|
|
Posts: 32918
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MuskieFIRST attended the meeting and videotaped the entire event. As a quick accounting at 1 AM today as to what was said, it came down to superior Minnesota trophy muskie angling opportunities drawing away tourism and guiding dollars from the Hayward area, and the desire to locate and stock a 'silver bullet' strain of fish that would reverse that trend in a relatively short period of time.
Very basically, with a full report to follow:
The position of the DNR was the fish we have are perfectly capable of reaching trophy size in good numbers, and that there are a series of management issues they/we need to address to re-establish a better population of big fish in the Hayward area and across Wisconsin. Water chemistry, angling pressure and harvest, density issues, and more all are in the DNR circle of attention, and a measured, careful approach with genetic study is the stated goal. Side by side comparison in waters in the St. Croix basin and other test waters in the State where Leech Lake strain has been stocked will be watched carefully, and results of testing by Dr. Sloss's lab considered before any drastic moves are made. New brood staock proposals by Dr. Sloss are already in place, including using stocks from the Chippewa Flowage this coming year, and moving from Bone Lake as a result.
The WMRP presented the now familiar 'it's the fish' scenario, asking again for stocking of Leech Lake strain in several lakes in the Hayward area, reiterating the proposal that the Wisconsin fish stocked there are hopelessly 'mixed' and incapable of growth to trophy size no matter length of time allowed or other variables put forth by the DNR. Their claim is that the Leech Lake fish will grow faster, and attain trophy size more quickly, and therefore bring tourism back to the Hayward area. The same data set discussed at length on MuskieFIRST's Research board this and last winter was presented. Several guides and community members stepped forward to ask questions and support the concept of stocking Leech Lake fish in waters that currently lack NR and require stocking for a viable fishery, drawing applause from the crowd on two occasions. Ty Sennet mentioned the fact that many of the large fish captured on Mille Lacs are Wisconsin strain, and that it seemed to him the two strains co-existed well, hoping that the same might be true in waters in NW Wisconsin.
A full report will follow soon.
Attachments
----------------
 DSC_0076.JPG (41KB - 91 downloads)
DSC_0077.JPG (37KB - 99 downloads)
DSC_0078.JPG (33KB - 89 downloads)
DSC_0079.JPG (58KB - 101 downloads)
DSC_0080.JPG (88KB - 83 downloads)
DSC_0081.JPG (65KB - 92 downloads)
DSC_0082.JPG (49KB - 90 downloads)
DSC_0083.JPG (51KB - 92 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| The Chip, Grindstone, and a couple other lakes are the only lakes doing well right now. If something isn't done fast, the Chip and Grindstone will fall from overpressure. Even high size limits are not going to protect incidental harvest issues due to overpressuring these waters.
The only thing to do is stock bigger sized fish and/or Mississippi strain fish. Common sense says to stock both and do a side by side study to see what happens on some of these lakes up here that are showing no spawning activity. The DNR says they are going to tweak things a little. Whatever that means. If the DNR wants results fast, the Mississippi strain is key. Even the WI DNR's own charts showed that the Mississippi strain grew faster. How long are they going to stumble around. Maybe this is the time to get the resorts involved. Maybe they have more pull around here.
I feel like nothing is going to change. We should be able to vote on this at the conservation congress in april, but if they don't accept it downstate we are screwed anyway. They used to always say the public perception was the most important in making decisions. Well now they have thier public perception and they are not doing a thing.
I understant that the DNR feels they need to study any stocking of any species before putting them in a lake. The Mississippi strain has been studied over the last 18 or so years in our neighboring state and our own. Work together on this one guys. Please!!! This one needs no more studies. Just results!!
Sorry for the bitterness,
Ty |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20245
Location: oswego, il | I don't get it either. These lakes get stocked. They are dependant on the fish the dnr puts in the lake. No gene pool to screw up here, only improve it and the tourism for the area. You could scratch all the hair off your head trying to figure out why. |
|
| |
|
| http://www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org/StkMtgFeb06.pdf
Folks,
the presentation that the people support is now up if you click on the link above.
Special thanks go out to everyone that worked so hard to pull the meeting together, and also those that took the time to attend and participate. I do appreciate that the WDNR was willing to participate, and that they did acknowlege the huge difference in growth rates and ultimate size of the Mississippi strain Muskies versus the mixed strain muskies we currently stock in this state.
for those that could not attend, I hope you enjoy the above link.
Bob |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Steve will you still be putting up the audio you have. I read Bob's link and the WMRP made a strong case...but they don't have any of what the WDNR said on their site. I would like to hear both sides.
It appears to me that some progress is being made....getting out of Bone and using the Chip to gather eggs. My concern with that is that they still will be gathering some eggs from Bone lake/LCO fish...since they have stocked a lot of Bone lakers in the Chip. The fish that have always been in the Chip have different markings and grow much larger than the Bone/LCO fish.
Waiting patiently to hear both sides of the arguement. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32918
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | We will be producing that piece in the next couple weeks; it's over 2 hours long and will need quite a bit of work.
As stated, the DNR feels the fish we have now are capable of reaching trophy size in a reasonable time frame with progressive management practices and improvements in habitat and habitat protection in place, reduced exploitation, etc. and that the fish in the Hayward area have not necessarily been compromised as suggested by the WMRP. The study underway by Dr. Sloss may clarify some or most of the DNR position. There are side by side comparison stockings of waters in the south, and some in the St. Croix basin, which the DNR acknowledges were a result of the discussion created by the WMRP. Steve Avelallemant has agreed to a followup interview, as have WMRP and area fisheries managers members.
The case put forth by the WMRP to stock Leech Lake fish is not materially different than that put forth over the last year, nor is the case presented by the DNR; the major difference I saw in Hayward was that both sides of the issue were willing to discuss the position they hold without any outward animosity. I would also say that I felt the position taken by the DNR was clarified to be that of the State, not just that of the area fisheries people.
There is a tremendous amount of material about the DNR position and that of the WMRP in the Research Forum. Arguments for and against Leech Lake fish stocking have been thoroughly hashed out there for over a year.
We have hope this issue can be clearly explained and defined in the following weeks by presenting both positions as described at the meeting in Hayward, and in follow-up interviews planned with our DNR biologists and with representatives of the WMRP.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1936
Location: Eau Claire, WI | If I remember correctly from the meeting the Hayward Visitors Beureu estimates the current loss of revenue to their area from lost musky anglers is just over 3 Million dollars annually.
A cautious/thought out approach should be taken but there is nothing wrong with beginning with the 4 lakes asked for which make up Less than 2% of the total water in Sawyer Co.
I personally used to enjoy visiting and fishing that area and have friends and collegues who are trying to make a living through guiding and/or owning tackle shops and resorts. Ty, Tanner, Dorazio, and others amongst them. I know how frustrated I feel over this issue, I can only imagine if my livelyhood depended on it.
When given the chance to travel for a guided trip or for a musking fishing vacation most anglers, I repeat not all but most anglers desire to be able to fish on waters that present the "realistic" expectation of producing a trophy fish (50"+). There are not many opportunities left for that in WI, yes there are still a few caught every year but it pails in comparison to our friends to the west and rapidly growing resources in neighboring states to the south and great lakes regions.
The best thing we can do is not give up and keep asking for help from various business owners and possibly it's time to get elected officials up to speed on what's happening and see if there can be any influence there...?
|
|
| |
|
| Bytor,
I will contact Steve Avelallement and see if he will send us the presentation and allow it to be posted on our site. We have always felt that it's best to get all the information out so that people can make an informed decision.
I we can make it available,I'll let you know.
Bob |
|
| |
|
| Good points Mark, as the saying goes, "money talks, b.s. walks". This issue has been quantified in many ways with regards to the fish, but maybe the most glaring has been in terms of true economic impact. I would bet some enterprising local elected official would love nothing better than to place his or her name next to an intiative that could bring a positive economic impact to their area.
WMRT has delineated their position for Sawyer County to the DNR. Four lakes. Four lakes. Four. Lakes needed to be stocked, with little to no recruitment and have the potential for success with the MISSISSIPPI strain. There is near unanimous public support for this from the stakeholders in the area. That is a strong point of negotiation. In my mind, if the DNR does not at address this in the next State Musky Committee meeting or publicly thereafter, then they are doing a disservice to all of us who choose to fish for muskies in Sawyer County.
Its time for action. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | Just a question, not an opinion, but is there scientific data that proves the Wisconsin strain in the Hayward, Mincqua and Eagle River areas are not capable of reaching trophy sizes on a regular basis? Is the issue that these fish quick growing at a smaller size or is it that they are not allowed to reach trophy size due to poor stocking efforts and harvest? It seems like there are two arguments going on. One to let the Wisconsin fish get old and one to replace them with a different strain. If we stock Mississippi fish into some northern waters is it our goal to have them become the majority of the population? If so how will we accomplish this?
Gregg Thomas gave a seminar at our store showing how big Wisconsin strain muskies get in Mille Lacs. The would make it appear that it is not the strain but the living (or harvesting) conditions in Wisconsin waters. The arguement for lost habitat through white man's mansions have gone under the radar in this.
I guess I am not quite clear on or specific long term goal in northern Wisconsin. Personally, I'd love to see the fish we have get a chance to show us how big they can get. 20 years it takes to find out. Are Wisconsin fish old enough to know what we are capable of or are the just smaller? It seems like the bigger lakes with little pressure have no problem producing big fish when left alone by management ideas...i.e. DuBay, Rice Lake, Trout, etc. Don't whack me for what I typed, I just want to learn more about the current situation. I wish I was closer to be part of these meetings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 145
Location: Eau Claire, WI | I drove 90 miles north to attended the meeting Monday night in Hayward and had the chance to see some of my friends I have made fishing that area for the last 25 years. I went into the meeting optimistic that some common ground could be found and that some immediate help to the Sawyer County fishery would result.
Both sides presented their respective statements / objectives in a civil respectful manor. I thought the WMRT’s compromise of asking for only 2% of Sawyer Counties waters that need to be stocked to maintain the fishery would get some consideration from the DNR. Unfortunately it seemed to me that the DNR came to the meeting with a stance they were not willing to deviate from. I would have liked the DNR to actually enter into a discussion of what can be done to improve the Sawyer County fishery rather than just quote policy.
I know I left that meeting feeling very disheartened about the future of the Hayward areas chances to again be a top destination for anglers searching for a chance for a trophy fish. I can only imagine how the local fishermen, resort owners and guides felt. My guess would be there were 150 to 175 people in attendance made up of some business owners, resort owners, local fishermen, tourist fishermen and local guides, Many of which I consider friends. Easily 95% of them were in support of the WMRT’s proposal and left frustrated, as did I.
Fred J
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32918
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Are you inferring we don't need to do the work to edit and publish the audio/video and perform the follow up interviews? If you folks intend to have it up on your site, do I need to put the time and effort into this project? We're happy to do just that, but not if it isn't desired by all the parties involved and considered necessary by both to get the information out to the public. Up to you. gents! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Bytor,
There are definitely some large fish in the Chipp. Surely most (I would say all) did not come from Bone Lake and are most likely native flowage fish. But with the amount of fish that have been stocked in to the Chipp from Bone lake over the years, taking eggs from the Chipp now instead of from Bone lake is only going to repeat the same process over again as when we started taking eggs from Bone Lake. This means small growth muskies will continue to be stocked all over NW WI but with a few more large growth fish mixed in to start out with. But over time, I believe the numbers of small growth muskies being stocked will increase with each passing year while the number of large growth muskies being stocked will decrease with each passing year because this is the same recipe we started out with in Bone Lake. It happened before. It would happen again.
Thats my prediction anyway.
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Steve, thanks for your professional coverage and accurate analysis. Most folks who contacted me after the meeting agreed that the presentations were very well done by Bob Benson (WRMP), Larry Ramsell (WMRP), and Steve AveLallemant (Northern Region Fisheries Supervisor for the Wisconsin DNR); and that the presenters and audience members were respectful of one another. This, in itself, was a positive step forward. Most folks also agree that many questions posed to the DNR after the presentations were not answered completely. In some cases, more complete, technical answers would have required more time than was available, especially for those questions that were, themselves, based upon a questionable premise. Steve was trying to keep things positive, so he elected not to challenge the assumptions underlying some of those key questions.
But it seems clear now that the folks who attended this meeting want (and deserve) more complete answers to many of the questions posed, even if that requires us (DNR) to challenge assumptions and reiterate things we have posted here during the past year. Cheryl Treland, President of the Hayward Visitors and Convention Bureau, has asked me if DNR would be willing to assemble more complete answers to the questions posed at the meeting, IN WRITING. We have agreed to do so. This Q&A document will be made available at this website when completed. In it, we will try to bring together all the information at our disposal, including many tidbits that have been posted here at MuskieFIRST over the past year, into one cohesive document that will address questions of continuing concern from our musky fishing friends. I'm afraid it will be a large document. But folks are requesting complete answers, and we will deliever them.
I am pleased with the general recognition that DNR policy to exclude Leech Lake strain muskellunge from the native range of Wisconsin muskellunge is a STATEWIDE policy, not something unique to Sawyer County. While Frank Pratt (Sawyer County fish biologist) and I concur with our policy 100%, we purposefully listened, rather than talked, at the meeting, so that our local friends would realize this was, indeed, a statewide program and position being described by Mr. AveLallemant. But we understand some of the lingering frustrations among people who have not yet heard the detailed explanations behind DNR policy; and we will do our best to answer their questions.
We are also working on the individual lake management plans that will serve as road maps for improving muskellunge and other important fisheries in Sawyer County and the Upper Chippewa Basin. The plan for Lac Courte Oreilles will be distributed soon. Plans for Grindstone Lake, Round Lake, and the Chippewa Flowage hopefully will appear by June 30, provided we are able to work without unexpected diversions. We ask for patience as we work to provide thorough, accurate answers to remaining questions, and professional plans to achieve what everyone wants -- better fishing.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | has a program like texas does for big bass ever been looked at for WI muskies? from what i remember from high school biology, any of the large fish in the chip would most likely have the dominant genes for flowage strain fish. why cant eggs and milt from those types of fish be selectively harvested to restore the genetics of that strain? can tracking chips allow those type fish to be found each spring and eggs/milt harvested?
i just think that if there are truly the "genes of giants" still swimming in the chip, why would anyone from that area want to further dilute that special strain of muskie with yet another strain(the third?) put into the lake?
how much stocking is done in lco, grindstone, round? i know those lakes are considered very low density lakes. will that change if a different strain is stocked, or is that just the carrying capacity of those lakes?
i also fear that alot of people are looking to this strain issue as a cure all for whats ailing WI, and i think its far from that. i'd be willing to bet that the chip at 15,000 acres has more fish taken from it each year than mille lacs at 130,000 acres does. until the last of the "old school" hangs up their rods in WI, it isnt gonna matter what strain is stocked. hasnt the size been getting better on the chip since the size limit was raised from 34"? |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I didn't mean that at all - your site provides a great service and I think the entire session would be interesting to your readers - especially the Q&A. I'm not sure the WDNR would want their presentation on the WMRP site (and I'd respect that). However, if available I'd like to allow everyone that could not attend to see the presentation sooner rather than later.
I actually think that if you could post just the powerpoint on your site, that would be the best solution.
Time is an issue here in my humble opinion.
thanks
Bob |
|
| |
|
| I would be more than happy to support any proposal by the WDNR if it was supported by a historical evidence of success. And to me, that is where WMRT's position has trumped the WDNR's all along. WMRT has provided studies and real life examples of lagging or nonexistant fisheries that were transformed into highly successful trophy fisheries, both in MN and WI. I have yet to see a proposal by the WDNR in which they can point to even one similiar success. I applaud the WDNR decision to allow MISSISSIPPI strain fish to be stocked in WI. Fisherman in those areas responded with excitement. However, I am amazed by the DNR's lack of cooperation in regards to denying areas that want the same opportunity. The DNR is hiding behind "policy". The policy seems to mean that something is being protected... I ask again, what is their to protect in Round, LCO, Grindstone and Whitefish?
As I said on another site, "Some men see the way things are and ask why. Others dream of things that never were and ask why not". A sentiment that bears repeating... |
|
| |
|
| Bob - 2/16/2006 8:10 AM
However, if available I'd like to allow everyone that could not attend to see the presentation sooner rather than later.
I actually think that if you could post just the powerpoint on your site, that would be the best solution.
Time is an issue here in my humble opinion.
thanks
Bob
Mr. Worrall,
I would agree with Bob that time is a factor in this issue and sooner IS better than later. If the audio/video in question poses a workload for you (or crew) that is too demanding in conjunction with your normal duties & tasks, I would be happy to assist in any way you need at NO cost to M1st. With the current state of non-linear/non-destructive digital audio workstations available (I use Digidesign's ProTools/Final Cut Pro/Avid), the post-production sweetening necessary should not take weeks. I'd also say that editing might cause more problems than it solves since editing is a subjective process. If fairness and accuracy is critical to the points playing out in this thread, then adjustments in frequency (rumble reduction, hall acoustics, etc.) and amplitude (gain tweaks for dialogue) seem more important than editorial opinions created by editing. I understand that dead "air" might waste server space but it is accurate none-the-less.
As a life-long musky angler of the Hayward area (over 40 years) I can honestly say that it's entirely possible that folks in other areas of Wisconsin have not experienced this "issue" on the same level as the anglers of Sawyer County. Reading the frustration of guides like Larry Ramsell & Ty Sennett (and many others) only solidifies the perception (for myself and obviously many others) that the prime musky waters of the Hayward area are in rapid decline. My own results and observations over the last 10 years also supports this opinion. And while the State has indeed made this their issue, the local components have done a lot of damage in both their approach/strategy and attempts to control "spin". Merely blaming the "surly demeanor" of the WMRP for the current atmosphere is strange posturing IMHO. Angler "old school" frustration or harvesting have not been any more detrimental to this equation than poor management choices (pike dumping/Bone Lake genetics/size limits/kill-rigs/land owner governance, etc.). What everyone is now becoming increasingly aware of has, in reality, been playing out for decades in Hayward.
The editing of the Feb 13th event may only further slant or even deepen this divide. By all means, sweeten the audio in post, but, please do not cut the dialogue. Those of us that could not attend need to hear the timbre of this discussion as much as the content.
Thank you. Wade |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32918
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
As I said, the video is over 2 hours long, as both speakers went way over the alloted time. We'll do the audio next week, and work on the video from there. We are looking forward to any support materials you and the DNR might wish to present.
Please submit any documents, pdf files, charts, and support materials to:
[email protected]
This material will be placed in the Research forum and in our articles section, so please feel free to submit as much material as you wish. Please submit text in Word format, pictures in jpeg, and charts, etc in pdf.
Dave,
Thanks for your response. As I've mentioned, it will be a few days before we can piece together the presentation for our Radio section and Video section. Please submit the Q&A and any other documents, articles, position papers, etc. to [email protected] and we will place it in two locations onsite.The intent is to do so in the Research forum. We will also place well constructed pieces in the article section, so feel free to submit as much material as you wish.
We also welcome comment form others interested in this issue. If you would like to publish an article or document looking at any aspect of this discussion, feel free to submit it to [email protected] with all your contact information.
Thanks to all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32918
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wade,
The term 'edit' doesn't necessarily mean edit content. I have two mini DV tapes that are going to present some very interesting timeline challenges, and an audio track that is extremely varied due to the fact the stage microphone was not properly used. The audio and video needs to be edited into our format, and encoded for the web using programming OutdoorsFIRST wrote. I don't recall seeing anywhere that we intend to edit any of the actual audio/video content, do you? What we shot you will hear and see.
The entire presentation will be published here, in a timeframe and format that fits our schedule. I understand your desire to speed this along, but the issue is here, has been for a year, and isn't going to suffer at all from MuskieFIRST taking the time do do the entire presentation right.
Your offer to assist is appreciated, and your concern over the editing process unwarranted.
I will also require that comments regarding this issue be limited to the actual data, and the argument Pro and Con of the issue. The degeneration of the subject into accusation and innuendo will do a heck of allot more harm to the discussion than any other issue we have to deal with in the process of getting all of the information available from all sources published.
|
|
| |
|
| My "tempered commentary" was merely included to present awareness of the issues not to create a reactionary result. Perhaps frustration is contagious and I'll try to keep mine in check.
As for editing, I guess I interpreted your statement using the glossary of professional jargon, not to imply or suggest, any biasing of your methods since I would assume that the M1st editorials would be identified as such. It simply comes down to the year you mentioned versus the decades I mentioned and the life-spans of quality fish and fishermen. The notion of "going elsewhere" is something I've never looked at as a solution to anything concerning Hayward Musky. The continued battling/bickering between all parties has reached the point of outrageousness (probably going back at least 5 years now) that a long-format presentation might clarify if not quell. Thanks for your clarification and, as I stated, any technical assistance that would improve delivery timelines is available. - Wade |
|
| |
|
| If you don't live up here you don't know what we go through with our DNR. Not exactly "for" the muskie angler or tourism for that matter. How can I not be frustrated. They were never there for us in changing the size limit on the Chip either. They knew it needed to be done yet did nothing. We had to do it ourselves. So now the WMRP should have thier turn.
Why all of a sudden are they so against something that deep down they know will help. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32918
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ty,
Naah, this one's fine. Keep in mind the DNR doesn't necessarily see the management goals and processes for any body of water the same way we do, we've seen that over here in our effort to gain a 50" limit on Pelican. They support what we are trying to do, and have assisted us along once we figured out what we needed to do to gain that assistance, but I promise you the DNR wouldn't have initiated the 50" limit unilaterally, and for so many reasons it would take to long to post here.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that the Department of Natural Resources is intentionally somehow 'subverting' muskie management in Wisconsin, and more specifically, Hayward. I have heard that sort of talk since I moved here in 1974. Most issues I hear that sentiment attached to are complicated, not super easy to understand, and based not on politics as much as policy based on science and biology; you get the picture. Every time I point this out I get blasted by the other side insisting I am biased, to the contrary, I definitely am NOT. I am a realist. There's a difference.
I clearly understand the difficulties the WMRP proposals contain from the DNR point of view, not the least of which is the sometimes too broad yet sometimes too selective interpretation and presentation of data. I actually did my best to direct attention to those issues during the debate last year so that they might be addressed, and ended up getting thoroughly abused on Pastikas website and elsewhere for my efforts. There's a saying out there in the PR world that goes somewhat along the lines of if you are attempting to attain a PR goal over a long period of time and have yet to do so, it is reasonable to expect that employing exactly the same PR tactics over and over again will probably acquire exactly the same results.
The DNR has promised us they will provide answers to all questions and issues raised at the meeting in Hayward which will be published here, along with interviews of folks from the WMRP and the DNR. I'm sure they will do exactly that. Will those answers be what the supporters of Leech strain fish in Hayward waters want to hear? I doubt it.
Reality for any one person or group of people, I believe, is firmly based in perspective. The reality of this issue to the WMRP is based in their intense efforts, hard work acquiring information, and what has been to date a PR campaign designed to ATTACK the 'reality' of the WIDNR's viewpoint. Why? Because the answers first received to their initial demands/requests were not what the WMRP wanted to hear. Those answers from the WDNR are obviously based in THEIR reality, a perspective based on science, biology, and accepted fisheries management practices. I won't get into either here and now, we have beat that horse near to death in the Research forum over the last year.
I believe the WMRP believes that applying intense public pressure in the media and elsewhere will force the DNR to do what they ask, not necessarily an unfamiliar point of view for any 'activist' oriented group fighting for changes they see as paramount, well based in fact, and righteous. I also believe the DNR will not arbitrarily fold to that pressure, and it should be obvious to anyone reading this as to why. The core disagreement is based in the WMRP interpretation of the data and application of that interpretation to the science of fisheries management and specifically management of a select group of waters, and the DNR's interpretation of the SAME data and application of that data to the science of fisheries management STATE WIDE and to the specific waters. Quite simply put, they disagree. I have listened to both sides of the issue, read and re-read the arguments put forth, and actually DO personally have a handle on why this issue has stalled where it has. It is unwise for me to actually publish what I see as the problem, because both sides of the issue might interpret it as bias towards the other. Steve openly discussed the influence the WMRP has had on WDNR decisions to look at the Leech Lake fish in side by sice stocking in selected waters, and the introduction of Leech Lake fish into selected waters across the state. I would commend the WMRP for influencing that issue and placing muskie management in the forefront here in Wisconsin, and would also commend those who worked so hard to get their individual proposals accepted and the fish purchased and stocked, and the DNR for making the necessary adjustments for all of what has happened to date.
Answers will be forthcoming. I, for one, welcome whatever answers the DNR offers, whatever rebuttal is offered by the WMRP, and the following discussion I sincerly hope will focus on what can be done to move forward towards agressive trophy muskie management in Wisconsin, and more specifically, the Hayward area.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I wrote this up last night and posted it on the Musky Hunter Site earlier today, I think it may be a good idea to double post it here. It’s something positive people can work on why other issues are being studied and discussed.
It looks like the only way to proceed is to go political, the first step in that processes can be the Conservation Congress. If you can get a large vote on this topic at the spring hearings, it will give the movement more momentum when trying to work with state legislators and policy makers at the DNR.
The key is to talk in specifics, not generalizations. I.E. lets stock leach lake fish on LCO and connected waters, in an effort to re-create the quality fishing opportunities that where there in the past, in the quickest-cheapest way possible.
NOT, stocking Leach Lake fish state wide will make fishing better in Wisconsin.
To their credit the WMRP team has moved in this direction.
In specific situations there will be DNR personnel out there that will agree with you, in generalized situations, very few will stick there neck on the political chopping block. Work with them where possible, and if you run into some policy that can’t be worked with, try to use the system in place, (which by the way most of us hate) to go around the policy. Take it as far as you can in a positive manor and then try and use State Representatives to go farther.
He is a first crack at a resolution that could be brought to every County in the State by concerned musky fishermen. This is a State issue as it affects tourism statewide. People travel from all over the state and other states to fish the Hayward area, or at least they used to.
THE PROBLEM:
Lac Courte Oreilles, Grindstone and other lakes of the upper Couderay River have a threatened population of small muskellunge, which show extremely limited reproduction even under a 50” length-limit. The problem is aggravated by the fact that these lakes, some worse than other, have a high population of Northern Pike, which is a non-native exotic species to these waters.
Because of the loss of quality muskellunge fishing on this lake system and others, millions of tourism dollars are leaving the area as fishermen search for a quality muskellunge fishing opportunities.
At present, state policy does not allow the stocking of Mississippi River Muskellunge from Leach Lake Mn., in any Wisconsin Lake that had a Native Muskellunge population. These Leach Lake fish have shown in numerous studies they compete well with Northern Pike, most importantly are able to naturally reproduce in the presence of Pike. Additionally, in side by side studies up to 6 years of age, these fish out preformed Wisconsin Hatchery fish in both length at age and weight at age.
These Leach Lake fish could produce quality muskellunge fishing opportunities, faster than continually stocking Wisconsin Hatchery fish, in some situation.
Whereas, the muskellunge population, in the upper Couderay River System, is considered, almost a total loss by property owners, tourist, anglers, guides and business.
Whereas, it would require significant time and resources to re-establish the native muskellunge population to the Upper Couderay River System, by stocking existing Wisconsin Hatchery Muskellunge.
Whereas, re-establishing the native muskellunge population would have little or no long term positive benefit, without continued high levels of stocking, because of the non-native Northern Pike.
Whereas, leach lake muskellunge migrating down stream on the Couderay River, is un-likely and would not negatively affect down stream waters, because there are no naturally reproducing waters between the Upper System and Lake Wissota, which is scheduled to be stocked with Leach Lake fish.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Conservation Congress at its annual meeting held in YOUR COUNTY on MONTH, DATE, YEAR, recommends that the Department of Natural Resources take action to correct this situation by introducing rule changes allowing the stocking of leach lake muskellunge on the upper Couderay River System.
Name:
Address:
County:
Telephone number (including area code):
Signature:
For Office Use Only:
County _______________________
Passed or Failed
County Resolution Number: ________________________
County Vote: (by show of hands or written ballot where appropriate)
YES ___________ NO ___________
One other thing this doesn’t mean stock Leach Lake fish only, they could stock them side by side with Wisconsin fish once the brood stock situation is figured out, but I do agree on those lakes there is no reason to wait, they are beyond repair from what the guys I know say, I have no first hand experience on these bodies of water.
That’s all I got on this issue guys, I may have made some mistakes or misrepresented some stuff, but the WMRP has lots of supporting documentation that can be used to correct my mistakes and support the above info. Put together some support docs that read quick and easy and I bet a resolution like this would get lots of votes state wide. It could be the next step, better than continuing to argue with the same people over and over.
Good Luck!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 2/19/2006 8:30 PM
|
|
| |
