Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| 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 -> Forage Management |
| Message Subject: Forage Management | |||
jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | we read sometimes altogether too much about opinion regarding stocking, genetics etc ... of primary target species, namely muskies. my purpose for this post though is to solicit the expert commentary on how the food gets managed. what are the typical practices and strategies for managing the type and population of the forage base ... thanks ... hoping to learn a little | ||
| sorenson |
| ||
Posts: 1764 Location: Ogden, Ut | Quite frankly sled, I don't think that much of it's being done. Unless of course, the forage also happens to be a sport species (ie, perch, bluegill, whitefish, etc.). There is a far better return on a biologist's time in the field spent addressing glaring habitat deficiencies that affect all populations within the water rather than singling out and managing on a 'per species' basis. Forage deficiencies, to the extent that they reduce the fitness of large predators, are reasonably rare (yes, I know everyone can cite an exception, but managing for exceptions is counter productive) and for the most part, the forage, while often monitored, is rarely actively managed. In fact, most 'forage management' probably involves removal efforts (rough fish control). Interesting question, it might warrant further investigation. S. Edited by sorenson 3/22/2007 11:40 AM | ||
| J_WEEKS |
| ||
| Johnny, Great question! In my area (La Crosse, Vernon, Monroe and Crawford counties), we incorporate forage management into every one of our trout habitat improvement projects. We see that as the number of forage species increases the condition (weight) of the trout increases. Now, I know trout aren't muskies but I think some of the same pricipals apply. A key to the forage issue is managing the habitat (spawning, natal, and adult cover areas) to bolster forage and thus increase both size (length) and condition of the gamefish populations. Jordan | |||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | Well I guess no one is going to drop in on this so I'll give it a try. As posted habitat is extremely important as is the alkalinity of the water. If the water alkalinity is not right you simply cannot have an envirnoment for the long and often miscrosopic food chain in a given body of water. You also do not get the right envirnoments for eggs to hatch. You can have the best super genetics in the world and if you not have the right alkalinity and habitat it is not going to produce the forage base for the larger predators. That being the case the amount of calicum is as important as the smallest forms of waterlife. You do not get forage without something providing the enviroment for it. The higher the ability of the water to be fertile means more abundant forage, often high-protein based. And that means that with abundant forage the predators have a chance to grow bigger. That does not always mean they will if other factors are not right as well. Genetic diversity is part of this perhaps. Without diversity the ability to adapt is strictly limited. So you could say that true some musky will only grow so big here and bigger there, but genetically they have to have the genes to do it. If they do not they will not adapt to long-term changes. After while they are not around. If the genetic diversity does not exist then the chances of making it long-term are limited. Been proven here in Wisconsin with one of the upland game birds that Sloss addressed. So the genetics that allows a population to use the available habitat and either grow small or large, depending upon what the water quality is like, will be around for the long-term. Habitat is just as important as anything else. About as awkward as I can get on the subject. These genetic things that get going are the same with some trout fisheries, like the coaster brook trout. You'd think that you could just find some genetically programed brook trout to run up the rivers and then into the Lake and then back in to spawn. Well, they tried it and it did not work for years. Reason, mainly habitat, the spawning rearing, and out-to-the-lake continumum of pools with the available forage. 23-million stocked brook trout never brought them back but with habitat again, it's the forage it will produce. Good luck getting those numbers back with what is up on the Lake right now. Water quality is there but there's more to it. I'm really big on habitat and not stocking the heck out of everything. Works short-term, keeps fishermen happy, gets expensive but long-term.....not the case most often. I'll take my soap box and run now......... Edited by lakesuperiorkid 3/28/2007 5:15 PM | ||
| MUSKYLUND1 |
| ||
Posts: 203 Location: Germantown, WI | This is a great thread. I couldn't agree more with lakesuperiorkid. I fear that with all the recent discussions about genetics we are really missing some key factors here in Wisconsin that are impacting our lakes. People focus on stocking here in WI because they have been conditioned to think that way. We certainly would not have the musky fishery that we have today if the WI DNR hadn't been stocking huge numbers of muskies over the last 5-6 decades. The fact of the matter, however, is that times have changed. Catch and Release is now practiced by the majority of musky anglers and musky populations in many waters are at an all time high. There are definitely examples in WI where overstocking has led to a decline in average fish size, e.g. Butternut. In many cases we are likely doing more harm than good by stocking muskies into waters containing naturally reproducing musky populations. What concerns me more than finding the absolute best genetic stock to use in musky hatcheries is protecting and/or enhancing the habitat in our historic musky waters. The rampant development in our Northwoods has without a doubt had very serious effects on musky spawning success/recruitment. Unless we begin very soon to take some serious steps to protect our waters we can never hope to have the world class trophy fishery we all want. What Jordan said about trout management regarding forage should be heeded. WI lakes are not like lakes in MN, MI, ON, IN, OH, PA, or anywhere else for that matter. There are multiple unique ecosystems within the state. Any trout fisherman knows that limestone spring creeks in general are more productive that freestone streams. What are the reasons for this? Limestone streams have less temperature fluctuations and provide more comfortable feeding temperatures for a much longer part of the year. The water is more alkaline and more productive from the bottom of the food chain on up. Scientists tell us that many of the famous lakes in MN have much higher alkalinity that many of our WI lakes. Ok that makes them more productive from the get-go. We can't do anything to alter the basic geology of our state. We can manage the habitat and the human induced inputs (pollution/stocking). We can do more to allow our waters to reach their maximum potential. Part of that is doing a better job with genetics and genetic stock diversity. That is currently being addressed. Unfortunately tackling the habitat and pollution issues are difficult. Stocking appears to be easy, but that is not the panacea that some think it is. Tom Ramsey | ||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | Thanks Tom, Added to this is of course acid rain and the higher than normal levels of mercury we are getting here in Wisconsin without a ground source. I'm just not sure how we can have a discussion without including habitat. The Chippewa Flowage was such a success for years because of its abundance of habitat, dead falls to everything else left after the dam backed up the water. that protected my newly hatched eggs. Now with that gone, it's into the weeds and quckily. LCO suffers a lack of safe rearing habitat that protects musky fry in my opinion. But how to get it in LCO. I agree I think the genetics discussion went on far too long and too personal when we have other work to do up here. Stocking is not always the answer. It's really interesting about the water. The Bayfield area is home to one of the best carbonated spring-fed source of water in Wisconsin and that produced the best brook trout fishing ever. Now with the habitat gone only a few, very few brook trout left. So it does matter and a lot. Amazing we are agreeing on something........must be the right box..... | ||
| 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 |