|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Late this afternoon, the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskie's, Inc. board voted overwhelmingly in favor of my motion to donate $5,000 for the DNR project of removing nearly 1500 of the excess nothern pike population from Lac Court Oreilles near Hayward during spring netting operations this year, at the request of the Hayward DNR.
Once again, the Hayward MI Chapter comes through in support of viable projects in support of the muskellunge fishing in NW Wisconsin, upholding one of the main Purposes of Muskie's, Inc. International, bringing the total Chapter expenditures in this regard to well over $200,000 over the past twenty years. Anglers support of the Chapter's Annual Fall Muskie Tournament has helped to make this all possible. Thanks to all who have participated in the past and we hope you will again come to the 2007 Fall Tournament. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| I want to take this opportunity to THANK the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. for supporting this project. I have started the dominoes rolling by tapping my DNR Fish Management budget for another $1,000 to add to the generous $5,000 contribution of the Hayward Lakes Chapter. So now we have $6,000. I wish DNR could contribute more than time, equipment, and manpower; but we became aware of the feasibility of this project only after our current two-year budget was approved.
Speaking of dominoes, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Ojibwe have now indicated a strong interest in contributing SIGNIFICANTLY to the success of this project by having their biologist JOIN us in the selective removal operation in order to send literally thousands of fish to a tribal processor for distribution to folks in need on the Reservation. It's amazing how the seeds of good will can grow into something truly meaningful.
The idea for this project arose from the Lac Courte Oreilles Fishery Management Plan, which was completed in March of 2006. Currently there are so many northern pike utilizing Musky Bay of LCO that young muskies, assuming any DO hatch in the degraded near-shore habitat, are subject to year-long predation by pike that almost ensures no young muskies will survive until fall. The Plan calls for reducing the estimated adult pike population of LCO from its currently high density of 3.0 per acre, to 0.5 to 1.0 per acre. It also calls for improving pike population structure so that 15-25% of all northerns >14 inches captured in early spring fyke net samples are >28 inches long.
One way to start the ball rolling, then, is to selectively remove northern pike that are surplus to our Management Plan needs. But we cannot simply capture and dispose of these fish. That would be wasteful and disrespectful of the pike, not to mention illegal. So we propose to remove as many 17-27 inch northern pike as we can afford to have ground into fish patties at local meat processors and donated to needy people in our community. (The processors do not like to handle fish smaller than 17 inches, and those over 27 inches will soon contribute to the over-28 proportion that we desire.)
This is where the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. has stepped up, big-time. Chapter President, Mike Persson, did a great deal of legwork behind the scenes to explore the feasibility and cost of this project. Others, including Hayward DNR Fish Technician Russ Warwick, identified the best way to process and donate the large number of fish this project could entail. With his always cooperative, can-do attitude, President Persson contacted other key members of the Chapter and asked if they were willing to support this effort in order to begin to establish a healthy balance between northern pike and muskellunge in Lac Courte Oreilles. Much thanks to Mr. Ramsell and the other Board members who decided to support this effort. And additional thanks to Paul Christel, LCO biologist, who will be coordinating with us on behalf of the LCO Band of Ojibwe.
I like this project for several reasons. First, it will allow us to take a significant first step toward establishing esocid community balance at LCO, as called for in our Fishery Management Plan. Second, while not removing all the pike necessary to ensure the restoration of muskellunge recruitment, it will send a big message to the community of lake residents, resort owners, guides, and area anglers that increased pike harvest is desired at LCO. Others can then be invited to do their part to make it happen. The tiny community of Hayward has a REMARKABLE track record of making the seemingly impossible happen (e.g., the American Birkebeiner Cross-Country Ski Race, the annual "Fishing Has No Boundaries" event on the Chippewa Flowage, and the annual Lumberjack Competition World Championships). Hayward folks can do ANYthing if they set their minds to it, but someone has to take the first step, as the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. and LCO Band of Ojibwe are now doing. Third, a lot of needy people will benefit from this project. Despite the wealth apparent to anyone viewing lakeshore property from a boat on LCO, many people in Sawyer County are struggling to make ends meet. The Sawyer County Food Pantry and others look forward to receiving and distributing these fish, once processed.
This good news comes none too soon. This week DNR Fish Technician Joe Drabek observed northern pike cruising the shallows in the open water of Musky Bay. The pike spawning run will commence soon after this week's cold front passes. We will be ready to catch them in fyke nets starting Monday, April 9. We will also be asking for help from Hayward Lakes Chapter members in netting fish and transporting them to the processor and then back to the food pantry once processed. We have some logistics to work out. Better get busy. Hayward Lakes Chapter and Lac Courte Oreille Band... thanks again.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/4/2007 12:53 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 52
| Good thing that the pike are still being considered as a viable fishery in LCO.....and not wasted or thrown away. | |
| | |
| $5,000.00? What the!
Can someone explain to me what is going on. If you take out the pike you still have no or very little natural reproduction. Shouldn't the focus be on fixing the spawning habitat first and then the fishery? Seems kind of backwards to me. They don't honestly think they can eliminate the pike population do they?
Just a little confused. They wouldn't stock Lake Nancy anymore because there was little recruitment but it's ok to do it to LCO.
Ty | |
| | |
| Ty, please read Mr. Neuswanger's response. he indicates that pike removal is just one first step in the process of restoring a healthy muskie population to LCO. he acknowledges the problems with spawning area degradation and i'm sure that the DNR is doing it's part (others such as homeowners need to do theirs as well) to work to improve habitat.
| |
| | |
| LCO can only be helped by this along with other initiatives | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Ty, we have no interest in "eliminating" the pike population, as you put it. Please read my post carefully. We want to reduce overall numbers of pike and increase the proportion of big pike. With the LCO Band now willing to join the effort, this project WILL enter the realm of biological significance. There's a chance we could remove 20% or more of the overabundant pike in LCO in one week-long operation! That kind of "kick-start" is just what we needed to begin to restore a healthy balance between northern pike and muskellunge in Lac Courte Oreilles.
I agree that habitat restoration is important. But how many years do you propose we wait until the courts make a definitive ruling, and a multi-million dollar habitat restoration project can be funded? I believe there are things we can do RIGHT NOW to begin to correct the current fish community imbalance. It's time to act.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
Posts: 255
| In an effort to do my part as well, would it be in the best interest of this project to harvest any 17-27 inch northerns myself? My family has owned a home on LCO for 30 years and I fish it a lot. I am not a big fish eater so I release everything I catch. But, I am willing to harvest these fish to help even a little bit in the early stages of this project. I would really need to find someone willing to accept the cleaned northerns that I keep and make sure I stay within the daily legal limits. But, I too can see the long term on this and I am tired of waiting around for the legal part of this to be put in place. If I remember correctly last fall were there 500 larger muskies put in LCO as part of the continuing efforts to get this fishery back to where it should be or even better?
I do not have lots of money to donate but, I have a vested interest in LCO and would love to see this and other projects put in place for the future. Thank you Larry and Dave for your continuing efforts. Tom Tarasiuk | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| TOM TARASIUK: In an effort to do my part as well, would it be in the best interest of this project to harvest any 17-27 inch northerns myself?
DAVE: Tom, it absolutely WOULD help if YOU and EVERYONE who fishes LCO would take a "selective harvest" approach toward northern pike for at least the next couple years. In fact, this is the very thing that is needed in order to have a significant and lasting impact on esocid community balance there. Biologists simply don't have the time or ability to physically manipulate any number of fish populations by employing direct removal methods. This year is unique. We won't have time to do it in future years because of positive changes in our lake monitoring program. But if this year's operation gets the ball rolling by creating an awareness among conscientious lake users like you, we will ultimately succeed. Anglers are the most powerful force in altering fish population density and size structure -- always have been and always will be. So please accept my THANKS for offering to take the ball and run with it by doing your small part to harvest 17-27 inch northerns within your legal limit from LCO. I might also ask that you voluntarily release fish over 27 inches long, at least until we meet our Management Plan objectives (15-25% over 28 inches long). If you want some advice on putting those fish to good use, feel free to call our ace Fisheries Technician at Hayward, Russ Warwick, who would be pleased to give you his Mom's recipe for canning pike (Y-bones and all) and then making delicious fish sandwich patties out of the canned meat (Y-bones undetectable in finished product). Good luck this year on LCO, and thanks again for stepping up to help us manage the fishery.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |
| | |
| For some reason the only post that came up before I posted was the first origional one. I didn't know what was going on. I've read Dave's posts now.
Hey, this may be a dumb question but how much does it cost to stock a 30 inch muskie? Minnesota has done it on some of the lakes that need it in the metro area.
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | Ty,
From what I have seen so far muskies are around a buck an inch. I'm sure someone else here could give you an exact.
| |
| | |
Location: Hayward WI | Dave,
I just got done reading my WI Outdoor news, with the article about Butternut muskies being removed and stocked into Lake Neshonic (West Salem, WI). The article stated that LCO was considered to receive these fish, but for "various reasons" it was not selected. I'm not trying to stir the pot, but if it's more adult fish you want in LCO, why not use the Butternut fish to "jump start" the process. Lake Neshonic I doubt, will ever have a sucessfully reproducing population of fish, so why not put them in LCO where at least they have the potential habitat to pull of a hatch?
Eric Olson | |
| | |
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Erico,
That was covered in depth not long ago, I believe that discussion in in the research forum. | |
| | |
| OK where to start.......I don't want this to be a rip on the DNR because I know and don't know they have their hands tied on a lot of issues. Most other states have a little more freedom when it comes to stocking and changes from what I can see.
My big confusion is in the northern pike removal program. I've already read all the information on the subject. I just don't quite see how you can maintain a population below it's carrying capacity. I mean right now LCO has a long established population of northern pike. When you remove 1500 pike, wont they return back to their normal carrying capacity in a few years? And if the goal is to elliminate such a high population of northerns, or to lower the carrying capacity(which can't be done without removing baitfish), then wouldn't a large extended growth muskie be the answer to all of the goals in the DNR plans.
Let's say I have an established population of mice in my barn and want to keep the population of mice at a 50. If I take out 50 mice one year, two years later the population will be right back at 100. Now if I add a cat, instead of taking out 50 mice every year, the population of the mice will forever stay at 50.
Someone please enlighten me. And don't refer me to another thread because I've read them all and then some. Are we buying gas before purchasing the car or what the heck am I thinking.
Ty | |
| | |
| wouldn't a large extended growth muskie be the answer to all of the goals in the DNR plans.
Let's say I have an established population of mice in my barn and want to keep the population of mice at a 50. If I take out 50 mice one year, two years later the population will be right back at 100. Now if I add a cat, instead of taking out 50 mice every year, the population of the mice will forever stay at 50.
Ty, if you've read all the threads and then some, then you're surely aware that the DNR and other fishery professionals believe that LCO already has a "large extended growth muskie" present. LCOs muskie genetics have been proven to be the same as those that produced Cal Johnson's fish, so the "right" muskies are already present in that lake. the Leech fish aren't a panacea and that argument will not be rehashed again here unless there's actual new information.
the issue the DNR is working on in this project is to restore the proper balance between pike and muskies, so that the muskie population already in the lake is able to increase enough to be the dominant predator in the system and not be starved out by the over-populated pike.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Hey Ty,
Stocking 30" ski's is a tricky business. First off you need a pond that can go w/o a winter kill for 3-4 years and there's not many of those around. Then you have to put a ton of money into feed unless you've got a very special pond. Then you have to pray that you don't winter kill or have a cold water bacteria come in any of those years and wipe you out.
The other problem with that is since we don't have a winter kill, stocking the pond again after it's been netted can be tricky. You have to make sure that EVERY fish is taken out of there otherwise they'll eat all the younger fish.
It's not nearly as easy as it seems. Usually we get bigger fish because we couldn't get them out in prior years. The main reason we've been getting them lately is because of the warm winters haven't been producing a winter kill like most years.
Edited by Muskie Treats 4/5/2007 10:50 AM
| |
| | |
| I didn't say I wanted Mississippi strain muskies in there. I didn't say anything about changing genetics either. Yes I have thouroughly read the reports. The pike population will rebound. And then what? Another $5000.00 from Muskies Inc.?
The lake has one major spawning area for both muskies and pike. There is a seccondary spot but much smaller. The primary spot for spawning has shown to be a good site for northern pike egg development. It also has shown to be a bad site for muskie egg development. It also doesn't look like this spawning habitat is going to change any time soon from what Dave and others have said. Rather than put money into taking pike out, why not put money into something like rearing ponds? Extended growth muskies are too expensive to grow in the hatchery. We're talking about a fishery that will have to be supported by extended growth stocking now AND in the future because of spawning habitat.
I applaud the effort of the DNR. I just have never heard of anything like this before. I'm not into a blame the DNR thing. I think they make most of what they is given to them. A big percentage of DNR work is public perception. So if Larry brings this to them and says we'll pay you to do this why wouldn't they?
Think about it.........
Ty | |
| | |
| No really, I mean think about it. Before you get ticked off at me and just start firing back. I mean no harm.
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 382
| Ty,
I know for a fact on Lake Edward in Central MN, that they cut off the access via water control structures and berm to prevent the pike from getting to the spawing grounds. The lake was getting overun with small pike so they chose option to control them. The way you described the spawning bay on your lake in question this may be a viable option. I agree you pump 5K to control the pike and it isn't going to do anything, take away their spawing habitat and they can't reproduce!
Edited by B420 4/5/2007 11:10 AM
| |
| | |
| No really, I mean think about it. Before you get ticked off at me and just start firing back. I mean no harm.
no one's ticked off, Ty. just discussion...
taking away the pike spawning areas also takes away the muskie spawning areas. the goal is for successful muskie reproduction, right?
apparently i misinterpreted your "extended growth" idea as meaning a strain of fish that some believe grows larger when what you really meant was stocking older muskies into the lake?
interestingly, that was basically the exact initial proposal by the DNR for LCO. they considered pulling 500 adult muskies from Butternut and putting them into LCO for immediate benefits. however, the genetic markers were different enough between adult fish in the lakes that Dr. Sloss advised against doing so because that number of adult muskies with different genetics might possibly impact the lakes natural genetic mix.
(notably, stocking fingerlings from Butternut brood is less of a concern due to natural loss of the year class as it develops - ie., it's actually beneficial to the "mix" in this case b/c they can't immediately nor ever dominate the reproduction happening in the lake, and subsequent stockings will come from other lake sources in the rotation of area brood lakes - ensuring healthy diversity in the lake. this is supported by the fact that LCO's genetics have remained consistent dating back to Johnson's fish in spite of stockings from other lake sources.)
it seems that the hope is with the removal of a big percentage of pike the young muskies will have a greater survival rate, allowing the "balance" between pike and muskies to shift in favor of muskies. once there's enough muskies in the lake they will contribute to control of pike numbers. it's clear the DNR is also hoping this dramatic effort will encourage anglers to harvest small pike, and that they see ongoing pike harvest as the #1 way to control overabundance of small pike.
Edited by lambeau 4/5/2007 11:53 AM
| |
| | |
| Ty,
Guides/well known anglers like you can encourage hundreds of other anglers to harvest Pike on LCO; they are your imaginary 'cat'. If the population can be reduced up front dramatically, muskie populations are allowed to rebound, and liberal harvest regs put into place, the population will be reduced permanently. This is part of a process, not an event. Take out 50% of the adults, you take out 50% of the predation on little Muskies. | |
| | |
| I totally, totally understand the thought of reducing the number of pike. I don't think it can hurt LCO, only help.
Lambeau, what is the larger determining factor in pike population density of these two....... predation, forage? I know they both have an impact, but what is the biggest? And then take into consideration that northern pike populations can double in as little as 4.5 years from what I can remember from college.
Ty
| |
| | |
| I wont be able to check back in for a while here. I've got to get a bunch of things done. Anyway, sorry if I sound like I'm totally against this. I'm not. I'm all for making LCO a great lake.
Later,
Ty | |
| | |
| Lambeau, what is the larger determining factor in pike population density of these two...predation [or] forage?
i have no idea, but i bet somebody somewhere reading this does know.
my guess would be that it's not something as simple as any one single thing, but rather a dynamic combination of available forage, habitat, impact of predation/harvest on them, etc.
i can see by this project that the DNR is very interested in reducing the population through direct removal and ongoing harvest. that tells me that they believe that "predators" (whether human, muskies, or otherwise) can have a significant impact on the number of pike in the system.
| |
| | |
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | If removing pike through selective harvest is the goal then it would be a good idea for the local lake association, chamber of commerce and/or Muskies Inc chapter to sponsor some kind of Pike Fisheree. They could give away prizes and serve up pike fillets for free. Perhaps this could also be a fundraiser for more stocking and/or habitat work.
The habitat degradation that has occurred at LCO is well documented. As Dave N. mentioned above we are probably years away from seeing any kind of resolution to the legal issues involved. This case should be a warning to all of us of the potential negative impacts of development in the Northwoods. I'd be willing to bet that similar habitat degradation has occurred and is occurring on many lakes throughout Northern WI. We must begin to address the issue of habitat preservation and enhancement on our native musky lakes.
After Scott Hassett, WI DNR Secretary, spoke to the Milwaukee Chapter of Muskies Inc I wrote to him about my concern for habitat issues with regard to muskellunge management in WI. He was nice enough to write back and refer to me to another gentleman at the DNR who wrote to me about a Muskellunge Spawning Habitat Project. This project is a partnership between the University of Michigan, WI DNR, and the Muskie Clubs Alliance of Wisconsin. In this study 15 Wisconsin lakes with good natural reproduction have been designated for this 2007 survey. The goal of the study is to predict where muskies spawn in each lake. Working with the DNR, University of Michigan researchers have already determined that shoreline development and the density of woody debris can be the difference between poor and successful natural reproduction.
I personally think we as the musky community need to get behind and find some way to assist projects like this. Stocking is certainly a part of the puzzle in musky management, but I am convinced that it can never be the panacea that many think it is. Instead of more stocking or better stocking I'd like to see more habitat and better habitat. It has worked with the inland stream trout fishery. It is a lot of work, but in the end it is about reversing the negative human impacts and letting the muskies do what they were created to do.
Tom Ramsey
| |
| | |
Posts: 52
| Frankly you guys are being too nice to the pike if you want them reduced but that's Wisconsin laws. In several cases in the West, they go to much larger extremes to attack pike problems. I see no need for more studies really. Develop shorelines, take out debris and other woody structures and you loose habitat. Then you loose the fish that use it.
Make stronger Zoning regulations.......
Rearing ponds were once commonly used in the Hayward area. Worked until federal laws protected the great blue herons......no use unless you are going to have cover nets over the pond. They have the same problem out in Washington at several places with them for steelhead rearing. I believe Walleyes Forever tried several ponds up here like the one off FS Rd 203....some success but lots of predation. Still a short-term solution however.
I'll get out my habitat soap box in a minute.
Edited by lakesuperiorkid 4/5/2007 8:30 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Erico, lambeau, Ty:
The Hayward Chapter of Muskie's, Inc. DID stock 800 extended growth muskies into LCO just last fall to the tune of $16,000. This pike removal project can only help protect them thru their early years.
Ty, this pike removal project was NOT my idea, so give credit where it is due...Mr. Neuswanger.
MuskyLund1, the Hayward Chapter is already discussing plans to have a "pike removal" outing/tournament on LCO.
The suggestion on another muskie board to take advantage of the May northern pike tournament on the Chippewa Flowage that usually averages over 2500 pike caught but then released, too could help the bad pike situation there. Perhaps the Flowage Resort Owners, Property Owners Association, etc. could get involved there and get that going for this year as well. They have the money, hopefully they could get behind such a project too.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/6/2007 6:50 AM
| |
| | |
Location: The Yahara Chain | Larry how large were the 800 muskies and where did the Hayward Chapter get them from? | |
| | |
| Sorry Larry, I read the origional post wrong where you said "my" motion. Whoops!
I hope the pike population can be controlled on LCO. I don't think they are a problem on the Chip though. Different spawning areas for the most part. We still need heavy stocking though just like most productive muskie lakes throughout the U.S. and Canada.
I understand the goal of the DNR. It's basically a let the fishery take care of itself plan for the future. There's nothing more I would love to see than that, but until then we could use some serious Minnesota style stocking here to keep up with the Jones's if you know what I mean. I don't mean Mississippi strain. I mean heavy stocking numbers. The 800 from last year is a great start and that lake should get that or more every year until it reaches a level above the target number. I understand that Minnesota has rearing ponds and they are a lot of work but they are also a big reason the Minneapolis metro area is what it is. The northerns and spawning habitat can't be the scapegoat forever. I'm sure the DNR has their hands tied on issues that I have no clue about so for me to say all of this really means nothing without fully understanding the system. I just would feel a little better if the DNR would come out and say we couldn't stock Round Lake because we didn't have the funds or we let LCO go because we were concentrating our efforts on something else.
Ty
| |
| | |
Posts: 52
| I doubt that we should manage our fisheries for the sake of "keeping up" with anyone. That's about as far from management as you want to get. Nods to Minnesota but one has to work within the systems we have here which do need work and thanks to Mr. Neuswanger we got a plan and it is being implemented through clubs and other sources. The chances of getting rearing ponds here that are naturally occurring are rather remote so just raising fry to dump into the lakes really does not do to much without the right rearing habitat. There are other concerns out there besides musky, like pike, gills, crappie, forage fish themselves and other fishes that should also be considered.
We'll have to see how Minnesota peaks with their musky program. How about Ty you're connected down on the Flowage when are they going to step up like this instead of look at Minnesota and get some work done here in Wisconsin? They release 2500 pike every spring in one of their tournaments and then complain about pike?????
It's really essential that we act with every principle of genetic conservation to protect the genetic diversity of our natural resources that also helped top built Minnesota. As pointed out in this other threads there's more to just blindly stocking for the sake of appearences.
Edited by lakesuperiorkid 4/6/2007 6:38 PM
| |
| | |
| We're not keeping up with anyone. That's the problem.
You're right about the rearing ponds. They wouldn't work here. I mean, why try?
The pike population on the Chip is lower than it's been in ten years or so. They have an established population that spawns in Chief, Crane, and James Slough. For the most part they spawn in different areas than muskies Unless you want to see the panfish population go out the roof and screw the whole lake ballance up, killing 2500 pike is probably not going to help. Anyone that has cleaned a pike on the Chip knows that bluegills are one of their main forage. The Chip is in great shape right now. No need to screw that one up too.
Throw all the degrees out the window. This isn't about biology anymore. This is plain and simply about making tourists and locals happy fast.
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 52
| With that attitude the road to Minnesota is wide open. Nothing is going to make you happy and a few others until we forsake the drive for genetic conservation than to plant Leech Lake fish in the face of the fact that Wisconsin-source fish started the Minnesota program off. I doubt what you have to say about pike populations after spending a number of days out with a camera this winter looking at pike on the Flowage. Panfish are one of the most desired fish on the Flowage so it seems that the tourists are happy in that regard.
Still waiting for the Flowage people to step up after months of hearing how bad the pike are and now they are not. Even if they stock, it's still going to be a decade before you see these numbers of 50-inch fish, if then.
I'll take the people with the degrees myself. Did you have any problem filling lounge charts up with fish in the 30-inch range one season and saying how great the Flowage was?
So what is a half-cocked decision like "do it or else" going to get accomplished? If someone is even thinking about bringing them in without the DNR then that can be taken care of right off and would only greatly increase the threat of VHS. It's going to be a tough year no doubt for businesses, might be just as tough for Minnesota as well. The fish in Minnesota matured and with the increased fishing pressure I'd rather wait and see what happens. Gas is headed to another high or higher than last year. Recreational dollars per household are also at a low and that means less tourism.
You guys lost the genetic discussion and it's clear that our fish have the potential to grow big.
Well, I'd rather leave here with my thanks to Mr. Neuswanger and his work on the LCO plan and the up and coming pike removal, let alone the volunteer groups who built cribs in LCO to build suitable habitat for the fishery. All good work. Thanks to all these people.
I'm done here on this thread.
Edited by lakesuperiorkid 4/6/2007 9:32 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Troy:
The 800 advanced yearlings stocked into LCO by the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskie's, Inc. were in the 13" (likely males) to about 21" (females) if my memory is correct. They will have a great chance to survive and grow. They were purchased from Kalepp's Fish Farm at Dorchester, Wisconsin.
Ty: A "meeting motion" is not an "idea." Look before leaping. As for stocking regime's, our Chapter also sent a letter to Mr. Neuswanger requesting that LCO be returned to an "every year" stocking regime until such time as the population is at management goals. Stocking was reduced a number of years ago due to budget constraints (as I was informed at the time). Since LCO is in a current and ongoing study to analyze that stocking reduction, it will take some doing to get it removed. We pleaded our case by indicating that by waiting the entire 10 years for the study to be completed could be too late. We feel that LCO should have never been removed from the annual stocking regime in the first place. The other limitation to stocking is the "max" number that can be stocked in any single year in any lake. That number is 2500 fingerlings, regardless of the size of the lake. LCO is one of the bigger muskie lakes in Wisconsin and currently could use more stocking in our opinion, which is evidently shared by the local DNR fisheries manager that signed off on our stocking LCO last year with the 800 yearlings, an "off" DNR stocking year for LCO. | |
| | |
Posts: 52
| Thirty to forty years of habitat loss and other factors within that time frame, according to the LCO Management Plan, means it is going to take time to restore LCO. That simple and no other way around the time factor. Stocking is not the only answer and thanks to Mr. Neuswanger for putting forward a plan for LCO.
| |
| | |
|
Ok, let's really look at this:
Richard Frie was part of a study on the northern Wisconsin muskellunge diets that I'm sure you know of. It's in the North American Journal of Fisheries. He was my proffesor in college so this was of great interest to me. Northern pike and bass made up a small percentage of the muskies diet. I would really love to hear how the diet of muskies is going to miraculously change to where they start controlling pike numbers. Perch populations control pike number......not muskie populations. Can't train a muskie to eat pike, but you keep believing.
Next, we were always taught that the top predators were the ballancing factors in the pyramid. Remove any species near the top and the whole system becomes unballanced. So now that the Chippewa Flowage is about as healthy as it's ever been, let's rip out one of the two top predators in the northern pike and see what happens just for the sake of hearsay. Do you think the DNR knows anything about the pike population history on the Chip? If so give me a number of how many you think they have handled. Or, how you know the Chip is in trouble from an underwater camera through the ice?
The stocking of those fish on LCO last year is very significant. I think that is great. I really think it's something. I hope to see this type of thing spread throughout the Hayward area. I know they put some in Round also. I applaud the stocking effort and Muskies Inc. for contributing. Keep it up.
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| I agree. Let's really look at this...
TY SENNETT: Richard Frie was part of a study on the northern Wisconsin muskellunge diets that I'm sure you know of. It's in the North American Journal of Fisheries. He was my proffesor in college so this was of great interest to me. Northern pike and bass made up a small percentage of the muskies diet. I would really love to hear how the diet of muskies is going to miraculously change to where they start controlling pike numbers.
DAVE: Ty, it would seem that we have something in common. We both know and respect Dr. Richard Frie. His loss to cancer at such a young age was a tragedy, but at least his memory lives on. Dick was a friend and colleague of mine when we worked together for the Missouri Department of Conservation. He did the fisheries profession a great service when he applied his considerable computer programming skills to creating some of the most widely used software in the country for analyzing inland fishery survey data, FISHCALC and DISBCAL. He was quite a guy. We hated to lose him when he left MDC to teach at UW-Stevens Point, but I’m sure he positively influenced many lives there, as well, before we all lost him.
Knowing that Dick Frie was a top-notch fishery scientist, he probably would caution us not to assume that the results of one musky food habits study would allow us to make sweeping generalizations regarding interactions between musky and pike. I’m sure Dick knew the limitations of the study, where all but a handful of the muskies examined were under 34 inches long. (I know this because one of my biologists provided graduate student Tom Burri with most of the data.) Dick may or may not have been aware that northern pike populations were quite low in most of the waters where musky stomachs were examined; so without the opportunity to encounter many pike, we would not expect the stomach-pumped muskellunge to have eaten many of them. Diet, as Dick undoubtedly taught, is a function of both preference AND availability, and it is influenced by both size of predator and size of prey.
I share these thoughts in order to suggest it is not absurd to hypothesize that larger muskellunge, in some number, could eat a substantial number of northern pike. We suspect that cannibalism among muskellunge and predation by pike is a limiting factor to how many young muskies survive to adulthood in any given lake. What else would account for the HIGH mortality rate (90% on average) of stocked 10-12 inch musky fingerlings before they reach reproductive age in northern Wisconsin? But we have not been able to document the frequency of these predatory events outside the hatchery environment because muskies are relatively rare in the wild; and we do not have time to routinely examine stomach contents of muskies or pike. We must all remember the old scientific axiom, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
TY SENNETT: Perch populations control pike number......not muskie populations. Can't train a muskie to eat pike, but you keep believing.
DAVE: I’m sure yellow perch eat some pike eggs and larvae. But I have never seen published or unpublished evidence that perch actually CONTROL pike populations. If you can point me to a reference or two, I might learn something here myself. I do know that yellow perch are very significant in the diet of northern pike. If we agree on that, wouldn’t having far fewer northern pike in Musky Bay of Lac Courte Oreilles translate into higher survival of yellow perch there? And if yellow perch eat juvenile pike to a significant extent (your assumption, not mine), wouldn’t that further reduce the pike population in a positive feedback loop that helps us achieve our goals there?
TY SENNETT: Next, we were always taught that the top predators were the ballancing factors in the pyramid. Remove any species near the top and the whole system becomes unballanced. So now that the Chippewa Flowage is about as healthy as it's ever been, let's rip out one of the two top predators in the northern pike and see what happens just for the sake of hearsay.
DAVE: Actually, the top (most influential) predator in the Chippewa Flowage, expressed in terms of pounds per acre of predatory fish, would certainly be walleye. Many other predators are significant (northern pike, largemouth bass, and muskellunge); but their influence pales in comparison to the impact of walleye on the overall fish community. And because the Flowage has so many predators besides northern pike, a reduction in pike density would almost certainly coincide with an increase in numbers of other predators to fill that niche, like young muskellunge. Our hypothesis is not unreasonable.
TY SENNETT: Do you think the DNR knows anything about the pike population history on the Chip? If so give me a number of how many you think they have handled.
DAVE: I agree that we (DNR) do not have a good handle on historical trends in pike abundance on the Chippewa Flowage. We have not sampled pike frequently enough with the right gear to understand their population dynamics. I am certain that an observant, hard-working guide like Ty knows more than we do about the ups and downs of pike density on the Chip. But that is about to change. We will be sampling northern pike with the right gear at the right time on the Chippewa Flowage annually beginning in spring of 2008. Last year our early spring fyke-net catch of northern pike was 2.9 times higher on the West side of the Chippewa Flowage (232 fish over 14 inches long) than in an equal amount of netting effort on the East side (75 fish). Interestingly, our catch of muskellunge was 2.7 times higher on the East side (110 fish over 20 inches long) than on the West (41 fish). Makes you wonder if there is a negative interaction between pike and muskellunge, does it not? But we need much more data before any conclusions can be drawn. We will be collecting that information over the next few years. Stay tuned.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 4/8/2007 8:55 AM
| |
| | |
| Thanks for the response Dave. I'm glad you were able to know Proffesor Frie. He was the toughest proffesor I had, so I had to ask a lot of questions to stay up to pace with him. Great teacher though. And a great guy. Most of the graduates from Point remember him the most.
I didn't clarify the "perch control the pike" comment very well. I was trying to get accross that the pike population on the Chip fluctuated in the last fifteen years according to the perch population. As the perch cyled so have the pike. We may see a rise in the pike population as the perch population is on a climb recently. I know that's not the only reason for the fluctuating pike population as they have a wide variety in their diet, but perch and bluegill seem to be what they have preffered out here. With the Blue Heron kill a couple years back, the bluegill have benefited also.
I don't know why I didn't think of the walleye as one of the top predators. My mistake. Proffesor Frie would be a little disappointed. I don't even consider them out here as they seem to have shiners in their bellies most of the time. I'm sure they do their share of scavaging on others also though.
For the number of muskies in your nets being higher on the east side of the Chip compared to the west side, that is no surprise. The muskies on the Chip seem to migrate like the walleyes to the river channels on the east side to spawn. Places like the West fork, Drake Creek, Beaver Creek and the bay just east of it, Hay Creek,Hell's half acre, anywhere in Moss Creek and Musky Bay, and Kavanaugh Bay(Usually the biggest and heaviest in here). Back when we had some cold springs or the season opened early, we had to target muskies shile guiding. It was pointless to put time in on the west side. A big percentage of those fish were not there. This was before there was a fishable population of northern. Sure there were a few spots on the west side that had muskies. You could go to the channel off of Dorazio Bay where the old resort used to be, or Sunfish bay in Squaw Bay. The small bay just before you get to Crane Lake and a couple small spots in crane are good also but the numbers aren't like the east side. If you did your netting in July they would be totally different. The proportions of muskies from one side to the other is about equal then. I know you don't fyke-net in the warm water periods very often. A little tough on the fish.
It doesn't surprise me that the pike population is higher on the west side either. They need the cool water in the summer that the basin style origional lakes like Crane and Chief supply. They also have exceptional spawning areas connected to them for the pike. Pokegama would have been a good choice also for them but there is no spawning ground adjacent. James Slough kind of throws me off. It's one of the major spawning sites for them but there isn't the deep water directly connected like the others.
Sorry, I got carried away there.
Hey Dave, if you want to establish a stong muskie fishery on LCO, why not take out the northerns over 28 inches also? Those are the strong reproducing females. This is just a question. I know you're busy and tired of this banter. I personally would have trouble killing some of those big pike just because you hate to see a trophy fish killed, even if it is a pike. Thanks for everything Dave.
Lakesuperiorkid, harvesting pike during the pike tournament wont work. You're asking pike fishermen to kill pike. That's like going to a walleye tournament and saying you want them to kill all the walleye they catch. They wouldn't enter the tournament if they didn't like catching them. Besides, between a couple friends and my brothers, they usually catch more than half the fish in the tourney. I know they aren't going to kill all those pike. My brothers Tim and Tait partner up and usually boat the most of anyone by far. They usually average about 150 pike per day. One tournament they had somewhere around 250 for the day. Does that mean the lake is overrun with pike because they caught that many? No, most people catch 20 a day. They just know where the small pods of pike are.
Ty
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I wish I could have had Professor Frie......Point needs to start doing some proffessor overhauling.... | |
| | |
| Pointerpride - you could always vote with your feet rather than wait for a "professor overhaul"... | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | True....but having the Point name behind my degree helps a bit too......I guess I'll just teach myself. | |
| | |
Posts: 178
| Ty, I found your observations on muskellunge distribution and movement in the Chippewa Flowage to be fascinating, especially your belief that muskellunge never spawned as much on the west side as on the east side, even before northern pike entered the system. Interestingly, I've heard similar accounts of seasonal movements of walleyes between major basins of the Flowage. No need to apologize for "getting carried away here" by sharing such interesting insights. It's this sort of information sharing that allows us to learn from each other and makes these message boards worth checking occasionally. It also makes me think you and I could benefit from spending some time together in a boat one of these days. My 17-foot Lund is ready to be steered in the right direction (wherever you point) if you ever want to get out and do some mutual brain picking. In the meantime, let me try to answer the question you posed earlier...
TY SENNETT asked: Hey Dave, if you want to establish a stong muskie fishery on LCO, why not take out the northerns over 28 inches also? Those are the strong reproducing females. This is just a question. I know you're busy and tired of this banter. I personally would have trouble killing some of those big pike just because you hate to see a trophy fish killed, even if it is a pike. Thanks for everything Dave.
DAVE: We have two reasons for not planning to remove northern pike over 28 inches long from Musky Bay of LCO -- one social and one ecological. The social reason is that the folks who helped us develop the goals of our fishery management plan still wanted a pike fishery at LCO, just not one that overwhelms the musky population. They wanted far fewer pike, but considerably larger fish, such that 15-25% of all pike over 14 inches long are over 28 inches long. We (DNR) felt this was possible, but only if pike density could be reduced from an estimated 3 adults per acre to 0.5-1.0 per acre. The ecological reason we would not deliberately remove big pike is based upon their behavioral response to temperature. As you surely know, big pike move into deep water when the shallow weedbeds warm in mid summer. Unlike small pike, big pike prefer water temperatures similar to trout. In fact, an excellent study done in South Dakota a few years ago showed that big pike will not even grow in a shallow, warm reservoir in the summertime. (They did all their growing in fall-winter-spring when they were not stressed by high temperature.) If big pike leave the shallow weedbeds when the water warms, they pose less of a threat to the recruitment of young muskellunge than the small "hammer handle" pike that reside there all summer. It truly is speculation on my part; but I believe this spacial segregation during much of the growing season makes big pike less threatening to muskies than small pike. All things considered, I see no reason, at this point in time, to deliberately remove the big pike. (You are correct that the big girls lay the most eggs, but there are so many factors affecting the survival of eggs, larvae, and small fingerling pike, that the number of eggs laid may be of little consequence.)
I hope this addresses your question about our decision to favor big pike over small pike at LCO. I know you agree that northern pike are a fine sport fish in their own right. I enjoy them so much, personally, that I am planning a trip to Alaska with my son this summer to do some flyfishing for big northerns. I wouldn't mind doing a little of that right here at home someday, too, if we are able to shift the "balance of power" in the LCO esocid community from lots of small pike to a low to moderate number of pike over 28 inches long and a moderage number of muskies over 42 inches long -- what the fisheries profession classifies as "preferred-size pike" and "memorable-size muskies."
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
| |
| | |
Posts: 52
| Lakesuperiorkid, harvesting pike during the pike tournament wont work. You're asking pike fishermen to kill pike. That's like going to a walleye tournament and saying you want them to kill all the walleye they catch. They wouldn't enter the tournament if they didn't like catching them. Besides, between a couple friends and my brothers, they usually catch more than half the fish in the tourney. I know they aren't going to kill all those pike. My brothers Tim and Tait partner up and usually boat the most of anyone by far. They usually average about 150 pike per day. One tournament they had somewhere around 250 for the day. Does that mean the lake is overrun with pike because they caught that many? No, most people catch 20 a day. They just know where the small pods of pike are.
You and your brothers are not biologists either. Up to them as I said. Pike get killed fish at tournaments.
Who was asking anything more than what the numbers are which you do not know unless you are doing your own DNR studies. They pod up in several situations.
You can handle the pike crowd on the Flowage when they start complaining. 250 a day? Hmmmmmm.....
Edited by lakesuperiorkid 4/10/2007 7:28 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 52
| You'll like the big pike in Alaska or if you get to the Northwest Territories. Monsters up there. Easily fish over 40-inches.
Lake Superior is good but not the numbers and it is a cold-water Lake. | |
| | |
| Actually, they have fisheries biology degrees from Stevens Point.
Ty | |
| | |
Posts: 52
| Really? I had no idea? Degrees? College of Natural Resources? Looks like the walleye won out of the Flowage as being top predator. Dave discussed things to my satisfaction. I supported pike in the Flowage and Chip from the start and wanted both to become a trophy pike fishery. How that happens is up to Dave N.
You're singing to the wrong choir.
DAVE: Actually, the top (most influential) predator in the Chippewa Flowage, expressed in terms of pounds per acre of predatory fish, would certainly be walleye. Many other predators are significant (northern pike, largemouth bass, and muskellunge); but their influence pales in comparison to the impact of walleye on the overall fish community. And because the Flowage has so many predators besides northern pike, a reduction in pike density would almost certainly coincide with an increase in numbers of other predators to fill that niche, like young muskellunge. Our hypothesis is not unreasonable.
Edited by lakesuperiorkid 4/10/2007 7:39 AM
| |
| | |
| Lakesuperiorkid, I really don't think you have a grasp of what goes on here. If the guides and DNR don't work together, that would be pretty stupid now wouldn't it. Why do you think the higher size limits are in place on Round Lake, LCO, Chip, and Namekagon? It's not because of the resorts or businesses. It's because of the local guides. And to pass a relolution it's always better to have the support of the local fisheries biologist. We don't always agree with the DNR agents on certain issues but that's fine. When it's all said and done, as long as the fishery benefits we all win. For me to question the project on LCO should only strengthen the project.
Ty
| |
| |
|
Hayward MI Chapter comes thru for LCO/DNR