Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Response to Dave Neuswanger's response... |  |
| Message Subject: Response to Dave Neuswanger's response... | |||
sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Dave, I am not in an 'extreme state of denial'. I geuss maybe I am not as smart as your other muskie friends. But, I do believe that I am smart enough to challange a statement that you made..."1990: Final year of evaluation of strain stocking study in Lake Waconia, Minnesota. Results confirm that Leech Lake and LCO strains are superior to Shoepac fish, but neither is superior to the other (despite amateur interpretations to the contrary)." Findings from MDNR report #418 indicate otherwise. This study included 4 strains of muskie. Mississippi (Leech), Schopac, and two WI strains, LCO & Minocqua. These fish were stocked side-by-side in the same lakes at the same time and faced the exact same conditions. Below are some statements that can be found word for word exactly as stated in MNDNR RR 418. 1) After six growing seasons the Mississippi strain was longer and heavier than the other strains. 2) The superior growth performance of the Mississippi strain suggests that it should be the strain of choice for muskellunge culture in Minnesota. 3) Size at maturity also varied among the strains. 4) Mississippi strain females reached full maturity at age six, one year later than the other strains. 5) Earlier maturation was associated with slower growth. 6) Mean length at maturity was largest for Mississippi strain females. 7) Generally the Mississippi strain were 11% - 25% longer at maturity than the other strains. 8) Mississippi strain exhibited the greatest growth potential followed by the Court Oreilles strain. 9) Predicted weights at age followed a similar pattern to that of length at age. Mississippi strain was the largest strain followed by the Court Orelles, Minocqua, and Shoepack strains. 10) The Mississippi strain were consistantly longer and heavier at any given age than the other strains in this study. Considering the common habitats, these differences appear inherent to the strains and not the result of environment. 11) Johnson (1971) speculated that some unknown genetic factor may have caused the growth differences observed among three study lakes in northern Wisconsin. Results from this study support his contention. 12) The earlier maturing strains were heavier than the later maturing Mississippi strain at any given length. This would not be unexpected since earlier maturing individuals would be increasing gonadal growth while decreasing somatic growth. An extended somatic growth period would be advantageous for the potential growth for trophy fish. 13) Mississippi strain exhibited the best potential for trophy management in Minnesota waters. 14) Both the growth-index and the projected size of the Mississippi strain were higher than the other strains. I don't see how you can possibly say that neither the Leech or LCO strain was found to be superior to one another in this study. Its mentioned over & over in this report. Some muskie strains grow larger than others when stocked in the same waters at the same time and face identical conditions. What other than the "its the fish" theory can explain the differences found between the different strains in this study? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | This question has also been answered to the enth with , go back through the debate and read the multiple responses. It was mentioned at the Symposium that the Wisconsin fish DID actually perform as well as Leech lake fish IN THE LONGER TERM, and that growth and upper confidence expectation over time, not just in the first six years, was comparable. Misinterpretation of the data from all the MN studies by laymen was mentioned over and over, much of that was involving the study you list, and this was also a subject of conversation at the Symposium. I have received emails from MN fisheries folks who confirmed that the concept of 'it's the fish' based on selective data interpretation was incorrect and unwise. Look at the Wisconsin fish in Mille Lacs for your proof. Can't, as I have said time and time again, have it both ways. I do not see anywhere where Mr. Neuswanger mentions 'extreme' state of denial. If you are going to quote, be accurate. 'Steve, I appreciate your extreme patience with those who are in a persistent state of denial about the scientific realities here' Interestingly, a quote in a communication with a Minnesota Fisheries expert just a few months back was nearly identical. So was a quote from an email I received from one of the top Muskie experts on the planet. I suspect that those are the folks Dave might be referring to in part, and would submit you prove out your second statement by your third. That was the statement. You apparently missed the entire debate, or just plain want to hash it over and over and over and over, but I don't have the patience to rehash this AGAIN. It has taken over a year to arrive where we are in this discussion and I would assume that our fisheries manager's time could be better spent dealing with the real issues at hand. If you want to actually do something constructive instead of spending your energy insulting this forum's moderation and the few scientists who are willing to expose their flank to rude, reactionary rhetoric, I suggest you contact one of the Muskies Inc clubs working with the WIDNR on stocking Leech Lake fish and offer them some assistance. Or, you could contact your Illinois DNR and ask them to stock more Leech Lake fish in the Fox, since that went so well. If the volume of time and effort expended in a badly executed, poorly planned assualt on the science, management, and personnel of past and modern Wisconsin muskie management had been applied to reasonable and contstructive discussion; the obvious hard work and personal committment of this group applied to assisting those who stepped up and actually got something done, we would probably be talking about the total success of the efforts extended by the WMRT instead of continually trying reinvent reality to suit a couple individuals. DID YOU EVER view the symposium video by Dr. Casselman? | ||
| ESOX Maniac |
| ||
Posts: 2753 Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | In my relatively short muskie fishing experience (~10 years), I have seen some extremely big barred muskies, including a couple in the WR class. How do you differentiate them without genetic DNA analysis? This fish is certainly not a spotted Misssissippi strain. -> http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=29... Maybe one should just "shut up & fish" as the Shady One suggests. Have fun. Al | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | SEAN61S wrote: "I don't see how you can possibly say that neither the Leech or LCO strain was found to be superior to one another in this study. Its mentioned over & over in this report. Some muskie strains grow larger than others when stocked in the same waters at the same time and face identical conditions. What other than the "its the fish" theory can explain the differences found between the different strains in this study?" DAVE: Sean, I spent considerable time scrutinizing the actual data presented in Report 418 in order to answer this question, which also was posed at the Hayward musky meeting last February. My analysis and conclusions regarding the Lake Waconia aspect of this study appear below, one last time, copied and pasted word-for-word from the Q&A document produced after the Hayward meeting. If any other AFS-certified fishery scientist wishes to contest my analysis, I will welcome the debate. HAYWARD MUSKY MEETING -- FEBRUARY 2005: We assume this question refers to Minnesota DNR Investigational Report 418 written by MDNR biologists Jerry Younk and Bob Strand in 1992. This was an interesting report that served its apparent purpose by justifying MDNR’s earlier decision to replace the Shoepac Lake strain with the Mississippi strain (Leech Lake fish) as a source of broodstock for statewide stocking. But the data in Report 418 fail to demonstrate superior performance of the Mississippi (MS) strain over the Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO) strain. According to their 1992 report, Younk and Strand stocked 1,000 fingerlings of each strain into 3,100-acre Lake Waconia (near Minneapolis) on September 18, 1984. The lake was closed to musky harvest during the study. Sampling was done in 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 in order to compare survival and size of each strain of stocked fish during the four-year evaluation. A total of 78 fish of the Lac Courte Oreilles (LCO) strain and 34 fish of the Mississippi strain (MS) were captured during the study, suggesting higher survival of stocked LCO fish. Table 4 in Report 418 reveals there were no significant differences in annual incremental growth in length between the two strains in four of six years, but MS fish grew more in length than LCO fish in two of six years. Table 8 (converted from metric to English) reveals that when stocked fish of both strains were first captured in comparable numbers in fall of 1987, 4 LCO males averaged 6.9 pounds and 4 MS males averaged 6.8 pounds. In spring of 1988, 10 LCO males averaged 7.0 pounds, and 3 MS males averaged 6.7 pounds. In spring of 1989, all stocked fish were five years old. At that time, 5 LCO males averaged 10.1 pounds, and 4 MS males averaged 9.2 pounds. Also, 12 LCO females averaged the same weight (12.8 pounds) as 7 MS females at age 5, though some of the LCO female weight could be attributed to developed ovaries. Stocked fingerlings from Shoepac Lake were clearly smaller than the other two strains, as 5 males averaged only 5.1 pounds and 3 females averaged only 8.0 pounds at age 5 (1989 spring sample). Only in the 1990 spring sample were MS males (12.2 pounds, 5 fish) and females (17.0 pounds, 7 fish) heavier than LCO males (11.0 pounds, 9 fish) and females (16.0 pounds, 8 fish). After this first year that sampled MS fish were found to be heavier than sampled LCO fish, the study ended; and the lake was opened to musky harvest. It should be noted that the Minnesota DNR decided in 1982 to stock fish originating from Leech Lake into several new musky waters that were slated to become future sources of broodstock for the Mississippi strain (Jerry Younk, personal communication). MDNR stocked mostly LCO fish throughout Minnesota during 1982-1987 as they waited for the Leech Lake fish to mature (1987) in the new broodstock lakes. MDNR began stocking the Leech Lake strain in many Minnesota waters in 1987 – three years before completion of the Lake Waconia study. In summary, LCO fish probably out-survived MS fish in Lake Waconia; and sampled LCO males were heavier than sampled MS males in the first three spring samples of a four-year post-stocking evaluation. We applaud Minnesota DNR’s decision to use their native MS strain rather than switch permanently to a non-native LCO strain as the source for stocking Minnesota waters. Their decision was based upon sound principles of genetic stock conservation. And as their confirming study on Lake Waconia revealed, the Mississippi strain from Leech Lake was clearly superior to the Shoepac strain. But we don’t understand the logic behind any expectation that the Wisconsin DNR should begin stocking MS fish instead of LCO fish in various lakes throughout the State of Wisconsin based upon the results of one short-term study on one Minnesota lake where the Mississippi strain did not clearly out-perform the LCO strain. Also, we reject the bar chart presented by the WMRP Team as proof that 16 MS females in the Lake Waconia study eventually would have grown to 53 inches versus only 47 inches for 31 LCO females. That conclusion is based upon the questionable assumption that long-term growth curves initiated with only 6 years of early life data will maintain their form (trajectory) for the next 15-20 years until the projected ultimate lengths are achieved. While this is an interesting and common exercise in mathematical speculation, it is no more possible to accurately predict the form of these growth curves in the distant future than it is to predict the exact spot a Gulf hurricane will make landfall when it’s still 24 hours offshore. In both cases, many factors can bend the dynamic curve one way or the other. The WMRP Team presented their bar chart as if it represented actual, measured performance differences between two musky strains in a major research study. In reality, it illustrated a speculative long-term projection based upon only the first six years of growth (in length) of 47 recaptured female fish stocked one year into one lake. The study required to adequately compare performance between Leech Lake and Wisconsin fish has been proposed by Dr. Martin Jennings of WDNR and is scheduled to begin in fall 2006 with the paired stocking of several lakes in the St. Croix Basin of western Wisconsin (outside the native range as we understand it today). In order to be confident in any conclusions, we must replicate this experiment by conducting it on several waters, not just one or two. We also must evaluate performance much longer than four years so we can measure the actual long-term survival, reproduction, and ultimate size attained by stocked fish, rather than speculating about such matters based upon monitoring only the first few years of life. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| thanks Dave. it's beyond professional of you to continue to repeat the same discussion over and over and over. you and your peers have presented this information in a clear and understandable way on multiple occasions and in various settings (including threads on this site), and it's not your fault that the audience chooses to ignore it. it's to our great benefit that you're one of the people entrusted with the future of the muskie resource in Wisconsin. thank you for being friendly, patient, and approachable. as human beings, it's natural for us to look for easy answers and to quickly jump to conclusions based on limited information. please take the time to read all sides of the issue with an open and inquiring mind, rather than with pre-set conclusions and desired outcomes. the information is all available on this site in this forum! read it. Edited by lambeau 10/10/2006 8:55 PM | |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |