|
|
Posts: 3147
| We here in Minn have to contend with the group 'no more muskies" which is now called
"Sportsmen for responsible muskie management"
they have a website with their 'very biased hand picked" studys listed
Study your enemys is what Ive always been told maybe people should peruse this garbage 'excuse me" data and add sone insight on how to debate these people in the future when we meet,,in any case its worth it to look and see whats against us
www.muskytroubles.com |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| has a side note TroyZ really handed these people their a### at the Brainard meeting having grown up and aquanted with one of their chosen example lakes |
|
| |
|
Posts: 267
Location: Ft. Wayne, Indiana | Sounds like these people have it all wrong to me. here in Indiana our other fish are bigger and flurishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 154
Location: Appleton, WI | I would send them the study showing that large mouth bass have a larger impact on walleye than skis. Then they can have 2 groups mad at them. |
|
| |
|
| At a recent DNR meeting in Alexandria regarding Muskies, only 8-10 people attended, and almost half of them were with the "No More Muskies" group. That poor of Pro-Muskie tournout probably does not help our cause much. I doubt they'll go away, so we'd better work harder on our public relations. I took it upon myself to produce a brochure titled "What Do Muskies Really Eat?" I passed them around to various local businesses, including Scheel's, Fleet Farm, Sportsman's Warehouse, and Gander Mountain. I also gave out some to fellow Muskies Inc. members, and e-mailed the Word document to everyone who requested it. Mr. Worral was even kind enough to post some of the information on this very site.
I still have it, and will get it to anyone who wants it. I can e-mail it to you, and you can get it printed. It's a Tri-Fold type brochure.
Here is the information, although it's not in the printable format. Think it would change anyone's mind?
Summary
Muskies and Walleyes have co-existed in the same bodies of water for centuries, and all evidence indicates that they will continue to do so. Most premiere Walleye lakes also happen to be excellent Muskie fisheries as well. This would not be possible if Muskies were decimating the Walleye populations, as some suggest.
For example, in the State of Minnesota there are numerous lakes fished for both species. Lake of the Woods, Lake Winibigoshish, Leech Lake, Mille Lacs Lake, and Cass Lake are all top of the line Walleye fisheries that also contain large numbers of Muskies.
Do Muskies eat Walleyes? They do occasionally, but in far less numbers than the number of fish taken by Walleye anglers. Scientific studies based on statistical analysis all conclude that “Muskies eat all the Walleyes” is completely false.
There is room in the lake for both species to exist and thrive, and there is room on the lake for anglers of both species.
Whether you’re a Walleye angler, or a Muskie angler, hopefully you’ve gained a bit more knowledge about how these fish can, and do peacefully inhabit the same waters.
Further Information
You can find more information about one of the main studies referenced in this brochure by typing “Diets of Muskellunge” into your favorite Internet Search Engine.
You may also be able to get more information by calling your local Department of Natural Resources office.
If you’d like extra brochures, please contact Brad Waldera at (701)- 642-1952, or by e-mail at [email protected]
Sources of information
Diets of Muskellunge in Northern Wisconsin Lakes- Michael A. Bozek, Thomas M. Burri, and Richard V. Frie, Wisconsin Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point. July 1991- October 1994. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1999; 19:258-270
Butler, M.T. 2004 Muskellunge Biology: the basics. International Muskie Home Page. Trent University. Peterborough, Canada.
http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol01.html
What do Muskies eat anyway? - Duane Williams, Large Lake Specialist for Lake Vermillion Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries.
http://lakevermilion.com/muskies/htmls/diets.html
What Do Muskies Really Eat?
A short summary of the interaction between the Muskellunge and Walleye, Bass and other Game fish.
Introduction
The Muskellunge is one of the most mysterious fish to ever swim in our lakes. There are many misconceptions about them, and about what food sources make up the majority of their diet.
After reading the information contained in this brochure, you’ll have a better appreciation of the Muskie, understand its diet, and see the ways in which their presence can actually benefit your lake. Studies show they help control the numbers of stunted fish species in the lake, and also undesired fish species.
Some have been hesitant to have Muskies stocked into “their” lakes, as they feared they would consume a substantial amount of other game fish, such as Walleye, Northern Pike, and Bass. In certain fishing circles you’ll even hear it said that “Muskies Eat All The Walleye”, even though studies have proven conclusively that this is not the case.
It’s been demonstrated that NO negative impact on game fish populations has occurred due to the introduction of Muskies into a lake. More often, the effects are positive, as there becomes balance in the food pyramid, which accounts for larger fish of all species.
In the study lakes mentioned in this brochure, there were NO instances in which Walleye were shown to make up the primary or even secondary food source choice of Muskies.
Muskie Behavior and Food Preferences
Feeding studies have shown that other fish make up 95-98% of the Muskies diet, although at times they will also eat insects, crayfish, small mammals, and waterfowl. They are a natural predator, and like all predators, are opportunists. Studies have shown that even when they’re abundant, other game fish made up a very small percentage of the Muskies diet.
Fishermen have reported Muskies attacking bass and walleye as they were being reeled in. This may have given the impression that Muskies are significant predators of other game fish, when in fact, the Muskie was simply reacting naturally to the struggling fish due to their predatory instincts.
Muskies generally take advantage of the most abundant prey species available that are of sufficient size for them to eat. Given the opportunity to choose, Muskies prefer soft-finned, high protein based fish such as suckers, tullibee, ciscoes, bullheads, carp, and minnows. In fact, the food sources Muskies prefer most are usually fish species that most people would rather not have in their lake.
The truth is that even though it’s been proven that Muskies do have a preferred food source they are opportunistic predators, and occasionally consume other game fish. The amount of other game fish eaten by Muskies is minimal compared to the amount of game fish such as Walleye that are harvested by anglers.
Facts, Studies, and Statistics
A major study was undertaken from July of 1991 through October of 1994, and other documented studies were conducted as long ago as 1952. These studies, as well as others, came to the same conclusion. Game fish such as walleye make up a very small part of a Muskie’s diet. In one particular study, the stomach contents from 1092 Muskies were evaluated. The results proved that a Muskie’s diet is quite diverse, and that in 74% of the sample fish, only one food item was present. Muskies are not voracious feeders consuming fish after fish, as some people would have you believe.
Walleye ranked extremely low in the Muskies’ diet. In the 1092 study fish, only five contained traces of walleye. This study collected Muskies from 34 separate bodies of water, including lakes with large populations of walleye. Despite their abundance in those lakes, walleye proved to NOT be an important food source for Muskies. During the study, Muskies and walleyes were observed in very close proximity to one another, as the walleye is also a predator. Walleye made up 3.4% of the total stomach content volume found in the Muskies in that study. Bass species found accounted for 3.1%, even lower than that of walleye. 63.5% of the total stomach content volume was made up of yellow perch and various minnow species.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Northern Wisconsin | nice work derrys. i cant believe there is a group made just to be against muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Very good stuff Brad, your work on this is above the top. If we could have a few guys like you in all the muskie clubs around the states we would be way ahead everyone.
You did send me this info and I passed it along. Great stuff!!!
I am working on getting it printed out for the shows comming up in 2007. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 757
| This is the kind of information I was looking for in my effort to begin a musky stocking of the Chetek Chain in Wi. The chain is well known for its panfish fishery, and many local fisherman fear that if muskies were stocked it would be devastating to the panfish population. That simply is not true. At the beginning of the new year, I'll begin working on petitions which will include information which was provided here. Great stuff! Another fear is the added fishing pressure. Again, by providing information that 90-95 percent of muskies caught are released, this information will also be beneficial. Sometimes people are afraid of change and the more positive information out there that can be presented is needed. Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | About a month ago I emailed Kirk (the author of the Musky Troubles website) a number of times. After a number of emails back and forth, all of a sudden he quit responding.
To briefly summarize the emails with him…he insists that they are not anti-musky. He tells me that all they want is for the DNR to make all of the studies they’ve done public. To this point he states that the DNR hasn’t done “enough” studies.
Whenever I would question him on any of his claims that are clearly false or very twisted, he would completely ignore these questions. This says a lot.
I explained to him that “if” his objectives are what he says they are, then his approach is going to get him nowhere. He actually seemed receptive to this feedback. He asked me what I would suggest. My suggestion to him was to work “with” the DNR, not as someone that appears to attack their every move. Apparently he doesn’t like the idea of working with the DNR rather than against them. I never heard back.
I had probably half a dozen emails back and forth with him, some rather lengthy. So this is just a brief summary of the types of responses I received. As was already said, they aren’t going away, this was also made very clear in the emails that I received. We as musky fishermen need to be very active if we don’t want this group to start getting their way.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Beaver - 1/2/2007 12:15 PM
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Agreed! This is what I was trying to do with my emails with him. I tried to get the point across to him that I was on his side on a number of issues and that we could definitely work together for the common good. But I think when it comes to working "with" the DNR, he wants no part of that. Even though he claims to not be anti-musky, I clearly believe that this is not true. I believe that responsible musky management, to him, means no stocking of muskies, period. Although he will never admit to this. And working with the DNR, he knows, means that the musky program is not going away.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | All be it I have no proffessional experience in fisheries managment, it seems all one has to do is look to the original bodies of water that contained muskies before stocking began. Take the Mississippi and Chippewa river systems for example. Muskies have inhabited these waters and coexisted with every species in the river for thousands of years. Muskies were created to coexist with the aquatic species of North America. If they were taken to Europe or Asia, the story might be different as it is with many species brought here, but that isn't the case at hand. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I took a look at the site, and see some of the worst misuse and manipulation of data I've ever seen. This group selectively abuses comments from biologists and data from studies to try to prove Muskies will destroy the walleye population in near any lake into which they are introduced, a ridiculous and totally unfounded notion.
If this group has ANY political punch at all with the State of Minnesota, it certainly isn't built on any reasonable factual basis. Muskies, Walleyes, and all sorts of other predator fish have co-existed beautifully for thousands of years, and will continue to do so with or without this batch of noise makers.
I'm contacting Dave Neuswanger today to speak to him about how the study he was involved in on Butternut is being portrayed by this group, and will post a response as soon as I can.
If I see another sniper post from over that way, I might just get motivated enough to do a few interviews.
 |
|
| |
|
| Have any serious Walleye angler make a top 5 list of the best Walleye waters in the state of Minnesota. I bet every one of the lakes they'd mention has a thriving Muskie population. You would think that itself would be enough to open their eyes a bit on this subject.
I looked at all the data I could find when I produced my brochure, and I could not find a single documented lake where Walleye made up the Muskie's main food source. Not one instance.
If people are not catching as many Walleyes as they used to, maybe they need to look into that new concept called Catch & Release. Can't they see what it's done for Bass and Muskie fishing? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Exactly. It also has to do with poor NR years where the water was too---something or the other--- and the walleyes didn't do well, creating weak year classes now and again. I have had folks call out Dave N saying he was 'supporting' this group, and that for sure is bunk. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 193
Location: Mayer, MN | "Adults eat mostly minnows, suckers and shad."
Taken directly from their Musky Trivia section.
Kind of contradicts there argument doesn't it. 
Word has it there are some decent walleyes and muskies in Mille Lacs. Rumors of course. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| That website was so pathetic it made me laugh! They have no basis for an argument whatsoever. As the above post stated, THEIR OWN DATA SHEET CONTRADICTS THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR ARGUMENT!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Is there any way the No More Muskie members can put bright walleye chartreuse flags on their cars so that people can stay away from them on the roads? Because if that website is supposed to reflect their rationale and depth of thought, their ability to drive is SEVERELY compromised!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Refer to this for commentary on the issue from Dave Neuswanger, Wisconsin DNR:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/01.26.2007/1153/Balance.In...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Those of you who fish Minnesota waters or live there, please read Dave Neuswanger's piece. Good information that will help you with your debate with this anti-muskie outfit.
Those of you who accused the Wisconsin DNR of 'supporting' this group owe them an apology. Some folks just react without taking the time to gather all the facts. This should help!
I'll move this back to the research forum next Monday, I just wanted to get this information out as quickly as is possible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Very good read. Thanks for posting that and making it more visible rather than letting it get buried or overlooked.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | So, I glaced at the info and I really don't see where the heck this guy is coming from. Is this a PETA guy? All the reports show that walleyes are not really affected by muskies and muskies don't really care to eat them. This guys own papers show that. I guess I just don't understand his standing, he has one guy who says that muskies "MIGHT" eat an eye or two once in a while when all the perch are gone. Gee, I eat an eye or two too.
This guy is probably just another peta type. They don't listen to fact, have some dumb idea and they are running with it. Guess what however, they are showing up at the meetings and we need to address that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Thanks for the info Steve! I'll be making LOTS of copies to the Esox Roundtable meeting this Thursday night where Kirk "Mr. Muskie Trouble" will be attending.
Kirk's big thing is that he's afraid that we're going to stock the Whitefish Chain where he has a cabin. We wanted to stock the Whitefish and the DNR wouldn't let us. He just thinks that if we get Gull then Whitefish will fall too. He (Kirk) has done good for the MN resource in other arenas, he's just completely off his rocker on this one.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That happens, Treats. Sometimes very good folk just get a bit off the factual path, and the resulting arguments cause everyone to look at the opposing party awful harshly. I'd agree with you he's badly off the mark on the no more muskies thing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Steve,
Thanks for doing the leg work to get that article from Dave. I don't think it's anything that the musky crowd didn't already know. But it's a huge help to have an article like that available to contradict the anti crowd!
Shawn, let us know how the meeting goes. I'd be very interested to hear how Kirk responds to that article. I emailed him back and forth a few times in early December. I would get absolutely no response on the questions I would ask regarding facts that would contradict his claims.
Thanks,
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 767
Location: Ames, Iowa | I read the Bozek study thoroughly and wrote to Muskie Troubles. Tables 5 and 6 of that study totally refute any assertions they make that muskies might adversely impact the walleye population in the waters studied, and thus, it refutes Muskietroubles reason to exist. Their response to the study on their website, stated briefly, is that the Bozek study, like others with similar findings, is flawed because the muskies had already adversely affected the walleye population (before the data collection period) and there was little impact on the walleye population left for the muskies to make during the data collection period. The problem with that cop out is that they can say that for every piece of similar research in the future on every muskie/walleye fishery studied. The other point they make is that the study was flawed because the fish studied were at or under 34 inches in length. My guess is that most fish in those systems that are eating those prey species are at or under 34 inches in length, and that those muskies studied are representative of the population in the lake. What more can you ask of the research. Maybe in the future someone will do a similar study of 40-50 inch+ muskies on the same lakes to see if their diet differs from those fish studied. Would one expect to find that the trophy muskies there affect the walleye population significantly more because they eat more walleyes than sub trophy muskies?
The Bozek paper showed a long term study with a large sample of lakes (32) and fish, large enough to make solid conclusions about the muskie's diet during the spring, summer, and the fall. Very impressive work and worth reading and studying in my opinion. By the way, back in the late 70's during work at the Iowa Cooperative Fisheries Unit, we were more worried about the impact of walleye predation on young tiger muskies and muskies than the other way around. Thus one reason for stocking year old fish vs fry/fingerlings. This is yesterday's response to my email:
WE DON'T MAKE CLAIMS. WE SIMPLY CITE THE STUDIES. YOU READ FAR ROO MUCH INTO OUR POSITION. WE DO NOT SAY "WALLEYES ARE AN IMPORTANT PREY ITEM OF MUSKELLUNGE." WE CITE STUDIES THAT SHOW ON SOME WATERS RESEARCHERS HAVE CONCLUDED MUSKIES HAVE BECOME OVERPOPULATED AND NEGATIVLEY IMPACTED THE POPULATION OF ALL FISH INCLUDING WALLEYES. THE BIOLOGISTS CAUTION TO STUDY FIRST AND MANAGE PROPERLY.THATS ALL WE ASK FOR. WE WOULD HOPE EVERY ONE WOULD WANT THAT.AS I HAVE STATED IN THE PAST THE LAST THING WE OR ANY MUSKY FANS SHOULD WANT IS AN OVERSTOCKING OR MANAGEMENT ERROR. ITS HAPPENED. LETS DO OUR BEST TO SEE IT DOESN'T OCCUR AGAIN IN THIS STATE. IOWA IS ANOTHER MATTER BUT THE SCIENCE SHOULD BE THE SAME. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The response is what I would expect.
They badly misrepresented the study Mr. Neuswanger spoke to. I expect they would do the same with other studies. The position they have taken is badly flawed, and supporters of their group who have posted here have been incredibly rude, which doesn't help matters much.
Sounds like they will shift position as is needed to distort whatever data is on the table at the time in order to hold that flawed position. In cases like this fact and then fact, backed up by fact is the best debate tool. Thanks for the comments, sir, and the references. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Hey Steve,
I presented a copy of that letter to Ron Payer and Roy Johannas of the DNR on Monday. They were pretty interested in what it had to say.
My impression is that the DNR thinks Kirk is nothing more then a pain in the a$$ with this whole muskie troubles website. They know that he's twisting everyones words. They know that his arguments hold no water. They're all for keeping the muskie program moving forward. They also know that his "organization" is a head w/o a body and that as soon as his gripe is through it'll be gone. The DNR knows these things and is acting accordingly.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Good news, treats. All public officials have to toe the line now and again, and public pressure that is well placed can sometimes engineer an unintentional response that is bad for everyone. All in all, biologists are usually REALLY good at fisheries management, and not so good at mediation of social issues, which eat up quite a lot of the DNR's time and effort. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 767
Location: Ames, Iowa | Thanks Treats, great job. I think the DNR people know the muskie guys are well read and straight up trustworthy and supportive of the Mn DNR work.
Don |
|
| |
