|
|
| Pepper asked a question in the Bemidji Thread that I may be able to shed some light on... The question was regarding "why Minnesota started stocking muskies in the first place???"
Bob Strand and Co., up in the Bemidji Fisheries office conducted the Leech Lake telemetry study in the late seventies and into the early eighties. Long story short, they found that due to where the Leech Lake/Mississippi strain spawns, it is a viable strain to stock in other waters (spawns away from pike spawning areas) and far better than the Shoepack strain which was previously stocked (very limited size and spawns where pike spawn).
I believe good intentions were simply to stock fish in a number of brood stock lakes which were easier access than netting on big Leech Lake (Elk, Little Wolf, "the Planet" and a few others). Other lakes were stocked to increase numbers of fish which had historically had muskies but the populations were somewhat limited or remnant (Bemidji, Big and some others). The Bemidji office was "ground zero", but other fisheries areas wanted a few lakes in their zones stocked and got permission to do so (Mille Lacs, North Star, Island Res, Vermillion, French, Big Detroit, White Bear, Minnetonka and so on...) since success had been seen on Spirit Lake, IA and Pymatuning Reservoir, PA/OH.
I believe the spirit was as stated, to provide a few extra angling opportunities and get brood stock lakes to gain eggs/spawn - no deep thought into economy and such. Plus, other states were interested in purchasing the Leech Lake/Mississippi River strain - again a reason to go for a brood stock program.
To answer another guy's question as to "where we fished prior to stocked lakes?" Leech, Winnie, Cass, Big Boy, Little Boy, Wabedo, Inguadona, Baby, Mann, Kid, Child, the Mississippi River, Big Wolf, Andrusia, Little Fork and Big Fork Rivers, Deer, Moose, Orange, Kitchie, Woman, Rice, Shoepack, Blandin Reservoir and a number of other lakes. If I remember correctly, there were 30-some lakes with Mississippi strain and isolated strains. There is an exact number of "core" lakes but I'm not going to look it up right now.
Dan Craven | |
| | |
Posts: 20
Location: United States | I've often thought about this subject and I'm really grateful that the DNRs had the forethought to develop muskie fishing as the sport that it has evolved into. While I'm sure its hard to argue that they essentially created the regional demand. Im not saying people didn't fish for them in prior generations, I'm just happy that I live in Minnesota and there's fantastic muskie fishing all around me.
I guess it's just a matter of luck when the stocking efforts began when they did. It easily could have started years later and not be fully developed like it is. Or maybe I should thank my parents for conceiving me when they did? Though I'm sure that wasn't luck LOL!
Does anyone else feel lucky?
Edited by ILLIFIED 7/23/2010 6:23 PM
| |
| | |
| We are lucky. Muskie fishing has been better the last 10-15 years than ever before. Muskie fishing has changed - totally; especially here in MN.
I'm not on a soap-box - I'm not; but there are a few things folks must be aware of...
With the onset and progression of stocking a few things become clear... Stocked fish are easier to catch for several possible reasons - They occur in higher density (per acre) than in natural lakes that are not stocked - especially some of the brood stock lakes. They seem to react differently than non-stocked/natural fish (I believe) for some reason (more aggressive/less wary/less moody) much akin to stocked walleyes or trout in natural streams or rivers. Let's face it, anyone who has fished for stocked walleyes in a number of lakes knows that these fish feed more throughout the day than natural walleyes which tend to feed more during low-light periods. Steelhead fishermen/writers have differentiated between catching "two natural fish" or "five stocked/clipped fish" for thirty years now - are we there with muskies? Just something to be conscious of...
Stocked fish seem to grow larger, especially the first few year classes introduced, much like largemouth bass did once introduced to lakes in southern California. Unknown, for sure, as to "why", but possibly due to the fact that their food source is less limited - more food for fewer predators. This was true in Spirit Lake, Pymatuning and now on a number of the stocked MN waters. After a number of years, given more natural numbers after the more intensive stocking of the first few years, the fish seem to "naturalize" a bit and become somewhat more difficult to catch.
Many of today's muskie anglers have never fished natural fish or fish for them very little - this is even true regarding a lot of the guides nowadays. Big fish are fun to catch. Like an old client of mine used to say - "I want big fish and lots of them!" People will keep chasing them as long as they are a bit easier to catch. Pressure will ebb and flow with fish stocking and fish density. If stocking funds wane away, anglers will wane away, to some degree. Ebb and flow...
We as humans are hard on resources. That was touched on in the other thread regarding talk of "floaters" and such. There is no doubt about it. We are loving these things (muskies) to death, at times, it seems. Mille Lacs, for examples - those fish don't get a rest. Daytime pressure and night time pressure. Yep, it is a huge lake, as is Vermillion, but holy crap... Once Little Wolf was discovered by numbers of anglers (and this is a little lake), I remember seeing 13 boats on it, and I was one of them (I haven't been back since 1991). That is when I started thinking about "how is this whole thing going to play out?" We are there now and starting to feel some of the ramifications (pro's and con's) of this high density muskie fishing. Some of these issues and feelings were rearing their ugly head in the other thread.
It will continue to be interesting as to how this all plays out over the next ten to twenty years - financially, politically, geographically, etc.. As for myself, I've found myself totally gravitating back to natural lakes (LOTW, Leech, Winnie, Boy River chain, other Canadian lakes, etc...) and haven't guided on or fished a stocked lake for roughly five years - kinda weird how things morph.
But we are lucky in this day and age of muskie angling with all the options we have...
Dan Craven
| |
| | |
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | Dan,
I'm interested in what you have written about Pymatuning. I was not aware that Leech Lake strain fish were stocked in this reservoir. Do you know when this occurred and by whom?
I know that PA has the Linesville fish cultural station at the lake and uses Pymatuning as one of several sources of broodstock. This may come as a surprise to many in the Midwest, but Pymatuning is actually native musky water. Muskies were native to the Shenango River long before Pymatuning was dammed up in the 1920s.
Muskies are native to Western PA and were historically found in the Ohio River drainage; inclusing rivers, streams and natural lakes feeding into the Ohio. I know that PA has one of the oldest musky propagation programs in the country. As far as I know PA has always used native stocks. They also were pioneers in the fish culture of Tiger muskies and I believe were the first to raise Tiger muskies on dry pellet feed.
Since Pymatuning is a border lake between OH and PA it is stocked by both states. I'm not sure where OH gets all of its musky brood stock, but muskies are also native to OH. They were historically found in streams and rivers draining into the Ohio River as well as Lake Erie. I think at one time Ohio may have gotten some Chataqua stain muskies from NY. Chataqua is part of the Ohio river drainage. It outflow eventually flows into the Allegheny which is a major tributary to the Ohio and quite a good musky fishery. I
f you could provide any more details on the stocking of MN fish in Pymatuning I would be very interested.
Edited by MUSKYLUND1 7/23/2010 9:23 PM
| |
| | |
| Not 100 percent positive at all on that bit about Pymatuning... I am going by what I was told by DNR officials back in the 80's when I did sportshows at Cincinnati, Harrisburg and Cleveland- that at least two years worth of LL strain fish were put in there - that one part could be bad information. I never saw it on paper... | |
| | |
Posts: 541
| Dan, that's interesting with your fishing of the natural lakes vs the stocked lakes! I grew up fishing alot of these lakes you mentioned as I am from the area here, I continue to fish these waters still quite often. It is easier to notice the more challenge a little bit with the natural vs the stocked but In my opinion some of these waters could really use some help now with some stocking of muskies! the hackensack longville area little boy chain and what not espicially! these waters being natural havent been stocked but over the years the fish kept by people, the pressure and what not and the constant taking and not giving back is hurt them and like you said where did everyone fish years ago it was here but now years later your lucky to see a fish even. The density in some lakes is really gotten low I believe and fishing quailty has went down hill in my opinion. It would be a big help to freshen them up a little in my opinion, the only fish ever stocked are walleyes! It's nice to have the 48" minimum now though. If you ever want to get out on the lttle boy chain or something drop me a line I'd love to fish some naturals with ya. | |
| | |
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Dan, I respect your opinions and you seem very well informed, but I have to question your theory on stocked fish versus natural fish. Some of the best waters I fish for aggressive, multiple catch days are on lakes that receive little to no stocking ( primarily WI and Canada). I personally think that a stocked lake means more muskies, and more muskies means more of an opportunity to encounter a hungry fish. Unless there is something completely different going on in Minnesota, my experiences do not back that up.... | |
| | |
| Going trout fishing this morning and want to be out before sunrise, thus my early post - I'm not sleep deprived... Regarding those other, natural lakes and lower numbers - what isn't being talked about much is the affects of spearing on the natural population of muskies - Inguadona, for instance, gets speared fairly heavily and a number of locals quietly talk about spearing them. Yes, concerned anglers do call TIP DNR lines and inform the CO's but these guys are hard to catch. They spear a fish, look out the door of their house and jump on the sled and run 200 yards to their cabin. The other option is that they slide these fish right back down the hole after killing them. This does happen, trust me. It happens on Kabekona Bay of Leech Lake, too, closer to where I live. It is hard for the CO's to catch them in the act... I'm not blaming them.
Regarding the theory of stocked vs natural fish - it very well could simply be the total numbers thing - the density per acre. But I was also fishing these stocked lakes a long time ago (1985) and have quite a bit more experience fishing the MN and IA stocked lakes (and know a number of other good anglers who fished both as well) than most. More are converted into striking close to the boat (per follow), many more can be caught trolling bucktails in shallow water than natural fish and a few other techniques that I, quite frankly, don't want to throw out on the internet.
I fish Canada as well (I leave on Friday for the Vermillion Bay area of Ontario!) and enjoy fishing up there. I've taken that into consideration - like you said, just a theory...; my opinion, nothing else. I've seen these stocked fish do things that I haven't observed on Eagle, LOTW, Leech, Deer/Moose, ILChain and other natural bodies of water. Just an opinion...
Going to catch some rainbows now... stocked raindbows (LOL!!!!). By the way, the Leech Lake fish are heating up and have been for about a week now.
Good fishing! DC
| |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Stocked fish of any species are easier to catch IMHO.
May have to do with fish growing up in an environment where there are no predators and food is easy to get.
One biologist I know thinks in nature fish that for whatever reason aren't as wary as others get killed before they ever reach fingerling size. Survival of the fittest I guess.
That doesn't happen in a pond of raceway. They pretty much all live.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 1516
| Do these stocked fish spawn in the lakes like natural fish? If the do are their fry natural or stocked? Are they then easier to catch then the fry of natural fish? Is the result of a natural fish spawning with a stocked fish easier to catch? | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| I really don't agree with the theory on stocked fish either. Makes a nice six beer discussion at a bar, but... | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Well the "evidence" in regards to muskies may not be as clearly defined, but look at trout.
Stocked trout are very easy to catch. Anyone who fishes self-sustaining streams or lakes and stocked systems will agree with that. It doesn't come down to a matter of there just being more trout to catch either. They just are more willing to fall for an anglers presentation. They aren't nearly as wary IMHO.
At any rate, I don't think one can deny the difference in the environment that stocked fish grow up in vs. naturals.
What that may mean is up to debate.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Depends on when and where the trout are stocked. In a put-and-take small pond, lake, or stream where the trout are stocked as adults or nearly adults in large numbers, I agree. If they are stocked as fingerlings or fry, I'm not sure I can agree; they had to adapt to the environment quickly, and are residents for a few years before most are captured the first time by an angler. I think Dan hit it, it could be the numbers. I'm absolutely certain of that with the muskies here, we've had several of my favorite lakes go from little or no stocking historically to big stocking numbers in the 80's to zero since '98. Fewer fish. Not harder to catch, just fewer fish to contact. But...the average size is much better because there's also been a 45" to 50" limit put in place. The cessation of stocking was done on some potential trophy waters to see if NR will keep up, drop the density to about 1 per acre, which should improve the 'quality'.
There has been some trout/salmon work done that shows avoidance after several generations to certain predator scents ( I remember bears upstream of the fish as one) by trout, though, which leaves the door open for speculation.
FSF, I agree, and will take you up on that. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Most stocked muskie are in a completely different environment for 3-5 years before they even hit 30", with a number of predators willing and able to eat them including their own kin.
Most trout are stocked ready to catch, and besides being stupid about predation they are also stupid about finding food, and are multiple daily feeders. Give them three to five years in a stream environment and tell me how that easy catching deal works for you and me.
I would be more likely to consider that some strains are more aggressive than other strains, than the stocked vs wild theory. | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| sworrall - 7/24/2010 8:59 AM
Depends on when and where the trout are stocked. In a put-and-take small pond, lake, or stream where the trout are stocked as adults or nearly adults in large numbers, I agree. If they are stocked as fingerlings or fry, I'm not sure I can agree; they had to adapt to the environment quickly, and are residents for a few years before most are captured the first time by an angler. I think Dan hit it, it could be the numbers. I'm absolutely certain of that with the muskies here, we've had several of my favorite lakes go from little or no stocking historically to big stocking numbers in the 80's to zero since '98. Fewer fish. Not harder to catch, just fewer fish to contact. But...the average size is much better because there's also been a 45" to 50" limit put in place. The cessation of stocking was done on some potential trophy waters to see if NR will keep up, drop the density to about 1 per acre, which should improve the 'quality'.
There has been some trout/salmon work done that shows avoidance after several generations to certain predator scents ( I remember bears upstream of the fish as one) by trout, though, which leaves the door open for speculation.
FSF, I agree, and will take you up on that.
I see we are on a similar track here, but let me warn you, I start slurring pretty bad at 5!  | |
| | |
Posts: 2076
| I dont know.. on LOTW I average a fish in the net every 6 hrs of fishing over the last 5 (boat average is probably every 3 hrs) - I think its pretty easy to catch fish there compared to most stocked lakes that get hammered with pressure. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Never fished rivers where trout are stocked bigger than fingerlings. But the common theme I've noticed among stocked rivers vs. natural is that trout, no matter how old they are, feed much more aggresively on the surface. Natural fish, especially the older ones, are more frequently caught under the water and are more easily spooked by flies landing on the surface when they are feeding up top.
Anyway, you either believe it or you don't I guess.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | john skarie - 7/24/2010 10:37 AM
Never fished rivers where trout are stocked bigger than fingerlings.
JS
So essentially you are talking about something you have no experience with then? I've seen plenty of hummdinger trout wallop a dry fly. I've seen plenty of dink trout hammer a nymph. Match the hatch. Some fish are dumb some fish aren't, just like people.
I'll give you credit for being the best bar stool biologist on site though. Oh I forgot you worked for a hatchery for a year or something. That must have given you an honorary PhD. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I'm commenting on what I do have experience with. Streams where stocked trout are young. Their behavior doesn't seem to change as they grow older. More aggresive on top than natural fish.
Did I say I've never caught big trout on dry flies, or small ones on nymphs?
Didn't think so.
JS | |
| | |
| Think about it...
A stocked fish never had to learn how to hunt or aviod predation. When it comes to trout? I don't know if they still do, but the hatcheries used to hand feed the fish. OVer time, those fish were conditioned to associate a figure standing on the shoreline and stuff being thrown into the water with feeding time. Juslt like the fish in your fish tank at home -- when you open the lid they know its time to eat. It's not a stretch that a trout from that environment, that never had to escape a bear or ambush its food would easily fall victim to the first angler that happened past.
I believe the same holds true for stocked muskies. Perhaps to a lesser degree, but conditioning happens. | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Muskies are raised in ponds, and fed live minnows in large numbers as soon as they are able to feed on minnows, and are not fed one minnow at a time by a human. They are quite young at release, from fry to 12" fish. If they were as 'conditioned' and unable to adapt as is suggested, they would die of starvation waiting around for the same minnows they've been exposed to.
Adaptation is a wonderful trait, and Muskies adapt quickly after stocking. In any case, they grow to maturity in the wild, and nothing we offer them, lure or otherwise, looks or acts or sounds anything like what they were fed their first few months of life. If anyone is suggesting a stocked muskie is less cautious of a boat and a lure...I'd like an explanation as to why that would be. No exposure to either at the hatchery, and absolutely no association to angling practices to any feeding they may have done there. No negative reinforcement from boats and angling for little wild muskies, either...pretty much a non issue unless I'm missing something.
Trout..There may be a 'numbers' factor in stocked rivers; since there's more competition, there's more aggressive behavior, as generally speaking, there's more fish in regularly stocked streams than natural, unless we are talking natural streams in Wyoming or other pretty much untapped waters. Those trout eat nearly anything that moves, and there's a ton of 'em.
If what we are talking about is genetic imprinting theory, I'd like some opinions on that, too. The salmon study was on avoidance behavior to Grizlzy bear scent in the water and it took several generations NR after introduction to note any, if I remember correctly. Not sure if that's even relevant to this conversation. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | My theory in muskie raised in our local ponds is that they are all competing for the same food and become very aggressive. DNR peeps will go and check the minnow populations and when they get low they add more. We frequently fund additional forage for them.
I think that they develop a more aggressive feeding behavior due to being in a small environment with a forage base that becomes low at times.
But what do I know, guess I'm just a bar-room biologist.
JS
Edited by john skarie 7/24/2010 1:12 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | john skarie - 7/24/2010 1:11 PM
My theory in muskie raised in our local ponds is that they are all competing for the same food and become very aggressive. DNR peeps will go and check the minnow populations and when they get low they add more. We frequently fund additional forage for them.
I think that they develop a more aggressive feeding behavior due to being in a small environment with a forage base that becomes low at times.
But what do I know, guess I'm just a bar-room biologist.
JS ;-)
So what does this have to do with trout, since you hypothesized about the behaviors of wild and hatchery fish?
Of course the muskies develop a more aggressive feeding behavior in a hatchery pond where there is a tiny forage base that is supplemented fairly often, as you've stated. Simple competition for a limited resource. That theory doesn't take a degree in rocket appliances.
| |
| | |
| Any time you have to pay for it, it is typically easier is my guess;) I know from fly fishing the streams here in CO, that natural fish are much stronger. It is noticeable from my experience, but they are all typically easy to catch, they are fish...BR | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If that were true, then stocked fish would, by their 'nature' weigh more that naturals of the same length as they would feed more aggressively. And They also would tend to out compete the fish that were not stocked, and that doesn't seem to happen either. The opposite is true here. Same logic, and yes I know what the the holes are in it, just looking for comments. | |
| | |
| Pointerpride - did you wake up angry today or are you always this way???
I noticed someone mentioned conditioning... I believe these stocked fish do become conditioned to being caught a time or to - or I used to believe this, I should say. Now I firmly believe it. I think this is why a number of these lakes, especially the smaller ones, seem to "naturalize" and the muskie population becomes a bit harder to catch... Prior to a discussion I had with Steve Quinn last year I had observed several interesting behaviors in following muskies in heavily fished, and stocked muskie lakes a few years back. Twice I saw muskies follow to the boat, once seeing/detecting the boat both fish did the same thing, dove under the boat and rocketed into the air (not hooked, didn't even strike). Do you think this fish had been hooked before??? My guess is yes...
So, back to Steve Quinn. I asked Steve what the latest research is regarding conditioning (to baits/being caught), since he is in contact with biologist all over the country. He said, "Some very interesting studies were just concluded - they point towards bass not only become conditioned from being caught but from seeing other bass being caught." Wow... No - muskies aren't bass, but it isn't a quantum leap to assume the same with muskies. And on these stocked lakes, it is common to see a number of muskies hanging out in very close proximity. They also see each other get caught.
And no, I never sit at bars, Pointerpride; I don't even drink beer...
Dan Craven | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ho does one reconcile several muskies I recaptured during the MI Monel tagging days as many as 5 times in a year..on the same lure? | |
| | |
Posts: 541
| sworrall - 7/24/2010 4:50 PM
Ho does one reconcile several muskies I recaptured during the MI Monel tagging days as many as 5 times in a year..on the same lure?
That's crazy Sworrall 5 times on the same bait, that's awesome, I would have to admit that with all the talk of muskies being conditioned and boat shy and all the stuff that goes with fishing pressure that it is a good thing to still hear about stuff like that makes confidence levels stay a little higher! | |
| | |
| I fished Little Wolf last year opening morning...only boat out there at all until 2 walleye boats came out mid-morning.
I fished the north end of Bemidji this morning 6am-noon...saw exactly 2 other muskie boats and had no competition for the spots I wanted - on a Saturday in July.
#*^@ pressure is ruining this state...
| |
| | |
| Re: the reconcile thing... Heck - they are cold-blooding critters with a little bit wider spot on the spinal chord that we call a brain. I know - I've caught the same fish bass/muskies several times myself. How do we predict how they are going to react in every situation. I'm just saying what the studies Steve referred were pointing towards. If memory serves me correctly, "hard" baits were more easily conditioned to than "soft" baits or surface baits - but that may have been an earlier study done on bass that Ron Lindner discussed with me. It all blurs with age and time.
Cold blooded creatures are going to make mistakes. How many times did you fish for that fish? Did he/she bite a soft bait or surface bait? And, of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. Maybe he/she was a poor student! HA! Interesting stuff. Off on a guide trip... | |
| | |
| Lambeau, I'm guessing you probably didn't move much of anything on Bemidji the last couple days right? What is funny is when a lake is off or the bite is slow the boat numbers on it are down but wow once it picks up and word gets out do the boats (and guides) follow.
| |
| | |
Posts: 123
| I took a tour of a hatchery in Iowa a couple years ago and found out some interesting information. They used to feed the muskie fry this pellet type food that fell from a trough above them. Once they released the muskies into the lake many of them just stayed near the surface waiting for the food drop where they became prey. The survival rate was said to be almost nothing. They then switched them over to minnows for a while before releasing them and the numbers changed dramatically for the better. I wish I could recall the exact figures I was told, but hey it was a couple years. That would be another difference in stocked fish compared to naturals I suppose. Food preconditioning.  | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The muskies raised at the local hatchery have been in the lakes and rivers they were stocked into for what...5 years before capture the first time...if they ARE captured. They are in the ponds eating suckers hatched at the hatchery until and if the DNR runs out of suckers from the Spring spawn collection, then are fed minnows until they are released in the Fall at about 10' tp 12". The minnows are not allowed to 'nearly run out', the ponds are well stocked with suckers and then minnows the entire time until the muskies are released so the Muskies have plenty to stalk and eat. They spend 6 months in a large pond eating minnows, then go to a lake where they eat minnows until they get big enough to stalk larger prey.
So stocked muskies should never eat a bucktail, because they are conditioned to eat minnows.
Right? | |
| | |
Posts: 1516
| Thats why I can't catch them I need to switch to minnows. Yeah thats the ticket | |
| | |
| john skarie - 7/24/2010 8:23 AM
Well the "evidence" in regards to muskies may not be as clearly defined, but look at trout.
Stocked trout are very easy to catch. Anyone who fishes self-sustaining streams or lakes and stocked systems will agree with that. It doesn't come down to a matter of there just being more trout to catch either. They just are more willing to fall for an anglers presentation. They aren't nearly as wary IMHO.
At any rate, I don't think one can deny the difference in the environment that stocked fish grow up in vs. naturals.
What that may mean is up to debate.
JS
Agree 100%. I know it is a bit of a stretch since we are talking fish, but pen raised pheasants are like shooting chickens until they have been "educated". | |
| | |
| Lens Creep - 7/25/2010 10:06 PM
I took a tour of a hatchery in Iowa a couple years ago and found out some interesting information. They used to feed the muskie fry this pellet type food that fell from a trough above them. Once they released the muskies into the lake many of them just stayed near the surface waiting for the food drop where they became prey. The survival rate was said to be almost nothing. They then switched them over to minnows for a while before releasing them and the numbers changed dramatically for the better. I wish I could recall the exact figures I was told, but hey it was a couple years. That would be another difference in stocked fish compared to naturals I suppose. Food preconditioning. :)
I could be wrong, but I believe only tigers will eat pellets. That is why they are desireable for stocking because they are cheap to raise. | |
| | |
Posts: 123
| I'm not exactly sure about the actual feed, but I could probably find out. There were thousands of muskies there while we were there that were about an inch long. I'm sure they'd have a hard time eating an actual "pellet", so maybe it was some different type of food that dropped down to them from the trough above. The point was that they became conditioned to that so that when they were released they either starved to death or were eaten by other species of fish or birds because they just hung around the surfave of the lake the whole time. It was quite interesting. I may need to look into it further to get more facts. | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's much easier to catch Muskies on LOTW and other Canadian waters than it is in the stocked muskie lakes in this area.
The Muskies raised up here are kept on large ponds...not a raceway or anything like it..and have to stalk and capture their prey.
Please explain, when the amount of available forage never gets thin killing the aggression theory, why they are easier to catch from spending 6 months out of 5 to 26 or years of their life in a pond eating minnows. Within 6 months in the lake, shouldn't the claimed 'conditioning' from the last 6 months be erased so survival in the wild can be accomplished? if not, why not? How would the reaction to a lure be any different from a 'wild' muskie and a stocked fish? | |
| | |
Posts: 541
| I remember reading on the minnesota muskie farm's website several years ago and it sounded like they use to raise them on pellets but switched to sucker minnows because the survival rate when released was excellent! when harvested in September the muskies are 12-14" long and fed on nothing but sucker minnows! they have lots of different ponds and small lakes all across south central mn where they rear them. | |
| | |
Posts: 366
| A muskie is a muskie, and while yes really poor hatchery techniques could condition muskies in some manner, a natural habitat should uncondition them pretty quickly. The bigger factor on stocked fish being different, I believe, has way more to do with the change in ecosystem in the lake. The first few year classes of stocked 12" fish into previously non-muskie water are often very aggressive and/or less fearful. Maybe this is due to the year class competing amongst each other to be the most successful at surviving, while have very little in the way of predators to keep agression and feeding behaviors in check. Once the stocking continues and a lake normalizes with fish across the range of size and year classes, then it will fish more like a natural lake with natural experiences.
As far as the put and take scenario, I'd imagine that, as has already been stated, in most of those cases the agressiveness has more to do with an unnatural abundance in overall population. Like the trout farm fishing. Easy fishing has more to do with population than a specific behavior, whether you're talking about LOTW or a completely stocked lake.
With the exception of harvesting fish that are caught, there by removing lure agressive fish, I don't think that we can do that much to condition muskies in a natural setting. The in-line spinnerbait is one of the oldest lures known to man, yet a cowgirl is still one of the best lures to catch a big muskie. Does anyone really believe that in a few years, double 10s are going to stop being productive on a lake, just cause they are fished a lot? Maybe on a really small lake with a small population, but I'd be willing to bet that guys will still throw double 10s on LOTW in 20 years with the same results, barring some other catastrophic change to the lake.
Ryan
| |
| | |
| There are two types of conditioning here that are being discussed - one, to lures/baits and the other some type of feeding conditioning/aggression due to hatchery situations. I was strictly speaking towards conditioning towards baits - thus becoming a bit tougher to catch as they age - just a possibility by my observations. Another option is simply the possibility that more of the larger fish die.
LOTW fish do bite - but again, it may be do to the fact that there are huge recruitment areas feeding each key "spot" - larger numbers of fish. During my years at Camp Fish/In-Fisherman the Canadian govt. granted me a work visa and I guided on LOTW for eleven years in the summer out of Hidden Island. I've caught a few muskies up there since my first trip in 1985. I just observe that wild fish are more moody to weather conditions, don't group up quite as much as stocked fish do and act quite the same - Leech Lake stockers, anyway.
My observation is that stocked fish are easier to catch is based on many experiences on both stocked and natural waters. On Vermillion, my boat landed double digit muskies on many days. I remember two days with 13 fish boated and a number with 11 fish boated - a few of those days were while fishing with my wife. While I've had some good days on LOTW, the Indian Lake Chain and a few other lakes - I've never broken double digits, I don't think. Jack Burns, Rob Kimm and I boated 12 in two days last summer, but I don't believe I've ever broken double on LOTW - I'm sure plenty people have... That day we caught 7 last August I believe 14 hit and were either lost or just didn't hook up. On Little Wolf, a 490 acre lake, we hooked up 21 times and landed 11 one day and the next 20 strikes and landed 10 (back in the 80's). The next day we flew into Rowan - fishin' was good, the fish were larger, but quite a contrast by sheer numbers. Just for me, I have never seen wild fish be able to put up numbers like this. On the "Planet" (Plantaganet), in the early or mid-90's my boat hooked up with 13 fish over 45 inches on a half day trip - I just don't see this occurring these days and on stocked lakes (conditioning?) or on natural lakes... Those first few years really seem special. Regarding the grouping up - we saw roughly 50 fish on the 100 yd long center bar the day before that - just laying around. Yep - unbelievably sheer numbers were there.
Are people still catching numbers like this WITH REGULARITY on the stocked lakes today? Maybe a number of you still are, which would blow my whole theory of at least some conditioning to lures out of the water... Because I don't think the stocking numbers have changed a whole lot.
DC | |
| | |
Posts: 2076
| DC - I think Saric was just on LOTW - 29 in the boat the last three days of the trip- 10 fish days on LOTW happen every year, still - I've done it with 3 in the boat (4 years ago) and most days when we are getting 6-7 fish with two guys we should have a dozen
So are you saying stocked fish are easier to catch until the are caught a few times? Can you still go to plantan and catch 10 over 45 in half a day? - I see no difference in how hard or easy it is to catch natural vs. stocked fish. | |
| | |
| Justin - read my post(s). No - I'm saying just that - the first few years are very special on the stocked lakes (unbelievably good), then the pattern seems to be that it slows down on these lakes, to some degree, but these lakes are still good and produce big fish. Did you fish any of these lakes (the Planet, Spirit Lake, IA, Little Wolf, Vermillion, Island, Big, Bemidji, Elk, etc) before '94or so? This is what I'm talking about regarding the potential conditioning issue...
Ask yourself the tough question - Where do you normally fish - stocked lakes or natural lakes when in Minnesota? If the answer is stocked lakes the majority of the time, my point is made. There is probably a reason you are fishing there - fishin' is easier.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2076
| Spirit lake was never easy in the 90's
And no I fish LOTW whenever I can because its one of the the easiest place in the world to catch muskie ...Your points make no sense to me, sorry . The first groups to go into Kishkutena caught 15-30 fish a day many in the high 40's - natural fish - no pressure. So does that make naturals easier to catch? How many other boats were chucking on plantan the day you caught 13 over 45? Of course if you have a high population of muskies with noone fishing they should be easier to catch - I fish a 400 acre stocked lake in eastern IA and it take twice as long (on average) to catch fish there compared to LOTW?
Edited by IAJustin 7/26/2010 10:47 PM
| |
| | |
| dcraven - 7/26/2010 9:50 PM
Justin - read my post(s). No - I'm saying just that - the first few years are very special on the stocked lakes (unbelievably good), then the pattern seems to be that it slows down on these lakes, to some degree, but these lakes are still good and produce big fish. Did you fish any of these lakes (the Planet, Spirit Lake, IA, Little Wolf, Vermillion, Island, Big, Bemidji, Elk, etc) before '94or so? This is what I'm talking about regarding the potential conditioning issue...
Ask yourself the tough question - Where do you normally fish - stocked lakes or natural lakes when in Minnesota? If the answer is stocked lakes the majority of the time, my point is made. There is probably a reason you are fishing there - fishin' is easier.
The majority of the lakes I fish are stocked lakes here in MN. I really started fishing muskies in the late 90's so, I was getting into the sport when it was about as good as it gets.
I have to agree 100% with DC's observations. The lakes we fished only had muskies in them for like 10 years, my buddy and I would go out there, regardless of weather and time of day and we would catch a minimum of 2 or 3 fish over 40" every time out. The largest fish we caught was 45" over this period, but rarely did we get one under 40 either.
Now, it is quite the opposite. More anglers and I have put in many hours on the same body of water and I am much smarter about when I fish because I patterned the fish, etc and I could go hours without seeing a fish or days without catching one.
I know my buddy and I were not seasoned vets and we are much more accomplished musky fishermen now than we were then, but it is much much tougher than it was then.
We have caught our biggest fish over the last couple years, but the numbers are way down.
I think its two things, pressure these fish are seeing now AND the fact that these bodies of water are not new stocked lakes anymore. Granted I dont have the experience on the different bodies of water that some of you have since I have never gone to Canada, but I think it definitely points to freshly stocked lakes have some peak and then it tails off. | |
| | |
| natural lakes with low densities of cautious fish
plus
stocked lakes with higher densities of "dumb" aggressive fish
how is any part of that equation a problem?
the fishing is too "easy" on stocked lakes so it brings more pressure?
more pressure results in "conditioned fish" which makes them harder to catch (more like the naturals) which leads to...more frustration/less pressure?
well, there's plenty of resorts in Wisconsin and Canada that would love the business if people stop fishing for those "smart" Minnesota fish.
| |
| | |
| We finally agree, Justin! Spirit Lake was already "done" with the easy fishing by the ninties, since it had already passed its peak in the early to mid eighties! That lake had already peaked and was on the downhill slide. Al Akin and Co were haveing five and six big fish days on Bagleys in the eighties and my guess is you had more trouble later. Did you fish it in the mid eighties? | |
| | |
Posts: 123
| On these lakes that seem to "burn out" later on because of this so-called conditioning, have population checks been done? Are the same numbers of fish still in the system or is there a possibility that due to the fishing pressure when the "gettin' was good" the numbers may have dropped from delayed mortality or maybe even some other factors like VHS, etc? Are they there and not biting or possibly not there in previous numbers? It's hard to convince people of the conditioning effect without knowing for sure if the same number of fish are in play. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
In the late 90's some of the stocked lakes that were starting to get fished in my area had fish populations that were pretty even throughout the age classes. You would catch a pretty even ratio of fish from the mid 30's to mid 40's.
Now the populations are more stacked in the mid to upper 40's with a good amount of trophy fish over 50".
Numbers are felt to be similar as in the 90's but there are noticably less fish in the younger year classes on the lakes that aren't reproducing well. Thoughts are the high number of larger fish are weeding out the smaller ones before they can grow up.
I have to totally agree with Dan's comments about stocked fish "packing up" more than in the natural lakes. That's a phemonemon we've noticed many times but not on lakes like Leech or Cass.
With numbers of fish per acre estimated at similar levels as they were 10 years ago, it's interesting to note that these fish do not show themselves like the used to. Having 20-30 follows a day was very common when these fish were younger.
Now it's not uncommon to not see a fish unless you have favorable conditions. The fish are not as "curious", or aggressive, whatever you want to call it.
You can argue until the cows come home on why that is, but if you talk to people who have fished these lakes for 10-15 years you'll get many of the same observations.
The trolling spinnerbait comment earlier is also dead on. That was a tactic that routinely put multiple fish in the boat for several years on all the stocked lakes we fished. Now it only works in the right weather conditions, and isn't nearly as productive.
For whatever reason, the aggression levels of the stocked lakes has dropped off.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My Tuesday 2 cents:
What I think we are talking about here I've heard fisheries pros call 'new reservoir syndrome'. The best fishing occurs when the targeted specie is introduced originally, and drops off to a level determined by NR and stocking levels. It's as much a social phenomena as biological, because the drop in numbers caught and drop in success catching really big fish is caused by angling pressure and harvest to a degree that is considerable.
Harvest causes the most impact. To assume there is none when fish are caught that are over the minimum size is to be delusional...muskies are harvested off Mille Lacs, Vermilion, and other lakes. Only way to slow that is to raise the limit to the upper confidence limit...or close to it. That is what is being done on 'Trophy' waters across Canada, and now (finally) much of the US. At 48" or even 50", Trophy MN and select WI waters are not protected well enough to offer the promise of numbers of giant fish seen over the last few years, but that's my opinion which may not match that of the fisheries folks over there.
A large percentage of each year class will die each year with NO fishing pressure at all. 1800 fish after 10 years is down to a few hundred with no fishing pressure at all, and once the fish reach 50" or more, down to as low a level as a few dozen.Harder to contact, so one doesn't see as many as one did before adding harvest and all the other issues here to the equation. That's how nature maintains balance. If a system is overstocked, then nature's balance is disrupted and the maximum size drops way off, average weights drop way off, and the fishery declines like it did in several Wisconsin Lakes. If you want big numbers...you may not get quality in the end. JS and Dan's 'packing up' may be nothing more than larger numbers of stocked fish than would have been the norm in a totally NR maintained population of a certain year class or classes being where they need to be; where the food is, which will reduce over the years by attrition...natural and caused by angling pressure. As angling pressure increases and harvest and post release mortality, though lower than some think; so does the effect.
The fish freshly stocked into a system get little pressure until a few large specimens are caught and the word gets out, like so many lakes in MN over the last decade and a half. Then comes the pressure, and harvest plus some delayed mortality. IF the levels of stocking are equal, and survival of the stocked fish nearly equal over a several year period after introduction, then year class distribution can be excellent and the future bright as long as stocking levels and or some NR closely match mortality averages. Of course, the only fish harvested are the largest, so it is difficult to maintain the 'beginning' level of truly huge fish forever unless the size limit starts at truly huge.
Forage levels and types, changing conditions and water levels, new invasives, and a host of other variables can move the fish around, and if the anglers do not adapt, the assumption can be that the fishing is not as good.
To conditioning, the lures used the most are the key to any actually occurring. The theory is:
Fish react to a totally new stimulus the strongest at the first exposure. So the first time a double 10 hits the water, the fish targeted successfully in area at least are exposed to that footprint the first time. Given all other variables are lines up well, some react enough to strike and get caught, many do not. Word gets out the lure is 'hot', and everyone starts throwing them. As that footprint becomes part of the every day reality of what the muskies must deal with as the environment in which they live, the level of response drops off slowly whether the muskie in question has ever been CPR'd or not. Keep in mind, each lure has a slightly differing footprint, but so does the muskie's real prey. Add a tweak to a 'new' double 10 model; cause a spike in response because the footprint is different and 'new' enough to illicit a stronger response level. Simply put, as a lure is tossed by hundreds of anglers every year and the muskies are exposed to that footprint thousands of times a week, that footprint becomes as much a part of the environment as the natural prey the muskies pursue, and one has to wait for an environmental trigger like dropping light, positive effects from weather, sun, moon, earth relationships, (or whatever) for the windows to open and the fish respond better to your presentation.
The avoidance displayed after capture on a specific lure has been shown in bass, in a controlled environment where the exposure can be highly concentrated, and the audio and visual level of the footprint vastly exaggerated...a big crystal clear tank. Try those experiments in dirty water in a much larger environment, and the results will be much different. That said, the 'memory' of negative reinforcement from capture, unless capture on exactly the same footprint occurs several times over a long period of time, isn't forever. And each lure has enough difference in audio/vibration/visual that there may not be any real effect at all for the next guy fishing through...especially if the fish was caught on a spinnerbait the first time and a Suick the next.
The reality of this is displayed over and over again on smaller, heavily pressured waters. If the sort of 'conditioning' that is assumed by some was actually taking place, virtually no muskies would be caught by most anglers on those little lakes until a new year class is available to be caught and conditioned. That doesn't happen, obviously, so...
I fish a little 230 acre lake that was stocked once over 30 years ago. The NR there is spotty, but some year classes can be spectacular. VERY little angling pressure, and what's there is CPR for the most part. There's two year classes that I've been watching and fishing for years, and they are doing very well. Used to catch a few a day, now the numbers are down to one or two, but the fish are in upper 30" to mid 40" range. I only fish this water for muskies a couple times a year, and only in cool to cold water. By the time that year class gets to 55", there may be 4 or 5 left from both year classes. Not a bad shot at a giant, I don't think. Here's a video example shot icefishing crappies on that puddle of the fish that can happen even in a tiny, unstocked lake when no one knows they are there:
http://icefishing.outdoorsfirst.com/watch.asp?id=676
A fish in the mid 50" class or two is CPR'd there every year.
OK, that was 3 cents. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | There seems to be a lot of hesitation to the idea that muskies get "conditioned" to lures. Maybe that is the wrong term, or wrong way to look at it. Another trend that happened on the stocked lakes is that the daytime bites dropped off dramatically, especially for bigger fish.
You can't explain it by saying the numbers are down. When 2 guys can catch double digits of fish after dark while the daytime fishermen are getting skunked something has changed.
Is that lure conditioning, or do fish relate eating lures during the day with a bad experience after biting them?
Something changes the behavior, I don't think you can deny that.
JS
Edited by john skarie 7/27/2010 9:37 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Night fishing...why is it better on some lakes than others? I believe it's location of the fish and what they are feeding on, and when they are most active from the get go...no one knows how good the night fishing can be until a few accomplished anglers get out and try it.
I think that the same pressures when night fishing becomes popular will reduce success by a ratio similar to what I posted above, as more pressure comes at night and the environment becomes what it will be at max pressure, the behavior of the fish will alter accordingly until and unless that pressure drops off significantly. it also can be somewhat a self fullfilling prophesy...I know some folks who do REALLY well on Mille Lacs and Vermilion during the day, they just changed up what they were doing before. Sure, they do well at night too, allot of that is because of the Muskies' location once the sun is gone. They will adapt to the environment in which they exist no matter what is added or how they got there, proving out, at least to me, my original position on stocked fish VS naturals being 'easier to catch'.
I'm not saying anyone else's ideas are 'wrong', I'm offering logical alternative lines of reason that arrive at similar conclusions based as much on the reality of the ecosystem and the critter we are talking about as is possible given my limited knowledge on the subject.
| |
| | |
| Hiya -
Have to chime in here...
Dan, John and I have discussed the stocked lake phenomenon off and on for several years now. I know both of them, but they don't know each other. We've all fished natural fisheries in the US and Canada for a long time. We've all fished stocked lakes over an extended period of time. Some of the lakes overlap (Plant, Little Wolf and Elk for Dan and I; Big Detroit and Pelican for John and I) Some of them don't (Dan has more time on Vermilion and Plant than John or I; John and I have more time on lakes like Pelican and Detroit). Our observations are shared by guys like Paul Thorne (the last name sound familiar to anyone?), Brett Waldera, and quite a few others. Dan and I have, through separate sources, nearly identical observations about the Iowa great lakes in the 80s compared to the 90s and today.
I would concur with many of the observations Dan and John have made about stocked fisheries in the early stages. Multiple double-digit days, frequently back to back when weather was ideal. Seeing groups of muskies (a client counted 31 in an inside turn on Little Wolf once while we were walleye fishing), many, many double follows (we had six double follows in one day on Big Detroit years back) and doubles on hooked fish... Things that just don't happen very often on natural fisheries - or on stocked fisheries that have been heavily fished.
Personally, I think it's a combination of conditioning (fishing pressure) and the population dynamics of a stocked fishery. I've also observed fish behavior that I'm convinced shows evidence of conditioning. Boat shy fish - the number of fish caught on a figure-8 declines dramatically as fish get pressured. Fish acting like hooked fish when they see a lure - I watched a fish rush a 10" Jake, then turn and actually tailwalk over the top of the bait, and have seen a couple others run under the boat and jump on the other side. Shorter and more pronounced feeding windows. A decline in the effectiveness of popular baits (see spinnerbait trolling and triggering baits like jerkbaits vs reaction baits like bucktails
I don't think there's any question that fish behavior changes when fishing pressure increases, whether it's on stocked lakes or natural lakes. If you doubt that, ask Doug Johnson what the NW Angle was like prior to 1997 or so. Or, if you could, ask Jack Burns what Lac Suel was like when he and Steve Fuller were the only ones on the planet who knew there was a fishable population of muskies there. Yes, you still catch fish on pressured waters, obviously. But if you don't think there's a behavioral difference between pressured and unpressured fish...you've never fished for unpressured fish. For some reason, whether it's population density, innate behavioral difference as a result of being hatchery-raised or some other reason, that difference is more pronounced, and more predictable, on stocked lakes.
Cheers,
RK
| |
| | |
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | sworrall - 7/25/2010 8:41 PM
So stocked muskies should never eat a bucktail, because they are conditioned to eat minnows.
Right? :)
They're conditioned to everything they eat going "squish".
Story time. While fishing in Door Co there was 1 sheephead that hung around the dock. The first time I threw a tube at it the fish ate it, fought and I let it go. 2 days later I see the same fish. I throw out the tube, it swims up to it and as soon as it's on the bait the fish tears off in the other direction. A day later I see the same fish again. I throw the tube about 2 yards away from it. The fish turns to take a look at it (still a couple yards away) and tears off. I don't know if this "proves" anything, but it does illustrate an example of avoidance behavior from a recently caught fish.
Now I'll be the first to admit that fish are generally dumb as a box of rocks, but lets face it they'd never make it if they didn't have some defense mechanisms hard wired into them. As far as catching the same fish several times a year on the say bait, that on must have been even dumber then a box of rocks | |
| | |
| Muskie Treats - 7/27/2010 11:48 AM
sworrall - 7/25/2010 8:41 PM
So stocked muskies should never eat a bucktail, because they are conditioned to eat minnows.
Right? :)
Story time. While fishing in Door Co there was 1 sheephead that hung around the dock. The first time I threw a tube at it the fish ate it, fought and I let it go. 2 days later I see the same fish. I throw out the tube, it swims up to it and as soon as it's on the bait the fish tears off in the other direction. A day later I see the same fish again. I throw the tube about 2 yards away from it. The fish turns to take a look at it (still a couple yards away ) and tears off. I don't know if this "proves" anything, but it does illustrate an example of avoidance behavior from a recently caught fish.
Now I'll be the first to admit that fish are generally dumb as a box of rocks, but lets face it they'd never make it if they didn't have some defense mechanisms hard wired into them. As far as catching the same fish several times a year on the say bait, that on must have been even dumber then a box of rocks ; )
Come on, comparing a superior fish in intelligence like a sheephead to a musky of inferior intelligence is a bit of a stretch right? That be like comparing a Dog to a Cat. LOL | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I actually agree with many of the conclusions here, just not how those conclusions are reached.
'Boat shy fish - the number of fish caught on a figure-8 declines dramatically as fish get pressured.'
That doesn't necessarily mean the volume of muskies have become 'boat shy' because they know us big, bad fisherpeople are up there holding a fishing rod trying to mess with them. It may indeed mean the stimulus your presentation presents didn't trigger the fish into a more aggressive response because they've been exposed to it thousands of times, allowing the fish able to more quickly adjust behavior to other stimuli...such as hitting the 30 degree plus window and seeing motion in the boat. If muskies were 'smart' enough to avoid eating a lure over the long term because they IDENTIFY the presentation as a lure or somehow dangerous or as a moving object devoid of food value...why follow in the first place? It's a massive waste of energy and against one of the main rules of survival as a fish.
Far as the the running rough fish goes, i spend literally hundreds of hours each winter looking at fish under the ice on camera. I have caught fish I lost or someone else lost from a breakoff with the jig still planted in their yap. Sometimes, it's the same jig style and size. Stupid panfish.
I'm part of that same generation who explored nearly unfished waters in Canada and the US since the early 1970's, and I've seen all the behaviors posters here speak of. I have spent a considerable portion of my life ( probably too much, really) trying to figure out the whys of it all, and have asked a ton of folks who should know the answers the questions asked and discussed here. I love to read, and read allot, too. I'm offering up what many fisheries pros and scientists, alot of AFS literature, and a ton of other reading material on the subject leads me to believe, reinforced by experience. Again, not that I'm right, just that in conclusion I AGREE with much of what's being said, just not the whys of it. I could be wrong.
Why should I care? Because I want any muskie angler reading this to read al the possibilities, and to stimulate a bit of thought on the subject matter based on what all the posts say. It's easy to read a post and think, 'Well, that guy has a good reputation as a good muskie angler, he must be right!' Many times investigating this sort of thing far enough, one finds that line of thought to be somewhat misguided.
You may have heard my seminar line of conversation brought out in by a student in one of the college classes I used to teach. We refined that line of thought to this:
If I'm an 'expert' (which I am NOT, but could claim so) I could tell folks anything and many would, because of my 'reputation' believe much of what I say. SO...
fact.
Waves on the water make the wind blow. Fact. the more waves I see, and the bigger the waves are, the more the wind blows. No waves? No wind. What about the wind over land? Well, this nation is surrounded by water, and the prevailing winds are almost always from a direction of a Great Lake or ocean. Most know that there are some incredible waves to be seen on those waters, and the wind would project a long ways and naturally export from and draw into waves that large on either side of the US. Why differing winds across the US? Proximity to the largest waves is different, and the strong outflow of wind from one wave set runs into others, creating all sorts of weather, like the thunderstorms here now. Big winds off the great Lakes make the Noerth wind howl here. I understand the wind can be drawn around the globe now that the ice caps are melting and the surrounding oceans larger. Could be why we have global warming.
Conflicting air masses of differing temperatures carried by the wave driven winds create that weather.Ever notice that when the rare happning that all the great Lakes freeze completely across, the North winds only blow when air is drawn into big, offshore waves in the Gulf? lots of still nights on those really cold winters. Now of course, there are other factors causing wind to blow, but all associated with moisture waves of some sort.
Right? | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
When I think of fish in terms of being "boat shy", it has nothing to do with lures or presentation. It happens with any lure you throw. The fish come in, and the body language tells you it's aggressive. It gets 15 - 20 feet from the boat and rockets off like it's not happy at all.
Fish not liking boats after 5-7 years of not minding them at all tells me they are seeing to many boats, and having a bad experience when that happens one to many times.
Does that mean they never hit at boatside or are willing to go into an 8? No. But when it goes from being a common behavior among the population to almost never happening then that tells me that pressured fish change behavior.
Anyway....
It's been fun.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Has every one of those fish been captured and released within a window close enough for limited memory to 'teach' avoidance created by a single negative reinforcement and that is why they took off? Were those fish boated numerous times? Why not avoid chasing the lure to the boat at all? Would that not conserve much more energy? Is it they are not capable of associating the lure they ate to the bad experience, but do associate the boat? What about...then...the claim fish become conditioned to lures? Is it the lure, or the boat that's causing the behavior, or neither, or both? Why would that fish rocket away one time, and eat the same lure the next? I understood the claim was stocked fish are easier, and don't condition as easily to avoid lures because they are more aggressive, is it not the lure and are stocked fish conditioned to eventually behave as the naturals seem to? What about Muskies seeing large numbers of pleasure boats with no lures and feeding in the propwash? If they are caught trolling, will they never fall to that presentation again and stop feeding near boats? Why would any muskie ever take an artificial lure ever again? Trolling works, in the propwash, on pressured waters. Is it possible that the stimulus offered those fish was diminished by the thousands of times they have been exposed to it, much like a human who lives at the end of an airport runway no longer responding to the planes or a family who lives next to a restaurant no longer immediate salivating when the grill fires up and the first steak of the day hits the heat.... and is it possible the fish is far more 'available' for other stimuli because it's not got a 'radar lock' on the lure and (deja VU!) hits the 30 degree window seeing motion in the boat...reacting to it in kind with flight behavior? CAN muskies be happy...or sad?
Sure pressured fish change behavior. No question, but not because they know us as humans, all our lures as 'fakes', or our boats as what they are and run away to hide in deep water sanctuaries from the imminent threat, growing huge and becoming the stuff of legends as a completely educated uncatchable monster. Change up, go to lures they are not regularly exposed to, find an area on that water that holds fish that isn't fished well, give them a fresh stimulus, and more fish hit the net. For awhile. Possible?
Just askin'. | |
| | |
| But when it goes from being a common behavior among the population to almost never happening then that tells me that pressured fish change behavior.
i think most everyone agrees that pressured fish change behavior, even if there's room for disagreement and discussion about the why's and wherefore's.
so...is it a problem?
the answer is important, as it carries very different implications:
- "yes" leads down the primrose path of efforts to limit fishing pressure
- "no" suggests the ongoing effort to adapt and stay one step ahead of the fish
| |
| | |
Posts: 1168
| The fear of conditioning is why I don't take many pics of fish. I don't want to blind them with a flashbulb causing a less than satisfactory experience for the fish driving it into a mental state of never wanting to bite again.
For the past 6 years I have caught the same fish off the same dock with the same bucktail multiple times through the course of each season. It never strays more than two docks either way. It's bit in the morning, under heavy skies, under bluebird skies, in rain, in the middle of the night. Knowing that fish is there I have thrown everything and anything else at it but nothing. Clip on this one bucktail I have and that fish goes after it. It usually takes about 4-6 days after capture that it will go again but that could be due to the fact that I don't fish that spot every single time I am out and usually get around to it once a week give or take a couple of days. It's a specific example of one single fish so it wouldn't pass scientific muster but if this fish was conditioned what is it conditioned to? Is it a masochistic fish that likes being hooked, likes thrashing around in a net, handled, etc? In the eyes of the fish nothing positive comes out of the fact that it will eat the same bait and get caught over and over again throughout a season. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | I certainly don't consider pressured fish a problem, meaning I'm not in this discussion to complain about pressure.
To me the observations about fish behavior is more about how I approach my fishing and where I decide to fish.
To my knowledge there hasn't been a "scientific" study about muskies and the unique behavior of chasing lures to the boat in regards to pressure, or number of times being hooked in regards to how they may or not react.
I guess that's why we are discussing this subject now.
All I know is many of the most experienced fishermen in MN (meaning guys who have been chucking lures on MN waters before the stocked lakes came about, including MN biologist in know) are sharing the same thoughts.
Again, it's been fun.
Agree to disagree I guess??
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Plenty of old anglers who have experienced stocked lakes from zero muskies to good to excellent populations and even worse, to over population and decline and over harvest beyond what you folks in MN can imagine. Some of us spent 20 years exploring waters that were rumored...just rumored... to have truly big fish in numbers in the US and Canada. Some did, some didn't. Experience with new stocked waters isn't limited to MN, but you knew that already.
Plenty of information about fish learning/conditioning/etc in the literature. Lots. Plenty of opinions from the geneticists to area fish managers to the most renowned muskie experts on the planet. They don't all always agree. I have no problem asking them the same questions, and questioning the answers until those answers make sense based on the realities of the capacity of the fish to learn/remember/etc. according to those same folks.
I think lambeau nailed it. I have no problem fishing 'pressured' fish. I kinda like it. Presents a challenge that is unique to every lake and river.
I'm not sure any one who holds an opposing viewpoint should agree to disagree...that's a cop out that stifles thinking beyond just reading what a few are willing to publish RE: their thoughts on the matter. But that's me.
| |
| | |
| One last post on this from me and then I guess I'll just have to think on this for a week or more, in the boat (going fishing!)...
Back to my initial post - Bob Strand and Co. out of the Bemidji office may have never realized where this stocking program in MN was headed. I guess I'll ask him next time I see him... My guess is that they never guessed how good it would get. The spirit of the program was to provide greater angling opportunity (succeeded), improve population in a few lakes that historically had muskies and numbers had decreased (succeeded) and provide a few brood-stock lakes to gain eggs/spawn more readily from (succeeded).
1. The fishing range was increased from 44 "historic" bodies of water to more than 90 (there are lakes that have muskies other than those who were initially stocked via rivers/creeks).
2. The number of fish caught and the number of large fish caught increased substantially in the state. I am aware of a handful of fifty pound-plus fish being taken/found prior to this stocking program, in MN. The state record fish, two fifty-plus pounders out of Inguadona (both speared-I have pics of one of them), a dead fish found by CO Everett Jeske on Big Boy in the 70's (50-some pounds and partially decayed/diminished from racoons eating some of the internal organs) the 51 lb 1 ounce fish out of Leech and several other less substantiated/confirmed fish speared or taken in other questionable manners.
In the last few years, a fair number of fifty pound plus fish have been caught and primarily released. A huge success.
Too bad all government agency programs aren't this successful! Good job/kudos to those hard working folks (who were also avid anglers) who started this program.
Dan Craven | |
| | |
Posts: 123
| Fishing pressure has increased on many muskie lakes because of more anglers getting into the sport, which may have accounted for muskies becoming more boat shy, conditioned, etc. There are still guys who have been catching the same numbers of fish, if not more, while other guys are seeing their numbers dropping on the same waters. Why?, because they've learned to adapt their tactics to the conditions at hand. I know guys who catch fish wherever they go because they do this very well, pressured lakes or not. On one lake there were guys who used to throw a certain lure 90% of the time they were out there, and now they throw that same bait on that lake probably 5% of the time. I don't think it's because there's newer baits out there as much as it's because the bait isn't as effective as it was earlier because the fish have seen it so much. I'll bet people 2 years from now or even 30 years from now will still be catching fish on double 10s, but I bet they'll be baits more effective to come along. I know of guys who caught 3-6 fish a day on Bulldawgs for a while, but they don't now. I think the fish are still there, but want to see something else.
I caught 52 bass one day using spinnerbaits, and a week later on the same lake caught 14. Maybe I'd have caught more had I used a Rattletrap or Zara Spook? The fish were still there. ::
I think fish become conditioned to baits more than they become boat shy, you just have to use a different tactic to catch them. If it's slow during the day fish at night, if they're ignoring the Weagle try a Rad Dog, etc. Pressured fish can still be caught in my opinion. Good fishing. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Agreeing to disagree is a copout??
Fail to see that. When neither side can provide proof of thoughts, than you either agree to disagree or you argue forever.
There has never been a muskie specific study done to prove or dismiss the thoughts on either side here, so it's a matter of opinion with some truths sneaking in from both sides I would guess.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's the truths soaking in from all sides that are the value here. No one 'wins' a discussion like this, and no one should. This is great thread for those who are interested in fish behavior. Lens Creep, agreed. | |
| | |
| sworrall - 7/28/2010 8:41 AM
It's the truths soaking in from all sides that are the value here. No one 'wins' a discussion like this, and no one should. This is great thread for those who are interested in fish behavior. Lens Creep, agreed.
Very True! It was reassuring for me to see that others have come to the same conclusions I have, however right or wrong they may be, but at least I am not the only one experiencing the dramatic shift on the lakes I have the most experience on.
Looks like my youngest son needs some new musky baits, maybe that will get them to go, because the stuff in my box now, which "belongs" to me and my 2 oldest boys, does not seem to work. LOL | |
| |
|
stocked fish