|
|
| Just thought some of you may be interested in a recent move by the state of Wisconsin in regards to our muskie fishery. Just wondering what everyone thought about it?
I have taken this quote from Pete Maina on thenextbite.com. It reads:
"I wonder too, is this just the year for stupidity in the state of WI, maybe? Was hoping it would tail-off in '08, but news seems to be getting worse.
We have the early catch & release (during spawn) season for muskies; we have the DNR refusing to protect the muskies on the Bay of Green Bay - in the restoration project there, while they intend to study things (many of which are being eliminated meanwhile); let's not forget Jim Hudson's 3 years for fruitless attempts, using the CC hearings "system" to protect the now nearly completely depleted pike fishery of Chequamegon Bay.
Seemingly small in comparison, possibly, but I'd heard this a while ago ... continue to find myself somewhat in a state of disbelief, but it has been publicly announced by Dave Neuswanger, who's title is "Fisheries Team Leader" for Northwestern WI:
His announcements include that Moose Lake here in Sawyer County will be used as a broodstock lake for muskies for the DNR's hatchery in Spooner. For those of you not familiar with Moose Lake, the concern here is that while the lake is very pretty, has a nice population of muskies and is a great place to go fish them - they are "very" slow-growing and don't get big. This lake is a 1 on a 1 to 10 scale of muskie growth.
The thought is for genetic diversity? Have the results of keeping the large and healthy and tossing back the weak and small taught us nothing.
Another one to toss on the common sense meter here: Your thoughts?
To me, going to what is one of the worst growth lakes in all of northern Wisconsin for muskie broodstock for our hatcheries - is similar to asking Emmett Brown at the Fishing Hall of Fame to tell you the straight skinny on muskie World Records.
But that's just my opinion.
If folks would agree this seems to be a very bad thing to do for fisheries in this part of the state, let us know here."
Pete
Some of you may or may not care for Pete... and that's fine. But, one thing is for sure, he is about the fishery and for the fishery. He has even gone as far as writing a regular column in Esox Angler Magazine called Fisheries First.
So, lets hear your thoughts on this?
Thanks all.
Lee Tauchen
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Wow, not a wisonsinite but still I couldn't agree more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | It doesn't surprise me that Pete would somehow link his disdain for the FWFHOF to all of these other issues. Seems like he sees everything in Wisconsin through that lens.
In terms of all of things he states as stupid - he's right.
Shane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: WI | Sad. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | In Wisconsin, we say "Forward!"
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Fisherman tend to see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe (WMRP). To me this comes off as a rant against the WDNR.
The early season C&R has nothing to do with the WDNR. I am pretty sure that they don’t want it either. It’s not a done deal from what I understand. It will be on the CC ballot on the 14th.
I personally would like to see a 54” limit in Green Bay but I don’t see how somebody can come to the conclusion that a 50” limit is not helping to protect the resourse.
I don’t know much about Moose Lake and I have no reason to doubt Pete’s assessment of the lake. I know that the WDNR’s plan requires lakes that are self sustaining be used for the brood and that they are rotating four or five lakes to do this. I know that they are having a hard time finding lakes that meet their requirements. There is a very high possibility that the fish from Moose will grow faster and larger when they are in a different environment. I would assume that the WDNR feels that there is nothing wrong with these fish or they wouldn’t use them.
I fail to see what Emmit Brown has to do with any of this.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eau Claire,WI | Pete can seem like an elitist at times and some of his coments make me want to puke....The Moose Lake comment was dead on! I have fished it a few times.Pretty lake,I had a GREAT time,easy to fish and LOTS of 30" fish.If you have never caught a musky before,go to Moose Lake,put on a yellow bucktail with a flame blade and work the shoreline wood.10 fish days are not uncommon...
Why choose this lake,was Blaisedale already taken?How about Barber,Barker or better yet,Lake Winter!!! The DNR needs to see past the end of the day and start trying to work for your kids,(I don't have any),future outdoor thrills. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Hmm, the Moose Lake idea does not seem like a good one to me. Like somebody else said, maybe these fish will do better in other lakes. Still, why not use fish that are KNOWN for good growth rates and trophy potentail?
curleytail |
|
| |
|
| i can't speak to Moose Lk specifically, as i've never been on it or know anything about it.
however, there is plenty of evidence that overcrowding in a lake limits the size potential of the fish in that lake (and there are a number of lakes like this in the Hayward area specifically). it would be a serious attribution error to assume that limited growth in a particular lake is entirely the result of genetics. it's worth considering whether it's a factor or a not, but there are lots and lots of variables at work in these situations, especially in the relatively smaller waters of WI.
also, before flying the "dang DNR" flag too high, let's not overlook the fact that the DNR's plan to maintain genetic diversity within their stocking program was widely lauded when it was unveiled back in 2005.
right from the start the DNR maintained that they would use the best science available to make decisions on which lakes to draw from, and that they did not see a scientific basis for avoiding the use of smaller fish; rather, they would be using fish of a variety of sizes from a variety of sources. ie., diversity is more important to the health of the overall fishery than artificially attempting to select for fast growth or trophy size. the genetic studies they've been performing helped to identify that Butternut fish were genetically different from LCO fish and therefore the DNR stopped the transfer of those fish into LCO and put them in Neshonoc instead to help create a new fishery there. the same stocking program that's selected Moose Lake this year drew fish from the Chippewa Flowage, again much to everyone's armchair quarterback pleasure.
again, i can't speak to Moose Lk specifically, but the DNR has acted in what seems to be a generally responsible way in developing and implementing this plan. let's keep in mind that this is a long-term plan with a rotation of multiple lakes to ensure genetic diversity.
here's a link to the draft plan from 2005.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/BroodStockPlan3.pdf
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 170
Location: Chicagoland | I'm pretty sure they have recently halted the early season musky fishing (during the spawn). At least it won't be going on this year. There a still is a barbless hook policy for before labor day... I am pretty sure that Pete Mania post is a little outdated. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Here is what Moose Lake muskies look like. Everything we have caught there is the same, big heads and no body. I don't think the Chippewa River is short on suckers for them to eat. Seems like a bad move on the Wisconsin DNR's part here. Not any history of large fish that I am aware of. Not that these fish can't get big somewhere else, but we don't know. In the current state of things I would think they should stay with a "known" producer. Diversity is a great thing provided the right things are selected in that diverse pool. Diversity for the sake of diversity proves nothing.
Edited by ChadG 4/3/2008 6:51 PM
Attachments
----------------
 7-3=31.jpg (40KB - 171 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20212
Location: oswego, il | I have one question and I know Dave posts on the site. Is it the intention of the DNR to monitor the fish from different broods stocked into the lakes to see which brood is the best? If that is the case I can see why this lake has been chosen as the bone lake fish have shown good growth in some lakes and maybe these will in others. If that is not the case, then I don't get the lake choice.
As far as Pete mentioning Emmet Brown, it's a backwards thinking comparison he was trying to make. |
|
| |
|
| "genetic diveristy"..... Didn't the IL DNR have the same goal when they created what is now the IL Mutt? Funny how similar this story sounds. The IL Mutt brood stock lake is a puddle that only recently showed any fish of real size. For way too many years it was the home of the 30 incher. Until recently I don't think a fish over 44" lived in that lake. Was it the lake and/or the fish? Seams like the Fox Chain, Shelbyville and Kinkaid put out their share of nice fish. Could it be better if the brood stock lake was different? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Wouldn't Moose Lake have the same strain as the Chippewa Flowage? There have been big fish in there over the years and its all connected by the Chippewa River, unless there are dams along the way. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | stinger - 4/4/2008 10:10 AM Wouldn't Moose Lake have the same strain as the Chippewa Flowage? There have been big fish in there over the years and its all connected by the Chippewa River, unless there are dams along the way. I would assume that Moose has over population issues as the Chippewa River produces big fish. I would think the genetics are just fine with these fish. |
|
| |
|
| Read the wisconsins top 50 Muskie Lakes book. During an interview with the WDNR's Frank Pratt it's mentioned that some supect there is a slow growing strain in Moose lake. |
|
| |
|
| "some suspect"...
"some"? Who are they? What is their background? Do they have any background in fisheries biology or genetic research?
There are a lot of people who suspect muskies are "eating all their walleyes", but that doesn't make it true.
Edited by Anonymous 4/4/2008 4:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | Chad,
Although I agree that Moose has it's share of dinks, if that is as big a fish you are catching out there it is time to "move away from the shore" There are much bigger fish in Moose, but most people beat shoreline and not where the bigger fish are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| We have been on Moose 3 times, 4 -5 hrs each time. We have 6 muskies to show for our time with 38" being the largest. All have the same build, big head-skinny body. I haven't had the time to do any major exploring off shore. I am happy that there are much bigger fish out there, we use the lake as a last resort for some action now maybe we can put some more time on her. |
|
| |
|
|
So if you take the Emmit Brown comment out, what exactly is it that "can't be backed up"?
The claim is that Moose lake fish are slow growing and don't tend to get real big.
That should be pretty easy to find out unless the DNR has never done a population survey on that lake.
I see a lot of "Pete bashing" here, but nobody is coming up with anything that proves what he says isn't true.
Typical, if you can't debate the message, insult the messenger.
JS |
|
| |
|
| I see a lot of "Pete bashing" here, but nobody is coming up with anything that proves what he says isn't true.
Typical, if you can't debate the message, insult the messenger.
well, opinions are just opinions, and not something that it's possible to debate.
nobody has anything that proves it isn't true, but neither is Pete offering any evidence that what he says IS true.
it's evident (from what people report) that the fish in that lake are generally small, but that doesn't explain why, and it definitely doesn't prove there's anything at all going on with them genetically.
i agree with Pete's recent column in EA magazine that "common sense" should be our guide on certain issues (catch/release and fish handling for example), but when we're talking about genetics, it's science and the scientists who should be making the decisions, not the angling community's "common sense" consensus.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Just curious here. What size do the fish have to be for you guys to think the lake is a "good" choice? Fish over 40, 45, 50? An honest question. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| John,
Where his studies backing up his genetic claims. This was a rant on what is at best a guess on his part. Don't put words in my mouth. I was not bashing anyone. All I know and I said this before and I'll say it again . When it comes to the science and genetics of a fishery I'm going to listen to the experts and not Pete Mania. Would you go to a mechanic for bypass surgery? Maybe you would but I would not. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 4/5/2008 12:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 538
Location: WI | I spent my first 23 years in WI and would have to say that after one summer fishing in MN I seriously have to question what the "experts" in WI do in general. I have never had so much success in both size and numbers and I am experiencing fishing that as a former wisconsinite, did not realize still existed in the lower 48 states....and I have yet to fish a lake >400 acres and outside of the twin cities yet. My fiance and I always thought we'd move back once she was done w/ school, but now that has become a last resort. Go Packers though! |
|
| |
|
| I wasn't singling you out Dave.
Pete is a "polarizing" figure, and several people made reference that.
It's easy to not want to believe what somobody says if you don't like them, even if what they are saying is true.
Larry Ramsell posted a little more technical input on why Pete, himself and others feel that Moose is a poor candidate if what you're looking for is faster growing/larger size muskies.
While I wholeheartedly trust and support the MNDNR, they have made mistakes, and been corrected with the help of anglers in the past. Remember, we used to stock Shoepac muskies in MN.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Thanks, John. I think I'm going to leave this one alone from here on out. Please have a great and safe season. I hope you stick a 55.25" fish this year.
Dave |
|
| |
|
| I hired Larry Ramsell 3 - 4 years ago, even stayed at his house which is very close to Moose Lake.
Larry has fished this lake for many years and takes novice guide clients there each year who don't care about size, but want numbers and action.
At that time, Larry made a comment that his longest musky out of Moose Lake was 42 inches.
You be the judge.
|
|
| |
|
| I would be very interested in what John Myhre's opinion on the matter would be, he is a long time multi species guide and resort owner on Moose. I know he has been very successful on Moose boating a large number of tophy fish up to, or close to, 50 inches. I once contacted him to guide me for a fall trophy hunt and he reccommended Moose over the Chip at a chance at a fall fatty. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'He's one of the few people it's OK to bash on this site without getting your post yanked.'
I don't see any 'Pete' bashing, I do see disagreement as lambeau mentioned, and a clarification by the only strongly worded post here that no bash was intended.
I'll get a MuskieFIRST Radio interview next week with Dave N. to clarify if at all possible. I do know Pete's statement is focused only on a very small segment of the overall plan, and that there is indeed limited water that meets Dr. Sloss's requirements. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Mike (Lambeau), I appreciate your calm, rational response here.
I live one mile from Moose Lake. I fish it. I also fish the West Fork Chippewa River below the Moose Lake Dam. And I fish the Chippewa Flowage a few miles downstream, which undoubtedly has muskellunge that were spawned upstream and probably even some that were "entrained" (passed downstream through the dam) from Moose Lake itself.
I also work on these waters. It was my recommendation to use the Chippewa Flowage as a source of broodstock for production of muskellunge fingerlings at DNR's hatchery in Spooner in 2006. Most people supported that decision. And it was my recommendation to use Butternut Lake near Park Falls in 2007. Many anglers thought that decision was ridiculous. And it was my recommendation to use Moose Lake this spring. I see a similarly negative reaction to that decision among many who have posted to this thread.
I will be on Moose Lake personally in late April with our hatchery crews -- trying to capture, tag, and spawn adult muskellunge. We've never done it here before. As on the Chip and at Butternut, uncertainty about success in capturing enough discrete males and females to spawn according to our new genetic diversity protocols (19-26 matings of 3 dicrete males per discrete female over a period of several days) is a souce of concern to all of us involved in the operation. But site-specific catch information from the 1990s suggests it can be done. I am told by Moose Lake guides and resort owners that the fish have become significantly larger since DNR's last survey, due perhaps to the combined effect of the 40-inch minimum length limit and a high rate of voluntary catch-and-release. These are well-known people who are not inclined to say things are going well if, in fact, they are not. Instead of ridiculing or protesting our judgment, these folks will be helping us to locate good net sites and facilitating our access to the lake.
Thanks to significant help from Larry Ramsell, we obtained a large number of muskellunge fin tissue samples from Moose Lake a couple years ago for genetic analysis at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. UWSP researchers have not yet completed their analyses or reported their results. When they do, we will have some measure of the similarity or difference between muskellunge in Moose Lake and the Chippewa Flowage a few miles downstream. But for now, we have no science-based reason to speculate that muskellunge in Moose Lake have genes that would prevent them from growing as fast or getting as big as muskellunge anywhere else in northern Wisconsin. Moose Lake is darkly stained and relatively unproductive compared with many waters, which likely explains below-average growth rates of ALL fish species in that lake. But knowledgable anglers know there are a few very big (probably very old) muskies in Moose Lake. The potential for trophy size is there.
We also know that the Moose Lake muskellunge population has sustained itself naturally (zero stocking) for decades now. That is a very important criterion for selection of broodstock lakes. We also believe there are enough fish available in Moose Lake to allow us to meet the diversity requirements (19-26 matings that require 4 unique fish each). That also is a very important criterion if we hope to keep the full arsenal of genetic material present in the fish we stock so they are able to adapt to changing climatic conditions, new diseases (like VHS), and changing habitat conditions as our lakes age.
We will be taking to the water soon. The rivers are starting to open up. Lake ice is still thick, but it can't last forever. Please wish us luck as we enter the third year of a revamped muskellunge broodstock collection program in northwestern Wisconsin. We succeeded on the Chippewa Flowage in 2006 and at Butternut in 2007, but only through the extraordinary efforts of a dedicated field staff willing to overcome the uncertainties associated with trying new things in new places based upon a state-of-the-art understanding of genetic stock conservation. With help from our local partners, we will do our best to make it work again in 2008.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 194
| If the goal is to get genetics from "Different" populations, I don't understand the choice here. Isn't Moose Lake just upriver from the Chippewa Flowage? Seems to me like the possibilty that the fish in Moose are very similar to the fish in the Flowage from a genetic point of view. They are connected by the same river that didn't always have dams in the way. Why not choose to use fish from different River systems if the goal is true genetic diverstity? Like maybe the Flambeau or Wisconsin? I'm sure the Moose genetics will do fine in different waters, but I don't see how the genetically diverse requirement is getting met by using a fish from the same system the DNR used only two years ago. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | are choices made based on proximity to the people employed to do the work? i would imagine that does play into some decisions ... why not go to a place with proven performance like north and south twin ??
Edited by jonnysled 4/6/2008 11:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Kazmuskie - 4/6/2008 8:44 AM If the goal is to get genetics from "Different" populations, I don't understand the choice here. Isn't Moose Lake just upriver from the Chippewa Flowage? Seems to me like the possibilty that the fish in Moose are very similar to the fish in the Flowage from a genetic point of view. They are connected by the same river that didn't always have dams in the way. Why not choose to use fish from different River systems if the goal is true genetic diverstity? Like maybe the Flambeau or Wisconsin? I'm sure the Moose genetics will do fine in different waters, but I don't see how the genetically diverse requirement is getting met by using a fish from the same system the DNR used only two years ago. I was thinking the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave, thanks for the response. I'll give you a call this week and set up an interview to cover the basic 'questions' raised. To answer a couple inquiries, proximity is important for several reasons.
I believe the details can be seen on the research board as to Dr. Sloss's recommendations as well.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Good morning Steve,
As a suggestion can we start a new thread regarding Mr. Neuswanger's last posting. I think this is not the thread for a civil and open minded disscussion . Just based on my two posts alone. I want to apologize for dragging this thread down. It really wasn't my intention.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| jonnysled - 4/6/2008 10:56 AM
are choices made based on proximity to the people employed to do the work? i would imagine that does play into some decisions ... why not go to a place with proven performance like north and south twin ??
North and South Twin are within the area served by the Art Oehmke Hatchery at Woodruff. I don't know where the Oehmke folks are planning to capture broodstock for production in Woodruff this year. I work with the Spooner folks who produce all the muskies for northwestern Wisconsin where I work.
For anyone to imply that Moose Lake was chosen because I live close to the lake is at best naive and at worst highly disrespectful. Most of WDNR's broodstock collection crew will have to travel a long distance from Spooner in order to get to Moose Lake. They had to travel even further last year to get to Butternut Lake in Price County. Long travel time poses serious logistical challenges to the crew with respect to the amount of time fertilized eggs can be transported intact back to the hatchery. The hatchery crews would rather work closer to home where they aren't pushing the limits of egg viability during transport. But they have been willing and able to overcome that problem and travel to the few lakes that meet our new genetic stock conservation criteria, wherever they may be. I couldn't work with a more competent and dedicated group of people. Please don't belittle our efforts by implying that we only do what's easy or convenient.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hunter, no worries, this conversation is moving along nicely. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Ok, thanks Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Dave N - 4/6/2008 11:54 AM
jonnysled - 4/6/2008 10:56 AM
are choices made based on proximity to the people employed to do the work? i would imagine that does play into some decisions ... why not go to a place with proven performance like north and south twin ??
North and South Twin are within the area served by the Art Oehmke Hatchery at Woodruff. I don't know where the Oehmke folks are planning to capture broodstock for production in Woodruff this year. I work with the Spooner folks who produce all the muskies for northwestern Wisconsin where I work.
For anyone to imply that Moose Lake was chosen because I live close to the lake is at best naive and at worst highly disrespectful. Most of WDNR's broodstock collection crew will have to travel a long distance from Spooner in order to get to Moose Lake. They had to travel even further last year to get to Butternut Lake in Price County. Long travel time poses serious logistical challenges to the crew with respect to the amount of time fertilized eggs can be transported intact back to the hatchery. The hatchery crews would rather work closer to home where they aren't pushing the limits of egg viability during transport. But they have been willing and able to overcome that problem and travel to the few lakes that meet our new genetic stock conservation criteria, wherever they may be. I couldn't work with a more competent and dedicated group of people. Please don't belittle our efforts by implying that we only do what's easy or convenient.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
no implication meant ... a question from someone that isn't aware of the dnr and it's organization so much. i was under the impression that your area was the management for the overall state musky program? ... again, naive and truly not understanding of the organization and who does what.
can you shed some light on how the department is organized so that i can better understand how it all gets coordinated? i'm sure there are others like me who scratch their heads at times trying to keep up with all the information and how it all ties in.
thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 194
| Dave N- Your most recent post raises a question for me. What is your area boundry for the NW part of the state? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| It would seem that some of the confusion here is associated with folks simply not understanding exactly how Wisconsin DNR is organized programmatically and geographically. And that's very understandable. I moved here five years ago from Missouri and am still learning new things about the organization.
One question pertained to my personal area of responsibility. I am WDNR's Fisheries Supervisor for a six-county area in northwestern Wisconsin that is called the "Upper Chippewa Basin" which falls roughly within the boundaries of the Upper Chippewa River watershed. (I supervise only Management personnel -- not Research personnel or Hatchery personnel.) My counties of responsibility include Sawyer, Price, Rusk, Taylor, and the inland portions of Ashland and Iron counties (not Lake Superior). I supervise biologists and technicians stationed in Hayward, Park Falls, and Mercer. I have no direct responsibility for fish propagation at DNR hatcheries, but we (in Management) cooperate with our colleagues (in Hatcheries) on various occasions, including this major change in where and how WDNR obtains broodstock muskellunge for hatchery production. The person who supervises ALL Management and Hatcheries personnel in the WDNR's Northern Region is Steve Avelallemant in Rhinelander. Steve is my supervisor. He has a daunting job. But he is one of the best fishery professionals I know; so if anyone can do it, he can.
The two hatcheries where we raise muskies in northern Wisconsin are Oehmke Hatchery in Woodruff and Thompson Hatchery in Spooner. The Woodruff folks obtain their broodstock from lakes in the Vilas/Oneida county area, and they stock lakes mostly in north central and northeastern Wisconsin. The Spooner folks have been obtaining their broodstock lately from lakes in Sawyer and Price counties, and they stock lakes throughout northwestern Wisconsin. Both hatcheries supply fish for stocking in southern Wisconsin and other waters outside the native range of muskellunge. Until we know more about actual genetic stock composition in Wisconsin, it makes sense for Spooner to obtain broodstock from the same Upper Chippewa Basin waters they intend to stock, while Woodruff obtains broodstock from the same Headwaters Basin (of the Wisconsin River) waters they intend to stock. We believe this lowers the risk of stocking fish so different from one another, genetically, that outbreeding depression could occur in subsequent generations of naturally produced fish. (Not going to define that here, but MuskieFIRST has covered the subject well under earlier forum topics.)
I want to clarify that I'm not a statewide program spokesperson. I simply feel an obligation to try to help anglers understand what we are doing, and why, whenever concerns focus on programs and projects in the Upper Chippewa Basin where I have supervisory responsibility for Management operations. I hope this helps MuskieFIRST readers to understand a bit more clearly how we operate.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | Dave,
This is really great to see you on here. There is often a lot of speculation, accusation, and fingerpointing amongst folks that are "arm chair biologists" - I really look forward to an interview with you on MuskieFirst.
Shane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 194
| Dave, Thanks for the clarification. It sounds to me like the hatchery biologists might be able to use waters outside your direct area, correct? Is there any reason why they would be limited to collecting eggs and milt from your region? In other words, is there a rough radius that they need to remain inside to keep eggs viable? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Kazmuskie - 4/6/2008 6:16 PM
Dave, Thanks for the clarification. It sounds to me like the hatchery biologists might be able to use waters outside your direct area, correct? Is there any reason why they would be limited to collecting eggs and milt from your region? In other words, is there a rough radius that they need to remain inside to keep eggs viable?
Kaz, there is no doubt that WDNR fish propagation personnel from Spooner must try to operate within a reasonable distance of the hatchery, but that's actually one of the least important considerations in determining which broodstock lakes to use. The important criteria are: 1) waters within the native range of muskellunge in northwestern Wisconsin with muskellunge populations established wholly or predominately by NATURAL reproduction (NOT stocking); 2) waters with ENOUGH fish to allow us to conduct 19-26 matings at a 3:1 ratio of unique males to unique females; and 3) waters with the potential to produce fish of all sizes.
Most anglers are amazed to learn how FEW lakes meet the above criteria anywhere in northern Wisconsin, mostly because SO many waters have been stocked SO often that we cannot be certain those populations are based predominately on natural reproduction and recruitment. We have been trying to identify 5 waters to use for each of the two northern hatcheries that would meet those criteria; and it has been a challenge. So far we have selected 3 such waters as broodstock sources for the hatchery at Spooner -- the Chippewa Flowage, Butternut Lake (Price County), and Moose Lake (Sawyer County). Even the Chippewa Flowage may have more stocked fish than we realize, but we decided to use it anyway until we have a better idea about the relative contribution of stocked versus naturally produced fish there.
Last year our Hayward fish management team (biologist Frank Pratt and technician Russ Warwick) set fyke nets in Blaisdell Lake in the East Fork Chippewa River system in order to determine if enough fish could be captured to meet our objectives for genetic diversity. We knew there were big fish in Blaisdell, and we knew the population was supported by natural reproduction (despite the presence of northern pike). But we did not know if we could catch enough fish to count on it as a source of hatchery broodstock. Unfortunately, Frank and Russ found that the fish moved upstream (out of the lake and into the East Fork Chippewa River) to spawn so quickly that any amount of lake netting effort would not produce the desired number of fish. We had to scrap plans to use Blaisdell Lake as a source of hatchery broodstock.
This spring a team of WDNR researchers from Spooner will be test-netting Teal and Lost Land lakes in Sawyer County to see if enough fish can be captured there to support future broodstock collection efforts. Both lakes have been stocked many times, so we would be violating one of our new criteria to use them immediately. But we also believe there may be sufficient natural reproduction there to cease stocking and use those waters as a source of hatchery broodstock in the future. In the meantime, we will use Moose Lake in 2008.
As you can hopefully see, nothing about this has been easy. There are many uncertainties, and we are constantly seeking, testing, and learning where we might go in order to achieve our overall genetic diversity objective (5 sources in annual rotation for each coolwater hatchery in northern Wisconsin).
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20212
Location: oswego, il | Dave, thanks for taking the time to post on this issue. Do you think Teal and lost land can forgo stocking since the introduction of pike in it's waters. Having fished it a few times, there are alot of pike in there. Would Ghost not be an option? Another question, since there isn't any data that says Moose lake fish are not genetically inferior in regards to growth, are the tiger cat and day lake muskies inferior to growth outside of their lake?
Edited by ToddM 4/6/2008 10:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
Dave;
I'm curious why it's important the lakes used for collecting eggs are naturally reproducing, native lakes. Or at least you want them to be "mostly" that way.
In MN, all lakes used for getting hatchery fish are lakes that were not native, and do recieve annual stockings. The parent lake of course is Leech, a native naturally reproducing body of water.
I'm just wondering why there is a different philosophy or different situation there.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| TODDM asked: "Do you think Teal and Lost Land can forgo stocking since the introduction of pike in its waters?"
DAVE: Probably. I suspect Lost Land has more pike than Teal (and fewer muskies). In our most recent comprehensive survey on Teal in 2004, the muskellunge population was strong and there were few pike (probably BECAUSE of predation by abundant, good-sized muskellunge).
TODDM: "Would Ghost not be an option?"
DAVE: No. Ghost Lake is way too small to yield 80 fish (60 males and 20 females) needed for annual egg-take.
TODDM: "Another question, since there isn't any data that says Moose Lake fish are not genetically inferior in regards to growth, are the Tiger Cat and Day Lake muskies inferior to growth outside of their lake?"
DAVE: Despite past misinterpretation and exaggeration of extremely limited data by some vocal amateurs, there are insufficient data in Wisconsin to conclude at this time that any Wisconsin muskellunge are GENETICALLY programmed to grow slower or reach a smaller ultimate size than average. But we know certain lakes (like Tiger Cat and Day) have muskellunge that grow very slowly and rarely achieve a size desired by trophy anglers, probably due to conditions of habitat and prey availability. On the CHANCE that we may one day learn there is a GENETIC basis for that slow growth also, we are avoiding those waters as sources of broodstock, and going instead to lakes with the demonstrated potential to produce at least a few very large fish (Chippewa Flowage, Butternut, Moose).
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Good morning Dave,
This might be a dumb question but here it goes. How is a lake determined to be suitible for the stocking of musky? I'll sit down and listen for my answer. Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions. Its appreciated more than you probably realize.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| john skarie - 4/7/2008 7:03 AM
Dave;
I'm curious why it's important the lakes used for collecting eggs are naturally reproducing, native lakes. Or at least you want them to be "mostly" that way.
In MN, all lakes used for getting hatchery fish are lakes that were not native, and do recieve annual stockings. The parent lake of course is Leech, a native naturally reproducing body of water.
I'm just wondering why there is a different philosophy or different situation there.
John
John, I cannot speak for the Minnesota DNR of course, because I have not attended their policy meetings and I would not pretend to understand their logistical constraints. But I can tell you that Wisconsin DNR seeks waters with naturally reproducing muskellunge because we want the wild-source fish we are stocking today to reproduce on their own tomorrow. We realize there are many waters that will always require stocking to maintain a muskie fishery at the desired level. But the more populations that can be maintained by natural reproduction of genetically fit fish, the better. Our policy is based upon the advice of some of the best fish population geneticists in the country; and I stand behind it.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | Dave,
In your last post you mention that "want the wild-source fish we are stocking today to reproduce on their own tomorrow." Is that the ultimate goal of the DNR in managing the musky fishery - to attempt to build self-reproducing fish?
Shane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| ShaneW - 4/7/2008 8:30 AM
Dave,
In your last post you mention that "want the wild-source fish we are stocking today to reproduce on their own tomorrow." Is that the ultimate goal of the DNR in managing the musky fishery - to attempt to build self-reproducing fish?
Shane
Shane, as I said above, "Wisconsin DNR seeks waters with naturally reproducing muskellunge because we want the wild-source fish we are stocking today to reproduce on their own tomorrow. We realize there are many waters that will always require stocking to maintain a muskie fishery at the desired level. But the more populations that can be maintained by natural reproduction of genetically fit fish, the better." I believe this answers your question. If not, I'm just not sure what more I can add.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | Dave,
That answers it.
Thanks,
Shane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Wouldn't Minnesota be in a little different boat than Wisconsin in general? In the Sportsman's Connection map book of the TC Lakes, printed in 1994, there is very limited mention of muskie fishing on Minnetonka, White Bear and Bald Eagle. No mention at all of muskies on Forest, despite the fact that the stocking of muskies is printed right above the fishing info. The point I'm trying to make is that now that these lakes have "come of age," it's like, "MNDNR does everything right and WDNR does everything wrong."
I would think that the WDNR has significantly more challenges based on fishing pressure than the MDNR has, since muskie fishing has been in WI esox anglers for practically 100 years and the pressure reflects that. I'm actually proud of the fact that Bone (I'm sure the Hayward lakes as well) get 50 boats hammering it on any given day and you still have the chance to double up on fish. If it was a lower density/big fish lake, people would probably start crying that they don't see as many fish any more. I could be wrong, but i don't you can have your cake and eat it to.
BTW, a few friends of mine have started complaining about how their milk runs on Minnetonka are starting to dry up because they are getting fished so hard. People probably had that same problem on the Chippewa flowage...30 years ago.
Dave, keep up the good work. You know more about the situation than anyone, it's what you do for a living and I'm sure you take it seriously. |
|
| |
|
|
I'm curious as to the thoughts on the offspring of "wild" fish being able to more successfuly reproduce than that of stocked fish.
Is there any evidence that a fish raised in a hatchery will have any better success at spawning after it is stocked because it's parents were not stocked?
There is very clear evidence that fish taken out of brood stock lakes in MN and then stocked in non-native waters do reproduce. While levels may not reach that of a self-sustaining population, that is thought to be more of a habitat problem rather than a fish problem.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| JOHN SKARIE asked: Is there any evidence that a fish raised in a hatchery will have any better success at spawning after it is stocked because it's parents were not stocked?
DAVE: Yes. Studies too numerous to mention in the journals of fishery science demonstrate that the offspring of wild-captured broodstock of many fish species are more likely to survive and reproduce themselves than the offspring of fish that have been held as captive broodstock for several generations or reared at a hatchery themselves where they did not undergo the selective pressures that weed out the least fit among them. This is a basic principle in fish conservation genetics.
Also, even the best hatchery propagation efforts, like Wisconsin's new muskie program, cannot produce the level of genetic diversity in a population that exists in a viable, unstocked population of muskellunge. Natural reproduction in a healthy population maximizes genetic diversity, which then maximizes the probability that fish in that population will be able to adapt and cope with all the environmental stressors we humans are heaping upon them.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| So if I'm understanding this correctly, the main goal here is genetic diversity, which science has proven is the key to producing fish that will survive and reproduce successfully. But the fish themselves are only a small part of the equation. Things like water chemistry, habitat, forage, etc. are a far greater influence in determining the overall size structure of the fish in a given ecosystem.
So Dave, let me ask you something: Of all the factors that determine how big muskies get in the lakes you are familiar with, what is most significant? Is it forage? Size of the lake? Lack of recruitment? Runoff? Silt? Shoreline development? More importantly, is it something that can be changed? Or will we find ourselves in 20 years realizing that the lakes are what they are, and no amount of genetic research is going to change that?
|
|
| |
|
|
Thanks for your reply Dave. You answered my question, but I maybe didn't word it quite correctly.
What I was getting at is if you have a lake where it's population was established by stocking, is there any difference in the behavior of the progeny of those fish vs. getting them from a lake that is not stocked.
I realize a difference in fish that are held in captivity and used for hatchery purposes vs. utilizing fish that live their lives in a natural environment.
In the case of taking eggs from a brood stock lake vs. a natural lake, the eggs go to a hatchery, and then fish are raised and released into a new environment. So no matter where they came from, they still will be raised in a hatchery or a rearing pond before being released.
Why would there be a difference in behavior being the fingerlings go through the same environment before being stocked?
Again thanks for your replies. This is info I'm very interested in learning more about.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| JOHN SKARIE asked: "... If you have a lake where its population was established by stocking, is there any difference in the behavior of the progeny of those fish vs. getting them from a lake that is not stocked?"
DAVE: I don't know if there is a difference in behavior (how the fish act), but there is probably a big difference in genetic diversity and performance of future generations, depending on how many males and females were used to create the stocked population from which you are now collecting broodstock (and how they were crossed). If only a couple big, egg-laden females were used to create the stocked population (not an uncommon situation in past hatchery operations throughout the country); or if some of the same males were used to fertilize the eggs from both females (also not uncommon); then that stocked population from which you now propose to obtain broodstock may have a VERY low frequencey of "rare alleles" and other variable genetic material that is needed to ensure the long-term viability (including natural reproduction) of future generations.
JOHN: In the case of taking eggs from a brood stock lake vs. a natural lake, the eggs go to a hatchery, and then fish are raised and released into a new environment. So no matter where they came from, they still will be raised in a hatchery or a rearing pond before being released. Why would there be a difference in behavior being the fingerlings go through the same environment before being stocked?
DAVE: Again, there may be no difference in behavior, but because of the lower genetic diversity of fish in the stocked broodsource lake (unless extraordinary measures were taken to ensure otherwise), their progeny will not be as adaptable to survive or fit to reproduce in current and future environments as will progeny from wild fish that have greater genetic diversity and have demonstrated the recent ability to survive to reproductive age in their native environment. To sum it all up, Nature knows best. Or to quote Aldo Leopold, "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts." In this case, the parts are genes.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
| Then why isn't Wisc. using a broodstock lake system of recruitment then? Come on. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
I suggest you re-read Dave's last post.
Dave,
Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you via MuskieFIRST Radio this afternoon. I'm sure the information you provided will assist everyone in better understanding the work you and your staff in the Upper Chippewa Basin in NW WI and those elsewhere in the Wisconsin Muskie management program here in Wisconsin do.
We should have the interview posted sometime in the next 24 hours. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Great news Steve. Thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | John, I think I may have a better way of putting it. MN uses Lake Rebbecca as the brood stock lake in most years. Leech Lake proper fingerlings are stocked into Rebbecca every 4-5 years ((on average, sometimes every other). These fingerlings come from wild fish spawned at Leech. Genetic diversity is maintained in Rebbecca by the stocking of these fingerlings. What WI is basically trying to do is go into Leech every year to maximize the new genetics used. Actually it would be like going into Leech, Winnie, Cass, etc. on a yearly rotational basis. The number of yearly mate pairings Dave presents mirrors what happens in Rebbecca. Year classes are also crossed in each pairing.
Raising fish in the hatchery and then rearing ponds does exactly what Dave mentioned. The weak fry and fingerlings that may have been cropped off in a natural environment, do in fact make it to stocking age under the current MN system. Talk to some of the Park Falls guys. They harvested fingerlings this past fall with lower jaw deformities. These fish were raised to advanced fry stage using an experimental dry diet, then stocked into rearing ponds. Had they been raised on sucker fry in the hatchery or in a natural lake they may have starved and died. However in this example, these fish will still probably not make it once they have to chase real forage. The mortality may have just been delayed. So you have to now ask the question does "survival of the fittest" still apply here? If the "weak" genetic trait is a trait that expresses itself at the fry stage, then no. If it occurs after 6 months of age, then yes.
Edited by tfootstalker 4/7/2008 5:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Moltisanti - 4/7/2008 8:36 AM The point I'm trying to make is that now that these lakes have "come of age," it's like, "MNDNR does everything right and WDNR does everything wrong." I would think that the WDNR has significantly more challenges based on fishing pressure than the MDNR has, since muskie fishing has been in WI esox anglers for practically 100 years and the pressure reflects that. BTW, a few friends of mine have started complaining about how their milk runs on Minnetonka are starting to dry up because they are getting fished so hard. People probably had that same problem on the Chippewa flowage...30 years ago. Dave, keep up the good work. You know more about the situation than anyone, it's what you do for a living and I'm sure you take it seriously. A very true comment. Does anyone even catch fish on ML during the day anymore?  I bet most people don't realize that the DNR recognizes 1985 as the year in which the first successful stocking event took place in ML. The fishery is only 22 years old!! A lot of the other lakes were introduced in 1982-1983.
|
|
| |
|
|
Footstalker;
My questions are regarding why "going to Leech" every year, as you described the comparison is better than going to the brood stock lakes every year.
I understand how both scenarios work, I'm curious as to why one is better than the other, or if they are really very different when comparing the end results.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | I'm not sure if they are different. The only thing I can think of is if the perceived "weak" fish do in fact die at young age, than you actually are stocking fewer fingerlings than if all the fish you stocked were "strong". This takes a liitle bit of a stretch though. I'm guessing it costs a lot more to go the WI route. You must also be willing to gamble that you will hit your quota, at least for these beginning years until the program stabilizes. MN has several back-up brood lakes that lay out geographically that allows a Plan B if Plan A fails. In the end it's what the people called for and what the agency believes in. You certainly can't argue with that. It certainly is major program change and I applaud them for going for it.
I'm not going to get into the whole "the reason for stocking is to produce a self sustaining fishery" debate. If that were the case, there would be walleyes in 1/3 of MN lakes as there are now. Even then, would anglers be satisfied with the low numbers that would exist in these created self sustaining lakes?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Interview regarding this subject with Dave Neuswanger, Upper Chippewa Basin Team Leader, WIDNR
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_mp3.asp?id=856
Article responding to comments from Bob Benson:
See research Forum
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 756
| We all knoow there are big fish in flowages,but what is surprising that the turtle flambeau flowage was not mentioned here as a brood stock lake. Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| kdawg - 4/10/2008 6:54 PM
We all knoow there are big fish in flowages,but what is surprising that the turtle flambeau flowage was not mentioned here as a brood stock lake. Kdawg
Kdawg, the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage has some monster fish, to be sure, and a healthy proportion of big fish overall. But we have chosen not to use the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage as a source of broodstock because we have documented ZERO natural reproduction there. I think most folks will find this surprising, but as far as we know the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage muskie fishery is sustained entirely by stocking. And where did those stocked fish (now trophies in the TFF) come from? Wisconsin DNR hatcheries.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 756
| Thanks Dave for the response. I guess the reason I brought up the Flambeau was that I had read in the Wi. Top Muskie Lakes book, in the Flambeau review, in the fourth paragraph, it stated the flowage supports good natural reproduction of muskie ,but with predation from pike,stocking is therefore supplemented. But if it wasn'nt for the pike,would the population be self-sustaining? Also, with a population of northerns in the Chippewa Flowage, I'm sure musky fry experience a certain level of predation as well. Is there a difference between these two bodies of water? Or do I need a better understanding of self-sustaining? Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| kdawg - 4/11/2008 10:57 AM
Thanks Dave for the response. I guess the reason I brought up the Flambeau was that I had read in the Wi. Top Muskie Lakes book, in the Flambeau review, in the fourth paragraph, it stated the flowage supports good natural reproduction of muskie ,but with predation from pike,stocking is therefore supplemented. But if it wasn'nt for the pike,would the population be self-sustaining? Also, with a population of northerns in the Chippewa Flowage, I'm sure musky fry experience a certain level of predation as well. Is there a difference between these two bodies of water? Or do I need a better understanding of self-sustaining? Kdawg
Ken, the statement you quoted above in the Wisconsin Top Muskie Lakes book is not supported by WDNR data. We don't know if muskellunge eggs hatch in the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage (TFF). If they do hatch, we don't know why young muskies are not seen in fall electrofishing samples there. There are quite a few skinny northern pike in the TFF. They might eat some young-of-the-year muskies. But we do not know the significance of that relationship at this time.
The northern pike population in the Chippewa Flowage IS cause for concern with respect to the future of muskellunge recruitment (survival to catchable size). The following is a paragraph out of our August 2007 Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan:
"Valid estimates of northern pike density (number per acre) are almost impossible to obtain on the Chippewa Flowage because of its large area (15,300 acres) and high habitat diversity. We have no recent estimates of density, but near the end of the pike spawning season in late April of 2006 we captured northern pike over 14 inches long in 98 fyke-net nights of effort in northern areas of the Chippewa Flowage at an average rate of 3.1 per fyke-net night – twice the mean capture rate of stock-size muskellunge at that time. Of the 307 pike =14 inches captured during the week-long survey, only 6% exceeded 28 inches (objective range for RSD-28 = 15-25%). Though size structure was similar on both sides of the Flowage, we captured northern pike at a rate 3.1 times higher on the clear-water, more densely-vegetated west side than on the stained-water, more sparsely-vegetated east side. This observation corresponds to angler reports of better pike fishing on the west side of the Flowage than on the east side – particularly in the Scott, Tyner, Chief, and Crane lake basins."
Perhaps not coincidentally, we also captured muskellunge at a rate 2.7 times higher on the east side (fewer pike) than on the west side of the Chippewa Flowage.
We have much to learn about the causes of low recruitment of muskellunge in some waters. But until we can be relatively sure there is not a genetic basis for reproductive failure, we should use waters as sources of broodstock where natural reproductive capability is not in question.
In the meantime, since northern pike are not a highly sought-after species on the Chippewa Flowage, and because muskies are VERY important there, we need to encourage harvest of pike up to the daily bag limit of 5 (no size limit). This year we are issuing a pike fishing tournament permit to Musky Tale Resort with the stipulation that all fish registered in their annual tournament be kept, rather than released as in the past. Assuming the sponsor still holds the tournament under these conditions, we could see a couple thousand northern pike harvested in one event. Thinning the pike population in this manner and throughout the year might help muskie recruitment and also improve pike population size structure, making the annual pike fishing tournament more interesting in the future. A potential win-win situation if folks give it a chance.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
| There is a northern pike tournament that is held on the Chip every May. Can't there be a special priviledge that allows anglers from that tournament to keep every pike that is caught to help eliminate some of the pike populations? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 756
| Dave, I understand that it would take time ,effort, and money,but are there any lakes in Wi. that could benefit from say a northern pike transfer similar to what occurred at Butternut? Taking pike out of the Chip and Flambeau and perhaps re-establishing a trophy pike fishery like on Chequamagon Bay or any lakes in the state with a large rough fish population that could use a large predator like a pike? Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| kdawg - 4/14/2008 10:49 AM
Dave, I understand that it would take time ,effort, and money,but are there any lakes in Wi. that could benefit from say a northern pike transfer similar to what occurred at Butternut? Taking pike out of the Chip and Flambeau and perhaps re-establishing a trophy pike fishery like on Chequamagon Bay or any lakes in the state with a large rough fish population that could use a large predator like a pike? Kdawg
Kind of a moot point right now, Kdawg, as WDNR is under a policy moratorium on wild fish transfers from one body of water to another in order to minimize the risk of spreading VHS.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | This may have been covered in another post...if so please direct me. Instead of using a lake that potentially has big fish (Moose lake) , has any consideration been given to using a giant Wisconsin Strain female from Mill Lacs for eggs? I know that her 'giant' genetics would not be certain to pass along, but the odds are better. Perhaps use a couple of giant females from Mill Lacs to even better your odds?
Thanks |
|
| |
