|
|
Posts: 760
| Hello everyone, I'm new to this forum and have taken an interest to the musky stocking debate. My question is stocking new lakes,lakes that previously contained no muskies. This leads me to the Chetek Chain. With the high fertility and the great forage base, the chain could really produce some trophies! I understand this year fish are to be netted from the chippewa flowage. By using the best Wi strain fish,with no bone lake fish,and beginning a fishery from scratch,could the Chain become a future trophy destination? Or should leech strain fish be used? Either way,the chain is a perfect candidate for stocking. kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, Bone lake fish could do very well there and grow very large. The problem with Bone is NOT the fish. I sure hope that debate is dead, it's total bunk. No, leech lake strain probably are not the answer there, the DNR would never stock thos fish in the flowage, I'm betting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve, been a long time.
If it has already been determined that the problem in NW WI is not with the fish, then why is a genetics study underway and why the side by side Leech/WI strain study lakes if this is total bunk?
To date, the results of side by side studies done by experts comparing performance of Leech/WI strains in the same waters show that overall the Leech strain performed better. By taking advantage of this knowledge, not only did the MN DNR change its broodstock selection to the strain that performed best, but I and many other anglers have changed where we choose to travel and spend our money in search of better muskie fishing. Since doing this, it has paid huge dividends in both size & numbers for us. Or maybe we are just getting lucky?
Even our own WDNR secretary, Scott H., who claims there is no problem with the stocked fish in NW WI and was so proud that a total of 18 50" muskies were reported to M.I. last year from all of WI, is also now travelling to MN to fish muskies and it appears to be paying off quite nicely for him as well. Between two trips to MN, WDNR secretary Scott H. not only caught the largest musky of his life, but his son caught two muskies in just 2 hours that were even larger ( both 50"+ ) than his fathers. See last weeks copy of the WI Outdoor News. Is this article a misprint? LOL!
Results of side by side studies done by experts clearly shows that some musky strains grow larger and perform better than others under the exact same conditions in the exact same waters. This should be a major consideration in the selection of broodstock to be used for stocking.
Despite the fact we completely disagree on this issue, I hope you are enjoying and having a good season.
Thanks
EJohnson
Edited by Lockjaw 8/16/2006 4:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Spin it any way you like, I'll wait for the genetics study to complete and will not try to interpret data selectively and without the support of science and those who practice fisheries management. We've covered this almost to the point of the sublime. A number of the large fish caught from Mille Lacs are/were Wisconsin fish, by the way, I believe LCO fish were stocked. I remember the first barred fish caught by Mr. bentely out of Eddies, back a number of years ago. Went for low 40's, to low 50's, and up.
The 'side by side' comparisons you speak of in some areas actually showed Ohio fish do better in some waters, Leech fish nearly disappeared in others and didn't do well at all, did very well in some waters but didn't reproduce as well as needed for a long term self sustaining fishery; and all long term, not in the first six years. Wisconsin fish did really well long term, by the way, in many of the works I've seen. As you are aware, we have several projects underway in Wisconsin that allow for introduction of Leech Lake fish alongside of Wisconsin fish ( if we can get them in any numbers or acceptable health). I'd like to see the Leechers do really well, because I personally find that strain easier to catch. We will see!
I don't disagree with anything you are promoting from any vantage point other than that of the very scientists who performed those studies. Your reference to the fishing trip to Minnesota is spin, too, and an extension of your groups insistence that the DNR in Wisconsin needs to be embarrassed and taken to task by a bunch of activists on a bash and attack mission. It's that sort of reference that almost eliminated any credibility your group might have once acquired, which really is a shame, because the debate is a good one with more facets than are readily visible first glance. Stick to science interpreted by scientists, and you'll get alot further.
The Mille Lacs, Vermilion, and other stockings are JUST now coming into thier own, and fishing in Minnesota will probably never again be as good as it is now for big fish. You know why, that's been covered well too. Ever hear of 'new reservoir' syndrome? The very lake this strain was acquired from is quiet now, no where near the pressure it used to have from visiting anglers, why? Because, the 'new' and 'newly discovered' waters coming into maturity are better for a trophy opportunity at this point. Streams of Muskie anglers and a limit allowing for harvest at 48" will eventually be the equalizer.
Enough of this, we have volumes and volumes of material covering this debate.
Season has been great, just not enough time ot fish as much as I'd like! |
|
| |
