|
|
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | -REGARDING MUSKIEFIRST COVERAGE OF THE 'IT'S THE FISH' DEBATE---------------------------------------------------------------------------
' All,
There is wide support among NW Wisconsin Muskie anglers for using known good growth fish as brood stock. I have letters of support from Muskies Inc Chapters in support of this. Two Muskies Inc Chapter presidents have posted on this thread in support of this.
Just because another website based in another area of the state has an agenda does not mean that it is the truth. I'd ask any of you that want to know the truth of how Musky anglers feel to attend a Muskies Inc Board meeting over in NW Wisconsin and ask the fisherman yourself. Send me a PM and I can arrange it. I've invited the folks at Muskiefirst many times - but they delete the invitation. The invitation is open to Muskie First to work with the Muskie clubs over here rather than against us. I can set it up.
Bob Benson
This message was edited by MuskieBenson on 5-10-08 @ 12:50 PM
------------------------------------------------
This was posted elsewhere by Mr. Benson.
Muskiefirst understands this platform has support in Wisconsin and elsewhere. We also understand there is considerable resistance to the behavior, tactics, and interpretation of the data this group exhibits by a substantial group of anglers ( many Muskies Inc members) currently working very hard with the DNR and on their own to improve Wisconsin's Trophy Muskie opportunities, and the vast majority of the scientific community across this country and Canada.
Our goal is to acquire the facts, publish them, and allow our visitors to make a decision on this issue based on the absolute best possible full disclosure of all the data and facts including interpretation of that data by experts as well as the WMRT and our visitors. We offer the entire story and do our best to keep the playing field level and free from this sort of thing allowing professional opinions from those working in the field of Muskie management without fear of personal attack, therefore assisting all muskie anglers everywhere to better understand the complexities of this issue in forming a personal opinion.
The concept that MuskieFIRST would in any editorial position 'work against' a Muskies Inc club is not only ludicrous, it's been proven to be the polar opposite of what we have done as a business and personally for 25 years.
I hope this clears any possible Muskies Inc misunderstanding of OutdoorsFIRST's goals in dealing with this issue from an editorial 'fact gathering' position. If any MI member or officer would like to speak with me regarding our coverage of the debate, click on the 'contact us' button, and either call or email me.
Best,
Steve Worrall
OutdoorsFIRST Media
| |
| | |
Posts: 1278
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Steve:
Even though I was on the original WMRP Team, please let me see if I can’t be a middle man here. From my reading of Bob’s post elsewhere and copied here and your response here, I see problems on both ends.
First of all, Bob’s statement “There is wide support among NW Wisconsin Muskie anglers for using known good growth fish as brood stock. I have letters of support from Muskies Inc Chapters in support of this. Two Muskies Inc Chapter presidents have posted on this thread in support of this.” certainly does not mean, as you stated “…that MuskieFIRST would in any editorial position 'work against' a Muskies Inc club…”. I completely concur that with …“it's been proven to be the polar opposite of what we have done as a business and personally for 25 years.” However, I don’t believe that it was Bob’s point in his post to “infer” that you were working against Muskie’s, Inc. clubs.
I can understand how Bob’s reference “Just because another website based in another area of the state has an agenda does not mean that it is the truth.”, and “The invitation is open to Muskie First to work with the Muskie clubs over here rather than against us.” must have upset you and resulted in this thread. I think his choice of the word “truth” was the wrong choice and I’ll cover that more shortly. I also think his choice of using “to work with the Muskie clubs over here rather than against us.” Was ill chosen. Knowing Bob as I do, I would attribute that statement to frustration rather than completely thinking it through.
I can’t confirm or deny his comment “I've invited the folks at Muskiefirst many times - but they delete the invitation.”, but I certainly can confirm that you Mr. Worrall did post early on that you were going to come over and interview Bob and I with regard to the situation and our position, but to date that has yet to happen. Has Bob invited MF to MI meetings in NW Wisconsin, and if so, have you attended any MI chapter meetings over here?
You’re statement “Muskiefirst understands this platform has support in Wisconsin and elsewhere.” is more right than you know. Your statement “We also understand there is considerable resistance to the behavior, tactics, and interpretation of the data this group exhibits by a substantial group of anglers ( many Muskies Inc members) currently working very hard with the DNR and on their own to improve Wisconsin's Trophy Muskie opportunities, and the vast majority of the scientific community across this country and Canada.” is also very true, but it is only the continued negative reference to “behavior, tactics” comment that helped to breed this frustration. There is never any reporting of why this “behavior and tactics” had to come about in the first place. The WMRP DID “play nice” in the beginning and were “summarily dismissed”. We had no other choice, and as a result, many changes HAVE taken place in Wisconsin muskellunge management. An unfortunate way to have to get things done, but the end results may just have justified the means. Now however, I believe it is time for both sides to learn from the past, set aside their differences and hard feelings and work together. We are willing, is the DNR? Is Muskie First?
Before we get to that point with MF, your comments “Our goal is to acquire the facts, publish them, and allow our visitors to make a decision on this issue based on the absolute best possible full disclosure of all the data and facts including interpretation of that data by experts as well as the WMRT and our visitors.” and “We offer the entire story…”, needs to be addressed.” THAT has not always been the case in the past, and the reason the WMRP Team no longer posts on this matter on MF. Often times that “full disclosure” has been moderated (eliminated) due ostensibly due to the manner in which it was presented. I can understand that to a point. Additionally, while I believe the DNR positions and information provided have been accurate, OFTEN only part of the story has been told, that which supports that sides position. Omission of facts on the other hand, have also been a serious part of the “parting of ways”, whether done intentionally or not…I won’t cite any examples as it is water over the dam now…let’s move on.
Your …“allowing professional opinions from those working in the field of Muskie management without fear of personal attack, therefore assisting all muskie anglers everywhere to better understand the complexities of this issue in forming a personal opinion.” is laudable and understandable. I freely admit that on several occasions in years past we got a little testy…again, borne of frustration. Deleting our “information” in those cases however, did little to disseminate ALL of the information your readers (and even in some cases the DNR) would need to make a complete informed decision. Can we get past that?? I hope so! | |
| | |
| that's a good post, and one that strikes a conciliatory and inviting tone, Larry. to say that everyone can learn from the past and move forward in a more cooperative way is exactly what's needed, imho.
if this is something you really want to do, you need to get your group's key voices on the same page: you have influential members of your group openly calling for Mr. Neuswanger's firing. that's hard to reconcile with you saying: "Now however, I believe it is time for both sides to learn from the past, set aside their differences and hard feelings and work together. We are willing, is the DNR? Is Muskie First?" in the current environment still being created by associates of the WMRP, i can hardly blame members of the DNR for not being interested. the advice you were given 3 years ago was to get a handle on public relations, that's still just as true today.
saying you want to approach things differently is good, actually doing things differently is better. which is it?
| |
| | |
Posts: 1278
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Michael wrote: " in the current environment still being created by associates of the WMRP, i can hardly blame members of the DNR for not being interested. the advice you were given 3 years ago was to get a handle on public relations, that's still just as true today.
saying you want to approach things differently is good, actually doing things differently is better. which is it?"
LR: Michael, trust me I hear what you and others are and have been saying here and elsewhere and that I am working on it. As an aside, the WMRP as an entity is actually a misnomer that is still being postulated. Pete Maina and others were never members of the WMRP, dispite the fact that Pete now freely admits that he wishes he would have been more supportive of us in the beginning. As I see it now, it is no longer a "WMRP" issue, rather a case of angler support (growing) for many of the past WMRP issues as well as identified new issues, that are important to muskie anglers everywhere that fish in Wisconsin and especially so for those that live in and want to fish in Wisconsin for trophy muskies. I shall do what I can to reign in the rhetoric and head things in a more positive direction. Hopefully it can and will be more beneficial and can result in more civil Internet discourse and will result in concerned anglers and the DNR getting back to the table to work things out in a positive manner for all.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MuskieFIRST hosted a debate for almost two years on this subject. Everything that possibly could be said had been said given the atmosphere, and the result is acknowledged in the posts above. See the over 1,000 posts discussing the subject and related items, interviews, and video/audio links on this forum and in our News section for reference.
There are over 1000 ( probably closer to 1300) posts discussing the genetics question and directly related subject matter in this forum and onsite. Everyone got their opinion published more than once if they so desired, so no one needs to be concerned that MuskieFIRST 'dismissed' any reasonable opinion from anyone, scientist, layman, or just the curious.
At the end of the last vestige of any reasonable debate back about a year ago, MuskieFIRST suggested the group provide a working fisheries biologist, preferably in the Muskie arena, to spearhead the conversation on their behalf. The motivation was two fold, to acquire a scientist's/working fisheries manager's point of view debatable in a safe environment by other scientists, and to offer a professional perspective that supports the claims, interpretations, and general platform of the group and the group's supporters.
The entire WMRP program was debated for almost two years. I seriously doubt any information of value from any point of view is missing. Re-read the entire bulk of the discussion, I see everything there and much more than was posted in the Pastika's 'event', and the 'discussion' now on TNB.... PLUS...you will find that on this board there are many other perspectives of value missing in the discussion there. Mike made that point very well.
We stand by ready to interview that biologist or fisheries manager and provide a secure forum for moderated discussion, allowing the Scientists who might agree with the 'It's the fish' platform and those who disagree to become involved at their leisure, offer the opportunity to read and accept questions and comments from peers and laymen alike before they are posted, and then answer only those questions that are reasonable and pertinent without fear of the sort of thing to which this thread is in response. No post would be allowed to be published without review. In short, the Forum would be 100% moderated and the subject matter approved before posting, and fisheries professionals could then debate the data.
Believe me, the accusation elsewhere that scientists and biologists 'protect each other' is a crock. There is not much many academics and working scientists love better than a good, solid argument...look around, you will see scientists disagree vociferously with each other all the time.
We feel this is the most positive manner in which MuskieFIRST might assist in reworking the debate.
That said, the first post here stands as is, based on what was posted on TNB in it's entirety.
| |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Folks,
First of all I'm a very proud member of MI. I also sit on the BOD for my chapter. I would like to say that MR. Benson doesn't speak for me. I think this whole issue is a black eye to our sport. Dave Neuswanger's credibility and very job have been called into question by folks who have no more biological smarts than I do and I can assure you thats almost nil. Where does Bob B. get off throwing MI's name into the mix? Is there a referendum that was pasted supporting the WMRP that I'm not aware of? Did Dan Narsete make some sort of proclimation that MI's membership was going to role up its sleeves and start sling crap like Pete Mania and the rest of the arm chair biologists?
Muskiefirst, in my opinion has presented both sides of the issue in a more unbias fashion than any other site. More than once I've been deleted for my comments on the WMRP. I still cringe everytime I see this topic being broached. Yet Steve and Micheal always seem to approach it with professionalism and a unbias touch. Much like this open letter Steve is not being malicious but rather stating an opinion based on facts and with little or no emotion. I wish the WMRP could say the same thing in there dealings with the DNR.
I hope you get my point here Steve. While I don't know Mr. Benson and have never personally met him. He doesn't speak for me a proud Muskies Inc. member for any matters regarding Muskiefirsts handling of the information presented by WMRP. As far as reworking the debate. I think that line was crossed a long time ago. I truly feel the folks at the WMRP blew it with their first go around with WDNR.
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 5/12/2008 8:10 AM
| |
| | |
| it's undeniable that there is widespread support for many of the issues presented by the (former) WRMP and it's current incarnation, including official and unofficial support from various chapters of Muskies Inc.. when presented with the question, "do you want bigger muskies?" i think we all probably answer yes. everyone knows the status of the fishery in Minnesota, and when asked, "do you want those muskies?" most people answer yes as well. when the DNR announces plans to collect brood from lakes that are known for action and not decent size, most people endorse the idea that this is questionable. of course, the issues are much more complex than the thumbnail sketch versions, and that is why there's a need for reasonable discussion about it.
i think that Mr. Ramsell's acknowledgment of impolitic tactics in the past, and a desire to "reign in the rhetoric and head things in a more positive direction" is refreshing, and a very important first step to more productive dialog on these issues than what occurred in the past.
Mr. Worrall's offer of a moderated forum for discussion between fisheries' experts has equal potential for benefiting all of us. in addition to that, i personally think one of the great powers of the internet is to help grass-roots organizations to organize, and that would be an appropriate use of this space as well, but would only ever be considered if the discussion was reasonable and didn't include personal whacks.
personally, i'd be interested in hearing from Larry or Bob what their new _approach_ goals are (ie. desired outcomes). we know what the issues are, and they've clearly identified their _avoidance_ goals (what they want to stop), but i'm a bit unclear on what they want to DO. is it the same things as before (stock LL strain fish in WI waters), or are there really new goals as Larry states above in addition to a commitment to working on them differently?
Edited by lambeau 5/12/2008 8:57 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Not to try to speak for the WRMP here, but I don't think it's a matter of getting an agreement on the goals of the two sides. In this document:
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/documents/muskymanagementfortrophyfish.pdf
Tim Simonson states (in the middle of the first page)... ""We want to make sure we're using the fish that's going to provide the best fishing by maximizing survival and growth rates because that's why we're stocking those waters in the first place," Simonson says."
...and there are several other references in the WDNR's stated goals of managing for trophy muskellunge in Wisconsin's 800 or so musky waters. So it doesn't seem as though there's a big disparity between the goals of the two sides. This has been stated before, so I am not saying anything new here.
What I think needs to happen now is for a dialog to be re-established with the biologists working in the NW part of the state. I don't think *any* goals can be defined until everyone knows where things stand. Anyone that knows me knows how fond I am of "finding out what we don't know" before starting on any sort of effort. And that's what I think needs to be done here; a sit-down discussion (or moderated discussion online possibly) to bring everyone up to speed, so to speak. That's what I think the immediate goal should be. From that point, questions and concerns can be addressed and long-term goals can be established...on both sides.
I cannot speak for each and every MI chapter out there, but I can say that as the VP of Research for all of MI, I will support what's best for the fishery. I have reviewed a substantial amount of data thus far, but still have an enormous amount yet to read. So Muskies Inc. has not yet released a "formal" position on this issue, mainly because the Executive Committee hasn't yet discussed the issue--because I haven't read all the necessary information yet. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of pages, so it's going to take a bit more time...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/12/2008 9:49 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 178
| I always enjoy listening to my friend Tom Betka. He has a natural, intense curiosity about the workings of nature that rivals my own. And I appreciate the logical, tactful manner in which he seeks to satisfy that curiosity. Tom made a couple points in his last post that I would like to address so that future discussions can be as productive as possible for all concerned.
TOM: What I think needs to happen now is for a dialog to be re-established with the biologists working in the NW part of the state. I don't think *any* goals can be defined until everyone knows where things stand.
DAVE: With respect to dialog, I would encourage those who wish to influence DNR broodstock selection policy to focus their attention on the people who make policy. Contrary to popular opinion, my biologists and I in the Upper Chippewa Basin try our best to implement and explain policy, but we do not make it. I consider it my professional obligation to answer questions and explain the science behind DNR policy as it affects the Upper Chippewa Basin, but my willingness to communicate has given some folks the mistaken impression that I create policy. Muskellunge policy proposals are developed by the statewide Wisconsin Muskellunge Management Team (of which I am not a member), then considered by DNR's Fisheries Management Board (of which my supervisor is a member) and ultimately approved or rejected by the leader of that Board -- Bureau Director Mike Staggs. So in a nutshell, what I think should be done in the six-county area I serve (Ashland, Iron, Sawyer, Price, Rusk, Taylor) has only minor influence on statewide program decisions made in Madison. If activist anglers wish to influence or change policies that affect the muskellunge fishery statewide, that is where the dialog most needs to occur.
TOM: Anyone that knows me knows how fond I am of "finding out what we don't know" before starting on any sort of effort. And that's what I think needs to be done here; a sit-down discussion (or moderated discussion online possibly) to bring everyone up to speed, so to speak.
DAVE: The focus of much of my communication over the past couple years has been to help folks understand what we know (a little) and what we do not know (a lot) about muskellunge genetics. As Steve Worrall mentioned on this thread, that has been covered pretty thoroughly by MuskieFIRST to date. There is always more that could be discussed, but it should probably occur at the statewide program level if there is any expectation that such discussion will influence statewide policy. And it is my belief that statewide program leaders will not engage in such discussion on Internet forums.
TOM: That's what I think the immediate goal should be. From that point, questions and concerns can be addressed and long-term goals can be established...on both sides.
DAVE: My biologists and I have been developing goals (general statements of desired condition) and objectives (specific measures that reflect attainment of goals) for major individual waters in the Upper Chippewa Basin. To do that, we consult statewide angler preference data, examine lake-specific creel survey data, and tap into the interests and knowledge of local stakeholders who are able and willing to participate in our 4-hour visioning sessions. Not surprisingly, the goals and objectives vary depending upon the biological capacity of each system and the social desires of those who fish them. For example:
CHIPPEWA FLOWAGE MUSKELLUNGE GOAL 3: A population of moderate to high density with a moderate proportion of memorable-size fish and a low proportion of trophy-size fish.
Objective 3.1: 0.3 to 0.4 adult muskellunge per acre in spring population estimates, or early spring fyke-netting capture rates that we someday determine to be statistically associated with the desired density.
Objective 3.2: Of all muskellunge 20 inches and longer captured by fyke netting in early spring, 30-40% should be 42 inches or longer (RSD-42 = 30-40%) and 3-5% should be 50 inches or longer (RSD-50 = 3-5%).
Here's another example to demonstrate the variety in our systems:
TIGER CAT CHAIN GOAL 2: A muskellunge population of high density with a low proportion of preferred-size fish.
Objective 2.1: 0.5 to 0.7 adult muskellunge per acre in spring population estimates
Objective 2.2: Of all muskellunge 20 inches and longer captured by fyke netting in early spring, 5-10% should be 38 inches or longer (RSD38 = 5-10%).
In one of the above lakes (Chippewa Flowage), it is reasonable to strive for the occurrence of trophy-size fish, whereas in the other (Tiger Cat) it is not. Both fisheries are desirable, but for different reasons. Trophy hunters will go to the Chip. Folks who just want to catch their first musky may go to the Tiger Cat Chain. So we have different goals and objectives for different systems, depending upon the biological capacity and social expectations of those systems.
What Tom may really be after is some type of consensus on STRATEGY -- that is, HOW we go about achieving a particular goal. Specifically, where the goal is to create trophy fisheries (such as the Chippewa Flowage) and where stocking is deemed necessary to meet the density objectives for such fisheries, then the source of broodstock becomes a strategic consideration. I contend that professional fishery managers are in the best position to formulate such strategies, and that our recommended actions should prevail over those of even the most knowledgable stakeholders (anglers, guides, business owners) provided that we are acting with sincere intent to achieve the goals and objectives developed in consultation with those same stakeholders.
TOM: I cannot speak for each and every MI chapter out there, but I can say that as the VP of Research for all of MI, I will support what's best for the fishery. I have reviewed a substantial amount of data thus far, but still have an enormous amount yet to read. So Muskies Inc. has not yet released a "formal" position on this issue, mainly because the Executive Committee hasn't yet discussed the issue--because I haven't read all the necessary information yet. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of pages, so it's going to take a bit more time...
DAVE: As always Tom, I greatly respect your sincere and diligent efforts to "seek first to understand, then to be understood" (one of the "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" written by Steven Covey).
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 5/12/2008 7:30 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Thanks for your reply. I know how busy things are in your world right now, and truly appreciate you taking the time.
All:
This subject has now been reactivated several times here over the last FOUR years, so I'd encourage everyone to look back into the archives and read the many posts there, read the press releases, listen to the MuskieFIRST Radio interviews and watch the Symposium video as well. Here are a few links:
1) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17...
All the way back to 2004, looking for a direction and reasonable grounds..
2) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=19...
3) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=24...
4) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25...
5) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=24...
6) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=28...
7) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=29...
8) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=28...
9) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=29...
10) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=30...
11) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=29...
12) http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=30...
There's more, but that will get you started.
Articles:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/05.13.2008/1213/Managing.M...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/05.13.2008/1176/UWSP.Genet...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/05.13.2008/1153/Balance.In...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/05.13.2008/1124/2006.WI.Mu...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/05.13.2008/1033/The.WDNR.L...
Radio:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_mp3.asp?id=856
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_mp3.asp?id=532
Read this ALL, from the first thread posted I believe before the WMRP released anything (two of the posters on that thread are key members of the group) to the end, watch the videos, and listen to the audio, and I believe you will agree no stone was left unturned and all who wished to, posted, no matter their background.
On one hand we have a group of well meaning, hard working, concerned muskie fishermen claiming to have simple, easy, cheap, and fast fixes for all our trophy Muskie desires, and all that needs happen is we ask our DNR to follow their program. They offered interpretation of a number of DNR papers and studies, posted references to other documents, and received historical support from Larry Ramsell, one of the most tenacious historical researchers you will meet. They published their data on their own website, as well as on this board and a couple others.
After extensive efforts, MuskieFIRST was unable to find a single qualified fisheries professional who would come forth to support the concepts, and after several requests by MuskieFIRST it became obvious neither could they, for whatever reason. So read it all, forge your own opinion, and let's see to what positive direction this topic might lead.
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Having read it all, and been apart of many of the threads, (not going to reread it, as that would be a winter project)
I have one suggestion to get things started.
First some back ground:
There is no doubt that leech lake (LL) fish grow big and thrive in almost all Mn waters they are stocked into.
Fishermen observation and actually catch records show that the (LL) fish stocked in to Nancy Lake grew big and are spawing to some degree. Even though official WDNR study documentation was inconclusive, based on study conclusions. There are things in the study that many non-biologist wonder. But if I remember correctly “scientifically” speaking results were inconclusive.
Musky fishermen WANT trophy fish based on the large migration of destination oriented musky fishermen away from Northern Wisconsin to Mn and Canada, and more recently to Green Bay.
In almost all cases WDNR policy on fisheries management is based on the Fishermen and their desires. Walley, Bass, Panfish, Trout, Brown Trout, Lake Trout, Salmon and Muksy.
So it’s pretty clear what fishermen want, it’s also pretty clear what the current management policy is.
A study was approved, one that would stock LL fish in a number of NW Wisconsin lakes, also many lakes where approved to get regular stockings of LL fish.
Here’s my suggestion. Everyone should be working together to figure out how those lakes can get those stocking of LL fish. The VHS concern has stopped things, but there has to be something that can be done. I have heard a couple suggestions, other states are coming up with alternate plans, fingerlings can be tested, whatever I don’t know enough about it. But I strongly believe this is the first area everyone should be working together in to GET SOMETHING DONE. Stock those research lake, stock those southern lakes, STOCK WISSOTA. Man, think of the trophy fishery Wissota could be if all the screaming of “It’s the Fish” is correct. Follow the Mn example and stock Wissota exactly like they stocked their lakes and see what happens. Not official a study lake, but what a draw for Western fishermen if it takes off.
Solving the issue of getting LL fish for stocking in those waters, already approved, could also help figure out how to get more Great Lakes brood stock for Green Bay, as I know that plan was also in the works, but halted because of VHS. If one problem is solved the solution should also solve the problem for the other.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I can't help feel we need but point out Dr. Sloss's report again in light of statements I've recently read, some clarification and review might be in order.
'The results of this analysis showed no disruption in the genetic integrity of LCO despite significant genetic differences between LCO, Big Spider, and Mud-Callahan muskellunge populations. Evidence was found of a previously undocumented influx of fish into LCO during the mid-1970's. The 1976 LCO sample failed to match any of the other temporal samples included in the analysis. It was suspected an undocumented stocking event had occurred at this time. Subsequent investigations have identified a 1972 stocking of muskellunge from the Woodruff hatchery into Grindstone and Whitefish Lakes (both of which have significant water connections to LCO) during the timeframe in question. From a genetic perspective, this stocking appears to have resulted in the stocked fish surviving to the fishery (observed genetic anomaly in 1976 the result of an admixed sample of LCO and stocked fish), but no evidence of successful reproduction of these fish can be seen in genetic analysis of subsequent years (all post 1976 samples were consistent with 1956 and 1966 genetic signature of LCO). This is encouraging on two fronts: 1) the LCO population appears to have avoided significant genetic impact from this stocking, and 2) the genetic approach being used can identify impact from the introduction of stock fish in this system thereby strengthening the findings of no impact from the two stocking events in question. Efforts are underway to confirm the genetic identity of fish from the 1976 sample to ensure this scenario is indeed correct.'
That means, in a nut shell, the genetics of the LCO fish has not changed significantly since the 50's.
Another point to answer a question:
The transfer of 500 ADULT fish from Butternut to LCO on top of the low density population would have an exponentially increased effect if there IS any risk of outbreeding depression and introgession, which is discussed in this excerpt:
The scope and scale of this analysis did not allow for landscape-level genetic interpretation. In other words, we cannot say if the levels of divergence we are observing among these populations are consistent with a normal between-population level of genetic difference that occurs within a single stock of WI muskellunge. This is not out of the question. Stocks are not simply significantly different populations, but represent a combination of unique populations that share enough genetic similarity to be managed as a genetic unit. If this was the case, the data, while showing significant differences between populations, would not necessarily mean a successful translocation of musky from Butternut to LCO would unduly jeopardize the genetic integrity of the LCO population. However, the study as conducted does show LCO has maintained some degree of genetic uniqueness despite the supposed reliance on propagation to maintain this population.
I believe it may, in the future, be determined to be perfectly acceptable to introduce large numbers of adult fish from one system in question to another, but at this time introducing 500 ADULTS wasn't. Using fry from Butternut...for obvious reasons if you think a bit about what was said above...should not be a problem. Perhaps Dave or another professional could comment further and fix anything I have misinterpreted. | |
| | |
| Well I cant speak for what is going on there But down here in IL MY club SOB has been stocking spots for years now and everone keeps telling us were are wasting are time. Here is a 48 my wife chaught eailer this year The fish was just under 4 pounds from the state record and allmost 5 inches shorter!!
Attachments
----------------
 kathy48 spot.jpg (40KB - 202 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So you'd say the spotted stocking program on the Fox has been a success? | |
| | |
| I would think so. If nothing else the fish are built like tanks eating the same thing the IL fish are here is a IL fish 48 same day as the spot .
I got a 35 incher spot the other day and it was round. It was one of the fattest fish I have ever seen.
Edited by muskysucker1 5/29/2008 6:20 PM
Attachments
----------------
Lexi 48.jpg (40KB - 201 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | To Mike Roberts: THANK YOU!
Right now I am writing another grant trying to get fish funding for Wissota. I think we have a great shot at creating something special.
This is a big financial burden on our chapter and not what we originally signed on for when we entered into this arrangement with the WDNR. However we want the fish so we go forward without them. To do this right, takes money. We have the support of numerous chapters and conservation organizations but we need a lot more help.
As an aside, I realize this issue is bigger than just Mississippi strain fish, it's about creating a quality fishery using a quality source. I happen to believe that the genetic component is not insignificant and without it no amount of forage, lake size and structure can make up for it. I think if you put a dwarf in front of a big buffet, you get a fat dwarf.
I think whats been lost in all the noise is the fact there are lakes in this state, RIGHT NOW that can receive Mississippi or any other strain muskie. I think it's a limited list but its a start.
In the June issue of Muskie magazine, I have an article outlining the WDNR created "universal receptor" concept. I urge all interested MI members to read it. For those who do not have access to Muskie magazine, I can make it available on the web once the issue is published.
Lets put our energy into creating something real. I think one of the best ways for us "laymen" to prove the point about genetics in trophy fisheries is by building Mississippi strain fisheries or Kalepps source or other sources with known quality potential.
There is already an opportunity for anglers and WDNR to work together. We've been doing this for a few years now and other clubs in state have been as well. We enjoy a great working relationship with our local fisheries biologist. He supports our project and that has helped me find more support.
If anyone would like to know more about our Lake Wissota project. Please contact me. I am always happy to talk about this and would truly appreciate any support whether its direct support or ideas for funding sources. If you believe in the cause, I have a project for you to get behind!
Sincerely,
Jon Olstadt
VP First WI
[email protected]
Edited by Jono 5/29/2008 10:29 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I LIKE spotted fish. Not because they always grow faster then other strains...they don't. Not because they will grow larger or be heavier...look at Cass Lake in the past and the very data misquoted so often.... They may not. I like them because they behave differently than the barred fish, and they are really pretty fish. I'd like to see them in the systems in WI where they can be planted and managed and not conflict with populations in place already, and would assist in any effort to get that done in the spirit jono and Mike Roberts are forwarding. The problem is, the 'opposite spirit' is forwarded elsewhere, and that's the failure...clearly. Which IS it?
The idea I'm against the introduction of spots in the waters where our DNR can lend support is a crock. I never have been. I'm against the idea this fish is a silver bullet and our scientists are morons. It isn't, and they are not. I'm against the rhetoric that drove us as a community so far apart, and am glad to see someone willing to step back from that a bit...even though there just HAD to be the 'dwarf' comment posted... and make some more forward progress based on what CAN be done either way.
I talked with the biologist working the Fox at a tournament for over an hour, and got a take on what the ILDNR thought of the program, that's why I asked the question.
This fish was from the Fox, too.
(getimage_bigfish_show.aspx.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
getimage_bigfish_show.aspx.jpg (249KB - 288 downloads)
| |
| | |
| Jono, Mroberts, others...
What exactly makes Wissota a universal receptor lake? The last time I checked it was part of the Chippewa River system, you know, the same Chippewa River that is home to "non-universal receptor waters like...the Chippewa Flowage, Old Abe and Holcombe. They are not universal receptors. Furthermore isn't the Chippewa River drainage home to what is thought to be "wisconsin strain" fish? Are Chippewa River fish the same strain as those from Leech Lake? I thought not. Thats the basis for this whole argument.
WHY THEN IS IT OK TO STOCK LL FISH IN WISSOTA?
You will say..."because the local Biologist says so". But they are not being stocked in the Chippewa Flowage, Lake Winter, Dairyland, etc... Why? Those waters are not universal receptors.?? Are they? I get it, the rest of the states biologists are full of it.
Hypocrites.
| |
| | |
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Guest, I'd be happy to talk to you and explain why. Please contact me and lets start the conversation with a name.
Thank you,
Jon Olstadt
[email protected]
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I don’t know anything about universal receptor lakes.
I know this….. the WDNR has approved the stocking of Leach Lake fish into Wissota, and people are screaming to stock LL fish in Wisconsin waters. So why not start there and if it’s truly “The Fish” we’ll soon find out.
Call me a hypocrite if you want, I don’t believe I have done anything hypocritical. Heck at one point, I even posted wording for a Conservation Congress Resolution to stock LL fish into LCO. But a horse can only be beat so long after its dead. This is something everyone can work on together no matter how you feel about stocking or not stocking LL fish in other WI lakes.
Good work Jono, let us know if there is anything guys over here in the eastern part of the state can do. If you need funds be sure to keep us informed maybe we can get some of our clubs to kick in some dollars.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
| Jono,
just answer why you think it is ok to stock LL fish into waters with native WI strain muskies (within the native range of Wi strain muskies). you are a qualified barstool biologist.
your article in "Muskie" uses a quote that states that it's ok to stock LL fish if they preform better in non-native, non-naturally reproducing musky waters? Wissota fits that criteria? I think not.
Ray guest | |
| | |
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Ray, just contact me and I'm more than happy to talk about this.
Thank you,
Jon
| |
| | |
| I think others may be interested in your answers, so why not post?
| |
| | |
Posts: 176
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | If everyone could agree that we would like to see a lot more big fish swimming in WI waters, then it shouldn't be that difficult to move in that direction on a lake by lake basis, using a variety of means. Unfortunately, either the consensus doesn't exist (which is entirely possible), or for any plethora of reasons the powers to be are not acting on it. While there have been changes in the WDNR's thinking, and much more emphasis of late on stocking practices, etc., their focus seems to be 'genetic diversity'. Until there is a clear consensus for trophy musky management and a means to get that consensus to the powers that be, musky fisherman will have to do what they can, just as is being done with the Lake Wissota Project. "Think Globally, Act Locally" applies here, especially since the WDNR is willing to assist in local efforts.
Sean Murphy | |
| | |
Posts: 507
| Wisconsin IS already moving in that direction and has been for several years.
We would have had 13 lakes with a 50" limit years ago if the general fishing public would have been better educated. The consensus was THERE with a group of dedicated muskie anglers in FULL cooperation with the WIDNR. The PUBLIC voted it down, big time, and many of those folks were Muskie anglers. I was there, I saw it happen.
Now some muskie 'activists' are working to improve the size structure in waters that support trophy potential by trying to get size limits increased and are moving that direction one lake at a time, with the full support of the WIDNR. Yet we still do not always win even though the public speaks and supports the increases and the proposal comes from the DNR in part. We were fortunate to win the 50" limit on Pelican.
I wish folks would not assume the DNR 'focus' is 'this' one thing 'that' one thing. There are complicated and diverse issues afoot, and genetic diversity is but one brought to the forefront by Dr. Sloss. The idea that genetic diversity is the entire 'focus' of Muskie management in WI is propaganda, and simply not factual. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Just read Jon's article in the current "Muskie" magazine--very nicely written Jon!
To answer the question posed above by Mr. "Guest" regarding what makes Wissota a Universal Receptor lake...the WDNR makes it so! Apparently the local biologist, under the direction of the criteria established by the Wisconsin Musky Management Team, has deemed Wissota to be a Universal Receptor lake. So apparently the DNR are hypocrites as well?
I do not understand the statement that "rest of the state's biologists are full of it." It appears as though it was the state's WMMT that established the criteria for universal receptor lakes--so I guess your beef is with them?
TB
Edited by tcbetka 6/7/2008 7:45 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | All of the following info is from the WDNR Muskellunge Standing Team draft minutes dated 2/23/06:
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/MuskyCommitteeNotes2_23_2006.pdf
“Universal Receptors
We reviewed the list of waters and clarified the intent of the list. The list was established to provide clubs with a pre-approved list of lakes they could stock because we have no concerns about the sources of fish used. We also use the designation in our propagation program to determine sources of fish for quota requests. We also discussed Lake Michigan drainage waters. Ideally, waters with direct connections to Lake Michigan and Green Bay should be considered for GL Spotted fish. However, currently, the threat is minimal until natural reproduction is established in Green Bay/Lake Michigan. We have no idea how many fish are reaching Green Bay from inland waters. Brian will be conducting genetic testing on Green Bay fish, so we will have some idea of immigration to this point. This should be continued for Menominee River. The supply of GL fish is limited so all available production right now should be used to build up the Green Bay population.”
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/UniversalReceptors.pdf
Wissota is clearly stated on that list along with others. Don’t know how it got on the list but my guess is the WDNR has the reason some place.
I want to thank the people posting on this thread, for giving me something to read up on over the weekend. I now know what a Universal Receptor is, my bar stool/internet degree has grown.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 176
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | After taking my boat out of the Fox River yesterday in Green Bay, I was approached by a very friendly WDNR employee who asked me if I wouldn't mind answers a few questions.
After obliging, he went on to tell me what a great musky fishery GB is. I asked him the status of the 54" minimum at which time he was more than willing to share his (the WDNR's) views on
the GB musky fishery. In short, this is what he shared with me:
1) there is no biological reason to support a greater than 50" limit. A 50" fish has already spawned multiple years.
2) they are not sure if GB muskies are successfully spawning. They located 1 spawning pair in Sturgeon Bay
3) In a recent netting survey, 93 fish were netted, only 1 was over 50"
4) they believe that the Great Lake strain actually grows too fast (50"s in 7-10 yrs) to actually produce true trophy fish. A true trophy fish grows slowly and reached trophy size after 20-30 yrs
5) In the end, if enough fisherman want the 54" limit, they should be able to get it
I told him, that in my opinion, while a 50" may have indeed spawned for a number of years, (I cited Dr. Casselman and Dr. Grossman's study of over 74,000 muskies, which states…."Muskies spawn throughout their entire lives; the biggest fish lay the most eggs; and the giants usually always result from the largest year class".), wouldn't the fishery be better off if it could spawn for another 20 years? I wish I would have asked him what the biological reason was for taking the fish out!
After a cordial conversation and a wave good bye, I couldn't help the frustration that built as I drove home. I mean, giants are already being caught in those waters, right? How can they say that it isn't ideal trophy producing water?! It's potential world record water, right? How, on one hand, can they say.."we don't know if they are successfully spawning, and we only found 1 fish out of 93 to be over 50"."...and then on the other hand say, "oh, if you catch that 50"fish, go ahead and keep her, because there is no biological reason not to."?????????
More frustrated than ever,
Sean Murphy
Edited by sean61s 6/9/2008 12:25 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | Sorry I've been out for a few days without internet access. Some great comments here.
Thanks to all for the discussion. I'm glad that the article helped educate a bit on UR lakes. For the record, that article was written with extensive input from Joe Kurz. We have a great program in place that will hopefully help answer some questions down the road. Arguing out here with anonymous users is counter productive. Now, I'm going fishing. Good luck to all and please contact me if there are any questions about our project.
Jon
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Wow...great to hear that they are being more aggressive with musky-specific creel surveying this year! I assume Sean was being asked about musky effort? If so, then that's definitely a step in the right direction--as it shows that our biologists are taking steps towards gathering more data on the system.
I do have some comments in response to Sean's summarized points (by number) though:
1) Even though a 50" fish may have spawned several times, the fact that there has been no documented natural reproduction seems to argue the point that these fish are going through the motions. They *are* spawning, so if we can figure out why they haven't yet been successful and correct that problem, then these fish will eventually become successful at contributing to the fishery. And anyone can say what they want about the whole "big fish genetics" debate, but the one thing that cannot be argued is that offspring from a 50+" mother had a mother that was 50+" in size! There can simply be no argument there. And you can argue all you want about how valuable a single 50+" fish is to the entire year class, but if given the choice, I'd bet on their offspring. (At the very least, I'd know that they didn't come from a 32" female in a 600-acre lake in northern Minnesota.)
2) The fact there has been so little spawning activity observed is concerning. But unless we are going to resign ourselves to making Green Bay a "put & take" fishery, maintained solely by stocking (a process which is currently halted due to VHSv, by the way), we should strongly consider giving the fish the benefit of the doubt. Thus might it not be a good idea to try to maintain as many spawning fish as possible in the system, until we know that any harvested fish are being replaced? The creation of a self-sustaining muskellunge population is indeed one of the original stated goals of the reintroduction effort in Green Bay. Therefore I personally feel that it is still debatable to allow *any* harvest in such an effort; at least until the stated objectives have been met...
3) Does the fact that only 1.07% (1 in 93) of the fish exceed 50" concern anyone besides me? What per cent of 50+" fish *should* there be in the population? Allowing a 50" musky to be harvested as soon as it reaches 50" doesn't seem like the best way to improve the prevalence of 50+" muskies, in my opinion.
4) Actually, if you look at the von Bertalanffy growth model published by Kapuscinski et al in 2006, the growth rates are such that an *average* fish isn't going to reach the 50" mark (1272 mm) until about the 12-13th year. And the original model published is based upon data that included only one fish in excess of 50". It's not bad data, or a bad model mind you--it's just that they didn't get more fish of larger size. So that original curve may get adjusted one way or the other when more data (especially large fish data) has been gathered. But if you apply some basic calculus to the published growth equation (simply take the first derivative), and set that equal to 12.72mm (the model is in millimeters, and 0.5" = 12.72 mm), it suggests that at about 14.3 years of age, the fish are still growing at a rate of one-half inch per year. But then also consider that these fish tend to be heavy for their length (a fact proven repeatedly by anglers), and it suggests that it wouldn't take a fish much longer than 56-58" to reach the magical 55-60 pound mark...or more. In fact Kapuscinksi et al calculated the maximal potential length and weight (based upon the current growth model) of about 60.3" and 70.9 pounds! Thus they concluded that Green Bay *does indeed* have the potential to produce a fish of world-record weight. But that obviously isn't going to happen if she gets bonked at 50".
And finally, where has it been shown that these fish are *not* going to live until 18-20 years, at a minimum? These fish were stocked into an empty niche--and the initial growth rates were based upon fish stocked into a system with minimal competition, and virtually unlimited forage. But will this always be the case? Will these ALWAYS grow at the initial rate seen to this point? To my knowledge, the system certain hasn't shown us that they won't live for at least 20 years--the current fish haven't even been in the fishery for more than about 16-17 years. And what about Ryan Dempsey's 56.5" monster fish caught in April 2005? If the reported girth of 33.5" was accurate, that fish exceeded 60 pounds by most estimations.
The point is how will we know just how long these fish will live when we probably haven't even seen the upper limit of the lifespan of most fish in this system? To say that they'll "probably die young because they grew too fast" is simply assuming facts not yet in evidence, in my humble opinion. Implying that these fish will only live for one-half to two-thirds of the potential 30-year lifespan is simply premature, as far as I am concerned. Tell that to Mr. Dempsey. Wait, I know--some might say that his fish was a freak of nature (a Shaquille O'Neal of sorts) and not indicative of the true potential of the average fish. Well I say let's just wait a bit and see...it shouldn't take long. What do we have to lose?
5) I agree wholeheartedly--there's more to this issue than pure biology, and Canada has already proven that 54" size limits work. So it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to predict success here in Green Bay using that same logic. Hopefully the support of the DNR biologists will help carry the effort, and the public will vote favorably next spring. Certainly the NRB knows it's coming back to them, given all the recent noise about it.
But now that that's been said, I guess the thing I'd like to emphasize most with this post is how happy I am to hear that the WDNR is now actively gathering creel data specific to muskellunge in Green Bay. This is a huge step in my opinion, and means that things are indeed moving in a positive direction. I want to also emphasize that all of the arguments that I made above are based on *subjective* interpretation (mine) of limited data--but then again, so are the points that Sean reported as being advised by the WDNR employee. That's one of the big problems here--we have incomplete data, and won't be able to much more than speculate on the potential of the system until we have more data. In the meantime, both entities need to do their part--the DNR needs to continue their study of the system, and we as anglers need to TRIPLE our efforts to minimize angler-induced mortality through sound catch & release efforts on non-harvested fish.
Although the DNR is in charge of managing the fishery, we as anglers have an equal amount of responsibility if we want to insure the future of the fishery for our children.
Anyway, thanks for the post Sean!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 6/9/2008 3:20 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | This Creel Clerk happened to survey Sean who posted it here, how many other people were surveyed. If the surveyor suggest something to someone who does not belong to a musky club or someone who does not read “research message boards” it is likely the only education they will get on the issue is from the clerk. There is lots to consider with this issue. And it looks like what was said to Sean came directly out of the article that was printed in the Green Bay and Milwaukee papers.
Pro 54” groups might want to get some flyers at the GB landings, to point out the issues Tom just pointed out.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What exactly would one expect a creel clerk or fisheries tech to say if presented with the questions/arguments Sean posted? If he/she knows what the department/ local biologist/his/her superior's stance is, you expect he/she would suggest otherwise or contradict that position to the public just to make public popularity points? Now what, we are going to be critical of information gathering operations if the person responsible for collecting information doesn't say what we want to hear? Pretty soon we'll collectively have ALL the DNR employees plain not talking to the public at all ( as has been the case in the past, and a #*^@ed shame at that), and I wouldn't blame them a bit.
I second what Tom said, I'm delighted the survey is underway, if that was indeed a Creel clerk. By the way, many of those folks make a couple bucks over minimum wage for the most part, and for the most part are LTEs (limited term employees). They make no policy I am aware of....
Is Sean sure this WAS a creel clerk? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Steve.
When I attended the spring Conservation Congress hearing in Kewaunee County, a local fisheries tech (who had nothing to do with the Green Bay system, for the most part) basically summarized the same points Sean posted. I think that these points are the "official DNR position" of sorts, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that--and I didn't mean to imply that there was. My point in responding to them (in a rather verbose fashion) was that there are many differing viewpoints, and thus one needs to realize that there is much to be determined about the Green Bay musky fishery.
So none of this is etched in stone, by any means...
TB
EDIT: Almost forgot, about Mike's comments--I agree that we would want people to get as much information as is possible, and not necessarily just hear it from a creel clerk. But I am not sure how feasible it is to put flyers at the landings; but I can certain bring up the issue tomorrow night at our MI chapter meeting. But I would hope that anglers targeting muskies (and thus being interviewed in a musky-specific creel survey) have enough basic knowledge on the system to know that it's a bit more complicated than one creel clerk might suggest. NOt to imply that the clerk is trying to mislead anyone--I don't think that at all. But hopefully they will know someone that knows someone that knows someone...that has heard that there's more to the story. But I will certainly raise the idea at the meeting tomorrow. Thanks for the post Mike.
Edited by tcbetka 6/9/2008 3:56 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 176
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | As to "was it a creel clerk"..I just don't know. Clearly I should have remembered his name, especially since it was on his ID which was dangling from his neck. He was sitting in his car, got out as soon as I pulled my boat out, and approached me. He said he was with the DNR and wondered if he could ask me a few questions. They were, 1) where do you live? 2) were you targeting muskies?
Even if I knew his name I wouldn't have posted it, because this really has very little to do with him. After I asked about the status of the 54" limit, he offered the comments that I posted above, which I took, and I feel rightly so, as the WDNRs comments. Steve, I understand your concerns about taking one employees views as DNR gospel, but this guy was reciting, not talking. So I was and am concerned.
That fishery has already out out a number of 40-50 pound fish, possibly a 60 pound fish (Dempsey's), and those are the ones we know about...yet still, know body knows what GB is truly capable of. Based on Kapuscinski's publication, potential 55-60 pound fish? That puts GB in pretty small company.
I know the we need to work together with the WDNR to protect this fishery, but I couldn't help feel that we might be miles apart if the views I heard yesterday were indeed those of the WDNRs.
Let me ask the tough question. Who at the WDNR on the Musky Management Team feels that a 54" limit is biologically warranted in GB? If the answer is no one, than I would say that my fears of protecting this world class musky fishery are justified.
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | It was a creel clerk then...if he was waiting in his car, and approached you when you were at the landing.
As to your last question...I don't know. But I *can* tell you that I do know for certain that there are several in the state's fishery department who realize that it isn't just about the biology. I have spoken to them several times and am quite comfortable that they understand our concerns, and even share them. Don't think for a second that having a fishery in the state that is capable of a world-record caliber of fish isn't of importance to these guys. I guarantee it is, and you'll just have to take my word for it.
If you look at the work that Drs. Crossman & Cassleman have published, you generally won't find too many recommendations for size limits of 50" or higher (at least not that I have seen). Yet, there they are--all over Canada--and these two scientists are both Canadian, and probably two of the most accomplished to ever publish on muskellunge. but still, the Ontario MNR routinely sets size limits *above* what these two scientists have determined to be "biologically necessary." Why? My guess is it's because Canada recognizes the tremendous value of a trophy muskellunge fishery, and they have listened to anglers who have told them that they wanted bigger fish. Sociology at work...
Wisconsin will get there, I have no doubt. I firmly believe that we will see a 54" size limit on Green Bay; but it's not a slam dunk by any means. However we now have the support of the biologists who, although have stated that there may not be a biological need for it, have not said that it would be biologically harmful to the fishery to have a 54" limit. I believe that the WMMT is listening to our concerns, and does see the big picture. But I also realize that there are those in this state that do not yet view a larger size limit as favorably as I do, and thus may be against it at this time--and the WDNR must answer to these folks as well. So I certainly cannot blame our biologists for being cautious and apprehensive. Perhaps if Wisconsin employed some resource sociologists, there might be more dissenting opinion at the WMMT meetings?
But as the creel clerk told you--if enough anglers want it, it will happen. I only hope that the issue will stay on everyone's mind, and people in support of the higher limit will take every opportunity to discuss it *rationally* with those that may not feel the same way. I also hope that those in support will show up to vote next spring, when it really matters. But realize that, no matter what we do, there will always be folks that will vote against it--that's the way the world works. But not everyone has to support it, and there will also be those that will need to see the benefits before jumping on-board the 54" train. And I have no problem with that either...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 6/9/2008 6:13 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One thing that is different with every single 54" protected water in Canada is they are self sustaining; most have never been stocked, and are not and never will be 'put and take' as BOGB might end up -literally- if NR on the Bay is not happening and pressure/post release mortality/etc remain on the increase. If indeed NR ISN'T going to happen to a sustainable level on the Bay, we may be talking abut an entirely different motivation to see a larger limit...simply and only to allow the last few fish from each stocked year class to reach maximum potential. I sure hope we see YOY out there, and soon, because I fear that battle will be far harder to win.
Define 'biologically warranted' from the perspective of the rest of the Bay anglers and those who are challenged to manage the resource for all of us...including those not so interested in forcing release of all but the last few vestiges of each STOCKED year class to reach upper confidence levels. Perhaps there is the rub...philosophy, not biology. That's a workable scenario, IMHO, because with enough support, a philosophy can be altered, whereas a biological 'fact of the matter' isn't as easy to get by.
What about the fish down system, they will be 'coming of age' before too long and NR 'seems' to be happening if reports of Muskies of all sizes from the Winnebago chain hold to be true. Are we looking to protect the entire system's big girls to 54"?
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I take it you mean "up stream" from GB Steve? If so, I would say that it would depend upon the forage base, and how well the population seems to do in those waters. If Winnebago would support a 54" limit, then I suppose it would be reasonable to go after that type of thing--but it might not support it to the level of the bay itself. And if that's the case, then I don't see why it should be sought. But it's an issue that needs to be addressed in due course. But here's another thought I had about the whole "biological need" for a higher size limit in Green Bay.
When the DNR decided to reintroduce the Great Lakes Strain of muskellunge into the system with a goal of reestablishing a population that had previously been extirpated, they had three objectives (paraphrased here):
1) Obtain from a suitable population of similar fish, enough eggs to establish a broodstock program. They used the Indian Spread Chain fish, and some from Lake St. Clair. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED.
2) Establish a broodstock lake, and rear fish in a hatchery for planting back into Green Bay. Long Lake in Waushara County filled the bill. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED.
3) Stock the offspring of these broodstock into Green Bay, and establish a naturally-reproducing population of adult muskellunge. To date, no successful reproduction has been documented. OBJECTIVE NOT ACHIEVED.
So, let's theorize for a minute here--If the original goal of reestablishing a previously-extirpated species, and the objectives by which that goal can be reached, were established by biologists...are these not "biological" goals? Do they not form the "biological basis" for the actions taken thus far in the management of the Green Bay muskellunge population? If anyone agrees that the answer to these questions is yes, then how could one justify allowing ANY harvest to continue from Green Bay, when one of the original biological objectives has not yet been met. Isn't this a legitimate enough "biological need" to justify increased regulation? Are those original objectives no longer valid?
In my humble opinion, until we declare GB a put & take fishery, these are still valid objectives--and thus that's all the "biological need" that it should take to justify additional protection for the fish...whether it be a 54" limit increase, or a total C&R system. And finally, isn't being somewhat hypocritical to disregard one or more of these objectives now; simply because it's more convenient to do so--would that be the intent of those who developed the original reintroduction plan?
TB
Edited by tcbetka 6/9/2008 9:22 PM
| |
| | |
| "Let me ask the tough question. Who at the WDNR on the Musky Management Team feels that a 54" limit is biologically warranted in GB? If the answer is no one, than I would say that my fears of protecting this world class musky fishery are justified. "
The answer is no one at the WDNR has stated this even tough it is without a doubt the right thing to do. Even for a "restoration project". If I'm wrong please provide the name who do support this on a biological basis.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Meant 'down' south of the Bay, Tom. 
Sure, the objectives were what you posted, but so far there's not NR indicated yet, which worries me, do you think study of the system will show NR in the near future?
I didn't declare anything, but so far, I think you have to agree...if there's no known NR, the system's immediate spotted muskie program's future will rely on stocking. If there's limited or no NR, and there's good numbers of Muskies there (which seems to be the case)...why is there limited or no NR; habitat? Substrate? Competition from other fishes? I suspect if we follow your line of reasoning, Tom, one would have to indicate that the numbers of spawning Muskies MUST be maximized due to one or a combination of issues and therefore harvest forbidden for success to be achieved...is that the case?
I don't think the restoration project ever contained a stated goal of a 'world class trophy fishery that will be C&R only or at the least a 54" minimum'...that's now OUR goal as 'Muskie conservationists', and in order to attain it we all need to be mindful of all the pitfalls, social, scientific, and political....and look them over now, not before the CC hearings when the vote is so critical so education of the public as to why we are looking for the 54" vote to pass....everywhere in the State....can be accomplished.
I fear the recent revival of the extremely negative attack oriented rhetoric elsewhere (the original reason for this thread posting) has probably put us at least as many miles apart as Sean fears with some of the very folks we need the most to win the day here. We will make sure the discussion on this board sticks to the debate at hand, which, by the way, Tom's interest and involvement and folks like Mike Roberts well considered input helps along.
I play 'devil's advocate' now and again to make a point, so some points posted may at times seem a rather blunt challenge...they are. If WE can think of a reasonable challenge, so will those who would not like the 54" limit to happen. | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | From the info provided to Sean by the creel clerk:
“they believe that the Great Lake strain actually grows too fast (50"s in 7-10 yrs)”
Without going to my reference file I believe that the average age of maturity for musky is someplace between 3 and 5 years.
That means there could be 50” fish being harvested that only spawned two years based on the above info. If those fish truly are reaching 50” in 7-10 yrs. Then in my untrained opinion they should be left to grow to 54” that could easily double or quadruple their spawning life. Sure seems like a good biological reason when self sustaining population is the goal. Plus I would guess these YOUNG big fish would have very viable eggs, and LOTS of them. It’s not like their 30 year old fish, and right now we don’t know how long they will live in the cold water of Green Bay. Maybe in years 15 to 30 is when they go from a 53” 30 pounder to a 55” 50 pounder. I believe this has been stated about Leech Lake fish. The grow fast and put on weight later in life.
Also, I believe there has been a number of documented mid fifty inch fish, so there is good reason to believe they have the potential to get that big. It’s not a pipe dream.
Nail A pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 7-10 is a heck of a spread, that number isn't verified by the managers over there working that project; this is 'dock talk' at a landing. I think we need to do the math from original stocking to the really big (over 50") fish showing up in any number at all, looking at each stocking and the year class sizes available from same.
Facts.
Then we can leap to our barroom biologist conclusions, which may have some merit, and may not. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | The model published by Kapuscinski et al shows that the average female fish will reach the 50" mark at about 12-13 years. I don't know where the 7-10 years comes from. I have spoken to our biologist about this several times, so I am quite sure of the 12-13 year number.
Check out his presentation: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/documents/GLS_Musky_April2nd.pdf
It's a very nice presentation, and quite informative. Look at pages 18-20, especially.
The other thing to remember is that Mr. Rowe has updated the "all fish" growth model, and consequently the Average Ultimate Length (AUL) for all fish, after he received numerous cleithra from known length fish. I believe he has increased the all-fish AUL from 47.9 to 48.1 inches. However, because these fish were of unknown sex, he could not use the data to update the AUL for *female* fish, so that remains at the 53.3" originally published by Mr. Kapuscinski.
I should add that if anyone is interested, Mr. Rowe is a very good guy to talk to--and extremely knowledgeable on the Green Bay muskellunge population. I would encourage people to contact him with any specific questions on this presentation, because I cannot do it justice in the short span of this post. I have said this several times in public forum, but feel that it is worth repeating here--I am quite confident that the GB musky fishery is in good hands under his care.
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 6/9/2008 10:02 PM
Meant 'down' south of the Bay, Tom.
Sure, the objectives were what you posted, but so far there's not NR indicated yet, which worries me, do you think study of the system will show NR in the near future?
I didn't declare anything, but so far, I think you have to agree...if there's no known NR, the system's immediate spotted muskie program's future will rely on stocking. If there's limited or no NR, and there's good numbers of Muskies there (which seems to be the case )...why is there limited or no NR; habitat? Substrate? Competition from other fishes? I suspect if we follow your line of reasoning, Tom, one would have to indicate that the numbers of spawning Muskies MUST be maximized due to one or a combination of issues and therefore harvest forbidden for success to be achieved...is that the case?
SNIP...
Well Steve, you raise some good points as usual. My argument was pretty much intended as your was--picking a polar position, and arguing it. I cannot believe that the original biologists who conceived the reintroduction plan back in the 80s, had any real idea as to just how successful this fishery would become. Maybe in their "wildest dreams" they did, but I bet there weren't many of them sitting around telling their bosses that they were confident there would be WR-class fish swimming around in 15-18 years! Maybe they did, but I doubt it.
About the NR issue... I think that all we are looking for is a "qualitative" conclusion on spawning success; not necessarily a quantitative one. So if the biologists can document that there are indeed YOY muskies swimming around in the fall, in numbers that have statistical significance and can be reproduced to some degree, then that's probably good enough. At that point one can probably presume that the original objectives have been achieved. I don't personally think it's fair to have to enforce a criterion of "enough NR to sustain the population" before declaring success directed towards the original goal. It just isn't realistic, when so many things are different than when the plan was originally conceived 20 years ago.
I think that overall, even without documented NR in the system, the WDNR has done a TREMENDOUS job with the fishery to date--and I believe that it will continue to improve. Certainly there has been much help from the DNR partners...especially the Musky Clubs Alliance folks, who have contributed $200K PLUS to the effort to date. The program simply wouldn't be where it is today without these folks. But there are risks (VHSv, for example) and as is human nature, we always strive to make things better--hence the 54" limit. But what's wrong with that? What's wrong with being resource-frugal, and not wanting to see the fishery depleted as so often happens at the hands of man? I certainly don't have to tell you about Wabigoon and Lac Seul--you know that as well as anyone does. I am simply trying to do everything possible to prevent the words "Green Bay" from appearing in that group...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | sworrall - 6/10/2008 12:12 AM
7-10 is a heck of a spread, that number isn't verified by the managers over there working that project; this is 'dock talk' at a landing.
Exactly Steve, which is why I believe it should not be used as a talking point from a any DNR employee, LTE, or volunteer. Because that could lead to 'dock talk' from the other side and so on, just like my post above.
Tom you have so much good information that there is a chance the message could get lost to the average fisherman. One thing I did when lobbying for the Pelican Lake 50” limit is write up a FAQ sheet. We new just about every argument we where going to get against the increase, because they had been used before. I wrote it up and answered the questions as best as I could based on what I remembered from reading many reports and talking to many biologists. I then sent it to the County Biologist, his supervisor, the head of the WDNR Muskellunge Standing Committee, Steve Heiting, and Steve Worrall. I then took all the comments and suggestions revised the answers and again sent it to the experts for approval and ended up with the FAQ that Steve still has up here on Muskie First:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/06.12.2008/1029/Muskie.Siz...
When I suggested a pamphlet before I was thinking something like this. A tri fold brochure that hopefully could be put in a distribution box at the GB landings, answering all the questions that are sure to come up in laymen’s terms. I did this with my FAQ and had it at the Muskymart, and some of the bars that supported the increase. The owners said it really helped when people would come in complaining about the proposal or just asking questions about it.
I think this technique could be used for just about any Musky proposal, and I think it is key to getting grass roots growing.
Good Luck!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 32805
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, you are absolutely correct. | |
| |
|
