Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> LL spawning offshore |  |
| Message Subject: LL spawning offshore | |||
Musky_Slayer |
| ||
Posts: 280 Location: Pewaukee WI | Cool threads so far especially the Mille Lacs of late. The thing I'm very curious about is the LL spawning offshore to get away from pike spawning grounds. I've only seen a few sources eluding to this and was wondering if anyone knew more about his indepth. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | The MN DNR with help from MI did a tracking study on Leech Lake about 20 years ago +/-. I doubt the fish were trying to "stay away" from the pike. I think that the fish that were most successful spawning in those areas and in turn their young would use those same areas to spawn in and so on and so forth. Also, in the Leech Lake study the "best" vegetation for muskie spawning was found out in deeper water meaning the old "survival of the fittest" rule probably came into play. | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | From the MN DNR website (the other experts) Minnesota's muskie apparently have evolved to avoid head-on competition with northern pike. If northern pike find their way into muskie water, they seem to proliferate at the expense of muskies. Why does the northern pike compete better? That question continues to puzzle fish biologist, though many believe that the earlier-hatching northern pike prey on newly hatched muskie if the two species use the same spawning areas. In waters where muskie evolved without northern pike present - such as the Park Rapids area lakes, Shoepack Lake and much of Wisconsin - the muskie chooses the same weedy, flooded wetlands that serve as northern pike spawning areas elsewhere. If pike are introduced to these lakes, as they have been in Wisconsin drainages, the northern pike spawn in these same areas - but about two weeks earlier. So when the muskie fry hatch, they may be eaten by the larger young-of-the-year northern pike. To make matters worse, young muskie routinely hang just below the surface of the water, where they are easy prey for birds from above or fish from below. Where the two species have coexisted for thousands of years, as they have in the Mississippi River headwaters, the muskie seem to have adopted different spawning areas. In Leech Lake, for example, muskie spawn offshore in 3 to 6 feet of water. Northern pike, meanwhile, use the weedy shorelines of bays and presumably have less chance to prey on the muskie. Other evidence suggests that riverine conditions help muskie hold their own against northern pike, which prefer slower, weedier water. Indeed, among the areas in Minnesota where muskie and northern pike coexist are the Rainy, Big Fork, Little Fork, St. Croix and Mississippi rivers. Researchers have speculated but haven't proved that northern pike-muskie competition may be affected by other factors, including disease, dissolved oxygen concentrations, water-temperature fluctuations at spawning time, and prevailing water temperatures. Here is the link to this info if you care to see it yourself. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/muskellunge/muskie_northern.html | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Musky_Slayer - 10/9/2006 12:22 AM Cool threads so far especially the Mille Lacs of late. The thing I'm very curious about is the LL spawning offshore to get away from pike spawning grounds. I've only seen a few sources eluding to this and was wondering if anyone knew more about his indepth. Here is an excerpt (between the brackets) from my 3/16/06 response to a similar question posed at a Hayward area meeting about muskellunge management last February. The entire document was posted on the MuskieFIRST main page for several months: [In 1979, Minnesota DNR biologist Bob Strand put radio tags in 14 muskies (all under 48 inches long) in Leech Lake, Minnesota and documented the movement of 12 fish for more than a year. He found six large primary spawning areas where tracked muskellunge spawned away from the shoreline over dense mats of stonewort (Chara) 6-12 inches thick at depths of 3-6 feet where the substrate was comprised of soft, flocculent marl – a calcium-rich substrate high in dissolved oxygen that favors the survival and hatching of musky eggs. If Leech Lake and others in north central Minnesota did not have such high alkalinity (typically 140-150 ppm) and high calcium content, stonewort would not grow in such abundance and the muskies might spawn elsewhere. This "off-shore spawning tendency" of Leech Lake muskellunge, in the end, may be nothing more than a preference for a particular spawning substrate (stonewort over marl) wherever it may occur, which in Leech Lake is some distance away from the shoreline. Leech Lake muskellunge stocked into lakes low in alkalinity and calcium (most northern Wisconsin waters) would not encounter dense mats of stonewort and might therefore choose to spawn in traditional near-shore areas over well-oxygenated substrates. In any event, the supposed ability of Mississippi strain fish to co-exist better with northern pike because of an alleged genetic predisposition to spawn away from near-shore spawning pike has not been proven and cannot form the basis of a policy decision to stock Leech Lake fish outside their native range. At the recent Crossman Muskellunge Symposium in Indianapolis, Indiana, Dr. James Diana of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor stated in a panel discussion, “I don’t think there is any evidence we have to say that a strain that is comfortable in a location where both pike and muskellunge exist, will have any better capability surviving in the long-run in a new situation with pike. I think that we need better research on that coexistence and what causes one or the other to become dominant, but at this point we really don’t know, and I don’t think you can say that the Leech Lake strain will be any better in an inland lake in dealing with pike as a competitor than would the Wisconsin strain." A study done in 1989 (published in 1996) in Point Marguerite Marsh in Alexandria Bay on the upper St. Lawrence River by John Farrell and other New York researchers showed that muskies spawned shallow as expected, but that pike actually spawned deep (opposite the norm). Water level fluctuations had created firm, oxygen-rich substrates near shore (preferred musky spawning habitat), restricting growth of submergent vegetation (good pike spawning habitat, even over mucky substrate) to a greater depth and distance away from shore. For all we know, this could be happening on waters like the Chippewa Flowage. An excellent analysis of this subject by Mike Dombeck and his advisors at Iowa State University in 1986 showed that rising spring water level in Wisconsin and Minnesota flowages was one of the most significant factors associated with successful muskellunge reproduction in lakes with northern pike. They also found that human shoreland development had negative impacts on musky reproduction. Habitat matters.] Since I wrote that summary, we have discovered that at least some Chippewa Flowage muskellunge spawn offshore when appropriate habitat is available. I am going to attach a couple photos -- one of a 49-inch Flowage female that weighed 32.5 pounds and another of the small offshore reef where she was captured in a fyke net in April of 2006. At time of capture, her eggs were free-flowing, and she was accompanied by a single male 42 inches long. They were spawning on firm, oxygen-rich substrate with scattered vegetation on this small, mid-bay reef a couple hundred yards away from shore -- not a northern pike in sight. (Not that it matters -- It's predation by pike THROUGHOUT the first year that can adversely affect the survival of young muskellunge, not just what happens within the first two weeks on the spawning grounds.) Muskellunge are opportunistic. Find some appropriate habitat, and they will try to spawn on it. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | The paragraph below provides more info from the other experts at the MN DNR. These are the experts that have over 20 years of actuall hands on experience with Leech strain muskies netting, studying, raising & stocking these fish. Please pay close attention to the 2nd & 3rd sentences in the paragraph below as this particular subject continues to be ignored by many and debated quite often on this site. This can also be found on the MN DNR website. From the MN DNR website (the other experts) “Fish managers have begun paying much more attention than they once did to the genetic origins of the muskie they stock. Several strains of the fish have evolved in different regions and watersheds. Some grow larger than others, which is of interest to the angler. More important, however, is that the adaptations of some strains allow them to better survive in certain habitats. For example, the muskie of Leech Lake and elsewhere in the upper Mississippi basin has evolved to coexist with northern pike, apparently by spawning in areas different from "classic" northern pike and muskie spawning habitat.” Here is the link to this info. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/muskellunge/management.html | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | '[In 1979, Minnesota DNR biologist Bob Strand put radio tags in 14 muskies (all under 48 inches long) in Leech Lake, Minnesota and documented the movement of 12 fish for more than a year. He found six large primary spawning areas where tracked muskellunge spawned away from the shoreline over dense mats of stonewort (Chara) 6-12 inches thick at depths of 3-6 feet where the substrate was comprised of soft, flocculent marl – a calcium-rich substrate high in dissolved oxygen that favors the survival and hatching of musky eggs. If Leech Lake and others in north central Minnesota did not have such high alkalinity (typically 140-150 ppm) and high calcium content, stonewort would not grow in such abundance and the muskies might spawn elsewhere. This "off-shore spawning tendency" of Leech Lake muskellunge, in the end, may be nothing more than a preference for a particular spawning substrate (stonewort over marl) wherever it may occur, which in Leech Lake is some distance away from the shoreline. Leech Lake muskellunge stocked into lakes low in alkalinity and calcium (most northern Wisconsin waters) would not encounter dense mats of stonewort and might therefore choose to spawn in traditional near-shore areas over well-oxygenated substrates.' That's not in conflict with the MN website commentary and may better explain the deeper spawing behavior of the Muskies in Leech Lake. This subject was covered quite a bit at the symposium, and I left there with the distinct impression that muskies will spawn where the best substrate is available, and that spawning shallower or deeper than Pike in any particular system is more a symptom of the best available bottom composition than avoidance of Pike. Mr. Diana's statement was to that subject directly, as I remember. As an aside, that trait, if it is what you insinuate, might spell doom for the LL strain NR in many Muskie waters here in Wisconsin because the necessary deeper bottom composition would not be available, but Pike will be present. If the tendency is to spawn deep because of an evolotionary adaptation to Pike and no suitable conditions exist, then the fish will fail to reproduce, right? | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Quote SWorall - "As an aside, that trait, if it is what you insinuate, might spell doom for the LL strain NR in many Muskie waters here in Wisconsin because the necessary deeper bottom composition would not be available, but Pike will be present. If the tendency is to spawn deep because of an evolotionary adaptation to Pike and no suitable conditions exist, then the fish will fail to reproduce, right? I doubt it. Leech strain were stocked into Nancy lake as you know. Although NR there was not found to be significant there it did happen unlike every other muskie water in the same management area that has been stocked with WI fish for decades. Nancy lake is the only lake with documented NR of muskie in that same management area. Heard that first hand while visiting the DNR in Spooner before the great strain debate started. Why was NR not found to be significant in Nancy? Maybe, just maybe, because it was only stocked 3 times?,...unlike nearly every other muskie water in WI that has been stocked repeatedly for decades? Maybe because the first year it was sampled for YOY fish the only fish that would have definitely been mature yet and capable of even spawning would have been from the 1st stocking only? Fish from the 2nd & 3rd stocking would not have been spawining yet based on MN DNR information of age in relationship to maturity. This would certainly scew the results. Also, in the report on Nancy lake, the comparison made between NR in Nancy and NR in other WI lakes, the WI data included WI lakes that have self-sustaining populations that do not even get stocked. If it would have compared Nancy lake to only stocked muskie fisheries in the same managemet area (apples to apples) the results would have shown NR in Nancy lake the clear winner as no other waters in that management area have any documented NR. Its not hard to get the results you want when you make comparisons that are not apples to apples, as you know. Edited by Lockjaw 10/10/2006 9:09 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | There you go, answering your own question with a bunch of assumptions and ignoring the assumptions you made in the LAST post, classic 'look over there' political form, that being common to the group you represent. Nancy Lake was covered carefully, completely, and data provided to us by the area fisheries folks who studied that water last Spring. Leech Lake fish were not stocked there because YOU wanted them to be nor was the study conducted under your group's direction or as a result of your influence. I'm sure the DNR fisheries folks conducting that work had ZERO motivation to do anything but what is correct, yet because the data didn't confirm your platform's expectations you belittle the results and accuse the DNR area managers there of some sort of ridiculous conspiracy theory action. As I remember things, the WMRT dismissed that information out of hand and generally insulted the fisheries people who conducted the research. So don't lecture us about Nancy Lake. Get yourselves your own website message board, draw the traffic you need to spread whatever message you wish, and have at it. Or, better yet, put your efforts into doing something positive. Some supporters of this group even openly abused folks who DID step up and work with the DNR on the side by side comparison studies underway right now, which leads me to think this platform is about the WMRT first and it's Leech Lake It's The Fish beliefs second, not what a majority of muskie anglers in Wisconsin would like to see or what is best for the resource. NOT ONE scientist, not ONE fisheries manager, NO ONE in the field has stepped up to support the WMRT platform, manipulation of the available data, or conclusions and resulting demands. Isn't that strange? | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |