|
|
Posts: 123
| I see so many lakes in Minnesota and a few other places, where the muskie fishing is excellent and the size and numbers of other species of fish such as walleye, pike, crappie, and even perch is outstanding. I can't think of any lake I've fished muskies on that wasn't also a good lake to fish for other species, so I was wondering if there has ever been a documented circumstance where the introduction of muskies into the system had a detrimental effect to the fishery? I'm talking about scientific proof showing a direct correlation. Anyone know of any? Thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 83
| I would think it would be difficult to make that case. Either for or against. There are just too many factors in any body of water, and when a fish population crashes, it is usually the case that a number of reasons are cited.
Stocking any non native species into any body of water isn't something that should be done without careful study.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| I dont know about the fishery but Muskie stocking has a detrimental effect on the male human race!!! afterall would VHS be so bad if it wiped em all out??? then we could all go back to living a normal life  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 215
Location: Wisconsin | happy hooker - 8/16/2009 4:33 PM
I dont know about the fishery but Muskie stocking has a detrimental effect on the male human race!!! afterall would VHS be so bad if it wiped em all out??? then we could all go back to living a normal life :)
A normal life? I think that the withdrawal would be too much to handle! Instead of the "D-T's" would we get "D-C's"  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| There is some concern that the "invasion" of muskellunge into the Saint John River in New Brunswick, Canada (for those not familiar, the SJR is a famous breeding ground for the now-declining Atlantic salmon) is causing or COULD cause detrimental impacts on the salmon populations. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/82971t4771v3647w/]
Outbreeding depression (and inbreeding) is another serious concern whenever stocking muskies into lakes. Outbreeding depression can suppress important rare alleles that allow fish to survive and thrive in their environments. The addition of new alleles into the gene pool can eliminate these important alleles, leading to a decrease in fitness. Miller et al. 2009 showed that MN's stocking of Shoepack strain muskies in the '60s-'80s led to a decrease in median body length for individuals with Shoepack strain ancestry. [http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-114.1] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | of course!!!
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2003/05/10/news/the_west/satwe... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Stocking of superior sized hatchery fish on top of smaller naturally produced fish of the same species, could have a detrimental effect on the natural reproducing population of the same species. The natural fish with superior genes for the environment could be suppressed by the addition of larger hatchery fish. Just a thought on a possibility. There could have been more and better fish of the same species without any stocking??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| Thanks for the replies. I should have said detrimental effect on other game fish.
Good fishing. |
|
| |
|
| That’s an interesting question, and especially when you add your follow-up specific.
Re-stocking or whether to stock at all was a matter of great debate a year or so (again) in Wisconsin. Many anglers and resort owners, etc. were in favor of stocking some of the Leech strain Muskies like Minnesota has used into several area lakes, because they wanted fish that had the potential of growing to 50+ in the water.
As I recall, it stirred up a lengthy debate that included DNR, biologists and lay people. The WDNR seemed very resistant to introducing any fish in any waters that were already naturally reproducing, and didn’t want to stock any ‘un-natural’ stains into lakes that didn’t have a particular strain in them at least at one time.
While most of that debate was centered around what strains to use as broodstock, and which lakes should be stocked at all, some people did object to stocking Musky at all, based on unsubstantiated fears that a greater population of Musky would result in a decrease of their favorite game fish (walleye, perch, bass—whatever), I don’t recall anyone producing any proof what so ever of that ever actually happening in other waters.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1462
Location: Davenport, IA | There are a lot of people in Maine that think so. Also, you'll have the locals in central IL that think they eat all the crappies. (The guys that themselves take out 50 in a day) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I sat in the DNR meeting last year where they gathered all the data pre and post muskie stocking for sport fishing species. All the species that they had data for stayed in the historical range for their body of water but one: cisco. The adult cisco population when down in general in the lakes that had muskies. The level that they went down wasn't too much if I remember correctly and the DNR wasn't convinced that the increased water temp levels over the last 10 years didn't have at least something to do with it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| I'm not so sure that muskellunge were introduced into the St. John's River in Maine inadvertently. Weren't they always there? I believe it connects with the St. Lawrence. Their numbers have increased in recent years.
Regards
Bob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | Contact the Indiana DNR. They have information on Webster Lake fish populations from 2000-2005. One population went down...bass in the 6" range declined while bass over 14" increased. The number of perch also doubled during the same time period! Positive results if you ask me! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | The overstocking of walleyes and muskies in Butternut Lake in Price County caused a major reduction in the forage base and stunted walleyes and muskies. Overharvest of both species in the early 90's by sportfisherman and to a smaller extent native spearfishing caused a sharp decline in their (muskie/walleye) numbers and then the DNR/lake association went overboard in their stocking efforts when natural reproduction was very good. I wasn't too happy when they informed us they were taking muskies out of the lake (the anti-muskie guys win) but since they removed 150+ fish the lake has really turned around for the better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| rnschott - 8/19/2009 11:42 AM
I'm not so sure that muskellunge were introduced into the St. John's River in Maine inadvertently. Weren't they always there? I believe it connects with the St. Lawrence. Their numbers have increased in recent years.
Regards
Bob
Good point. I don't believe they were introduced, hence the "invasion", but have nevertheless made it up there. I believe they are Chautauqua strain muskies, but could be wrong about that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| That's another aspect of this very discussion. Neither New York or Ontario will stock the St. Lawrence with another strain of muskies so as not to affect the native species. This is a self sustaining fishery and muskies do migrate into other feeder streams and rivers connecting to it.
Chautauqua muskies are only stocked into a few select waters and not into the Great Lakes system at all as far as I know.
Regards
Bobl |
|
| |
|
| rnschott - 8/19/2009 6:49 PM
That's another aspect of this very discussion. Neither New York or Ontario will stock the St. Lawrence with another strain of muskies so as not to affect the native species. This is a self sustaining fishery and muskies do migrate into other feeder streams and rivers connecting to it.
Chautauqua muskies are only stocked into a few select waters and not into the Great Lakes system at all as far as I know.
RegardsI grew up here and have spent my whole life in western New York, most summers on Chautauqua lake at the family cottage on Sherman's bay. So far as I know the waters recieving Chautauqua strain muskies from the Prendergast hatchery are Chautauqua itself, Bear lake, the Cassadaga lakes, Connewango creek, and Waneta/ Lamoka lakes.
Historically Chautauqua muskies were stocked into the Upper Niagara river at least once in the 1930's. The prendergast hatchery on Chautauqua lake was the very first muskie hatchery established anywhere and has been in continuous operation since the 1880's. Muskies occuring elsewhere in New York state apart from great lakes waters are naturally occuring native wild stocks( Grasse river, Great Chazy river, lake Champlain). Muskies in other New York rivers, those which are connected to Pennsylvania rivers are stocked by the state of Pennsylvania and USFW in Pennsylvania and migrate into New York portions of those systems.
Many of the muskie stocks in Pennsylvania and Ohio were originally obtained from the Chautauqua Prendergast hatchery when native stocks in those states dissappeared do to polution, damming and development.
Bobl |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| There may or may not have been lakes in Quebec (headwater lakes for the St. John) that were stocked with this strain many years ago. No pike competition allowed the muskie populations to thrive and they eventually made their way into the SJR and down into Maine. This was how it was explained to me, and now I am passing that info along. Take it as you may.
Back to the topic on hand, correlation does not necessarily mean *causation*. If there is a decline in a particular species' numbers, they may not be a direct result of muskie introduction. There are a whole suite of factors (e.g., recruitment rates affected by biotic and abiotic factors) that could affect populations. Same goes for an increase in numbers (i.e., Vince's post above). A major diet study might shed some light, but even then there are many more variables at play than predation.
Edited by esox50 8/19/2009 7:50 PM
|
|
| |
Muskie Stocking Ever Detrimental?