|
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The WMRT brought this issue to this board. It is patently obvious why, that goes without elaboration.
I found I disagreed with a large portion of the platform because it contradicted much of what I have found to be reality over the years, ignored factors that should not be ignored, and IMHO abused the data in ways that I found to be a problem. I have no personal problem with any of the folks at the WMRT, but felt it was an absolute necessity to at least point it out when a WMRT statement, claim, or demand was unreasonable, questionable, or unsubstantiated.
I must ask, did anyone else feel a bit put down by Larry's last post? He seems to be saying that he's an insider, somehow more motivated and more caring and more educated about the Muskies here in Wisconsin than the rest of us #*^@ed fools, and that it has become apparent to him we are just wasting his time with the discussion here; (the same discussion noted as constructive and well presented by more than one highly respected scientist). He then goes to picking at Mr. Neuswanger, insinuating that he's somehow not motivated to or interested in management of the muskies to his very best ability in Wisconsin. It's that attitude that angered me in the first place. Let's call a spade a spade, it flat pissed me off.
Mr. Ramsell and the rest of the WMRT would be well served to be VERY aware that it is support of the public, the media, and the special interest groups ( all of whom are regulars here) AND the support of the DNR that is necessary to forward their agenda.
The WMRT has no right, no mandate, no directive to step over the rest of us and demand any major management changes without our blessing as Wisconsin sportsmen and women and Wisconsin muskie anglers, and should expect that possible blessing after our FULL understanding of the issues at hand and not a microsecond faster. That requires questioning and debate, and acquiring the perspectives of all involved.
The resource belongs to us all, and I will not personally sit by and allow our DNR, public, or other interested parties to be bullied about on a 'bully pulpit' I help provide for what appears to be PR and in some cases, personal gratification.
The WMRT and Mr. Ramsell have a special responsibility to exhibit patience, humility, and understanding to/for us all if he is to appoint himself or his group steward of the public's interest in trophy muskie management. The WMRT forcefully positioned themselves in the public arena and should be ready, willing, and able to 'banter' with the public whether it seems useless to them or not.
I for one am not one whit interested in the WMRT being anymore than perhaps an NGO, which I personally feel they had better get after including non profit status, especially if they intend to assist in funding any projects with monies from Muskie's Inc or other donations.
I have always felt that special interest groups in the catagory the WMRT has been self placed are not worthy of my trust without proving themselves to be so. That really IS the American way. No one represents me or my interests unless I SAY so in concert with my peers; that's called democracy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi MR. Sworrall,
I had mentioned in a post that was removed earlier that Larry's post was very typical of the crap that flows out of the WMRP. As I have posted before the way in which you conducted yourself with the WMRP is very encouraging to those of us who care about Wisconsins fishery as well. Larry start the conversation and things when good questions regarding the WRMP and its brand of science were put forth he bales. Why is it alright for the WMRP to call out the WDNR for its stocking practices and demand action immediately and when the average Musky fishing dog face like myself and others question some of the data and science used by the WMRP we are not afforded the same level of respect from those in the WMRP. Larry's last post only goes to show where the WMRP is at; its an organization that posed good questions but they overestimated thier power and now its biting them in the a$$.
Steve why was my last post removed I thought it was an accurate portrait of how I feel.
Thanks
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Any time a post is removed one might expect there was at least one statement that 'went personal' in fashion that was a bit too direct. As I said to another party tonight, it's not what's said, it's HOW it's said. Your comments are appreciated, sir. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1438
| Steve-
My hats off to you. You allowed yourself a long time to become "pissed off". I reached that threshold approximately .38 seconds after I started to read the posts put forth by the WMRT and specifically Larry. As I have stated before I refuse to blindly follow someone just because they want me to. That pretty much was my take on the whole WMRT thing. They seemed to be looking for "groupies".
It may be rumor mill but I had heard through the grapevine that Larry just wanted to make a name for himself. Well, he did. It's just too bad I can't repeat the name I have chosen for him here in a public forum.
All I have to say is good riddance. If they opt to take their ball and play somewhere else, no skin off my teeth.
Scott |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1295
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall and all:
Yes, I'm back. For a couple of reasons. First is an email exchange that I have had with Steve. Second is the responses to my "last" post, and a primary reason I had chosen that direction; the point I was "trying" to make was not as it has been intrepreted by all who responded. Please allow me to explain:
It is not only this round on this Internet forum, but rather the Internet forum in general, and the often incorrect "reading into" someones post (myself included) that creates misunderstanding and confusion. My "intent" in my last post was to diminish that confusion by no longer participating. After reading the subsequent comments, I now believe that to continue to be "absent" from this very worthwhile discussion would be a mistake, from a least a perception standpoint if nothing else. And I do believe I have something to contribute.
Please understand a few things; We are NOT trying to speak for ANYONE but ourselves and those that have found basic agreement with us for a variety of reasons, and have/are supporting us. We do however, feel that because of the VAST amount of time we have spent researching these matters, we naturally have a better overall grasp of the problems, and that knowledge base is increasing daily. In fact the past few days of information gathering has only further solidified many of our previous statements and positions. I sincerely wish that everyone could be brought to the same level of knowledge and understanding of the issues and information involved, and will do my best to pass on things of importance.
Based on Mr. Worrall's comments above, I am reversing my previous decision to no longer participate in these discussions. I sincerely do want to share everything possible with all, and realize to, that the ways in which I have done some at times in the past were indeed confrontational and incorrect. I shall endeavour to correct that forthwith. Please bear with me if at times my passion gets the better of me.
An NO, I am NOT doing this to make a name for myself...I don't need to. I have said it before and will restate it here now, I am doing this not because it will benefit me...it won't at my age, but I am involved in this because I simply feel that it is the right thing to do.
I would again like to take this opportunity to apologize to ANYONE that I may have offended along the way to this point. I have the greatest of respect for our overworked and underpaid fisheries professional's, and will proceed from this point in an effort to make that clear and try and end the "war of words" that has heretofore taken place at times.
As time permits, I pledge to make myself available to ANYONE that has a legitimate question that I may have an answer to. I have indicated to Steve as well that I will make myself available for a MF interview at his request and pleasure.
Folks, I truly believe that we are ALL looking for and working towards the same goals of the betterment of our muskellunge fisheries in Wisconsin and the benefits that can produce to angler's and tourism business' as well. We may not always agree on the facts and ideas, but may we all work together in peace towards that end.
Sincerely,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I'd like to make it clear once again that while the WMRT may be 3 individuals, we have and still have the backing of many Muskie anglers across the state. In this area of Wisconsin, we have received nearly 100% support of MI anglers (I have yet to talk to any MI members that do not support our ideas.) You continue to make statements that make it sound like we are trying to make these changes while everyone else is in opposition to us - this is simply not true and in the interest of continuing the dialogue, I'd like you to stop portraying us in this light. From another perspective it could be said that a small group of people (WDNR) are preventing what the overall majority of Muskie fisherman would like to see happen in this state - stocking a better breed of fish.
The WMRT would like to seek some type of compromise that allows us to see improvement in the Wisconsin Muskellunge fishery during our lifetimes, while also finding a way to protect/restore/enhance the native fish in our waters - if they exist. Surely you must agree that there could be some common ground here. We are eager to help and participate in making this progress immediately - there must be some give and take. The people on the Eastern side of the state see a flourishing trophy musky fishery developing in the waters of the Lake Michigan drainage - Green Bay, Menomonee and Fox rivers, Winnebago, etc.
If the folks on the West side of the state had the same opportunites - perhaps in the St. Croix drainage where the "Wisconsin strain" muskies are not native, it would be a lot easier to work with each other statewide.
We'll only get where we need to go by working together. The WMRT, WDNR, Steve Worrall, Mike Roberts, etc, - we all need to work together and not against each other. That is not happening - but it's not just the WMRT that is preventing it.
If the DNR's biggest concern is native fish in native waters - GREAT! I can deal with that and would love to help rather than hinder progress there. On the flip-side, I'd hope that the DNR would open up the non-native drainages (St. Croix in particular, great lakes also) to stocking Leech Strain or Great Lakes strain. I ask this because it has PROVEN to be effective and that it compliments what the MN DNR is doing on the other side of the St. Croix. We need to find a way to draw up a compromise and move forward.
We'll know a lot more in 20 or 50 years, but that does not mean we can't start moving forward today in many areas. I'm sure in the future we'll find all sides are right on some things and all sides are wrong on others. We'll also surely find things we never dreamed of. The truth is we won't learn much if we never do anything different.
This whole thing should be fun and looked on optimistically, instead of giving many of us ulcers. Unfortunately we are not to that point yet - hopefully soon.
Thanks again,
Bob
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1335
Location: Chicago, Beverly | ". I ask this because it has PROVEN to be effective" You guys aren't saying this because you still think of Indiana as a success story are you? I have stocking data direct from the INDNR that shows how few "Leach lake strain fish " have really been stocked(as I stated, confirmed stocking of leach lake fish was only done by the two clubs as a supplemental stocking to the larger number of non leach fish stocked by the dnr). I know I e-mailed the wmrt about this inaccuracy but did not have the stocking data at that time. If you are interested in correcting this issue and wish to see what fish were really stocked in Indiana feel free to contact me through PM on this board or e-mail and I'll send it to you. |
|
| |
|
| Kevin,
it would be interesting to post the information on Indiana stocking right here for all to see if you can. I've tried to get the stocking records and sources of stocked fish for Indiana, but was unsuccessful. My opinion is that Indiana (Webster lake) would not be considered a success or failure of LL strain fish, but that it is a huge success for th Indiana DNR and the dedicated Muskie fisherman that helped create that fishery. Without the small number of fisherman that intiated the starting of the Muskie project in Indiana, that fishery would not exist.
The more information we all have - the better.
Thanks,
Bob
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, since this is my Op-Ed thread, I'll continue:
'Steve,
I'd like to make it clear once again that while the WMRT may be 3 individuals, we have and still have the backing of many Muskie anglers across the state. In this area of Wisconsin, we have received nearly 100% support of MI anglers (I have yet to talk to any MI members that do not support our ideas.) You continue to make statements that make it sound like we are trying to make these changes while everyone else is in opposition to us - this is simply not true and in the interest of continuing the dialogue, I'd like you to stop portraying us in this light. From another perspective it could be said that a small group of people (WDNR) are preventing what the overall majority of Muskie fisherman would like to see happen in this state - stocking a better breed of fish.'
A Majority of all muskie anglers in the state want to stock a 'better breed of fish'? What is a majority? What is a better breed of fish? Do all of these folks you mention know the pitfalls, and are they aware of the reasons many advise caution? Is there only one side to this issue?
I never said, insinuated, or even suggested 'everyone else is in opposition' to the WMRT. I did question, offer alternative ideas and scenarios, invite commentary from others, and offer the respectful opportunity that certainly is due those scientists who DID step up with opinions and ideas on the issue from thier perspective. I other words, I did what I am supposed to do here, my job.
Surely you don't think the majority of anglers who fish muskies in Wisconsin are MI members, do you? That would mean only a couple thousand anglers, and I know several myself who ARE MI members who support caution and cooperation, fact examination and great care before any wholesale changes are even suggested. I submit YOU need to portray your platform to the honest majority of muskie anglers in cooperation and with the support of a supporting panel of scientists until we ALL have the clear, unfettered by white noise, open and for certain facts where we can see them and understand them. EARN the support, Bob, don't expect that it's inevitable. It isn't. It's easy to drum up support with the accusations, the 'easy fix' routine, and 'those guys at the DNR are standing in YOUR way, anglers!!' approach. It is just as easy to lose that support if the 'facts' you present turn out to be open to question in a very clear manner. Try providing information that has been reviewed critically and approved for publication by a fisheries scientist or a group of scientists. Prove your points instead of insisting we simply take them at face value.
I sure wouldn't want anyone building a house for me who 'researched it for months' but has never actually built a darned thing, or have my knee operated on by a surgical team who's never been in an operating room or gone to medical school. I wouldn't take my car in to get it fixed by a fellow who has no working experience as a mechanic, even though he's watched lots of mechanics work, and even stood next to them in the garage and studied the subject. There's your challenge, sir, acquire the public support of experts, provide us with the facts as those experts see them in support of the WMRT platform, and let's get the debate elevated to the level at which it becomes valid. You see, the biggest mistake you make is assumption. You assume I am working against the WMRT. That is a mistaken assumption. I am working FOR finding the facts, providing the best possible information to the MuskieFIRST readers who are willing to wade through this stuff, and I will support what turns out to be the best thing to do for our state's muskie fishery. I think that is a stance you will find quite common, not at all unique to me.
Thanks for the response.
Allow that the debate WIll move beyond the wmrt platform and it's agenda, too. Accept that not everyone here is focused on what the WMRT has to say without equal focus on those who have another viewpoint. PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT, REALIZE THAT MUSKIE ANGLERS ARE A MINORITY in the grand scheme of fisheries management, and the MAJORITY of us fishing folks will not so much as raise a pinky to do anything more to get actively involved in this 'action' or lack thereof, depending on one's point of view, than to go fishing on the weekends, have a good time on the water, and shake their heads in wonder at all this fuss.
One last thing, sir. There are folks here that don't appreciate your blunt style, don't like your attitude, or generally plain don't like you for some reason. That is the way it is with humanity. I am blessed by the same affliction, that I promise you. I'd like to give you a bit of a commentary on internet community interaction/relations. Look at the thread about Steve Hulbert, a nearly rabid MuskieFIRST member almost since we posted the very first message several years ago who was recently involved in a horrific accident. He has over the years had a tendency to be...well...., a bit blunt. SO?? He learned what the limits of agressive behavior were, what this community accepts and what is not acceptable, and gained a TON of friends in the process, many of whom he has never met, and many he had no clue would offer support in a time of need. Such it is in any community of this size, sir. You are addressing several countries, nearly every state in the Union, and folks from every walk of life here. Respectfully submit your ideas, strongly support your agenda, and our moderators will do the rest......
 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 185
Location: Mendota Heights, MN | I am writing to question, and perhaps get clarification, of comparisons made between the success of the Indiana Musky fishery and the state of, or proposed direction of, stocking efforts in WI.
I seem to have read in a fisheries biology book, that many man made waters, flowages specifically, are most prolific in their production of big fish in the 20 or so years immeadiatly following their creation.
If this is indeed the case then is it fair to compare the relatively recent introduction of musky populations and their growth potential in Indiana waters to the established and relatively older environments and musky populations of WI waters?
Thank you, I'll hang up now and take my answer off the air.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I just had that conversation a few days ago. I also did a bit of looking about, and found several references to what you describe. There also is some reference to new populations of non native fish, if well suited to the waters, doing better in the size and weight catagory in the first generations and then due to harvest, competition, and all the other things we have discussed here, finding a level that is less than the peak when the fisrt introduction matures. |
|
| |
|
| Steve (PHOENIX) asks a good question, and my experience in Missouri allows me to answer it with confidence:
PHOENIX: "...is it fair to compare the relatively recent introduction of musky populations and their growth potential in Indiana waters to the established and relatively older environments and musky populations of WI waters?"
DAVE: Actually, to make such a comparison would be comparing apples with oranges. In Indiana, as in Missouri where I worked for 23 years, most of the previously musky-free waters that have been stocked in the past decade or two are comparativly productive artificial impoundments that contain abundant large gizzard shad as prey. These members of the herring family (typically 6-12" long as adults) can dominate the fish biomass of midwestern and southern reservoirs (as high as 500 pounds per acre in some waters!). They provide an almost endless supply of ideal forage for any muskies that become large enough to consume them. The down-side to gizzard shad in the smaller southern impoundments is that they can ruin a lake for panfish fishing by eating most of the large zooplankton, which decreases growth rates and ultimate size of bluegill and sometimes crappie. So please, my southern friends, do not transfer gizzard shad into these waters unless it's part of your fishery management biologist's overall plan.
In Missouri, we observed early life history growth rates to be very fast for a mixed-source variety of muskellunge (Linesville Fish Culture Station on Lake Pymatuning, PA) stocked into impoundments large and small that contained abundant gizzard shad. Gender-specific growth rates during the first 3-5 years in Missouri beat anything we see from muskies in either Wisconsin or Minnesota, but that's to be expected with the longer southern growing season and lakes brimming with suitable forage. It's no surprise that Indiana and Illinois are experiencing similar results in such waters. Indiana biologists actually consulted with us in Missouri (and others, I'm sure) before they embarked upon their expanded program. They did their homework and created something special -- taking advantage of an otherwise under-utilized prey (gizzard shad) while creating trophy fisheries that had not existed previously. Very good fishery management.
I am not optimistic, however, that those midwestern and southern impoundments ultimately will produce as many really big muskellunge (>30 pounds) as we see in the North Country. As I've said many times, it's not just about growth rate. It's also about survival rate and longevity. The largest northern muskies simply may outlast the southern fish, attaining trophy size by growing at a moderate rate and living many more years. Of course, in some waters, this longer lifespan exposes northern fish to increased risk of mortality associated with single-hook sucker rigs, intentional harvest by anglers, and tribal harvest by spear in select waters. Therefore, depending upon prey availability, fishing pressure, and various harvest patterns the fish in any given body of water may or may not reach their full biological potential.
Thanks for your question, Steve.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | First of all, to be certain, I don't really have a 'dog in this race', being a very infrequent visitor to the Wisconsin muskie fisherie. I do have an interest in the process, though, and how private groups interact (or not!) with public agencies. So, just a couple observations:
* Buckminster Fuller has a better, brighter mind than mine. When he said, "The first rule of tinkering is to keep all the parts!" he was not wrong. Perhaps a better rule of thumb, "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature". Those two things said, I agree with SWorral that great caution must be exercised by learned people when tinkering with a natural resource. We don't want to be introducing Asian Carp, foreign ladybugs, walking catfish, nor incompatable muskie strains into our natural environment just because we see a short-term need for them. These actions need careful study, pilot projects, and the support of regulatory agencies who have the legal mandate to monitor and protect our dwindling resources for future generations.
* I too have found some of the posts by the WMRT to be a bit over -the-top. Zeal does tend to put people off. I'd say some of the earlier discussions bordered on arrogance, and I'm very pleased to read Mr. Ramsell's response on this thread. He, like we, "reserve the right to get wiser as we go!" The list of attack questions to WiDNR sunk my hopes that this group would ever get respect from the agency. I hope they can take this newly-found spirit of comity and work on damage repair. With enough time, study, and patience, I think the group could be a real asset. m
|
|
| |
