Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Wisconsin DNR Answers Hayward Muskie Stocking Meeting Questions! |
| Message Subject: Wisconsin DNR Answers Hayward Muskie Stocking Meeting Questions! | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't 'promise' a Hayward tape, I promised to cover the event; which I did. It was supposed to be about a couple hours at max and ended up being four complete tapes. That isn't a video, it's a movie. Have a production compnay in your pocket? Most of it was IMO a rather disorganized blast of misinformation and questions that couldn't, if one wanted to keep any spirit of cooperation in place, be answered there. We decided to allow a Q&A to be posted, which it was. I won't be developing the video, as it is now IMHO interesting, but not critical to either position. I'm still working the PWT in Winneconne, and will respond with assistance from a corps of biologists as soon as I can. I will say that your answers are actually NON answers, and will show you exactly how I come to that conclusion as soon as I have the time. You 'selected' questions to answer. What about the others? Anyone who suggests that Dr. Casselman might be 'wrong' in his assessment of the Upper C limit on the waters discussed at the Symposium based on absolutely NOTHING but a guess needs to get back to some research. I still fail to see ANYTHING rude or untoward in Slamr's questions. You can certainly avoid his questions, and I'll ask them. Avoid or spin the answers, and I ask again, and if it takes all summer, we can finally get to some form of reality in the discussion. I'll reference answers from the biologists I have willing to help, you can do the same. Here's my difficulty; I hear about the tremendous support fro your platform from your group, insisting many scientists support the program. Yet I get multiple emails from scientists suggesting we continue to push for reality, not PAC rhetoric, in the discussion. I ask for the WMPT supporting scientists and biologist contacts so I might reconcile those ideas from that group against that of the group I hear from. If they want to remain anon, I respect that and will honor that idea, I simply want to talk with them and get their perspectives for this discussion. I also see a strong tendency in some of the WMRT discussions to misuse data, misinterpret what the data means to a scientist long term and short, and to try to apply data to the platform that simply isn't as represented. I think Dave Neuswanger has done a fine job of correcting some of the misconceptions, but the use of that WMRT data interpretationas if it's iron clad fact continues, witness the 'growth graphs' displayed at the Hayward meeting. Did the WMRT have an effect on focusing attention to the Muskie Program here in Wisconsin? Yes, to their credit, it did, but in both a good and a bad way. Whether you like anyone to mention the acid and unfriendly decorum of the group for a large portion of their campaign, it was and still, in your case, is there. I'm an editor of a fairly sizeable media source, and listen to all sides on the phone, via email, and in print. I don't hear the same level of vitriol from the folks who oppose your platform in portion or part, nor do I see it when responding to direct and tough questions. I told the group when you started you need a PR expert to help you, and that comment still stands. You have marginalized your own platform by trying to diminish or demonize anyone strogly questioning the science or claims, and that was a serious public relations error. If Norm, Mike, and others had chosen that PR path in trying to get a 50" limit on Pelican, we would still be on the phone trying to apologize to the Lake Association and the DNR. GL strain. What does that mean? Describe it for me, and let me know the difference between the GB fish and those in, say, Huron, Erie, or other great Lake waters. the fish I am speaking of here in NC WI are in our lakes like Pelican, Moen, George, Crescent, Minocqua, Tomahawk, and many many others. I don't want your group trying to get our fish replaced with those from Lake St Clair, its an easily contested notion that 1) It doesn't cost more 2) Is needed or wanted here 3) Would result in a fishery any better than what we have. Winnebago and green Bay are, according to the Green Bay area biologists, a perfect match for the GL fish stocked there, and I'm betting Pelican, or Big Sand, or North Twin are not. It's not going to happen, thank god, so WHY beat that horse and attempt to arbitrarily and personally mandate/decide what fish need to be stocked based on a pure layman, average joe guess? You know what the best science of the day says about the population in Bone, and you also know that diversity, not 'mutts in Bone' is the main force behind using multiple waters for egg collection. Please, if one is out there, give me a quote from any fisheries based geneticist or scientist stating the Bone or LCO fish are of poor genetic makeup and are not acceptable fish, cannot grow to large size under proper conditions, etc.. As an aside, I took two perch from a lake that never produces many over 5". Added them to my 100 Gallon aquarium. Fed them, and took good care of the water chemistry. They are now, in just a year and a half, near 10" and incredibly fat. Explain that for me. Many fish? What proof of that do you offer? Are you suggesting indeed that the fish raised in Bone, or in Minocqua, or in LCO, CANNOT grow large and grow large in a reasonable timeframe ANYWHERE? What proof do you have, and be careful here to consider ALL the well thought out and scientifically backed pitfalls made to date in this lengthy and sometimes sublime debate, those are your land mines, and you continually step dead on 'em. | ||
| Wade |
| ||
sworrall - 4/21/2006 9:24 PM I didn't 'promise' a Hayward tape, I promised to cover the event; which I did. It was supposed to be about a couple hours at max and ended up being four complete tapes. That isn't a video, it's a movie. Have a production company in your pocket? Most of it was IMO a rather disorganized blast of misinformation and questions that couldn't, if one wanted to keep any spirit of cooperation in place, be answered there. We decided to allow a Q&A to be posted, which it was. I won't be developing the video, as it is now IMHO interesting, but not critical to either position. Possibly a reference to this: Wade, 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. ----- Steve Worrall OutdoorsFIRST Media Question: Have a production company in your pocket? Answer: YES I do. And, I made that known and offered help if needed. It was rejected because "The audio and video needs to be edited into our format, and encoded for the web using programming OutdoorsFIRST wrote." Any amateur video post-house can deal with these issues. I offered to help to present fairness. It would seem the reality of this night will forever be controlled. It would have been easier to simply say, NO! If you weren't there you can't see it later. The reason this is such a divisive issue is pretty clear, if you don't agree with what is "couched" by the circle here, you will be vilified, edited, slammed or made to reiterate your position until you are worn out. I think if everyone had a chance to see & hear this meeting, the true timbre of the people being discussed, ad nauseam, would be plain to see for anyone interested minus any spin control, distortions and opinions from people who have NO idea what is going on in Sawyer County unless fed the information from preferred channels. Every time I see Bob posting endless rebuttals and corrections to the "spin" presented as fact, it saddens me. For instance, Nancy Lake evidence is routinely posed as the reason the WMRP's position is anecdotal. And yet, when Rice Lake's "success" is touted it seems equally anecdotal. And it IS! Somehow the people that actually fish these lakes are dismissed in favor of opines from folks that aren't even in the area. Personally, I think the WMRP should rename itself the Sawyer County Musky Restoration Project so the herd mentality to pick their agenda to shreds will be unable to lump their dissenting positions into a Wisconsin-wide argument. Work locally, think globally. Cliche´or not, it solves an awful lot of these needless, time-wasting, tit-for-tat posts. Give the guys a little credit already. If the WMRP did not start themselves on fire, the WDNR would not have noticed they were in the room. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wade, As I said in that PM, (which by the way now indicates any personal message you get is potentially public, something I have not chosen to do with communications from both sides yet something the folks from the WMRT or their supporters have done repeatedly)) was accurate, except there are four tapes total. Once the Q&A was proposed we decided to go with that due to the fact the charts, diagrams, overhead presentations and other items used by both sides were shuffled from stage to floor, and were not clear or frequently not visible on the tape, and the audio was, as I said, poor. The Q&A listed the questions exactly, and the answers exactly. What is your problem with that? I think the story of the night has been pretty well defined. If you have another version, feel free to post it here and anyone who wishes to may feel free to react. You are speaking as if the WMRT has explained and established answers to the questions posed backed by experts, and defined clearly. They haven't. I would like them to, it would help their position immensely. I have countless emails from biologists and scientists and the public across the country asking MuskieFIRST to continue to encourage the open and fair challenge of many of the representations made by the WMPT. I try to ask fair questions, and ask for fair answers, not accepting reference back to the same items pretty much dismissed by those who are the scientists and biologists. The last survey on Nancy was FAR from anecdotal. FAR. I posted the biologists and work crew statistics and comments, which were greeted with 'no, that didn't happen, THIS did' from members of the WMRT. Sorry, the survey was done correctly, and was actually excessive based on surveys done in other waters and states INCLUDING Minnesota. Look back to the Nancy Lake discussion. I have a pretty good idea what is going on in Sawyer County. I do fish there, every year. I read the letters to the editor, took the personal attacks on Pastikas, and received a LARGE number of nasty emails from select supporters and members of the group, all because I asked for the facts, the truth, and all in a 'timbre' that can be accepted as fair debate, not PAC style noise or distraction. I spoke to scientists from Canada, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, New York, and more. I attended the Symposium and asked questions, and witnessed a WMPT presentation there that was perhaps the most divisive piece of public display I have ever seen. Fortunately, the presenter is a consummate professional, and knows when to moderate position or at least restate position in more acceptable terms for the betterment of the ideal AND how to play a crowd. He missed his calling; he would have been a great Mayor. Interestingly, I asked MANY of the same questions of the DNR here in WI and elsewhere, and received ANSWERS in a reasonable tone. None agreed with the WMRT. NONE. I asked them in the beginning, the middle, and yesterday to provide contact information for scientists and biologists supporting the entire platform. No answer yet, but it may be coming. From the start this discussion has been laced with negative to the sublime from the WMRT, look at the threads. OF COURSE they would be summarily dismissed by many biologists and scientists, they approached lifetime fisheries professionals as if they were no more than uneducated hacks stumbling around trying to hold on to a job. The attacks on Dr. Sloss by the group supported by comments by a Minnesota supporter were almost incomprehensible. That stance has somewhat reversed, but in a very strange and intangible manner, with out apology to the office or the scientist. Approaching the scientific community as laymen, and telling them that they have two choices 1) Back our platform and we will make you heroes 2) Don't back it and we will go to 'war' with you and ruin you in the court of public opinion.... Is just plain rude. That beginning tactic also has a tendency to move journalists to center in heck of a hurry. I see a refreshing moderation in platform and hope its real, not just another distraction. In the meantime, much has been accomplished, both by the anglers, activists, DNR, and public in the muskie management and study arena, unquestionably as a result to a degree of the WMRT debate. I feel much has been done as a reaction by anglers and others in an attempt actually get something positive done instead of accentuating the negative. Also, much has been done by the WMRT, no one is arguing that. I see forward movement here, mostly IMHO a result of the ACTUAL impact of the Hayward meeting, an effort to answer the posed public's questions in true, real terms, and a new spirit of cooperation between the parties, at least a couple of them. I'm hoping that the success the group has had raising awareness would encourage them pursue a more realistic platform, based on the reality presented by the real science of the matter. So far, some moderation might have occurred, but challenging Dr. Casselman's statements in his Symposium presentation even SLIGHTLY based on anything the WMRT has said or platformed, or a personal layman's attitude is beyond the pale, sir. There's no 'circle' here, there is just a debate. If you disagree with anyone's stance or position, go ahead and state the case as you see it, don't attack and suggest only what MuskieFIRST agrees with can be posted or accepted here, that’s a load of manure. What is the spin you refer to? The continuous requests to provide basis in fact, supporting science and biology instead of personal interpretation? Some ask for answers and backing, support and proof, and we get a response like this. I think it is unwise to call reasonable questioning 'herd mentality to pick apart the agenda'; that sounds exactly like the sort of thing you accuse the 'herd' of, and all in the same sentence. If Bob wants to end the rebuttals, he needs to focus his answers to the questions asked, ALL of them, and use support information form the biologists and scientists he claims support the platform instead of personal layman interpretation of complicated scientific data that has been repeatedly challenged as misdirected at beast, and plain inaccurate at worst, by his distractors.; that's how this sort of thing works, sir. Prove the position, back it with professional's support and statements, and see how the professionals compare ideas. By the way, there were others recording the meeting. Maybe they'd be happy to provide you with the material. You can then create a publication in your studio, encode it for the web, and place it there on your own website in whatever form you wish. If the WMRT HAD 'started themselves on fire', it would have been an extrordinarly bad idea unless someone was standing quite near with a bucket of water. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| More answers to the questions.....as time now permits. 5) A statement you made indicates you feel high size limits select for large fish to be harvested (agreed, that's the entire idea I'd say, no harvest until the fish reaches trophy status and has reproduced multiple times), and you ask why that isn't a bad thing. You CAN'T be going back to the original accelerated evolution argument, can you? Are you suggesting that placing a 50" limit on waters that can grow trophy fish is harmful? If so why would Canada use an even LARGER limit? Answer: I believe that selectively removing only large fish from a system and then breeding the smaller fish that are left will lead to smaller fish. Any proffessional breeded will tell you that is likely to be the case with any animals. That is why race horse breeders breed fast horses, not slow ones. They keep fast horses, and sell their offspring or keep them to breed. They don't make glue out of champion racehorses and breed their slower cousins. Canada based their size limits on ultimate size of the average female Muskie (not a perfect system, but close.) They have places whereyou cannot keep any Muskie regardless of size also (I like this better). In Wisconsin we typically only protect Muskies that begin breeding at small size (under 40" in most cases) and use them as brood stock while allowing the large ones to be targeted. A point that is often made by people at the MN DBR is that larger fish avoid the nets while smaller fish are more easily captured. If the MN DNR is correct, then any netting program automatically selectively targets the smaller fish. For this reason Minnesota began using larger nets several years ago. 6) You continually refer to Nancy as a total success, yet NR was not good enough to develop Nancy as a brood stock source or sustain the population, and overall, it was determined that using Nancy for that purpose would not be viable. The last test netting didn't produce any 'monsters' in Nancy, despite the fact it was done in the temperature range into the mid 50's in the basin with twice the nets and almost three times the normal length of time for the survey. See the Nancy Lake thread, it's carefully discussed there. Answer: I see no question here. Nancy Lake provided the largest average size (46.8 inches)of any Muskie netting survey that I have ever seen in Wisconsin. No one at the WDNR that I have talked to has seen one better. Even the Male Muskies netted in Nancy Lake were larger than the females netted out of the perrennial NW Wisconsin Brood lake last year. I believe these are facts - if you dispute these, please do so with evidence. 7) How did your group help acquire funding for Dr. Sloss's work? Didn't your group initially represent that work as a waste of taxpayers money, and a waste of time? Did your reversal of that opinion create a funding stream, and if so, how? AnswerWe brought the attention to the WDNR (first) and then the public to the fact that our brood stock selection needed changing. The WDNR used this attention to secure the money for this project. (Dr. Sloss had been doing similar genetic work on Brook trout along Lake Superior previously.)Our first reccomendation in NW Wisconsin was to get out of Bone lake and net large fish out of the Chippewa flowage (or LCO and Grindstone I believe). Check the WMRP website for dated documentation on this. Where is the WDNR netting today? The Chippewa flowage! They have already netted larger fish than I can find documented in Bone Lake since 1954! The WDNR has many times cited that the WMRP is largely responsible for this. The most recent example of WDNR acknowledgement of the WMRP influence is the Hayward presentation by Steve Avellallemant and the WDNR in Hayward, where Steve stated repeatedly that the WMRP is responsible for many of the changes that are happening. Please post the tape on your website as promised. I know that people on this site have offered to help you in the past. I know that you are busy, (as are most of us) but you told us all you'd have the tape up. (I won't bring it up again, because I don't want you to become angry.) There may have been a statement out of frustration by a memebre of the WMRP that initially called the study a waste of money, all though I personally do not recall making that statement. There may be members that still consider it a waste of time and money, but I personally support any Muskie study, I do not support waiting for more studies to start doing the right thing today. The WDNR is on the right track, the problem is the train is moving way too slowly. (Some places it's best to move slow, others it can be a waste of time and money. For instance, they did not need a genetic study before going 700 miles East to another state to find fish for Green bay.) This past winter Dr. Sloss invited Larry and I to meet with him in Steven's point, and we accepted. We were able to provide him with a lot of information that he did not have access to and he gave us an overview of what his genetic study would/can do. There is nothing in his genetic work that is aimed at brining us larger getting fish in Wisconsin. It is not the intent of his study to do that - read the overview of his genetic study to confirm this. I believe the fact that the study will not have any impact on more large muskies is what drew the comments (15 months ago) you base your question on. Members of the WMRP continue to support the WDNR behind the scenes on both a personal level and within other groups such as local MI clubs. Just because there is a difference of opinion on some things does not mean we are not/can not work together on other things. 8) What part, in exact terms, of your groups platform or recommendations are supported by WIDNR Biologists, and who are those biologists; what district are they from, and how might i speak to them? How about some references, so they can be checked to confirm your claims? That would seem to me to be a very good thing for the WMRP to provide. Steve Avelallemant again at the Hayward meeting voiced this from the WDNR. His leadership position would include those working beneath him including Dave Neuswanger. We recommended that the WDNR get out of Bone Lake and into places like the Chippewa flowage and they have. We have recommended that the WDNR expand the Great Lakes stocking program and they have and are continuing. (pers. communications with the WDNR.) 9) No one I can find in the Muskie fisheries management field suggests that selective breeding for 'size' as you put it is either a good idea, or economically feasible even if it WAS a good idea. Can you find a working Muskie fisheries biologist who suggests that should be done; breeding primarily selected large fish from a population, and if so, who might that biologist be so I might speak to him/her? There are many very successful programs across the United States that believe breeding fish for size is a good idea. The Texas ShareLunker program is a prime example. I would agree that in Minnesota it is not "necessary" because they have a place like Leech Lake where essentially all the fish grow big and has not been stocked ith smaller strains of Muskies. I consider Kalepps fish farm to be part of the Muskies fishery management program. I am told they select fish for size as the WMRP suggests. Kalepps fish farm has likely provided many of the large fish that pop up across Wisconsin over the past several decades. This past winter a 56" muskie passed away at Kalepps. (May she rest in peace). The reason that I would like to see them select for size is that in places like the Chippewa flowage you have some very large fish and some fish that come down the Chief and other rivers that are genetically incapable of growing to large sizes. By not selecting the smaller fish (THAT ARE PROTECTED FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES BY 45 INCH SIZE LIMITS) we may avoid mixing in these smaller strains into our broodstock. There is a WDNR research paper out there that concluded genetics are at least partially if not entirely responsible for these fish not growing. (One paper is by Leon Johnsons, and another by Terry Margenau.) For clarification - while the WDNR is not slectively breeding Muskies (today), no one there including Dr. Sloss has said it will not lead to more large Muskies. I have not seen the WDNR say it is not economically feasible to selectively breed muskies, but up to now they have not asked for any assistance from the Muskie clubs in this area that are willing to help. Where they have asked us to help, the clubs have come through. Part of the funding for PIT tags in the growth studies are coming from 1st Wisconsin's Adopt a musky program - as one example. Many clubs across the state are doing the same. I would like to invite MuskieFirst to support the desire of the Muskie clubs in this part of the state to add more waters of proven large growing Muskies into NW Wisconsin, as many of these same people supported the desires to raise the size limit on Pelican Lake. One important note here - Steve Worrall did contribute a day of guiding and a night of lodging to a Muskie club in my area. It went for a pretty high price - I stayed in the bidding right until the very end! The proceeds will go towards the clubs spotted Muskie stocking program. I am proud to say that the club very much appreciates Steve's contribution even though he has not voiced support on this website of the club's desires to get more Muskie lakes stocked with proven large growing Muskie strains. Have a great day, Thanks. Bob | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve, I was going to videotape the presentation myself until you told us all you were going to do it. Now you aren't - I'm Ok with that, because it's your website, but don't blame the rest of the world because you aren't keeping your word. Just tell us you don't want to post it. After the presentation you stated that the WMRP was courteous and on their best behavior, today it's the most divisive presentation you have ever seen. Now you advocate people not throwing water on us if we are on fire? LOL!! Cabin fever must be getting to you, I hope you get out and load up on some panfish. I'm hoping to take the kids out today myself. I will keep posting here because I find the group of people here to be very interested in this topic. I will continually make every effort to keep the conversation civil in spite of the personal attacks. Thanks, Bob | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In response to the short post above: You have the timeline and what was actually said incorrect, here you go: 1)' I attended the Symposium and asked questions, and witnessed a WMPT presentation there that was perhaps the most divisive piece of public display I have ever seen' I didn't see you present a speech or paper at the Symposium, Bob, so I must be speaking about another presentation. 2) 'If the WMRT HAD 'started themselves on fire', it would have been an extrordinarly bad idea unless someone was standing quite near with a bucket of water.' That was a comment meant to point out that no one had to 'set themselves on fire' and an intentional play on that overblown and over dramatic comment. Setting yourselves on fire WOULD be an extrordinarily bad idea unless someone was standing by with a bucket of water. Protests of that sort are usually posed against tyrants and religious persecution, not disagreement with the scientific community over a fish. If I had heard you WERE going to set yourselves on fire, I'd have been happy to toss on the water myself!  | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The post and answers are rife with leaps in interpretation of the data, and statements again mostly comprised of personal opinion. I'll answer those one by one when time permits, so we can get back to a level playing field. Bob, I have no personal problem with you or your group, I respect Larry, don't know you much but am sure you are motivated by a desire to make things better, and think the rest of the group are probably nice folks to take a day on the water with. My problem with all of this is that the science has been bent to breaking by your group, and absolutely no accountability seems to be necessary for you to command something to be fact or order something to be done, or take a shot at someone questioning your assertions. I suggest you take a step back and keep answers to facts you have, listing how you arrived at those facts and who in the scientific community supports those conclusions. As far as the tapes go, this wasn't exactly a studio setting; sometimes things don't go as well as planned. We have hundreds of video clips that didn't work, and will never see the web. See above.Someone else recorded that presentation, get the recordings and place them on your web property. They are pretty bad, hard to hear and understand, and not what would be considered acceptable for publication, but have at it anyway. The tone and complete gist of that meeting was reported here, including a Q&A, and your responses. If you have an official document in response, send it to me and we'll post it. My responses to your answers to Q's: 'Answer: I believe that selectively removing only large fish from a system and then breeding the smaller fish that are left will lead to smaller fish. Any professional breeder will tell you that is likely to be the case with any animals. That is why race horse breeders breed fast horses, not slow ones. They keep fast horses, and sell their offspring or keep them to breed. They don't make glue out of champion racehorses and breed their slower cousins. Canada based their size limits on ultimate size of the average female Muskie (not a perfect system, but close.) They have places where you cannot keep any Muskie regardless of size also (I like this better). In Wisconsin we typically only protect Muskies that begin breeding at small size (under 40" in most cases) and use them as brood stock while allowing the large ones to be targeted. A point that is often made by people at the MN DBR is that larger fish avoid the nets while smaller fish are more easily captured. If the MN DNR is correct, then any netting program automatically selectively targets the smaller fish. For this reason Minnesota began using larger nets several years ago.' 1) There isn't a single...NOT ONE... document I can find by any reputable fisheries biologist that suggests breeding large individuals only or selectively breeding only large muskies in the way you describe is a good idea. Race Horses no longer have to survive in the wild, right? Evolution had horses as smaller, WAY slower, and one heck of allot tougher than a race horse that was bred FOR speed. That practice is full of pitfalls. Tendons break in legs bred to be longer than what evolution selected, failures are common in the breeding process, and only a very select few really shine. Many ARE retired to oblivion. Selective breeding in show and sporting dogs is another example, these animals wouldn't survive well in the wild at all, and are not engineered to do so, that's nature's job. Displacia in the hips, disease tendency, and much or all of any one litter failing to make the grade is common. A dangerous game to try to apply to the wild, and not very realistic. Minnesota’s netting program isn't anywhere NEAR as comprehensive as Wisconsin's, and that is a fact. Are you saying Wisconsin fisheries managers are using nets that are too small, or that Minnesota was and changed that practice? How does any netting program automatically select small fish? Everything I have read, listened to and watched from the scientific community suggests diversity is the key, making sure as best as is possible all sizes are represented in the spawn collection process. This isn't my opinion, no one CARES what my opinion is. No one cares what YOURS is, either, let's get the facts out there and set personal opinion aside, if you can do that. 'Answer: I see no question here. Nancy Lake provided the largest average size (46.8 inches)of any Muskie netting survey that I have ever seen in Wisconsin. No one at the WDNR that I have talked to has seen one better. Even the Male Muskies netted in Nancy Lake were larger than the females netted out of the perrennial NW Wisconsin Brood lake last year. I believe these are facts - if you dispute these, please do so with evidence.' There were no young fish present at all in the last Nancy Lake netting survey, and only a very few fish were captured. Of course if only a couple fish are captured, and NO young fish were found, the average will be much larger. It's simple math, and easy to spin to suit your purpose, but one shouldn't use that Nancy Lake number as an average and represent it as what is desired, it ISN'T! If this was a the last of a population disappearing in, say, Pelican, after most of the population had been harvested or died from other causes, and no acceptable NR had occurred, I'd say the lake was about done in as a muskie fishery unless stocking begins again in earnest. The basin temperature was in the mid 50's when the nets were removed, and the number of nets, time in the water, and overall survey was THREE times that of what is usually done on water that size. Here's a comment from Mr. Neuswanger about the current work on the Chip--"Frank Pratt and his crew are netting the east side, and my crew is netting the west side. I'll mention the bog situation to Frank, but I recall from a conversation I had with him last night that he has already moved that net out of Kavanagh Bay (and several other locations) to sites further south with cooler water temperatures where he hopes the females are not already spent. (Frank is starting to catch many females that have already released their eggs in the northeastern bays of the Flowage, where water temperature is now averaging 55-56 degrees F.)" That's temps in the bays. The Nancy Lake survey indicated same temps in the basin. Bay temps were unquestionably warmer. Read it, it's posted in the discussion about Nancy Lake. 'We brought the attention to the WDNR (first) and then the public to the fact that our brood stock selection needed changing. The WDNR used this attention to secure the money for this project. (Dr. Sloss had been doing similar genetic work on Brook trout along Lake Superior previously.)Our first recommendation in NW Wisconsin was to get out of Bone Lake and net large fish out of the Chippewa flowage (or LCO and Grindstone I believe). Check the WMRP website for dated documentation on this. Where is the WDNR netting today? The Chippewa flowage! They have already netted larger fish than I can find documented in Bone Lake since 1954! The WDNR has many times cited that the WMRP is largely responsible for this. The most recent example of WDNR acknowledgement of the WMRP influence is the Hayward presentation by Steve Avellallemant and the WDNR in Hayward, where Steve stated repeatedly that the WMRP is responsible for many of the changes that are happening. Please post the tape on your website as promised. I know that people on this site have offered to help you in the past. I know that you are busy, (as are most of us) but you told us all you'd have the tape up. (I won't bring it up again, because I don't want you to become angry.) There may have been a statement out of frustration by a member of the WMRP that initially called the study a waste of money, all though I personally do not recall making that statement. There may be members that still consider it a waste of time and money, but I personally support any Muskie study, I do not support waiting for more studies to start doing the right thing today. The WDNR is on the right track, the problem is the train is moving way too slowly. (Some places it's best to move slow, others it can be a waste of time and money. For instance, they did not need a genetic study before going 700 miles east to another state to find fish for Green bay.) This past winter Dr. Sloss invited Larry and I to meet with him in Steven's point, and we accepted. We were able to provide him with a lot of information that he did not have access to and he gave us an overview of what his genetic study would/can do. There is nothing in his genetic work that is aimed at brining us larger getting fish in Wisconsin. It is not the intent of his study to do that - read the overview of his genetic study to confirm this. I believe the fact that the study will not have any impact on more large muskies is what drew the comments (15 months ago) you base your question on. Members of the WMRP continue to support the WDNR behind the scenes on both a personal level and within other groups such as local MI clubs. Just because there is a difference of opinion on some things does not mean we are not/can not work together on other things.' Dr. Sloss had already compiled one of the most comprehensive collections of Muskie genetic markers in the world before your group initially lit into him. I don't see ANYWHERE that the WMPT had any influence on the funding decision. Did you have an impact overall? As I said, yes you did, but let's stick to facts here. The DNR was already several years into a re-evaluation of the Muskie program in Wisconsin, and you know that. There is a solid chance that Dr. Sloss would have done much of the work anyway, with or without your group's influence. There were statements from your group continually calling his work a waste of tax dollars, and in obvious support of those claims, Greg Ide and one of your members attacked the proposed work and suggested Dr. Sloss was simply trying to retain a position and get a big, juicy grant. Look it up, you know where it is on this site and Musky Hunter. When it became clear what the benefits WERE of the study and Dr. Sloss's recommendations, your group did an abrupt about face ( in politics it's called a flip flop) and now claim your influence was responsible for the project funding. That is another opinion by your group not supported by the timeline or the facts. Did the overall hubbub have an influence? Probably, but WHAT could your group have accomplished if all that negative energy was focused on the positive??? As far as his work not directly causing the fish in Wisconsin to grow larger, that again is a gross misunderstanding of how Dr. Sloss's work will be applied by the scientists looking for more comprehensive information about what we have here in Wisconsin as a gene pool and what that means for management, stocking practices, and much more. Dr. Sloss's work is a piece of that puzzle, and was never represented to be more than that. His recommendations to use multiple sources for spawn collection has more, by my read, to do with the diversity mentioned earlier in this post than it does with dismissing the Bone Lake fish as incapable of reaching trophy size due to a genetic deficiency. That one is still on the table and open to debate, as that area is where your group has seriously manipulated and selectively interpreted available data. As far as members supporting the DNR, see the comments on this board, Pastikas, and Musky Hunter. I see continuous attacks in letters to editors, papers over there, websites, and emails, and rude and untoward commentary including a personal attack on me accusing me of bias because my son Keith is an LTE for the Woodruff DNR. It's tough to see that support you speak of in the public, Bob, and right now that is where you are, right here on MuskieFIRST in front of the public. Let's get the folks mentioned you are supporting, what they are doing that you support, and move the conversation in a positive direction. This isn't a slam on you or your group, it's an accurate observation of the writings and postings from the last year. I did say it's getting better, and did say I hope that is a trend and not another temporary tactic. A difference of opinion isn't the problem. A difference of the WMPT's opinion exists with much of what is considered to be the science of fisheries management, and that sir, isn't just opinion. ' There are many very successful programs across the United States that believe breeding fish for size is a good idea. The Texas ShareLunker program is a prime example. I would agree that in Minnesota it is not "necessary" because they have a place like Leech Lake where essentially all the fish grow big and has not been stocked with smaller strains of Muskies. I consider Kalepps fish farm to be part of the Muskies fishery management program. I am told they select fish for size as the WMRP suggests. Kalepps fish farm has likely provided many of the large fish that pop up across Wisconsin over the past several decades. This past winter a 56" muskie passed away at Kalepps. (May she rest in peace). The reason that I would like to see them select for size is that in places like the Chippewa flowage you have some very large fish and some fish that come down the Chief and other rivers that are genetically incapable of growing to large sizes. By not selecting the smaller fish (THAT ARE PROTECTED FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES BY 45 INCH SIZE LIMITS) we may avoid mixing in these smaller strains into our broodstock. There is a WDNR research paper out there that concluded genetics are at least partially if not entirely responsible for these fish not growing. (One paper is by Leon Johnsons, and another by Terry Margenau.) For clarification - while the WDNR is not slectively breeding Muskies (today), no one there including Dr. Sloss has said it will not lead to more large Muskies. I have not seen the WDNR say it is not economically feasible to selectively breed muskies, but up to now they have not asked for any assistance from the Muskie clubs in this area that are willing to help. Where they have asked us to help, the clubs have come through. Part of the funding for PIT tags in the growth studies are coming from 1st Wisconsin's Adopt a musky program - as one example. Many clubs across the state are doing the same. I would like to invite MuskieFirst to support the desire of the Muskie clubs in this part of the state to add more waters of proven large growing Muskies into NW Wisconsin, as many of these same people supported the desires to raise the size limit on Pelican Lake.' Again, this goes to selective breeding issues. We are discussing Wisconsin Muskies here. I'd suggest you look deeper into the Texas, Florida, and California bass issues, much more complicated than the single program you mention, but that's a different issue. You are again claiming there IS a 'smaller strain' the needs be avoided, and that is part of the core disagreement many have with your platform. Be careful making sweeping comments like 'concluded that' when interpreting a research document, and take care not to selectively introduce one piece of work to try to prove a concept that we have 'mutts' across the state that cannot reproduce and cannot grow to trophy size. As far as no one saying selective breeding won't lead to larger muskies, why in the world would any fisheries manager or scientist even bring that up? It's survival, adaptability, environment, and the FACT that intentional selective breeding for a single trait frequently brings unintentional results far more negative than the desired trait sought that might be brought up, I'd say. That is another land mine I spoke of earlier. I would take issue with the idea that many of the folks who supported the 50" limit on Pelican would then think we should introduce GL fish there, I sure wouldn't. So supporting a size limit here wouldn't then equate to supporting the entire platform of the WMRT there, would it? Parts, yes. Work that actually gets something done like the pit tags, yes. MuskieFIRST is a media publication, not a PAC or club. We DO support a more aggressive management program everywhere muskies swim, and conservation ethics to match, but more importantly we support dissemination of the facts and bringing the entire and complete story to the public. That's what we do. I DID support the 1st Chapter personally, you mentioned it above, and would do so again in a minute, it's a great group of anglers. I don't recognize the First Wisconsin Chapter MI as synonomous with the WMRT. Supporting that chapter doesn't mean I agree with everything the WMRT says. There seems to be a problem separating issues, and the WMRT needs to work on that a bit before they 'invite' MuskieFIRST' to participate in anything they have on the docket. We already have volunteered to raise the money to test the Butternut fish for the proposed LCO transfer. If it's needed, we will do exactly that. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | STEVE WORRALL ASKED BOB BENSON: 8) What part, in exact terms, of your groups platform or recommendations are supported by WIDNR Biologists, and who are those biologists; what district are they from, and how might i speak to them? How about some references, so they can be checked to confirm your claims? That would seem to me to be a very good thing for the WMRP to provide. BOB BENSON RESPONDED: Steve Avelallemant again at the Hayward meeting voiced this from the WDNR. His leadership position would include those working beneath him including Dave Neuswanger. We recommended that the WDNR get out of Bone Lake and into places like the Chippewa flowage and they have. We have recommended that the WDNR expand the Great Lakes stocking program and they have and are continuing. (pers. communications with the WDNR.) TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT: Neither Steve AveLallemant nor I support any part of the WMRP Team's misinterpretation and misrepresentation of scientific data and reports; nor have we taken any subsequent action as a result of WMRP Team recommendations. At the Hayward meeting, Steve was being diplomatic and simply stating that actions begun by Dr. Sloss and the Wisconsin DNR BEFORE this controversy began probably were accelerated in time by the attention brought to this issue by the WMRP Team. I said the same thing in a private conversation to Mr. Ramsell over a year ago -- before the WMRP Team ever made their first presentation in Madison. I suggested that he be pleased with his contribution to that extent, and I recommended that he support our efforts going forward. Until very recently, that has not been the case. (I am pleased that Mr. Ramsell has not sought to undermine our recent efforts.) But the controversy of the past year has cost me and my colleagues much valuable time that could have been better spent moving forward on many fronts in fishery management. So please, Mr. Benson, PLEASE do not imply that a diplomatic remark by my supervisor somehow equates to WDNR's eventual enlightenment and endorsement of the WMRP Team's platform or recommendations. We want to move forward in a more cooperative spirit, but let's not rewrite history. As far as I can tell, Mr. Worrall's actual question was never really answered. Who ARE these fishery biologists who supposedly support the WMRP Team platform and recommendations??? I've talked to several in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ontario; and I can't find any WMRP Team platform supporters among them. Also, for the record, neither I nor my colleagues have any reason to believe there is anything wrong with the the muskellunge in Bone Lake. We did NOT move our broodstock operation out of Bone Lake this year because we believe or acknowledge that those fish are genetically incapable of growing well and achieving a large ultimate size. We suspect those fish are fine in that regard, just TOO NUMEROUS to attain trophy size in Bone Lake -- similar to Butternut Lake in Price County. The REASON we are not using Bone Lake this year is that Dr. Sloss and we have agreed that we should set up a 5-year rotation among broodstock lakes IN ORDER TO IMPROVE GENETIC DIVERSITY among muskellunge being stocked in Wisconsin. (Going to ONE lake ALL the time runs the risk of inbreeding depression.) Based upon Dr. Sloss' recommendations, we have made other adjustments to our broodstock selection program, including increasing the number of females from which eggs are to be taken annually (19-26 per hatchery) and ensuring that 2 or 3 DIFFERENT males are used to fertilize the eggs of EACH female, and that we obtain genetic information from all brood fish. That presents some serious operational challenges, but we found a way to meet them this year on the Chippewa Flowage. We went to the Flowage this year for broodstock NOT because the WMRP Team recommended it, but because we (DNR) felt it probably was a source with great genetic diversity; and we wanted to obtain current information about the musky population for purposes of completing the overall Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan. So again, Mr. Benson, let's not rewrite history by stating or implying that the WMRP Team is RESPONSIBLE for these operational changes based upon WDNR concurrence with your assessments and recommendations. We had our own reasons for making some changes. I will report on the completed Chippewa Flowage broodstock collection program as time permits. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| A question for Dave N. (or Steve W. if he can find the answer from another fisheries person): Dave wrote something that had me a bit concerned and quite frankly didn't think about it he addressed it in his post. Let quote him and then pose the question. "The REASON we are not using Bone Lake this year is that Dr. Sloss and we have agreed that we should set up a 5-year rotation among broodstock lakes IN ORDER TO IMPROVE GENETIC DIVERSITY among muskellunge being stocked in Wisconsin. (Going to ONE lake ALL the time runs the risk of inbreeding depression.)" The one thing that caught my attention is the last sentence in parans. Given the fact that Bone Lake was used for much of the last half century as a source of brood stock for the Spooner hatchery, and at times was the near exclusive source, could we have a situation in which we produced a situation of inbreeding depression? If, over the course of the past 40 to 50 years, we pulled our brood stock from a limited source and restocked that progeny back into our brood lake and into lakes that received the same progeny year after year, would that in itself be a condition condusive to inbreeding depression? We know that Bone lake fish do not successfully reproduce in Bone lake and elswhere. We know at the very least that based on the netting data from Bone lake, the fish there haven't achieved large growth. Are these signs of inbreeding depression, and if so, how can we determine that. I for one am glad that the DNR moved to the Chip for brood stock. However the heck the decision was made, it was the RIGHT one. No shakes about it, stripping a 51", 40+Lb. fish would have never happened had we continued in Bone lake. That at least gives me some comfort that we have high potential material going into the program. My next question would be what are the other 3 or 4 lakes that are going to be put in the brood stock rota for Spooner? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk, In fact, I believe that Bone/LCO/Sawyer County Source fish HAVE been proven 'genetically' capable of reproduction; they just don't do well on that front in waters where NR isn't supported by the environment. Look at it this way, the spawn is collected by the DNR and successfully raised. The eggs hatch. My question is why they DON'T hatch successfully in Bone or other lakes where NR is poor? Are some of the eggs hatching, but the YOY disappearing because of multiple factors including predation by Pike, Bass, etc? There's been a considerable amount of discussion on this subject during the debate, and I think many of the answers are contained there. | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Steve, Fair enough on the "fish not reproducing" issue. I guess what caught me off guard was the statement that "going to one lake all the time runs the risk of inbreeding depression". I guess maybe the jist of my question was that since we "went to the Bone Lake well" A LOT over the last half century, would that in of itself open concerns of an inbreeding issue? Did we, based on the stocking data, provide enough genetic diversity to the mix in the past to counteract the fact that Bone Lake was a primary source (and sometimes vast majority source) for broodstock? And if there were instances of inbreeding depression, what would be the signs? I am interested in seeing how the DNR decides upon the broodstock lake rotation. Lakes like the Chip that have recruitment AND big girl reality seem to be a no-brainer choice. Problem is, how many lakes in Chippewa River basin side fit that bill... and can we get the numbers we need to meet the stocking goal? Guess will find out. Just hoping that in the coming years we are able to identify places in which a 40lber loaded with eggs finds its way into the fyke. I'd hate to have significant gaps in our stocking process where that isn't the case. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think Dr. Sloss's work will give us part of the answer on that issue. The DNR will also be acquiring samples from Kalepps to compare. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |