|
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I have an observation and some thoughts and I was wondering if I am on or off base on this. Leech lake strain fish are stocked anually. The Wi strain was stocked but is no longer and they are dependant on natural reproduction. These strains to our knowlege do not seem to hybridize like pike and wi strain muskies do. It would seem there are some real differences in these fish. based on the numbers of fish pics from Mill lacs, it appears the Wi strain is of very low density when compared to the leech lake strain in mill lacs.
Now for my obscure comparable. My grandfathers bass/panfish lake is loaded with small bluegills and top out at 6". There is a very low density population of green sunfish in the lake and they are huge! These fish as well do not hybridize suggesting real differences in the fish.
Even though it would appear these strains of fish in both examples should compete directly with one another, there seems to be enough differences in them that changes their respective growth rates. Green sunfish are a smaller sunfish but not in my grandfather's lake and the wi strain musky in mill lacs get bigger than the leech lake strain, although both strains get big there. | |
| | |
| How about they have been in there longer? Would that make sense? Also they may be Wisconsin strain but where did they come from? | |
| | |
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Quick correction. Green sunfish are a different species. The muskies you refer to are different "strains". Shoepack, WI, and Leech "strains" DO cross, and in Moose lake near Grand Rapids, MN there are genetic parts of all three in some of the naturally reproduced fish. Greens and bluegills do hybridize as all sunfish do. As a general rule hybrid species grow faster (and in some cases the appearance bigger) than both their true parents.
Leechers have been shown to grow faster. Aagin as a general rule: grow fast, get big, die young...grow slow, get huge, die old. As I'm sure you have noticed it would seem at old age Leechers continue to put on length where WI puts on girth.
Edited by tfootstalker 7/17/2008 5:34 PM
| |
| | |
| Todd lots of assumptions, first there is no significant identifier that allows a person to know the difference between WI and Leecher. We hear color all the time, but talk to some leech lake guys, they see different color phases in leech that look like of what are being called WI in MIll Lacs. They are doing a genetics study and we will know in a few years if they are truly WI or LL or a MUT. From a very reputable guide there biggest fish seen to date in his boat is a LL, not caught and he has put some whales in the boat. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| If there is actually much difference in WI and Leech Lake strains of muskie, you would expect the F1 generation of those purer strains to perhaps maximize and exceed the growth rate of either parent strain, with subsequent hybrid vigor to boot. I don't know how far away the two strains might be genetically, and they may not be all that different to get much of a boost, but it should still result in offspring that are going to be some of the biggest ever seen in the system, combined with the pioneer population, it can't be a bad thing. Of course the WIsco's hope that the record fish which emerges is barred not spotted, LOL. (Well, except the nwr group maybe) | |
| | |
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I am wondering too, are people catching smaller, younger year classes of the wisconsin strain fish in mill lacs? It would be intersting to be able to compare their reproduction with the leech strain on that lake if any is occurring at all.
My observation with the panfish, I found the size structure difference odd since I figured they shared a food source but perhaps they don't. It makes me wonder if the wi and leech lake strins key on different forage from one another in the same system. | |
| |
|
Wi vs leech lake in Mill lacs