Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Nancy Lake Discussion |
| Message Subject: Nancy Lake Discussion | |||
Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | EJohnson - 12/7/2005 7:04 AM I have 1 question for Dave N. and 1 question for Steve W. Question for Dave N. Do you believe that there are any muskie strains in NW WI in which none of the muskies from these particular strains have the potential to grow to 50" regardless of what lake we put them in and the amount or type of forage available? If yes, what strains are they and/or what lakes do they now or did they at one time exist in? Question for Steve W. Have I broken any of your rules of conduct in this post? Thanks DAVE: Mr. Johnson, I'm afraid you are way ahead of me in believing there may be multiple strains of muskies in NW WI, and that we might know anything of great value about the differential physiological capability of such strains to attain a size of 50 inches under any particular set of environmental conditions. I think my uncertainty is best explained by the selected quotes below from Dr. Sloss' research proposal entitled: "Identification and Delineation of Muskellunge Stock Structure in Wisconsin and Neighboring Watersheds." Here are the paragraphs that I find most relevant to your question, copied and pasted directly from the paper (ALL CAPS added by me to call attention to especially important words or phrases): DR. SLOSS: "Research on several potential strains in Wisconsin (Hanson et al., 1983; Younk and Strand, 1992; Margenau and Hanson, 1996) found the differences in certain performance characteristics of muskellunge strains were the result of a complex array of factors that included environmental and genetic influences. The inclusion of genetic influences by the authors suggests the differences among the PUTATIVE strains are at least partially heritable and thus, encoded in the DNA of the specific strains. This implies genetic divergence of the strains with subsequent local adaptation contributing to the apparent performance differences. Despite some measured differences among the strains, THE QUESTION OF HERITABLE SIZE DETERMINATION REMAINS OPEN TO MUCH DEBATE. It is undoubtedly a question of genetic and environment interaction making the resolution of the issue difficult to resolve at best. The study of Koppelman and Phillipp (1986), in particular, showed an apparent structuring among populations that were consistent with their degree of geographical isolation. Nevertheless, THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE INITIAL GENETIC RESEARCH EFFORTS due to low sample sizes and low levels of polymorphism at the employed markers. Despite these previous research attempts, WE STILL LACK BASIC INFORMATION regarding levels of genetic diversity within muskellunge populations within Wisconsin, knowledge of the genetic stock structure of Wisconsin muskellunge, and the IDENTITY OF VARIOUS STRAINS OF MUSKELLUNGE. I propose a four-year research program aimed at directly addressing key research need one (stock delineation; see above) and providing supplemental evidence for a larger effort aimed at research need two (propagation). This effort will survey and document the contemporary genetic diversity present in Wisconsin’s muskellunge populations and several populations from neighboring watersheds. This DATA WILL BE USED TO PERFORM GENETIC STOCK IDENTIFICATION THUS ADDRESSING A KEY INFORMATION GAP IN OUR CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF MUSKELLUNGE: WHAT CURRENT STOCKS ARE IN PLACE IN WISCONSIN AND WHAT ARE THE STOCK BOUNDARIES? Knowing this information will allow direct management of muskellunge based on a well-defined stock structure." DAVE: Because I am not a fish population geneticist like Dr. Sloss, I would not even think of trying to improve upon his analysis of this situation or his plan to begin filling the gaps in our knowledge. I hope all who care about muskellunge will support this important work. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Okay, I'll bite. Mud/Callahan & Spider lake.... more than likely a small growing strain. Hopefully Dr. Sloss has one of those lakes in his sample to validate what NOT to stock. Chip Flowage/River fish... more than likely there is, SOMEWHERE, a strain that grows big, quick. Again, would like to validate that as well. Those are my "beliefs", no more true or false than anyone else's, but historical evidence tends to lend SOME proof. As far as millfoil, Dave, pick up the red phone and push the button. I'm all for going "nuclear". I agree that it does open the potential for winter kill, but I believ in 1995 there were a number of lakes (natural) that winterkilled. One of my favorite bass and crappie lakes was devasted (thankfully came back), so I think that the conditions for that year were pretty severe. | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
Do you believe that there are any muskie strains in NW WI in which none of the muskies from these particular strains have the potential to grow to 50" regardless of what lake we put them in and the amount or type of forage available? If yes, what strains are they and/or what lakes do they now or did they at one time exist in? thanks Dave for a reasonable non-answer to this. clearly Dr. Sloss is working to find some answers. 3 questions for EJohnson: what do you believe re: strains and locations? what is the anecdotal evidence that you have to support those beliefs? what is the scientific evidence that you have to support those beliefs? Edited by lambeau 12/7/2005 3:40 PM | |||
| Fred J |
| ||
| Lambeau, Here's my .02 cents worth on the questions you posed to Ejohnson: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- what do you believe re: strains and locations? Answer: I believe there were historically at the least 2 “strains” of muskies in WI. One would be a small growing “strain” located in waters such as Spider Lake, Mud/Callahan, and Tigercat. The other would be a large growing “strain” located across the native range. This large growing “strain” may be made up of additional “strains” but all have the capability to reach large sizes. (Great Lakes Strain, Wisconsin Strain, Mississippi River/Leech Lake Strain) what is the anecdotal evidence that you have to support those beliefs? Answer: Spider Lake, Mud/Callahan and Tigercat have historically only produced small fish. Anglers there very seldom break the 40” mark. Other lakes in WI have historically produced many fish in excess of 50” and breaking the 40” mark occurs commonly. Having fished the Chippewa Flowage and other area lakes for over 20 years I never knew anyone or heard of anyone catching a large muskie out of those three lakes. Fish 40 inches and larger are caught everywhere else in the area. what is the scientific evidecne that you have to support those beliefs? There are DNR reports that confirm that the fish in Spider, Mud/Callahan and Tigercat do not commonly achieve 40” in length in their entire lifetime. Even when fingerlings were removed from Spider Lake and placed in LCO the Spider fish did not grow to large sizes as noted by Leon Johnson of the WDNR in a 1971 report. Even after the WDNR planted Spider with 2,100 white suckers 15” in length in 1966 and another 10,000 white suckers 10” in length in 1968 to increase the forage base, the Spider Lake fish did not grow. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My personal belief is that over the course of many years we have introduced the small growing “strain” into lakes where they were not present before. This was done by using this small “strain” as a source of eggs and milt for the hatcheries on a number of occasions. These hatchery fish were then planted throughout the state including into other broodstock lakes that never contained that small “strain” before. Over the course of time this mixing has affected the size structure of our broodstock lakes as well as the size structure of our hatchery fish. Brian Sloss’ work will hopefully give us the answer. I do believe there are some of the pure large growing “strain” fish still out there. I believe they exist in the Chippewa Flowage, portions of the Chippewa, Flambeau and Wisconsin Rivers and other waters. I do not know if there is enough of a population to target for hatchery purposes or how it could even be done. Fred J | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
Here's my .02 cents worth on the questions Fred, thanks for your response. in the spirit of lively and friendly discussion i'll offer this point/counterpoint: even if the information about size discrepancies in the waters you described was collected/disseminated by the DNR, it is still only observational data. it clearly does indicate a real issue going on in those particular waters! however, it does not scientifically describe the reason for it happening. ie., there could be many reasons which potentially explain it: strain, forage, density, etc.; each of which are all only hypothesis until somehow scientifically tested and either proven or disproven. therefore i would place this into the category of information (rather than scientific evidence) along with the fisherman observations about the fish in those waters that you provided. my sense of things in that area, based on your response, other things i've heard, and some time spent fishing area waters, is that there is plenty of anecdotal information to suggest that "something is going on" with those fish. some people have hypothesized strain as one possible explanation, but other people have made other hypotheses such as water quality, forage, density, etc. i'm now satisfied that there's enough reason to form a hypothesis about strain as one possible explanation. i'll grant others their due by acknowledging sufficient reason to form alternate hypotheses as well. Mr. Neuswanger's answer (quoting Dr. Sloss's research proposal) was that the scientific evidence does not exist at this time to be able to say either way whether divergent strains are or are not present. i'm asking to be shown any scientific evidence that others might have supporting the existence of a "slow growing" musky strain in Wisconsin that is different from the "fast growing" strain you suggested exists. Mr. Johnson? Mr. Ramsell? Mr. Benson? | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Lambeau, for your reading pleasure check out the following link. Remember the eggs where taken for this report back in 1984 a time, if I am not mistaken, when there was still a good population of large fish being caught out of LCO. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational... Also check this report out. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/publications/PUBL_RS_572_... I think much of the thoughts on WI different strains comes from these two reports. Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 12/8/2005 11:18 AM | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| which i've read, thanks for providing the links again. re: IR 418 - Mississippi strain fish were consistently longer and heavier at age than Shoepack, LCO, or Minocqua fish and "considering the common habitats, these differences appear inherent to the strains and not the result of environment." - other studies intended to examine growth rates in different lakes should be interpreted cautiously due to the confounding effect of habitat and population genetics. - the differences observed between the two Minnesota strains provide evidence of the problems associated with stocking fish of unknown genetic qualities...each has it's own unique characteristics well adapted to a local environment. re: RR172 - low numbers of captured fish in study lakes made data analysis/conclusions limited and difficult - poor size structure of Mud/Callahan fish likely result of combination of environmental and genetic factors - it is unknown whether size effects remain until later ages; larger size at stocking of LCO fish likely a contributing factor - a Mud/Call female measuring less than 26 inches at age 7 is appalling; data suggests some fish that measured less than 30 inches were as old as 17 years some of my thoughts: - clearly different strains of muskies exist in the world and in the region. incontrovertible. - Minnesota definitely chose the right path to meet their dual program goals of stocking fish that grow large and reproduce successfully in their waters. - in Wisconsin, there are different strains of muskies in different areas of the state. a clear management goal is large-growing fish that successfully reproduces. - Mud/Call fish appear to be a slow/small-growth strain adapted to a unique high-density local environment and shouldn't be used more broadly to meet Wisconsin's goals of large growth and successful reproduction. - Mississippi strain fish, in a limited study in Nancy Lake, are known to grow big but failed to reproduce sufficiently to be considered successful in that lake. ie., they only met one of Wisconsin's two goals when placed in that particular lake. testing them in more and other waters will allow for broader generalization of results and give us better information about their utility in Wisconsin. of course, that will take some time. - circumstantial and historical information exists that points to the mixing of brood sources (and therefore strains) across drainages in Wisconsin. one can infer that multiple strains could therefore still exist within given bodies of water. infer...hypothesize...but not know for certain what's there right now without appropriate testing. - we need to do the proper testing: Dr. Sloss's genetic research is intended to determine: a) what's out there and b) where it's at. this is exactly the kind of information necessary for good decision-making. "some fish i caught/didn't catch" is only good enough to suggest a need for research, it isn't actually evidence in a scientific sense. ******* imho, we should be supporting the sensible and evidence-based path being followed, even if it's the "slow road". the same applies for the side-by-side comparison testing of MS fish in designated waters; slower but smarter. i'm sure you can tell the approach i favor...here's some examples/research that says WHY. - when evidence came forward that showed DDT was harmful and carcinogenic, the United States banned it. the U.S. went even further and effectively banned it worldwide through sanctions against countries that used it, etc. well, subsequent research has proven that DDT is actually not that harmful and the alternative pesticides were more harmful to agricultural workers because they were highly toxic when handled improperly (something DDT was not, and the workers didn't have training to do). the alternatives are also not nearly as effective, and therefore, more people have died as a result of the banning of DDT than ever died as a result of it. the world (espeically poor countries) is worse off now because of a "quick" decision based on limited information. Hayes, Wayland Jackson. "Pesticides and Human Toxicity." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 160 (1969): 40-54. Wildavsky, Aaron. "But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues". Cambridge: Harvard University Press: 1995. - same story on the issue of powerlines and cancer: quick, bad decisions. Park, Robert. "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud". New York: Oxford University Press: 2000. - similarly, people who thought they had good ideas and quickly implemented them only managed to screw things up and put nature out of balance in Yellowstone. Chase, Alston. "Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park". New York: Atlantic, 1986. ***** intellectuals were given a chance to improve the environment in simulations. those who did well gathered information before acting, thought systematically, reviewed progress, and corrected their course often. those who did badly clung to their theories, acted quickly, didn't correct course, and blamed others when things went wrong. Dorner, Dietrich. "The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations." Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 1998. | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
| for the sake refreshing this in people's mind: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/musky/Brood%20Stock%20Plan%203... i really believe this plan matches the principles i was speaking about above, namely an informed and carefully planned approach, based on solid evidence. believe it or not, the state really does WANT to have, where possible, a self-sustaining muskie fishery that produces trophy fish! selected highlights: - stop using limited and non-recruiting populations for brood stock. replaced by use of naturally recruiting populations in 10 different lakes per GMZ (5 different historically identified GMZs at this point prior to completion of Dr. Sloss's research outlining if and where strain differences exist), to support a genetically robust population mix. also use of more fish to take eggs/milt from, same reason. - when collecting eggs, take them from lots of different fish. not just the "easy" ones, but also not just those "big" ones. "it is an absolute must to avoid...discrimination in relation to selecting the individual for spawning." take from fish during 3-5 periods of time during the spawn and a diversity of sizes of fish. again, to ensure genetic robustness and avoid accidentally (or purposefully!) selecting for traits. selecting only for size might be nice, but it risks bringing other non-adaptive traits along with it. - broodstock lakes will be protected from selective harvest (ie., taking of big fish) by raising size limits. the two critiques/complaints that i'm hearing boil down to: a) i want it now. - refer to my last post. that's a recipe for disaster. b) Mississippi (LL) strain fish are better - in Minnesota, yes. in Wisconsin, not known yet. see point "a". - there IS value in protecting our naturally reproducing, native strains. all sides have agreed to this. am i on track here? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lambeau, If one was to distill the thousands of words I have typed on this issue over the last year, I'd say we agree. I have never trusted 'quick fix because I said so' public pressure scenarios because of exactly what you allude to, many times those quick fixes lead to failure and 'look over THERE!' style finger pointing. I believe in listening to the experts, entertaining ideas from the public and getting feedback on those ideas from the experts, and I definitely believe in informed common sense, logic, and good applied science. I believe those things go inextricably together, most cases. Public influence isn't a bad thing, if that influence leads to a better understanding by our public officials of the goals we would like to see attained in management plans for our fisheries, wildlife, and forests. | ||
| Grass |
| ||
Posts: 620 Location: Seymour, WI | Great discussion. I think the WI Brood Stock Mgmt Plan will put WI on the right path and I'm really excited to see what lakes will be choosen for WI broodstock. I'm also excited to see what the results of the genetic research turn up. Grass, Edited by Grass 12/8/2005 7:49 PM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | LAMBEAU asked: "am i on track here?" Dead on, Mike. Excellent synopsis. You, Steve, and many other contributors to the MuskieFIRST Research Forum have been critical thinkers and great listeners. You've all asked me some challenging questions, to be sure, especially at the beginning of these discussions. But you've taken the initiative to acquire a remarkable depth of understanding of a complex problem outside your areas of personal expertise. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your open-minded pursuit of what is known, your acknowledgement and acceptance of what is not known, and the time you have taken to help your fellow anglers and public servants like me to move toward consensus in conserving (preserving and wisely managing) Wisconsin's musky fisheries. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Dave N, sorry for the delay but I needed to verify something. You stated that Mr. Turnbull's assertion that you had ever even thought the mixed stocking was a one-time event was absurd. Quite honestly, I had the same impression as Mr. Turnbull. I attended a meeting where you gave a presentation that seemed intended to show that the stocking situation was not as bad as some think. Much of the material was designed to show that a one-time stocking would have little effect on the genetics as most of the muskies would not reach spawning age. There were various mortality figures but as there were not enough handouts, I dont have those available. I left the meeting thinking you were not doing your homework as the idea that it was a one-time event was absurd. If I misunderstood the intent of the presentation, I apologize but much of the material was based on a one-time mixed stocking. | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Guest - 12/11/2005 5:44 PM Dave N, sorry for the delay but I needed to verify something. You stated that Mr. Turnbull's assertion that you had ever even thought the mixed stocking was a one-time event was absurd. Quite honestly, I had the same impression as Mr. Turnbull. I attended a meeting where you gave a presentation that seemed intended to show that the stocking situation was not as bad as some think. Much of the material was designed to show that a one-time stocking would have little effect on the genetics as most of the muskies would not reach spawning age. There were various mortality figures but as there were not enough handouts, I dont have those available. I left the meeting thinking you were not doing your homework as the idea that it was a one-time event was absurd. If I misunderstood the intent of the presentation, I apologize but much of the material was based on a one-time mixed stocking. Guest, if you're talking about the presentation I gave to the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. last spring, then I'm afraid you misunderstood and others have subsequently misrepresented my use of a demonstration regarding the likely impact of a one-time source-mixing event. Leading up to that meeting, it HAD been strongly implied in various statements by the WMRP Team that EVEN ONE stocking of an allegedly slow-growth strain into a PARTICULAR lake would forever compromise the genetics of muskellunge in that lake. My demonstration was intended to show that such an event did not necessarily spell disaster for THAT lake. That was the scope of my demonstration, nothing more. (By the way, MuskieFIRST posted that analysis here, so I'm sure you could read it again if you wish.) At that meeting, I never stated or implied that there has been only one instance of source mixing in the history of Wisconsin muskellunge propagation. THAT would have been absurd. If you do not believe me, ask the President of the Chapter or anyone else who was listening carefully to what I said. Even by the time of that meeting, many of us assumed that much of the evidence of source-mixing that Mr. Ramsell had already summarized from DNR stocking records was accurate. The fact that source-mixing occurred many times was not questioned at that meeting, nor has it been questioned by me or by my DNR colleagues since. And since that time, Mr. Ramsell has added to the history in a way that may aid Dr. Sloss in interpreting the results of the current genetic stock characterization study. I've stated these things over and over in web forums, radio interviews, and presentations to various groups. The issue at the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. meeting was the INTERPRETATION OF IMPACT of a source-mixing event for any given body of water. My demonstration was to aid in understanding the actual mechanisms behind such an event. Please don't read more into it. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Well, I am glad to know that THAT lake is safe. I apologize, it was a nice presentation and informative, even if it did little to address the real situation. I might have been more charitable but after seeing the WMRP being put at the same level as some people who wanted browns in Round Lake (see hapless DNR manager post) and after seeing my original post of this question deleted...was it the use of the word "lambasting"?, I have even less patience with these games than usual. Mike Hohm | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe that the explanation to your question was sufficient; I knew you and several others didn't understand this, and were taking the entire subject matter badly out of context. I'm assuming that portion of this conversation is closed. http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/12.11.2005/931/Hypothetica... If you don't understand or agree with answers given, ask specific questions if you wish, but refrain from untoward remarks, please. As to your question to me: Mr. Turnbull was a very negative and frankly very soon unwelcome participant here. He was unfriendly, obnoxious, and untoward. I spent an entire weekend deleting nasty remarks from that particular source, and I have much better things to do with my time. He offered a few good points and then turned absolutely sour when answers were given that he didn't like. I think it was comments from Mr. Turnbull, again out of context and attack oriented, that prompted the post you are referring to with Round Lake and Brown Trout. It's that type of exchange that causes the entire conversation to derail, and that isn't going to happen, not here. This is a place where you can ask any reasonable question you wish as long as you stick to the rules of fair debate. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
This is a place where you can ask any reasonable question you wish as long as you stick to the rules of fair debate. Mr. Worrall, you're generous to a fault. considering the personal (and imho, libelous) attacks leveled at yourself and MuskieFirst at a location somewhat "west" of here on the internet, the fact that you continue to leave this space open for discussion on these issues is simply amazing. back to the subject of stock mixing: - as Mr. Neuswanger points out, a "one-time event" is not disastrous. ongoing mixing could be, assuming the mix involved the "bad" genetics for slow growth as outlined in the analysis article. - it's very clear from the historical records (special thanks to Mr. Ramsell for collating them so neatly) that stock mixing was not a "one-time event", but an ongoing practice due to convenience, need, or other factors. - assuming it therefore had an impact on some/many/all/??? waters, how do we discover what that impact was exactly? - brings us back to the need for careful scientific research delienating the genetics, doesn't it? to those who are opposed to this approach, please help me to understand what it is exactly that you don't like about it. seriously, i'd like to hear and try to understand your perspective. at times it's hard to find this information when it's covered up by vitriol. Edited by lambeau 12/11/2005 11:56 PM | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Guest - 12/11/2005 8:45 PM Well, I am glad to know that THAT lake is safe. I apologize, it was a nice presentation and informative, even if it did little to address the real situation. I might have been more charitable but after seeing the WMRP being put at the same level as some people who wanted browns in Round Lake (see hapless DNR manager post) and after seeing my original post of this question deleted...was it the use of the word "lambasting"?, I have even less patience with these games than usual. Mike Hohm Mike, apology accepted. I do believe the presentation addressed ONE element -- the intended element -- of the real situation. As I recall, it took 2 hours just to cover THAT. But you are certainly entitled to feel otherwise. Regarding the WMRP, I have no idea if they are "on the same level" as those who opposed musky management in Round Lake. (The small Round Lake group was not pushing FOR brown trout by the way; that was the fish manager's response to the minority anti-musky sentiment at the time.) I try not to make personal judgments about people I don't know well. I drew the analogy only because those two small groups had both used the same TACTIC -- that of trying to force professional fishery managers in the DNR to do something we believed was unwise. In the case of muskellunge and brown trout at Round Lake many years ago, it worked. But now that I am here, folks need to know that such tactics will not influence me. I want broad public input on desired outcomes -- goals and objectives. Our professional fishery management team will select, negotiate, implement, and sell the strategies (regulations, stockings, habitat preservation or manipulation) needed to achieve them. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| "- brings us back to the need for careful scientific research delienating the genetics, doesn't it? to those who are opposed to this approach, please help me to understand what it is exactly that you don't like about it. seriously, i'd like to hear and try to understand your perspective." lambeau: It was Mr. Neuswanger that made the answer clear to your question several months ago on this forum when he stated that the genetic testing will not answer the questions of growth, reproduction and behavior. Isn't THIS afterall, what this is all about? Genetic testing will determine stocks and mixing. According to the draft broodstock management plan, the "preferred" lakes for egg taking are native, self-sustaining lakes (if genetic testing shows that they aren't mixed badly). In the case of NW Wisconsin, the choices for even consideration, are few, and the one noted in DNR musky committee meeting minutes, Moose Lake, is a known small growth lake. I don't believe that using native, self-sustaining lakes with small growth fish like Mud, Callahan, and the Spider Lake Chain, are going to make musky fishermen happy or return them to NW Wisconsin to fish for them. Genetists are basically preservationists, regardless of ultimate growth of the fish. Beyond that, it is out of their hands. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| Lambeau wrote: "brings us back to the need for careful scientific research delienating the genetics, doesn't it? to those who are opposed to this approach, please help me to understand what it is exactly that you don't like about it. seriously, i'd like to hear and try to understand your perspective. at times it's hard to find this information when it's covered up by vitriol." Monk: Lambeau, I am NOT against careful scientific research (including FIELD OBSERVATIONS). What I DO want to see is DECISIONS made based on that research.... as was unfortunately not the case (by Wi, but MN did) in 1982... and subsequently in the Nancy lake study. As CLEARLY stated by Dr. Sloss... I hope the following statement is adhered to: "Given the vast majority of muskellunge fishing is targeted toward trophy fish, a switch to stocking a faster growing strain that also exhibits larger mean size at age is a logical management decision". Not my words, not your words, not WMRP words, not the DNR words... but those of the scientist employed to study the issue as an impartial party.... BUT couldn't have been said any better! | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Sorry, that was my reply above. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| How to condense almost a years worth of topics, thread derailments, spin and animosity into an answer for Lambeau..... This is the beauty of the internet. I saw one reference recently where it was said that the WMRP is against the research. Then Lambeau's question. Mr. Turnbull said it might be a waste of time and I suggested that Dave N. was worrying about the wrong thing. Neither of these would lead me to believe that the WMRP or myself is against the research. Just one of those things about the internet that makes this harder. I am not against the research. I imagine if you asked the members of the WMRP and their supporters, you would find many of them are not against the research either. IF it turned out to prove nothing, well, money has been spent on stupider....is that a word?...things. Could turn out to provide a wealth of info. But while waiting for the results ( 9 years to choose brood lakes) why not put the LL fish into a few more places where the natural reproduction is limited or non-existant? If it doesn't work out, well, nothing else was either. So while the genetic study is probably worthwhile it is also a reason to do, for the most part, nothing. ( Yes, yes, I know, Butternut comparison and possible transfer.) Early on, one of the reasons given for not stocking LL fish was the need to protect the native strain. That argument has been blown out of the water, at least as I see it. If it has been decided that taking only large fish has been ruled out (LCO as example, possible native remnants) then why not try some LL fish. The genetics are botched up, some major spawning grounds deteriorated.....bah..I am just rehashing all the old arguments. We have all read the stuff. I guess it comes down to this. There is some science being performed. Some are for waiting until all the results are in. Some are for expanding the LL fish stocking to other lakes, those in need of help. ( not every lake that has enough water to avoid freeze out over the winter. Though I imagine there are some who are for that.) I don't worry about trophys. I mostly fly fish for muskies and I try to find places where I won't see anybody all day. That's my idea of musky fishing. Most people don't agree with me. They want big fish sooner or later. Many of them go to other places to find them now. That's painful to some business's in the area, to what extent, I don't know. It's hard to measure what is not there. Lambeau, I hope that helps some. Hard to explain it without rehashing old stuff. Short version, not against the research, just against the delay. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| Oop, that was my post above Mike Hohm | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
Lambeau, I hope that helps some. Hard to explain it without rehashing old stuff. Short version, not against the research, just against the delay. that does help, if for nothing else by reminding everyone that we do so much better when we're talking about ideas and not sniping at each other. what are your ideas for accomplishing the research goals in a quicker way? you mentioned the stocking of LL strain in the meanwhile. but this is actually happening... if we could have large-growing Wisconsin strain muskies present in larger numbers in Wisconsin waters, perhaps by getting rid of those with "bad" genetics, would there still be the same demand for the LL strain? Edited by lambeau 12/12/2005 12:07 PM | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| lambeau, the "problem" is WHERE to get Wisconsin fish with large growth potential (notice I didn't say "genetics"). That is the problem faced in trying to find suitable brood stock lakes. All have been mixed. Are there ANY that grow large fish that are pure enough to trust? BIG question. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I have had a couple biologists ask why anyone thinks the LL fish are a 'pure' strain. I don't know the answer to that one, alittle help? Define 'pure', and describe why the adaptations those fish have made to the waters they are native to will necessarily mean equal success for those fish in waters here in Northern Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter. There's part of the rub, I think, if one was to distill some of the concerns. By defining LL fish as 'pure', one must also define shoepac as 'pure', correct? What matters is the ability to get big, and fish in LCO and the Chip have shown they can and in fact still do. I know, I know, those are 'remnants' of the more 'pure' fish that were there according to the claims from some. Let's prove that out through Dr. Sloss's work, and show the differences genetically between those and fish from let's say, Pelican Lake in Oneida County, Bone Lake, Pewaukee Lake, and the Madison Chain, and for that matter fish that were caught in the past from LCO and the Chip, Bone and Round, etc. Keep in mind that the cross drainage stocking that has taken place is not necessarily cause/effect for any single trait, including excessively slow or poor growth. I was roundly dressed down in the past for suggesting that the muskies here in Oneida County show GREAT growth rates and potential, wouldn't that be a GOOD thing to have those fish stocked over there, by the same logic that calls for LL fish? They do get large, obviously, big fish are getting caught from waters that are maintained by stocking, and some that were stocked to create a muskie fishery. I know of a half dozen off one lightly fished 500 acre lake in the last three seasons over 50", and a several off a 200 acre puddle that has excellent NR, yet was stocked only twice, and had no muskies before stocking. I know of two this year from there in fact, both 40# class pigs. What was the largest fish in the study from the second Minnesota Lake? Waconia produced some very impressive fish, what about the other lake? I ask that only to make a VERY broad point, that the same strain of muskies will not perform equally in every body of water. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Guest - 12/12/2005 2:35 PM lambeau, the "problem" is WHERE to get Wisconsin fish with large growth potential (notice I didn't say "genetics"). That is the problem faced in trying to find suitable brood stock lakes. All have been mixed. Are there ANY that grow large fish that are pure enough to trust? BIG question. Lets say there are NO completely natural lakes left in Wisconsin in any of the zones, the plan says: “Efforts should focus on identifying genetically ‘healthy’ and reproductively vigorous muskellunge populations that require no supplementation for consistent recruitment.” I think the goal is to find lakes that currently have naturally reproducing populations, that doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t stocked at some point in the past. I think it’s important to remember recommendation number 3 of the proposed “Brood Stock Plan”: 3. When collecting eggs, use a nested stratified, random design across spawning season and fish size. It is an absolute must to avoid size, age, spawning time, sex ratio, weight, etc., discrimination in relation to selecting the individual fish for spawning. The most pressing of these issues in relation to muskellunge is time of spawning and size of fish. It is, however, permissible to avoid sick or deformed fish when selecting spawners. If #3 can be satisfied on any particular lake chosen, as a brood source, then I believe we will be OK. The fish in the lake have to have a good cross section of all possible heritable traits, size, weight, spawing time, etc. And then fish need to be randomly selected, which is all in the plan. I truly believe this plan is exactly what Wisconsin Musky fishermen have been waiting for, it's not a silver bullet and it will take some time, but I beleive it is the right path. Proactive management as apposed to reactive management. Musky fishermen need to be ready to step up to the plate and help out in any way we can, because it is going to cost more money to run the hatcheries in this fashion and we may have to volunteer some time or money to make it happen. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Mike: I think you are forgetting that if the lakes chosen fit the criteria, but do not have fish that grow to trophy sizes in the population, the only result can be more small fish. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I would say that if a lake has no fish that grow to trophy size it should not be used as a brood stock lake as they would not be able to collect eggs across all fish sizes. One of the criteria for a brood stock lake should be the ability to produce fish across the entire size range of musky. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |