|
|
Posts: 4
| hey guys, i was just wondering if a fairly good sized 'ski, say 45"+ could survive in lake under 120 acres? Is that small of a lake adequate enough for a large muskie to survive providing there is enough food around? Add to that the fact that the lakes depth goes no further than 26' and averages somewhere around 12'?
Just wondering because theres a lake up the road from me about what i described with a known muskie population, i just wasn't sure if it was worth fishing because i dont know if a 'ski could grow to be 45"+ in a lake like that.
thanks
-Chris |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | The things to factor in when it comes to muskies getting big:
1. Forage
2. Is there a cool water escape in the summer time?
3. Is it deep enough so you don't have winter kill?
4. How's the O2 in the summer?
If a muskie has all of these things, then genetics are the only thing that will stand in their way of getting big. |
|
| |
|
| there's a 70 acre lake near me that has produced 46", 47", and 49" muskies in the last year.
so yes, very possible.
Attachments
----------------
 small lake fish.JPG (52KB - 291 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Treats has some great points, and if they have all that, (basically, as long as they don't croak), yes they can hold big fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I fish several lakes between 120 and 550 acres. All can and do put out some really nice fish. I got a 40# class fish a couple years back from a 500 acre lake, and a friend popped TWO, a 53 and a 53.5, off a 230 acre lake. Short answer is yes, from my experience. Treats describes pretty well what they need, but leaves out a few factors that are critical. Lots here discussiong that under many threads. |
|
| |
|
| very easily could hold big fish...I fish a number of lakes under 200 acres..some don't get deeper than 20 feet...all of them have big fish...If the lake is in northern WI then it probably doesn't get as hot as if it were in southern WI...
do you know the forage? what is in there ? panfish/suckers etc? Has it been stocked? Have you looked at the DNR stocking site to check...might not get much pressure being that small and worth fishing...I go out of my way to find little gems...One such lake I am going to fish this summer is under 100 acres, but it's very deep and has ciscoes! Oh and no public landing....hmmmm sounds fishy to me! Good luck out there.... |
|
| |
|
| Here is another example of what you could find....a lake I fished this year for the first time...app. 120 acres, less than 30 feet deep...I know of a 51.5"er that was caught out of it a few years back...and have heard of other fish in the upper 40" range in the lake...we caught some fish, and witnessed some fish over 40" being caught and released....
so definitely go fish it...more than once !  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'd say no doubt that small lakes can have big fish...
Think about it for a moment... 50 acres doesn't look all that big, but for a fish that is reaching 50 inches, that is a bunch of area to work with. I think treats hit it right on the snoot...if the conditions exist with the right forage, a lake of even 25 acres is capable of producing a Giant...
Steve |
|
| |
|
| Hiya -
A lake like that can certainly grow big fish if it has some things in its favor- forage, as several others have mentioned, plus perhaps a lower population density and the right water chemistry (a bigger factor than most of us realize).
That aving been said, I'll give a completely different answer to this question...
Who cares if they don't get bigger than 45 inches? It's all relative. If the potential ultimate size of the fish in that lake is 46 inches, catching a 46-incher out of there is no different - in terms of where that fish is in the population - than catching a 50 or bigger on a lake capable of bigger fish. Even if it's 46, it's still in the top few percent of the population. 50 is what we shoot for, but it's a completely arbitrary number. If the lake's full of fish that top out at 22 pounds, grab a flipping stick and some smaller baits and have fun. That's what it's really about...
Cheers,
Rob Kimm |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Muskie Treats - 2/7/2007 5:39 PM
If a muskie has all of these things, then genetics are the only thing that will stand in their way of getting big.
I could not agree more with this statement. This is the single most important factor any muskie must have to grow large anywhere. If they do not have the genes to grow large, then all other factors mean little or nothing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | If they do not have the genes to grow large, then all other factors mean little or nothing.
-----
What specific genes would those be? What portion of a muskie's DNA coding determine this "bigness" gene? Since you are advocating changing which fish should be stocked where and how, this would seem to be an easy answer for you. |
|
| |
|
| Exactly...How many lakes do you guys think have bad "genetics"...??? I mean some lakes are a bit stunted like Deer or Bone but still can have big fish in them correct? I fish quite a few small lakes and I have yet to see any that have somehow inferior genetics....not that I am disagreeing with you ..but how would a lake have bad genetics just cuz it's small...I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying by that...please elaborate... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4
| As far as the lake im talking about goes, i'd say it has everything nessesary. It has panfish, suckers, shiners, bass, crappies and a few northerns. It has a fairly varying bottom including sand, muck, rock, weedbeds, steep drop offs and a sunken island. I also checked the DNR site awhile back and it says they stocked it with 200 11" muskie every 3 years or so since about the late 70's. A bud of mine though said that they dont get too big in there, so i was just wondering if it had the potential to grow big fish or even if 100 some odd acres was enough space for a good population of muskies to survive and grow. I should add by the way that fishing pressure is very low. Most people dont even think theres even fish in there...
Thanks for all the input, I'm definitly gunna head out there this summer and give 'er a shot. Another quick question though, with a lake whos max depth is 26 feet and only in one small spot, and with not much space to fully roam, how would you fish it for muskies? Are they gunna be in that deep hole, around the sunken island, shallow flats with weeds or what? People have told me that they'll be where baitfish are but the baitfish are often times very spread out. You have perch and crappies in deeper areas and some panfish in shallower areas. So how do you know what the muskies are hungry for? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| There are way too many factors involved in determining growth potential of fish to say genetics are the most important thing...
Type of forage
Abundance of forage
Chemical composition of water
Depth
Water temperature ranges
Growing season
Acreage
Size limits
Angling pressure
Spearing
Bacteria
Pollution
Competition for forage
I've never read any research that suggests that there is even such a thing a "small growing" strain of muskie. |
|
| |
|
| Oops, that was a pretty accurate post until the last sentence. MNDNR proved that the Shoepac strain was inferior to the Leech(Mississippi) or Wisc. strain in attainable size because of genetics. Sorry it's true. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| Got a link to verify that?
Shoepac strain fish have slower growth rates according to what I have read, but that doesn't mean they don't get as big, or that they can't get as big. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | BigwiFish....basically I would start off fishing for muskies like you would any other lake...I'd start by fishing the weedlines and breaks...I fish one that sounds somewhat similiar to your lake and I always find fish relating to the weeds and rock structure and often times they are very shallow...just start pluggin away with topwaters, spinnerbaits and bucktails and see what happens...if it's mid summer and the panfish have suspended make a few drifts over the basin and throw dawgs, triple d's and joes...it shouldn't be hard to figure out as it is so small..
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | BN
I'm not saying any lake does or does not have bad genetics. Its the muskies that must have the genes needed to grow large. If they don't then they won't grow large no matter where you put them. The best example of this that I know of is how the Shoepack strain of muskies performed when the MN DNR used them as the primary brood source for muskie stocking in MN waters. Years ago the MN DNR stocked Shoepack muskies statewide in MN and even introduced them into very large lakes like Mille Lacs and Vermilion with huge amounts of forage and with litterally no competition from any other muskies. But Shoepacks did not grow large in either one of those huge waters or anywhere else they were stocked. Then in the 1980's they stocked Shoepacks and the Leech strain side by side in the same waters and studied them. What they found was that the Leech strain grew much larger. They then changed from stocking Shoepacks to the Leech strain statewide in the late 1980's and now MN has large muskies in the large lakes like Mille Lacs and Vermilion as well as the small lakes both of which were not producing large muskies when they were stocked with Shoepacks. If the MN DNR would have kept stocking Shoepacks instead of changing to the Leech strain in the late 1980's, the number of large muskies being caught in MN would be a fraction of what is caught there today and large muskies would likely be limited to Leech lake and a few other Mississippi drainage waters just like it was before they changed to stocking all MN waters with the Leech strain.
My friend Slamr asks: "What specific genes would those be? What portion of a muskie's DNA coding determine this "bigness" gene? Since you are advocating changing which fish should be stocked where and how, this would seem to be an easy answer for you."
Good questions. But of course I don't know what specific genes those would be or what portion of a muskies DNA coding determines the specific gene or genes needed to produce large muskies. Neither does he. And neither do our fisheries experts, but they do believe it is a factor, and so do I. The MN DNR didn't know either when they changed from stocking Shoepacks to stocking the larger growing Leech strain. They did not fully understand why they grew larger but changed anyway. They found out the Leech strain grew larger than the Shoepack strain and took advantage of this factor which turned out to be "an easy answer" that worked for them. Just because they haven't yet been able to identify the specific gene or genes responsible for large growth does not mean it/they do not exist or matter and should be ignored.
The DNR experts themselves have been saying and documenting for well over 30 years now that the differences they have found in growth and ultimate size between muskies originating from different waters or areas is likely because of unknown genetic factors. So eventhough the experts have not yet identified exactly what gene it is they believe it exists. This "unknown" genetic factor which is responsible for large growth is the single most important factor needed for any muskie to grow large anywhere because without it, all other factors such as lake size and forage won't make any difference as the experts discovered with the Shoepack strain. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7036
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | So eventhough the experts have not yet identified exactly what gene it is they believe it exists. This "unknown" genetic factor which is responsible for large growth is the single most important factor needed for any muskie to grow large anywhere because without it, all other factors such as lake size and forage won't make any difference as the experts discovered with the Shoepack strain.
Who else says this? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | esoxaddict - 2/9/2007 2:42 PM
I've never read any research that suggests that there is even such a thing a "small growing" strain of muskie.
Here is just one example word for word directly from the WDNR website:
"Muskellunge populations in Wisconsin have been found comprising fish that are nearly 20 years old and still less than 30 inches in length" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8775
| "Muskellunge populations in Wisconsin have been found comprising fish that are nearly 20 years old and still less than 30 inches in length"
What strain was that particular fish?
Have other fish with the same genes been found to grow large?
How many of such fish were found?
Cound that be attrbuted to some environmental factor, or has it been proven it was definitely limited in growth potential because of its genetic makeup?
And just so you know -- a quote from the DNR website isn't exactly "research"...
Edited by esoxaddict 2/9/2007 4:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Esoxaddict
Spend some time reading through the tons of information available from both the WDNR and MN DNR. Its all there and can be found if you spend a lot of time looking through all of it. Then its just a matter of whether you want to believe it or not. I suspect you don't want to believe it no matter what it says or who says it. So I don't expect you to believe me either. Good luck. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2112
Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I dunno,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Gleb's fish caught in WI?
If you don't believe there are big fish here, you are certianly welcome to fish in another state. |
|
| |
|
| it's the Waconia Study group by the MNDNR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'll Chime in on the shoepac strain a bit.
If you read the shoepac thread, you will find I grew up on waters that had shoepac strain fish stocked in the 70's and early 80's. To this day that same lake rarely produces big fish with any type of consistency yet it has all the structure, forage, and space to grow large. My largest from there came in 1997 and I have only hit 40 inches a handful of times in my 28 years of fishing the water. Other waters classified as being comparable produce large fish consistently, and never received shoepac strain fish.
I don't have any specific research on it because it does not exist. No studies that I know of have been performed on this particular body of water...so from my own experience I'd say genetics play a huge role in the situation. I'm up there through the main part of the season, and I know the regulars very well..the connections to resorts, and others is pretty expansive and our numbers are all consistently in the same range of 34" to 36"
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As I have said about 50 times, this forum will not be used to push that agenda, ever again. The facts have been stated by the folks who spend thier life and career studying the Muskie, and this one's done. Take a look at the discussion on genetics, it's all there.
Hopefully the original question was answered well before this was hijacked. |
|
| |
