|
|
| Hello I'm a member of this great board but forgot to sign in. I don’t post much but I do read posts every now and again. I don't want to ruffle any feathers with anyone just hoping for some thoughts on the Fox/GB system. For a long time I've had these thoughts and was wondering what you all think. This will get long, forgive my spelling and punctuation, I’m just going to type fast, if you fish the fox or GB you may want to read.
I’ve fished the fox for 5-6 years casting in the fall, I’ve done fairly well but not as good (numbers) as Vilas, MN or Ontario but it’s still fun cause its close to home. Seems like its either hit or miss.
First; thanks to the WI DNR and the Clubs for your stocking efforts, you've made a lot of people happy and I think have improved the fishery and also the water quality.
This may be an off the wall comment but I’d say these fish are feeding primarily on carp and suckers in the spring which seem to be very over abundant. If they are feeding on them as I suspect, the turbidity of the water should improve slightly and also could create better spawning areas where the carp won’t smother the eggs. I’d say the biggest problem in their lack of successful spawning is the huge population of carp in the shallows who spawn in the same area. Any thoughts on this? Maybe a biologist could comment if they happen to read this. I’ve wondered about this for some time.
I talked with a canoer last year who said he saw 10 dead muskies floating in one day while he was paddling up one side of the river. I'd say there are hundreds of muskies accidentally killed by walleye fisherman each year due to bit offs and fatigue while fighting/handling. It’s not the fisherman’s fault but it happens none the less. With that many lines in the water a fish will eventually eat. I don’t think a fish stands a very good chance reaching an old age if she migrates upstream of fort Howard every spring. I think there is little to no chance in preventing spring die offs but I think it may be possible to look at other areas to help out he population.
Here is my main question. .
Since it hasn’t been shown that any successful natural reproduction has occurred in the Fox do you think it would be a good idea to stock some of the yearlings/fingerlings offshore aways in the bay itself? I'm sure there are areas where it may be suitable with little or no pike spawning.
Even if this was done I don't know if it would in any way prevent the fish from going up the fox in the fall/spring anyways? I would think that a few may spawn offshore throughout their life though if this was done. This idea came into my head awhile ago when I caught some immature WI strain fish in the Fox. Where do you think these fish came from in regards to their parents spawning location? Do you think that these fishes’ parents could be spawning successfully offshore and some of their offspring happen to run up the Fox in the fall? This is my only explanation unless they are spawning in the Fox successfully?
I would guess their are a few fish that live in the bay all year but wouldn’t it be a great situation if there were a decent number of mature fish spawning offshore. Maybe there are? Some of their offspring would most likely run up the river in the fall but some may also stay out in the bay. I’m not sure if this is possible; what do you think?
Have there been any studies done showing migration of muskies in relation to where they were stocked as fingerlings/yearlings? This has been shown with salmonids but I haven’t seen any info on other species. This is just an idea and would like to hear if others have any info or thoughts.
Thanks again to the clubs and DNR
|
|
| |
|
| Also forgot to mention the millions of exotic gobies that eat just about everything they can. I know they are thick in the fox and also some areas of the bay. Another problem for spawning most likely. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | First off, I dont know much of anything about the Fox or the biology of what goes on over there. The one idea that pops into my head would be that perhaps there is no natural reproduction at all in the system and that the populations are merely supported by the continued stocking by the DNR and clubs, something similar to that of the salmon population in Lake Michigan. A good question for the local biologist. |
|
| |
|
| Anything living in the Fox for any long period of time will die. I would think out in the Bay in the deeper waters there is a healthy population of large Muskie and Pike. The Forage is so much bigger and healthier than anything living in the Fox. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | Some of your smaller rivers and streams i would think have a low natural reproduction going on and even a few shallow bays might support alittle. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| After catching a few muskies in this system, I believe there is some natural reproduction going on out there due to catching quite a few fish that have no fin clips, yes I know some slip through the system when it comes to clipping, but, I have seen enough to think that these aren't just flukes.
the fox is prolly one of the worst areas to spawn as far as the silt suffocating the eggs, but, for the dnr to collect spawning fish in their nets, it remains one of the best for the numbers they get. I totally agree with stocking in other areas to try and imprint these fish to return to better suited areas where there is better chance of fry survival. There has been a lot of talk about creating better spawning habitat first, and then dumping fertilized eggs into those areas with hopes of a more natural take off, Instead of just putting young of the year into those areas and hoping they will return to spawn on their own.
As Eric said, there are also some smaller weedy bays that have a very promising composition to support better reproduction, but, in a system as large as GB, there needs to be more of a wide-spread introduction, there is so much out there that we should be investigating than just dumping yearlings at the boat landing.
But, I won't lie, this last year was one of the best we have seen out there for year classes of fish, the future looks bright for the next couple years. Other than a dozen 50+'s being taken out this year. Thats gonna leave a mark.
As for the wisconsin stain fish, they prolly come from the other rivers dumping into the system, not to mention, they could come as far from the winnebago system, tis very possible. If you think about it, they could be fish that were stocked in Shawano. There are some roamers out there.
|
|
| |
|
| E and Dogboy,
thats what I was thinkin and may be a good idea.
Dogboy what do you mean by the 50's being taken out? Thanks for the good info.
Also sorry about the location here, thought I posted this under the research board, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 144
Location: Green Bay, WI | He meant many 50"+ fish were taken out of the fox this year and mounted...definitely hurts. GB needs the size limit raised to 54". I forgot to vote today but I won't miss April 16th. |
|
| |
|
| Basically the fox right now is a put and take fishery from the data thus far presented. The river should have more small mouth and northern as well but the river is not well for spawning. If you could get some females off shore spawning you could get some great numbers in theory. These are subjective to the location but here are some possible numbers.
250,000 egggs per female at 1% success rate is 2,500 musky per year.
If a female lives to around 20 years of age this would be is a very substantial number. Exponential growth would eventually set in with second and third generations.
The best way to accomplish this would be to find 5-10 sites offshore to stock the fingerlings and stock them there every year. Then return a few years later at maturity in the spring to see if there is spawning occuring. Then stock the areas that seem to be the most beneficial from the data recorded.
John
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | Dogboy,
There are naturals stocked up in sturgen bay thru out the late 80's.The naturals could have came from there.Also theres a river in the U.P. near bay de noc that was also stocked with some naturals. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | There either is some natural reproduction going on or some of those stocked muskies are really traveling. My father has a place in Gills Rock (over 100 miles from GB as the shoreline goes) and he saw 2 different 16" ski's in his harbor. There aren't really any good weeds to spawn in around there so that means they're traveling. I know that Sturgeon Bay has a population but that's still a long haul to GR.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | I heard a year ago one tagged fish traveled from green bay to michigan where it was caught a second time and tagged.(I believe it was the U.P. somewhere)Thats a lot of travel.I think they follow the bait fish migrations thru out the summer so there really putting on the miles, my 2 cents. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| we had caught a ski that went maybe 35" 2 years ago, it looked like a cross between a spotted fish and a plain. the whole fish was straight silver with some green on the back and it had sporattic dots here or there. Very odd, definitely haven't seen one look like that through all the fish we've handled.
Hopefully all went well with the 54" proposal, and this shouldn't be as big of an issue when it comes to harvesting mature fish. But something has to be done about the stocking locations. There is so much potential out in the bay its not even funny.
Heck, maybe we do like the small stocking runs put on by area clubs. fill our boats with fish and take them to "designated" areas.  |
|
| |
