restriction of diversity seen when using only a single sample of broodfish. Dr. Sloss did not elaborate on this point in his report because it was ancillary to the primary question of whether Butternut and LCO were similar or different. But the bottom line is this: We cannot yet assume that we understand the genetic stock structure of Bone Lake muskellunge, or where Bone Lake fits with respect to other musky lakes in northern Wisconsin.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 10/31/2006 6:28 AM
| |
| | |
| Other questions:
1. We talk of genetic diversity and the impact it has had in the stocking practices. However, when dealing with LCO and its low adult population (same could be said of Round Lake), could we run the risk of not having enough diversity among the adult population that does reproduce? At what level do things get critical from a genetic standpoint on a lake that size. If I recall, I think we were dealing with adult #'s of around 200-250, and if only a subset of that is successfully reproducing, seems like a small %.
2. The Butternut to LCO transfer was cancelled because of significant genetic differences. When making future selections of brood stock lakes and lakes that receive hatchery fish, to what level of genetic similarity or diference will be acceptable to make stocking decisions (probably will be answered later in the study). If we run into a situation where little genetic similarities are found among musky stocks, will the genetic zone theory still hold or will brood source be chosen based on other criteria (i.e. natural recruiting, larger growth, etc.).
3. It seems like we are dealing with a limited number of genetic markers, but can a secondary result of the study possibly identify similiarities among larger specimens? And larger specimens that were caught years ago... a historical similarity. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Very interesting stuff! Thank you very much Dave for helping getting the info out to us. And thank you again for sticking your neck out and answering our questions.
Is Dr. Sloss’s study fully funded all the way to the end? Is there any risk funding will be shifted to something else?
This is something US musky fishermen need to pay very close attention to as the work being done here will affect musky fishermen for generations to come. Also it is very possible that as a result of this work more work will be needed. We need to stay on top of it and make sure it gets funded.
Again thank you.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| Steve, I understand I'm ahead of the curve on this one, because at this point that is all we can do! And after reading Dave's amendment, I agree we probably didn't get a 100% accurate genetic profile on Bone, but I think it would add even another twist if it differed significantly from the results of the brood sampling.
Definitely grateful we have some information to talk to, but in a study of this magnitude (both in dollars and potential impact), a yearly progress report seems to be a given. And when I went back and reread the study plan, Dr. Sloss did include a caveat that he would report the progress of the study on annual basis, if requested by the DNR. So I will definitely look forward to the next report next Fall/Winter... hopefully with even more data (I'm sure) to share.
I agree that we need to let the scientists complete their study and let them come to their conclusions indepently, from both sides. However, I see no harm in us discussing results before the study is complete and raising questions (as I'm sure they are doing in the lab). Again, I'm not trying to make any conclusions on what has been done so far, just bringing up some different questions (that I'm sure the white coats have already raised and will surely add value to the end product).
I guess what might be the silver lining in this is native musky populations may have some type of resistance to incorporating the stocked Bone Lake strain. Whether this is due to an incapability of the Bone Lake fish to adapt and survive to their new lake or their lack of success to reproduce with native strains, I think this is a good thing. Because at this point we DON'T know what we have (genetically) in Bone lake, they have not had success in sustaining natural recruiting populations and shown an overall lack of trophy producing potential.
If after we are able to unlock the Wisconsin DNA "code" and can identify those populations that have sustained natural recruitment AND trophy potential (i.e. big fish in the nets verified!), we may have a chance to wipe the Bone lake slate clean get the job done right.
I'm with Corey though, I can't wait until the Chip results are published. Dave & Co. were able to net some large fish and it would be interesting to see how that population pans out. And although I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the current LCO genetics is the same as Cal's fish.... until we crack the case open at the Moccassin, take a fin clip and test it... the lake has produced some monsters in the past and the potential is there.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| MIKE ROBERTS ASKED: Is Dr. Sloss’s study fully funded all the way to the end? Is there any risk funding will be shifted to something else?
DAVE: Mike, to my knowledge, this study is funded at least through 2007 (end of first graduate student's work) and is extremely likely to be continued through 2009 (end of second graduate student's work and end of study). I don't call the shots, but it is very difficult for me to imagine that funding for this project would get redirected to anything else. Thanks much for your interest and support for some of the most important research to be conducted on muskellunge to date.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 201
Location: Stevens Point | In response to the Mile Lacs question, a fair number of fish were sampled from there including both large MN and WI strain fish. So the data on these should be interesting to see. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| I read the report. Understand a fair amount of what is reported, and I have to admit, the findings have me scratching my head.
Anybody else?
I have to say that this is at least as interesting as the landlocked salmon strains forming 3 divergent populations in 12 generations.
As always, thanks to Dave N for bringing us something to gnaw on...! | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yup, has me wondering too. LCO and Butternut are easier to understand because those were already there, but Bone is an enigma. If the Bone Lake fish have no measurable effect on the LCO genetics when stocked there, are FROM LCO originally, do not reproduce in Bone to any significant degree, how would that population diverge? I'm lost...
I guess that's why there are scientists!
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| sworrall - 11/1/2006 7:47 AM
Yup, has me wondering too. LCO and Butternut are easier to understand because those were already there, but Bone is an enigma. If the Bone Lake fish have no measurable effect on the LCO genetics when stocked there, are FROM LCO originally, do not reproduce in Bone to any significant degree, how would that population diverge? I'm lost...
I guess that's why there are scientists!
Hey guys, don't think that we scientists aren't scratching our heads, too. You just never know what you're going to find when you start turning over rocks to see what lies beneath.
But regarding Bone Lake, Steve, please review the Oct 31 amendment to my Oct 30 post where I try to explain that the Bone Lake fish tested were only young-of-year fish produced by the Bone Lake adults used as broodstock in 2004. To make an apples-to-apples comparison of the Bone Lake musky population with LCO, Butternut, and others, we need to analyze a sample of 30-50 adults from Bone Lake. The only thing we can half-way conclude at this point in time is that the various stockings of fingerlings from Bone Lake (which in 2004 didn't match the adult population in LCO) apparently have not altered the genetic stock structure of the adult population in LCO. That leads us to wonder if natural reproduction and recruitment may be more of a factor in LCO than previously believed based upon our limited sampling methods. I hope that clarifies where we are, at least a little!
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| Could the key statement in this discussion be the following?
"Stocks are not simply significantly different populations, but represent a combination of unique populations that share enough genetic similarity to be managed as a genetic unit."
It will be interesting to find out as we analyze more waters, what the averge number of "unique populations" represent a "genetic unit".
Agreed that the Bone findings are an interesting development, but I don't know if we should spend a significant amount of time studying a lake that more than likely will never be used in the rota. I'm more interested in seeing results from lakes such as Grindstone, LCO, Chip & Namekagon, as well as fish from Mille Lacs and Leech.
Dave, I know you mentioned reducing pike to help out recruitment (and I'm willing to pull my share out next season), but is there anything that might be on the table with regards to improving Musky Bay? I know the court decision was a setback, but are there any other options to help improve the habitat?
thanks. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| MuskyMonk asked: "Dave, I know you mentioned reducing pike to help out recruitment (and I'm willing to pull my share out next season), but is there anything that might be on the table with regards to improving Musky Bay? I know the court decision was a setback, but are there any other options to help improve the habitat?"
DAVE: The recent court decision is being appealed, so we should wait to see the result of that action. If the appeal is rejected, there may be options for funding habitat restoration with EPA money; but it would be a major effort requiring many cooperating partners to compete effectively for such a large pot of money. Let's see where the appeal goes first.
In the meantime, the LCO Fishery Management Plan identifies preservation of wild shorelands and shoreline "tree drops" as strategies likely to improve the chances of survival for young muskellunge. We (Courte Oreilles Lake Association, Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc., DNR and others) could get going on those strategies this winter. We also hope to start physically removing some overabundant northern pike from Musky Bay early next spring.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 11/1/2006 11:07 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Dave,
Has Dr. Sloss been asked or has he discussed the likelyhood of the Bone lake fish being inbread? It seems all the concern is about outbreeding depresion in the future when it is very realistic inbreeding depresion has occured with the Bone lake fish. Based on the small number of fish used to create Bone lake and the egg collecting parctices that were used for the last several years it sounds similar to your trout example. Bone lake would have just been a larger pond for the "hatchery strain" (lack of better term). This could help explain the poor survival and representaion of Bone lake fish in LCO. A larger sample of adult fish from Bone lake would help rather than just the 2004 class.
The divergence could also be explained simply by any species that produces houndreds of thousands of eggs for each reproductive cycle has the potential to evolve quickly.
Thanks,
Jason | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| JASON MALONE asked a very good question, as follows:
"Has Dr. Sloss been asked or has he discussed the likelyhood of the Bone lake fish being inbread? It seems all the concern is about outbreeding depresion in the future when it is very realistic inbreeding depresion has occured with the Bone lake fish. Based on the small number of fish used to create Bone lake and the egg collecting parctices that were used for the last several years it sounds similar to your trout example. Bone lake would have just been a larger pond for the "hatchery strain" (lack of better term). This could help explain the poor survival and representaion of Bone lake fish in LCO. A larger sample of adult fish from Bone lake would help rather than just the 2004 class."
DAVE: Whenever we actually analyze a representative sample of the adult musky population in Bone Lake, it should be possible to run tests that would indicate whether some degree of inbreeding has occurred. There should be technical indicators of any loss of genetic diversity. So I guess we'll have to wait for that analysis to be performed. But even then, we won't know if inbreeding DEPRESSION has occurred, because that would imply that we have been able to demonstrate a link between loss of genetic diversity and reduced performance in growth rate, reproduction, disease resistance, or some other important performance characteristic. That would take considerable time. And we already have some reason to believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the ability of Bone Lake muskellunge offspring to grow fast and survive to reach trophy size. (See all the previous discussion on this Research Forum about 939-acre Rice Lake.) Anyway, the prospect of lost genetic diversity and inbreeding is certainly of interest to fishery managers and geneticists, so it will be examined. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks, Dave, that is what I hoped would be brought out. Saw a real nice 8 tonight, but no buck tag; already filled! | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I am curious about Rice Lake, WI., since it continues to be used as a 'benchmark of stocking success". Are big fish being caught or netted in Rice (documented)? If so, how big? Is there natural reproduction in Rice?
Thnaks | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I was able to answer my own question, as to natural reproduction...there isn't any.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/musky/2002%20Rice%20Lake%20Mus... | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Acquired by performing a search on the term 'Rice Lake' searching the Research Forum, all posts:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=24...
Good reading, and answers your questions, I hope.
A new survey will be completed this spring and next. Are you attempting to point something out about the lack of NR there? | |
| | |
Posts: 757
| I've been fishing on Rice Lake for the last several years. My largest fish so far has been a very healthy, large girth 46 incher that I took back in September. Last October, I raised 2 that I know were larger on a Manta. Not to bad for a shallow, weedy, 939 acre lake. From what I know of the lake's history, it was drawn down in the early eighties, most of the fishery removed, then re-stocked in the mid-eighties. Muskies were first stocked there in 1987 with I believe LCO fish. I've read and heard that several fish over 50inches have been taken. I do believe the information as I have seen large fish as well. The lake has an abundance of small northern pike, some large bass, and panfish. White suckers are the primary forage along with panfish and the small northerns. Why are muskies doing well in the lake, I can't answer that. The fact that muskies are at the top of the food chain, in systems where they are first introduced, maybe growth rates are above average. The dnr should have the information. Kdawg | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Thanks for the link, I just went through most of it including the article. I was begining to see why Rice is noted so much, given that it had no muskies prior to stocking...until I read 'Locals' post suggesting that there were muskies in Rice prior to the WDNR stocking. Quoting Dave N, "Thanks for the additional info, Local. I was aware of a very low population prior to draining the lake down to a shallow pool, but I assumed that large fish disappeared at that time and that the Bone Lake/LCO muskies stocked in 1987 are the ones showing up as 50-inchers now. It would be interesting to get an accurate date on drawdown and refilling, if you can find it. We may need to rethink this. Thanks again."
Any additional info here? | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You indicated yourself there was no documented NR in Rice, and linked a report. That essentially closes the door on any 'remaining' large fish from the draw down in 1987; a large fish from that time frame would now be about 30 years old; not likely. In fact, a 35" fish from that time frame would now be 25 or 26 years old, again, not likely especially given the numbers of fish surveyed. I would think the numbers and growth rates documented in the Rice Lake surveys from 1987 to date indicate it's the stocked fish being tracked for the most part, if not in totality, given the timeline and documented growth. If remaining fish were there after the draw down which would have the effect of basically stripping out what was there and jump starting the lake with a new stocking and those muskies were reproducing, one would think we would be seeing those throughout the 20 year time frame, yes? And, if those fish were there, the numbers had to be VERY low after the draw down. | |
| | |
| It appears we've gone a little off topic, but I am back to comment on Rice Lake.
Regarding Rice Lake, I know of one 50+ inch fish caught within the last 2 years. That fish was caught from shore and kept. It was on the last page of the sports section of the Rice Lake Chronotype.
Two points I want to clear up. One, this lake was not drawn down in an attempt to help the fishery. It was drawn down so the dam could be repaired. When the lake was drawn down water did remain in the lake basis so it is possible fish could have survived. Two, this lake is essentially a dammed river. The lake is a section of the Red Cedar river that is dammed up. The river flows into it the lake and starts again on the other side of the dam on Main Street. There are muskies in the Red Cedar river. There may be no natural reproduction in the lake (which I have my reservations about), but what about connected bodies of water, i.e. the Red Cedar? My point is, there have been muskies in this body of water for a long time. Based on what I know about this lake I do not think it should not be heralded as some sort of current day stocking success story.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Local,
Here's what Mr. Neuswanger had to say about the lake in the thread we're talking about:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 80
252525
(207.118.229.208) According to WDNR's online fish stocking database (with 1987 stocking numbers corrected on 2/21/06), Rice Lake in Barron County was stocked as follows:
1984: 939,000 northern pike fry
1987: 1,400 muskellunge fingerlings (9 inches) from the Spooner Hatchery
That year, 4 quarts of eggs came from Lac Courte Oreilles and 18.5 quarts of eggs came from Bone Lake (no mixing with fish from Woodruff Hatchery or elsewhere). So all the muskies stocked into Rice Lake in 1987 had to come originally from either LCO or Bone Lake, according to Spooner Hatchery Manager Gary Lindenberger.
1988-1991: 1,400 muskellunge fingerlings (7-10 inches) annually
1993: 1,900 muskellunge fingerlings (10 inches)
1995, 1997, 1999: 1,400 muskellunge fingerlings (10-12 inches) in each of those years
In 1995, the Spooner Hatchery sent eggs to Woodruff and was closed for renovation. So there is no guarantee that fish stocked into Rice Lake by the Woodruff Hatchery in 1995 originated from eggs collected by the Spooner crew. Irregardless, whatever fish were stocked in 1995 would not be showing up as 50-inch fish in 2005, so this is a moot point and was added solely for the sake of accuracy and thoroughness (DJN 2/23/06).
2001, 2003: 939 muskellunge fingerlings (10-12 inches) in each of those years
These numbers are now confirmed with the local fishery biologist, Heath Benike, as of 2/21/06. I also have confirmed that no muskellunge existed in Rice Lake prior to 1987. Therefore, the oldest muskellunge possible in Rice Lake would have been 18 years old in 2005 (1987 stocked year class).
According to Heath Benike, the last fyke netting survey conducted on Rice Lake was done in spring of 1994. Heath characterized the musky population at that time as one of low density. Fish ranged in length from 12.5 inches to 40.0 inches at that time. So the biggest fish captured in the 1994 fykenetting survey was 40.0 inches long after 7 full growing seasons. That's pretty good.
A number of fish captured during that 1994 survey were aged by the scale method. That method is not particularly reliable for old fish, but these data are probably fairly accurate:
Males and females combined, at age 8 (after 7 full growing seasons), averaged 39.2 inches long. The northwestern Wisconsin average is 36.9 inches at age 8.
Males and females combined, at age 6 (after 5 full growing seasons), averaged 33.5 inches long. The northwestern Wisconsin average is 31.3 inches at age 6.
Heath concluded that growth was above average for northwestern Wisconsin. Apparently those fish have continued to grow at an above-average rate if many are now being caught at 50 inches and larger. This is no surprise, because 939-acre Rice Lake is eutrophic (rich in nutrients) and has 23 species of forage fish, of which redhorse and white sucker (preferred prey for muskellunge) are common to abundant.
So here are some LCO/Bone Lake fish, growing fast and getting big, just like many of the recently revived or newly created musky fisheries in productive Minnesota lakes. Finally we have an apples-to-apples comparison. Word must be spreading about the Rice Lake musky population, because Heath has received his first tournament permit application from the Wisconsin Musky Tour for 2006 at Rice Lake. He is scheduled to perform a fyke-netting survey in spring of 2007 (to mark muskies) with a follow-up survey in spring 2008 (to recapture muskies and calculate a population estimate). The results should be interesting.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The context here was growth rate and how the stocked fish ( Bone and LCO) were doing in Rice Lake according to the fisheries manager on site. Thanks for the correction on the dam repair, I see that in the thread now. The population there is still characterized as 'low density', which as I understand can be a good thing.
Greg Morse is a well known AVID Muskie angler who lived there in Rice Lake at the time, and a friend to many here on MuskieFIRST. If he said he knew of 5 big fish, I'd be inclined to believe him. He had no reason to inflate any numbers in that article.
I don't think there is any question that the fish stocked in Rice followed the time line described by Mr. Benike.
The 50" plus accounts are what they are, so we'll leave those as 'anecdotal'.
Local, are you from Rice Lake? | |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Let’s assume that there are 50” Bone Lakers swimming in Rice Lake. Other than the fact that it took 20+ years to grow ‘em this big (as opposed to 10 yrs in Nancy for comparison sake), and the fact that there isn’t any natural reproduction, let’s say everyone is pleased with this stocking success. Heck, 30 pounders in WI...bring it!
Let me throw out a few thoughts and questions for the sake of discussion.
1) For every Rice Lake, how many other lakes stocked with Bone Lakers are not putting out 30 pounders? In other words, is the success of Rice the exception or the norm?
2) If it is the exception, than is it really what the WDNR should be hanging their hat on, as far as stocking success in WI?
3) If it became apparent over time that the fish in Rice topped out at around the 50” mark, how would folks regard this stocking program?
4) If another lake, say for example, North Twin Lake, Vilas, which used to put out 40+ pound fish ( a 53 lber in eth 1950s) were currently equivalent to Rice…meaning producing 30 pound Bone Lakers but unable to get back to where it once was….would folks be happy with this? Would they consider this a stocking success?
5) Most importantly…. What do folks consider a trophy fish?!
| |
| | |
| 1) For every Rice Lake, how many other lakes stocked with Bone Lakers are not putting out 30 pounders? In other words, is the success of Rice the exception or the norm?
MM-Seems to be the exception. A lot of attention is put on Rice lake, but what of the other bodies of waters that are sustained by Bone lake fish?
2) If it is the exception, than is it really what the WDNR should be hanging their hat on, as far as stocking success in WI?
MM-If its the exception, I would be looking for better brood lakes, IMHO.
3) If it became apparent over time that the fish in Rice topped out at around the 50” mark, how would folks regard this stocking program?
MM-Depends on the % of the population that reaches 50". If it was 5-10%, I would say it is a success story, if it is less than 1%, or 1-2%... not a trophy population, not the standards I'd want.
4) If another lake, say for example, North Twin Lake, Vilas, which used to put out 40+ pound fish ( a 53 lber in eth 1950s) were currently equivalent to Rice…meaning producing 30 pound Bone Lakers but unable to get back to where it once was….would folks be happy with this? Would they consider this a stocking success?
MM-If a lake has the ability to produce those types of super fish (40+lbser and and the occassional freak) and aren't on a consistent basis, then I think you need to ask why not.
5) Most importantly…. What do folks consider a trophy fish?!
MM-For me, it would be 50"+, 30+lb. But history shows on the water that I ussually fish, anything 45"+ and 25lbs. has been the upper tier... and over 50" would be rare. | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) There have been reports of big muskies out of Rice for alot longer than one year.
The growth rate of the stocked fish from both LCO and Bone, was quite a bit better than growth rates of Wisconsin Muskies in other waters according to the info Dave posted. One cannot apply your analogy to fisheries management successfully, READ THE DOZENS OF POSTS in this forum ABOUT WHAT DIFFERENT WATERS MEAN TO THE PRESENCE OF TROPHY FISH and growth rates, why it's better to have good sustained growth, etc. And, watch the Casselman video. Even the top trophy waters in the world have strong variances to upper confidence. Georgian Bay and the St Lawrence, both HUGE low density fisheries, differ by about 13# and top Wabigoon, my favorite distant destination, by 20#. Is the 'problem' 'the fish' on the Goon? Look at what happened at LOTW with the average fish size there over the last 20 years, is it 'the fish' there, too? How many 50" fish would you expect to be in Rice from the numbers stocked? Were all the stocked year classes a success?
2) Where do you see this statement? CONTEXT, sir. The debate then was about whether Bone and LCO fish are capable of growing at a good rate and reaching trophy size, which they apparently have in Rice. Next time you are up in Minnesota around Bemidji, stop in at Greg Morse's, he'll serve you a beer and a burger and let you know what he saw, knows about, and caught on Rice when he lived and worked there. I'd bet he fished muskies more in one year there and across North America than you will in the next ten. The man is/was obsessed and is a VERY accomplished stick, and is a good friend to many of us here. Heck, he may even buy you one.
3) The upper confidence level of any body of water isn't simply a function of genetics or any one person's insistence that 'it's the fish'. I want 50# fish in the Moen, too, but that water supports fish to about 40# and low 50" class if they don't get smashed over the head at 48", which they have for years. The little lake ( less than 250 acres) Team Rumbleknott caught the 49 out of last week produced TWO 53" class fish (released) last year. Same stock, at least at point of introduction, and in that water NR is excellent and the 'mutts' are doing just fine, thank you. George (under 600 acres) has produced several in the low 50's over the last few years under VERY low fishing pressure; I got one there that was 40# class and it's a mile from my door. Same stock, but NR not as good. Spider has produced one over 44" I know of in the last couple years, but is a great numbers lake, same stock. Your argument short circuits right here. So, if 50's are available in the number they should be in a low density, excellent forage based water that had very few muskies before stocking, I guess I'd be pretty happy about that.
4) North Twin can't be compared to Spider. It can't be compared to the Moen. It also can't be compared to Sand, Long, or many of the other muskie waters up there. The situation there can't be compared to any western Wisconsin lake or fish, either, I don't believe, so your question is moot. Didn't a couple of 50's come out of there not too long ago during a tournament? I remember something about that...
What makes you think North Twin can't be as good as 'it was'? I assure you, Pelican can and will be, now that we managed to protect the current low density, high quality population there to 50". Two people working hard to get facts to the public overcame intense political and social resistance, and managed to create a situation whereby Pelican can show her true potential and hold her own during a 10 year no stock scenario. That's what happens when positive energy is applied to working with the local anglers, the DNR, and local businesses. If they had expended that energy demanding St Clair fish HAVE to be stocked in Pelican, they'd still be wasting my time and yours, and nothing positive would have resulted.
Compare any lake to LCO in only ONE facet, the fact that the LCO genetics are the same genetics that were there IN the 50's despite dire predictions to the contrary by some. So it shouldn't be argued it's 'the fish' in LCO, if the lake produced huge muskies (it still does now and again) back then, the genetics are the same now as then, so the capacity of the fish to be as big as they ever have been speaking from that aspect....LCO fish were stocked into Bone originally and didn't get as large there, ever, door slammed shut again on the 'it's the fish' thing.
5) This has been covered to death here, read up on it. Out of Spider here in Oneida, a 44 is a hog. I appreciate that fish as much as the 40# pig I got out of George a couple years back, and the 50 pounder I got off the Goon. A 40# fish on the Goon is a great fish, but not a true hog for that water. A 45# fish from the St. Lawrence is a very nice fish, but a true hog there would be over 60.
Reality, when it comes to personal feelings about what constitutes a trophy, is based on individual perception. Education alters perception, and if that education involves the real science and fact of the matter, we all can debate the facts reasonably.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| I am beginning to see some "spin" and revisionist history here again, so I'm going to make one last attempt to communicate the facts and the scientific perspective on this issue. Friends and critics who have already put two-plus-two together, please bear with me one last time:
SEAN61S wrote: "Let’s assume that there are 50” Bone Lakers swimming in Rice Lake. Other than the fact that it took 20+ years to grow ‘em this big (as opposed to 10 yrs in Nancy for comparison sake), and the fact that there isn’t any natural reproduction, let’s say everyone is pleased with this stocking success. Heck, 30 pounders in WI...bring it!
Let me throw out a few thoughts and questions for the sake of discussion.
1) For every Rice Lake, how many other lakes stocked with Bone Lakers are not putting out 30 pounders? In other words, is the success of Rice the exception or the norm?
DAVE N: Sean, NOBODY in the DNR has proclaimed Rice Lake as some grand musky stocking success, so please stop trying to give folks that impression. The history of Rice Lake was shared because it is the only example I could find where DNR biologists basically "started from scratch" with muskellunge when the flowage was drawn down for dam repair. Now, I realize some people want to believe that lots of previously existing muskellunge miraculously survived the extreme drawdown conditions there; but there is absolutely no evidence of that. What we DO know is that young muskies from Bone Lake broodstock were reintroduced, captured several years later, and verified (by aging scales on young, fast-growing fish) as being fish stocked during the years immediately following renovation. This is a VERY unique set of circumstances. Other lakes in Wisconsin were not drained and then restocked with muskellunge. And we rarely can trace back the exact origin of broodstock for fingerlings stocked into any particular body of water; but in this case we could, after considerable digging into the records. We KNOW the fish stocked back into Rice Lake after renovation originated from Bone Lake broodstock. So THIS UNIQUE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES is what prompted me to bring the Rice Lake case history to light, not some attempt to declare the Rice Lake stocking program a grand success. I don't know if anyone expected muskies to reproduce naturally in Rice Lake, due to fish community composition, but they have not done so. Does that make it a failure? Not if nobody expected them to reproduce. We stock lakes all over southern Wisconsin where there is no expectation of natural reproduction. Does their lack of reproduction in Rice Lake prove they are genetically compromised from a reproductive standpoint? No, absolutely not. We would have to see consistent reproductive failure in other lakes where Bone Lake fingerlings are stocked, and we don't see that.
SEAN61S: 2) If it is the exception, than is it really what the WDNR should be hanging their hat on, as far as stocking success in WI?
DAVE N: I have already partially answered this question above. Here's the rest. I hope some of our readers know of Dr. Richard Feynman. He received his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1942. He played an important part in the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos during World War II. He taught at Cornell and at the California Institute of Technology. In 1965 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum electrodynamics. His work on the Space Shuttle Challenger Commission is well known, especially his famous demonstration of the susceptibility of the O-rings to cold – an elegant experiment that required nothing more than a glass of ice water. Richard Feynman died on February 15, 1988. But his legacy lives on. Here is a quote from Dr. Feynman about the nature and use of "exceptions" in science:
DR. RICHARD FEYNMAN: “This is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”
DAVE N: The "rule" being proclaimed by the WMRP Team was that muskellunge in Bone Lake were incapable of growing at a fast enough rate to attain a trophy size of 50 inches, or anything close to 50 inches, because they were GENETICALLY incapable of doing so. They were MUTTS, remember? THAT was the WMRP Team's "rule" or conclusion. So what do we, as good scientists, try to do? We try to find an EXCEPTION to that rule in order to learn whether or not it's true. And we DID find an exception at Rice Lake because of its unique history. We found an irrefutable exception to the WMRP Team's rule. So, according to Dr. Feynman, that rule MUST be wrong. Even ONE exception to a rule that proclaims a GENETIC cause of muttness among Bone Lake broodstock progeny means that rule is wrong. So get over it, Sean. We have too many other musky management challenges to continue spending time debating an issue that has been resolved.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
On an unrelated note, I lived in Los Alamos for a couple years while in High School, WOW what a place. Gray AEC trucks all over the place, incredible scenery with Mule Deer walking down main street at times, a rain at about 1 PM nearly every day during part of the summer, and one of the finest High Schools in the country at the time. (Whoa, this was a long time ago...1968 or so?) The guard tower structures were still in place back then on the way up from White Rock, but the city was open. Best Green Chile in the world!
The names of the scientists who made the Lab there what it was were spoken of fairly often in the sciences in High School there. That was, and I am sure still is, a heck of a brain trust.
And with that, the Rice Lake debate is now complete. Any further questions/comments should be back on topic, please.
| |
| | |
Posts: 757
| Is there any chance a special 50 inch size limit can be implemented on Rice to protect the fishery? With it being a relatively small lake, fish taken in the mid to high forties could have a negative impact on the fishery, true? Kdawg | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's not easy to get a 50" limit here in Wisconsin, there are a ton of road blocks along the way. Check with Mike Roberts and Norm Wild here on the board, they got it done on Pelican, thereby protecting that low density/no stocking trophy fishery from over harvest, and allowing those big girls in Pelican to get even bigger! | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve you wrote the following:
“If the Bone Lake fish have no measurable effect on the LCO genetics when stocked there, are FROM LCO originally, do not reproduce in Bone to any significant degree, how would that population diverge? I'm lost...”
I have been chewing on that and wanted to point something out. Even though the Bone Lake fish do not appear to be naturally reproducing in Bone Lake, if I am not mistaken it has been regularly stocked with fish from the hatchery. The fish where produced from eggs and milt removed from Bone Lake fish year after year and restocked back into Bone. Could this practice be the reason for the population divergence and for the speed at which it happened?
It’s still doesn’t explain why those markers aren’t showing up in LCO or Butternut, as there should be fish with those genetic swimming around both those lakes, if any of the stocked fish survived.
Unless the limited sample from Bone came from an entirely different stock not native to Bone, which if I read what Dave said may be the case. Right?
Still very confusing!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Dave,
Are the fish in Rice lake going to be sampled and analyzed for genetics? In reading the data from Rice lake how can you be 100% certain the fish in Rice lake reaching large size are the Bone lake progeny. They could be the LCO fish too.
According to the report Steve posted "1987: 1,400 muskellunge fingerlings (9 inches) from the Spooner Hatchery
That year, 4 quarts of eggs came from Lac Courte Oreilles and 18.5 quarts of eggs came from Bone Lake (no mixing with fish from Woodruff Hatchery or elsewhere). So all the muskies stocked into Rice Lake in 1987 had to come originally from either LCO or Bone Lake, according to Spooner Hatchery Manager Gary Lindenberger."
The other years don't state specifics about egg collection. Do we know the origins of the following years?
Realistically we can't jump to any conclusion for or against until they are shown to match one or the other. Only time will tell with further gentic results. To have our minds made up before the actual results are in is bad science. This study is very interesting and has the potential to reveal some great insight into the effects and effectiveness of stocking. I think it will also raise more questions than it can answer.
Are there any non native musky lakes (void of muskies) that have been stocked with Bone lake fish that have documented natural reproduction? If so those would also be interesting to see if they have gentic drift from the parent population.
How many Bone lake fingerlings have been stocked into LCO in the last 15 years? The lack of even one Bone lake match is very puzzling. Could it be the stocked fish can't compete or thrive with the native fish?
Thanks for your answers and time.
Jason | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And, according to the reports, the original stocking into Bone Lake were LCO, as Dave mentioned, plus he clarified the Bone Lake genetic samples here:
'OCTOBER 31 AMENDMENT: I need to clarify something important about the Bone Lake genetic results to date. My first paragraph above is a bit misleading (unintentionally). I just re-read paragraph 3 of Dr. Sloss' report more carefully. Note that fish sampled from Bone Lake were all young-of-year fingerlings from a single year's hatchery production (2004). Dr. Sloss did that comparison merely out of interest to see if the fish being stocked into Butternut, LCO, and other study lakes were genetically different or similar to the adult populations sampled in those lakes. They were not, which causes us to wonder if the genetic stocks in Butternut and even LCO may be more heavily influenced by natural reproduction than we thought previously. But if we want to know the true genetic make-up of the Bone Lake muskellunge population (not just the young fish propagated in one year by spawning a sub-sample of adults), then we need to sample a representative cross-section of Bone Lake adults, just as we did for Butternut and LCO. (I don't think this has been done yet.) This would eliminate the inherent restriction of diversity seen when using only a single sample of broodfish. Dr. Sloss did not elaborate on this point in his report because it was ancillary to the primary question of whether Butternut and LCO were similar or different. But the bottom line is this: We cannot yet assume that we understand the genetic stock structure of Bone Lake muskellunge, or where Bone Lake fits with respect to other musky lakes in northern Wisconsin..'
Also, I have a point/question:
1) If eggs and milt are collected from Bone Lake, and they hatch in hatcheries, doesn't that show viability? What was the source of the fish in the DNR Single Hook Sucker study; I remember a comment that they found YOY in the test ponds during that study, am I remembering right from the Symposium discussion?
2) How would a population of muskies in a lake where no NR takes place have ANY in/out breeding depression or ANY influence from another population if they do not interbreed? How would it be possible? Is your original postulation about limited numbers of LCO fish used to stock Bone more probable?
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Jason, I have time to quickly answer a couple of your questions:
JASON MALONE: Dave, are the fish in Rice lake going to be sampled and analyzed for genetics?
DAVE N: I don't know. In general, we are more concerned about documenting the genetic stock composition of long-established populations of muskellunge within the native range than we are about evaluating the genetics of populations that have been primarily or entirely dependent upon stocking.
JASON MALONE: In reading the data from Rice lake how can you be 100% certain the fish in Rice lake reaching large size are the Bone lake progeny. They could be the LCO fish too.
DAVE N: Let's remember that LCO is the founder population for Bone Lake muskellunge. It was the WMRP Team's conclusion that "contamination" of the LCO genetic stock due to mixing from Big Spider and Mud/Callahan is what ultimately contaminated Bone Lake with "mutts" from LCO. If LCO fish are bad, their offspring in Bone Lake must be bad, according to the WMRP Team. Regardless of souce (Bone or LCO), their growth/size performance in Rice Lake tells us there is nothing wrong with these fish. Also, please remember that the adult population in Bone Lake today MAY be the same genetic stock as the adult population in LCO today; or it may not. That is yet to be tested. But we cannot assume that differences observed with one batch of fingerlings produced from Bone Lake broodstock in 2004 means the adult musky populations in Bone and LCO are different.
JASON MALONE: The other years don't state specifics about egg collection. Do we know the origins of the following years?
DAVE N: I don't. It would be difficult to determine. I fail to see the relevance of such inquiry to the primary question, because the local biologist was able to accurately track the ages and growth rates of the first fish stocked into Rice Lake after it was drawn down for dam repair and restocked with Bone/LCO muskies.
JASON MALONE: Realistically we can't jump to any conclusion for or against until they are shown to match one or the other. Only time will tell with further gentic results. To have our minds made up before the actual results are in is bad science. This study is very interesting and has the potential to reveal some great insight into the effects and effectiveness of stocking. I think it will also raise more questions than it can answer.
DAVE N: I am not jumping to conclusions here. I am answering a specific question with the best results available. The WMRP Team said Bone lake hatchery mutts are genetically incapable of attaining trophy size largely because the LCO fish used to create the Bone Lake population were genetically compromised. [In order to test that hypothesis, it does not matter whether the first post-renovation stockings into Rice Lake came from Bone Lake (the most likely source -- 80% of all eggs produced in 1987) or LCO (the least likely source -- 20% of all eggs produced in 1987). If the eggs and reared fingerlings from both brood lakes were combined at the hatchery (the usual practice in those days), then it is probable that 4 of 5 fish stocked into Rice Lake originated with Bone Lake broodstock.] [Bracketed text amended/added for purposes of clarity on 11/7/06 -- DN]
Jason, I regret that I do not have time to answer all your remaining questions. To do so would require days of file research. Please keep in mind that Rice Lake is outside my area of responsibility. Also, I am not Wisconsin's statewide musky program coordinator. I am just trying to help all the thoughtful people here to move forward and begin considering muskellunge management issues that matter most (e.g., the need to improve the way live suckers are fished in Wisconsin, the need for higher minimum length limits on select waters in Wisconsin, and the need for slot length limits on several waters in Wisconsin). Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 11/7/2006 6:57 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Steve,
I agree the adults in Bone need to be tested, but the ones tested are young from the adults there and are all there is to go on now. The results from the adults could just confuse things more.
Steve"1) If eggs and milt are collected from Bone Lake, and they hatch in hatcheries, doesn't that show viability?"...............
Me: It also creates the problem of removing natural selection at that point, potentially allowing fish that would not survive in the wild to survive in-vitro. This may be showing up in LCO when the fish Bone fish can't survive with the wild population of LCO. One of the problems of inbreeding is unfit offspring that can't survive in the wild. This is well documented with several species especially with lab specimens. You can't make the leap across species, but it does seem that the genetic drift in the Bone lake muskies could be due to inbreeding and paralelles that seen in other species. Have there been unexplained poor production years?
Steve:"2) How would a population of muskies in a lake where no NR takes place have ANY in/out breeding depression or ANY influence from another population if they do not interbreed? How would it be possible? Is your original postulation about limited numbers of LCO fish used to stock Bone more probable?".......................
How would any population survive in say.. Bone lake where there is no natural reproduction?........A small number of fish are stripped of eggs and fertilized in-vitro...... the resulting fish are put back in Bone to be stripped for eggs when they are mature. A computer model could be done to simulate the potential of inbreeding in Bone lake if the original number of fish used to create the sub-population of LCO fish in Bone is known and the number used for each spawn collection since is known. Any isolated lake woud have the eventual potential for inbreeding because you are dealing with a finite population. Who knows how long it would take when you have all the adult fish in a natural reproducing population contributing that is much more random(hence Dr. Sloss's recomendation to change practices), but when you take just a few fish at the same spot/same time year after year it could be accelerated.
Jason
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think the results from testing the adults would confuse anything; much the opposite, see Mr. Neuswanger's response above.
Look at the records; over the years there were fish from LCO, Bone, and other waters (even some from over here) stocked over in NW Wisconsin. We are talking about a total timeframe of about 40 to 50 years covering the Bone lake introduction to the time when Bone was first stripped and on to the present; many when considering chance capture in fyke nets and stripping of those captured, few when looking to apply accelerated evolution or inbreeding considering standard DNR netting practices.
Some felt a couple introductions of Mud Callahan and Spider Lake fish screwed up the gene pool, it now turns out that didn't happen.
My son works on fyke netting crews in the spring, and tells me they get a wide variety of adults from year to year in any single body of water, easily identified from fin clips or the like from a previous capture, or lack thereof.
My point about viability was to point out the obvious, Bone Lake fry came from Bone lake fish, therefore indicating that under the correct conditions, that the spawn is viable.
I believe the diversity Dr. Sloss was looking for in the program by encouraging roe collection from several sources didn't assume ANY 'problem' with the Bone Lake fish.
Question number 2 was directed at Mr. Neuswanger. I mention this for purposes of context.
Hey, anyone know the source of the fish stocked in Pewaukee over the years?
In my opinion Daves last point is the single most important posted here in the last two weeks. | |
| | |
Posts: 31
| Dave,
Thanks for your continued discussion here. I understand your time constraints discussing this. I wish I had more time to spend on this and that I was still in school to work on something like this. Very fascinating findings so far! I bet no one would have thought the LCO and Bone lake fish would show genetic difference even though only preliminary.
DAVE N: Let's remember that LCO is the founder population for Bone Lake muskellunge. It was the WMRP Team's conclusion that "contamination" of the LCO genetic stock due to mixing from Big Spider and Mud/Callahan is what ultimately contamined Bone Lake with "mutts" from LCO. If Bone Lake fish were bad, their source must be bad, according to the WMRP Team. Regardless of souce (Bone or LCO), their growth/size performance in Rice Lake tells us there is nothing wrong with these fish. Also, please remember that the adult population in Bone Lake today MAY be the same genetic stock as the adult population in LCO today. That is yet to be tested and determined. We cannot assume that differences observed with one batch of fingerlings produced from Bone Lake broodstock in 2004 means the adult populations in Bone and LCO are different.
Jason: I'm not interested in the WMRP and thier assertions. The preliminary results show the LCO fish and the Bone lake fish (spawned in 2004) have some genetic difference at the selected alleles used. The fact that both were stocked that year in Rice Lake could show one or the other performs better when stocked depending on the results of testing Rice Lake. You used that as an example for Bone Lake fish performing well and it can’t be assumed it is the Bone Lake fish and not the LCO(prilim relusts show it could matter) fish until tests confirm (maybe both will be found). Mille Lacs also received both if I’m not mistaken. Don’t you think it would be significant to determine if one seems to be performing better (thriving)? If the Bone lake fish are found to be “bad” it does not mean the LCO fish are “bad”. Preliminary results show LCO are the same as 50 years ago. Bone lake fish have potentially changed genetically (from their source) maybe due to genetic drift and inbreeding (this is what I’m interested in) maybe not, but I think that should be examined and is significant to WI musky propagation. I agree this has yet to be determined, but preliminary results point that it could be a possibility.
DAVE N: I am not jumping to conclusions here. I am answering a specific question with the best results available. The WMRP Team said Bone lake hatchery mutts are genetically incapable of attaining trophy size largely because the LCO fish used to create the Bone Lake population were genetically compromised. In order to test that hypothesis, it does not matter whether the first post-renovation stockings into Rice Lake came from Bone Lake (the most likely source -- 80% of all eggs produced in 1987) or LCO (the least likely source).
Jason:
What is the significance of the oldest Rice lake fish you are referring to only matching LCO?
What is the significance of the oldest Rice lake fish matching only Bone?
What is the significance of the oldest Rice lake fish matching both?
What will the Mille Lacs fish match with?
I think the answers to these questions are significant and can shed some light on the assertions that have been made by all… either right or wrong.
This is some interesting reading about inbreeding and genetic drift for fish: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/x3840e/X3840E00.htm
Jason
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
If you have the time, and when, I'll leave this one to you, sir, and thank you in advance for continuing a conversation that we both considered to be taken as far as it can be at this point in Dr. Sloss's work.
I already made my points about the Bone Lake brood stock being FAR from a 'captive population' as in a fish farming situation or parallel. Isn't it an oversimplification to say:
'How would any population survive in say.. Bone lake where there is no natural reproduction?........A small number of fish are stripped of eggs and fertilized in-vitro...... the resulting fish are put back in Bone to be stripped for eggs when they are mature.'
Reasoning:
It's combinations of older, younger, and middle generations stripped from fish fyke netted at random from the base population. Some may have been stripped before, some might have not. And, I might point out that the stock in Bone Lake do very well as far as 'survival in the wild', so that isn't, as I see things, an issue.
I believe you made your point that the testing of the Bone Lake 2004 YOY is interesting, but not conclusive. I also see the growth rate in the overall Rice Lake population from the data you posted above, exceeding the average growth rate in Wisconsin by a considerable margin.
It seems to me the questions are at this point ahead of answers Dr. Sloss' work might provide.
| |
| | |
| I've been following this thread with interest, and kudos to muskiefirst for being home to such great discussion.
I grew up in NW Wisconsin and I know the lakes in and around Polk County very well. I've spent countless hours on Bone Lake, Deer Lake, etc. I have friends and family who are very avid anglers, and who are currently living in that area. I realize the Rice Lake discussion has been fully discussed, but I just wanted to bring up a couple of related observations refuting the notion that Rice Lake is an anamoly or isolated example of Bone Lake progeny growing to desirable trophy sizes.
For instance, I believe that Bone Lake, itself, has a record of producing very big fish. It is well-documented that the muskies historically and currently present in neighboring Blake Lake and downstream Big Round are migrants from Bone via the Fox Creek. Possibly I am mistaken about this, but isn't one of the most-recent documented 50lb muskies from WI, the fish that was snagged by a troller from Polk County's Big Round back in the late 1980's? Also, anecdotally, I am aware of several 50", 30lb class muskies coming from little 200 acre Blake Lake during the past decade.
Also, despite very little muskie-targetted fishing pressure, Wapogassett Lake seems to produce 30lb class muskies annually, and I am also aware of several kept 50" class muskies from Wapo. The fish in Wapogassett are migrants from Deer Lake, via Toby Creek, and as they are originally stocked fish from Deer Lake, I believe they are also Bone Lake progeny.
In any event, the quote from Dr. Feynman is excellent, and I believe the examples above are additional documented exceptions to the so-called rule that states Bone Lake progeny are incapable of reaching trophy dimensions.
Many thanks to Dave N. for generous time and insight. It is quite a privilege for us to be able to have such candid discussions with a qualified fisheries professional.
Best regards,
Matt DeVos
| |
| | |
| Based on many of the questions asked in this thread it appears that analysis of Bone Lake fish is necessary. Hopefully Dr. Sloss has the capacity to expand the scope of his project in the future. It doesn’t seem fair to ask Mr. Neuswanger questions about fish from Bone Lake until that analysis takes place.
Mr. Sworrall – Sorry I didn’t answer your question. Been in the woods the last few days. I am originally from Rice Lake and have spent countless hours on the lake. With that said, I would trust anything Greg M. said about the current condition of muskies in the lake. I never met the man, but used to see him on the water when he was living in Rice Lake and working at CP marine.
About my last post - I have no doubt that stocking has tremendously helped the Rice Lake fishery. With that said I do not believe one can discount the possibility that muskies from the Red Cedar river made their way into the lake after the lake was drawn down. The only point I wanted to make in my last post was that there cannot be 100% certainty that all the fish currently in Rice Lake are Bone Lake fish, which leads me to question whether the 50 inch fish previously mentioned are Bone Lake fish or Red Cedar river fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Steve,
Are you certain about your statement..."I believe the diversity Dr. Sloss was looking for in the program by encouraging roe collection from several sources didn't assume ANY 'problem'
with the Bone Lake fish."..? I believe Dr. Sloss voiced some concerns at the August 2005 Musky Committe meeting at Spooner about Bone being a potential hatchery strain.
Also, can anyone provide a lsit Bone Lake stocked lakes, that are for certain, naturally reproducing?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pretty sure there is no assumption being made that Bone Lake stock is genetically incapable of good growth and trophy potential, yes.
I imagine the genetic testing yet to be done will determine what Bone Lake fish are and are not.
Interesting take on Blake, I wondered about that water and the source of the fish there. I fished that with One and Medic, and saw a couple horses. Two were temporarily stuck to Medic's Top Raider. He did manage a mid 40's that day after losing to bigger fish.
No 'mutts' there.
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| "Local" made interesting comments and raised the following question about the origin of post-renovation muskies in Rice Lake:
LOCAL: About my last post - I have no doubt that stocking has tremendously helped the Rice Lake fishery. With that said I do not believe one can discount the possibility that muskies from the Red Cedar river made their way into the lake after the lake was drawn down. The only point I wanted to make in my last post was that there cannot be 100% certainty that all the fish currently in Rice Lake are Bone Lake fish, which leads me to question whether the 50 inch fish previously mentioned are Bone Lake fish or Red Cedar river fish.
DAVE: This is certainly a legitimate question. To understand why I am confident that all post-renovation muskies in Rice Lake were stocked fingerlings originating from Bone Lake (~80%) or LCO (~20%), one must closely review the re-stocking history of Rice Lake. This flowage began refilling in 1984, THREE YEARS before any muskellunge from Bone/LCO were stocked. If there was EVER a time when residual adults from the drawdown pool or the Red Cedar River upstream were going to re-populate Rice Lake, it would have been THEN (1984, 1985, or 1986). You just have to trust me on this one, folks. Any residual adult population would have spawned successfully in a new, expanding environment rich in prey and low in predators during 1984, 1985, and 1986. That didn't happen. We know it didn't happen because all the muskies captured and aged by our biologist in his 1994 fyke netting survey were either 7 years old (first stocking of Bone/LCO fish in 1987) or 5 years old (a subsequent stocking of less certain origin from the Spooner Hatchery). There were no fish in the 1994 sample from 1984, 1985, or 1986. In summary, we are as confident as we ever get in fishery management that muskies that have grown well to trophy size in Rice Lake were stocked in 1987 or thereafter; and musky fingerlings stocked in 1987 came from Bone Lake (~80%) and LCO (~20%). Again, this was a unique set of circumstances which, in addition to genetic data, allows us to conclude with confidence that the stock mixing of the 1950s and subsequent hatchery operations have not created a strain of "mutts" at LCO or Bone.
Folks here ask really good questions -- the kind good scientists ask themselves routinely. And they do so very diplomatically. At some point though, I will have to ask for your trust in our analysis, because there simply is not time to communicate the rationale behind every interpretation and conclusion that we reach. I really don't mind doing it here on a limited basis, just so folks can see, by one small example, that we DO think about all these things. But at some point in time I hope we will earn your trust in our training, experience, and judgment, so that communication can be streamlined to include mostly the "bottom line" results and implications for management. This is my final post about Rice Lake, which I've never seen and do not manage. Thanks to all.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 11/7/2006 7:59 PM
| |
| | |
| Thanks Dave. I see where you are coming from. Makes sense to me. Thank you for your time and effort. | |
| | |
Posts: 31
| I found this on the WDNR website:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/musky/Muskellunge%20Propagatio...
This answers some of my questions about the numbers of fish used and the potential for inbreeding. I think Dr. Sloss mixed up his designations when he did his actual calculations because the numbers given by the hatchery managers does not match with his designations for the female numbers in his equations. The two hatcheries numbers are just switched. It seems the Woodruff hatchery has been closer to using the disired number of females. It astounded me that the Spooner manager said they could get the right number of eggs from just 7-8 females per year.
If you read my previous link about inbreeding and the anaylsis from Dr. Sloss. I think it is important to further characterize the Bone Lake fish and compare them to what is doing well in other lakes such as Rice and Mille Lacs. I would assume he and his students will look into this.
Jason
| |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Covered this already....the Bone lake fish apparently will be examined. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Jason Malone wrote:
"It astounded me that the Spooner manager said they could get the right number of eggs from just 7-8 females per year."
DAVE: I hope everyone realizes this is old news. (The point of rehashing it escapes me.) The new protocol, designed to minimize the probability of creating problems associated with inbreeding, calls for mating 19-26 wild-source females per hatchery. Last spring we mated 26 Chippewa Flowage females each to ~3 unique males. (No males were used for more than one mating with one female.) The fertilized eggs from those matings were hatched at Spooner; and the pond-reared, minnow-fed fingerlings were stocked at lengths of 10-12 inches throughout NW Wisconsin in fall of 2006. (Some Chippewa Flowage fish were raised at Woodruff, too, and stocked into several southern Wisconsin waters.) To my knowledge, nobody else in the country is paying this kind of attention to genetic stock conservation in their muskellunge propagation program. Hats off to Dr. Sloss for showing us the way, and to the guys and gals at the Spooner and Woodruff hatcheries who work so hard and so intelligently to bring us good musky fishing in waters that otherwise might have few if any fish.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 11/11/2006 9:13 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2752
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Dave-- Thank you! Special thanks to the WI DNR hatcheries folks for their hard work in keeping ESOX m. in their thoughts. Very well said............ Hope to see you at Milw-Muskie Show or Mad Town fishing Expo! Pleaseeeeeeeeeee stop by the booth - I promise not to try to sell you anything!
Al | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Been following this thread a bit. Pretty interesting.
Steve, any chance we could bring Dave or Dr. Sloss on as a chat guest during this winter? I realize they are probably pressed for time, but just an idea.
Mike | |
| |
|
UPDATE ON MUSKELLUNGE GENETIC RESEARCH IN WISCONSIN--OCTOBER 2006