|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | This Creel Clerk happened to survey Sean who posted it here, how many other people were surveyed. If the surveyor suggest something to someone who does not belong to a musky club or someone who does not read “research message boards” it is likely the only education they will get on the issue is from the clerk. There is lots to consider with this issue. And it looks like what was said to Sean came directly out of the article that was printed in the Green Bay and Milwaukee papers.
Pro 54” groups might want to get some flyers at the GB landings, to point out the issues Tom just pointed out.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What exactly would one expect a creel clerk or fisheries tech to say if presented with the questions/arguments Sean posted? If he/she knows what the department/ local biologist/his/her superior's stance is, you expect he/she would suggest otherwise or contradict that position to the public just to make public popularity points? Now what, we are going to be critical of information gathering operations if the person responsible for collecting information doesn't say what we want to hear? Pretty soon we'll collectively have ALL the DNR employees plain not talking to the public at all ( as has been the case in the past, and a #*^@ed shame at that), and I wouldn't blame them a bit.
I second what Tom said, I'm delighted the survey is underway, if that was indeed a Creel clerk. By the way, many of those folks make a couple bucks over minimum wage for the most part, and for the most part are LTEs (limited term employees). They make no policy I am aware of....
Is Sean sure this WAS a creel clerk? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Good points Steve.
When I attended the spring Conservation Congress hearing in Kewaunee County, a local fisheries tech (who had nothing to do with the Green Bay system, for the most part) basically summarized the same points Sean posted. I think that these points are the "official DNR position" of sorts, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that--and I didn't mean to imply that there was. My point in responding to them (in a rather verbose fashion) was that there are many differing viewpoints, and thus one needs to realize that there is much to be determined about the Green Bay musky fishery.
So none of this is etched in stone, by any means...
TB
EDIT: Almost forgot, about Mike's comments--I agree that we would want people to get as much information as is possible, and not necessarily just hear it from a creel clerk. But I am not sure how feasible it is to put flyers at the landings; but I can certain bring up the issue tomorrow night at our MI chapter meeting. But I would hope that anglers targeting muskies (and thus being interviewed in a musky-specific creel survey) have enough basic knowledge on the system to know that it's a bit more complicated than one creel clerk might suggest. NOt to imply that the clerk is trying to mislead anyone--I don't think that at all. But hopefully they will know someone that knows someone that knows someone...that has heard that there's more to the story. But I will certainly raise the idea at the meeting tomorrow. Thanks for the post Mike.
Edited by tcbetka 6/9/2008 3:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | As to "was it a creel clerk"..I just don't know. Clearly I should have remembered his name, especially since it was on his ID which was dangling from his neck. He was sitting in his car, got out as soon as I pulled my boat out, and approached me. He said he was with the DNR and wondered if he could ask me a few questions. They were, 1) where do you live? 2) were you targeting muskies?
Even if I knew his name I wouldn't have posted it, because this really has very little to do with him. After I asked about the status of the 54" limit, he offered the comments that I posted above, which I took, and I feel rightly so, as the WDNRs comments. Steve, I understand your concerns about taking one employees views as DNR gospel, but this guy was reciting, not talking. So I was and am concerned.
That fishery has already out out a number of 40-50 pound fish, possibly a 60 pound fish (Dempsey's), and those are the ones we know about...yet still, know body knows what GB is truly capable of. Based on Kapuscinski's publication, potential 55-60 pound fish? That puts GB in pretty small company.
I know the we need to work together with the WDNR to protect this fishery, but I couldn't help feel that we might be miles apart if the views I heard yesterday were indeed those of the WDNRs.
Let me ask the tough question. Who at the WDNR on the Musky Management Team feels that a 54" limit is biologically warranted in GB? If the answer is no one, than I would say that my fears of protecting this world class musky fishery are justified.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | It was a creel clerk then...if he was waiting in his car, and approached you when you were at the landing.
As to your last question...I don't know. But I *can* tell you that I do know for certain that there are several in the state's fishery department who realize that it isn't just about the biology. I have spoken to them several times and am quite comfortable that they understand our concerns, and even share them. Don't think for a second that having a fishery in the state that is capable of a world-record caliber of fish isn't of importance to these guys. I guarantee it is, and you'll just have to take my word for it.
If you look at the work that Drs. Crossman & Cassleman have published, you generally won't find too many recommendations for size limits of 50" or higher (at least not that I have seen). Yet, there they are--all over Canada--and these two scientists are both Canadian, and probably two of the most accomplished to ever publish on muskellunge. but still, the Ontario MNR routinely sets size limits *above* what these two scientists have determined to be "biologically necessary." Why? My guess is it's because Canada recognizes the tremendous value of a trophy muskellunge fishery, and they have listened to anglers who have told them that they wanted bigger fish. Sociology at work...
Wisconsin will get there, I have no doubt. I firmly believe that we will see a 54" size limit on Green Bay; but it's not a slam dunk by any means. However we now have the support of the biologists who, although have stated that there may not be a biological need for it, have not said that it would be biologically harmful to the fishery to have a 54" limit. I believe that the WMMT is listening to our concerns, and does see the big picture. But I also realize that there are those in this state that do not yet view a larger size limit as favorably as I do, and thus may be against it at this time--and the WDNR must answer to these folks as well. So I certainly cannot blame our biologists for being cautious and apprehensive. Perhaps if Wisconsin employed some resource sociologists, there might be more dissenting opinion at the WMMT meetings?
But as the creel clerk told you--if enough anglers want it, it will happen. I only hope that the issue will stay on everyone's mind, and people in support of the higher limit will take every opportunity to discuss it *rationally* with those that may not feel the same way. I also hope that those in support will show up to vote next spring, when it really matters. But realize that, no matter what we do, there will always be folks that will vote against it--that's the way the world works. But not everyone has to support it, and there will also be those that will need to see the benefits before jumping on-board the 54" train. And I have no problem with that either...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 6/9/2008 6:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One thing that is different with every single 54" protected water in Canada is they are self sustaining; most have never been stocked, and are not and never will be 'put and take' as BOGB might end up -literally- if NR on the Bay is not happening and pressure/post release mortality/etc remain on the increase. If indeed NR ISN'T going to happen to a sustainable level on the Bay, we may be talking abut an entirely different motivation to see a larger limit...simply and only to allow the last few fish from each stocked year class to reach maximum potential. I sure hope we see YOY out there, and soon, because I fear that battle will be far harder to win.
Define 'biologically warranted' from the perspective of the rest of the Bay anglers and those who are challenged to manage the resource for all of us...including those not so interested in forcing release of all but the last few vestiges of each STOCKED year class to reach upper confidence levels. Perhaps there is the rub...philosophy, not biology. That's a workable scenario, IMHO, because with enough support, a philosophy can be altered, whereas a biological 'fact of the matter' isn't as easy to get by.
What about the fish down system, they will be 'coming of age' before too long and NR 'seems' to be happening if reports of Muskies of all sizes from the Winnebago chain hold to be true. Are we looking to protect the entire system's big girls to 54"?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I take it you mean "up stream" from GB Steve? If so, I would say that it would depend upon the forage base, and how well the population seems to do in those waters. If Winnebago would support a 54" limit, then I suppose it would be reasonable to go after that type of thing--but it might not support it to the level of the bay itself. And if that's the case, then I don't see why it should be sought. But it's an issue that needs to be addressed in due course. But here's another thought I had about the whole "biological need" for a higher size limit in Green Bay.
When the DNR decided to reintroduce the Great Lakes Strain of muskellunge into the system with a goal of reestablishing a population that had previously been extirpated, they had three objectives (paraphrased here):
1) Obtain from a suitable population of similar fish, enough eggs to establish a broodstock program. They used the Indian Spread Chain fish, and some from Lake St. Clair. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED.
2) Establish a broodstock lake, and rear fish in a hatchery for planting back into Green Bay. Long Lake in Waushara County filled the bill. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED.
3) Stock the offspring of these broodstock into Green Bay, and establish a naturally-reproducing population of adult muskellunge. To date, no successful reproduction has been documented. OBJECTIVE NOT ACHIEVED.
So, let's theorize for a minute here--If the original goal of reestablishing a previously-extirpated species, and the objectives by which that goal can be reached, were established by biologists...are these not "biological" goals? Do they not form the "biological basis" for the actions taken thus far in the management of the Green Bay muskellunge population? If anyone agrees that the answer to these questions is yes, then how could one justify allowing ANY harvest to continue from Green Bay, when one of the original biological objectives has not yet been met. Isn't this a legitimate enough "biological need" to justify increased regulation? Are those original objectives no longer valid?
In my humble opinion, until we declare GB a put & take fishery, these are still valid objectives--and thus that's all the "biological need" that it should take to justify additional protection for the fish...whether it be a 54" limit increase, or a total C&R system. And finally, isn't being somewhat hypocritical to disregard one or more of these objectives now; simply because it's more convenient to do so--would that be the intent of those who developed the original reintroduction plan?
TB
Edited by tcbetka 6/9/2008 9:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| "Let me ask the tough question. Who at the WDNR on the Musky Management Team feels that a 54" limit is biologically warranted in GB? If the answer is no one, than I would say that my fears of protecting this world class musky fishery are justified. "
The answer is no one at the WDNR has stated this even tough it is without a doubt the right thing to do. Even for a "restoration project". If I'm wrong please provide the name who do support this on a biological basis.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Meant 'down' south of the Bay, Tom. 
Sure, the objectives were what you posted, but so far there's not NR indicated yet, which worries me, do you think study of the system will show NR in the near future?
I didn't declare anything, but so far, I think you have to agree...if there's no known NR, the system's immediate spotted muskie program's future will rely on stocking. If there's limited or no NR, and there's good numbers of Muskies there (which seems to be the case)...why is there limited or no NR; habitat? Substrate? Competition from other fishes? I suspect if we follow your line of reasoning, Tom, one would have to indicate that the numbers of spawning Muskies MUST be maximized due to one or a combination of issues and therefore harvest forbidden for success to be achieved...is that the case?
I don't think the restoration project ever contained a stated goal of a 'world class trophy fishery that will be C&R only or at the least a 54" minimum'...that's now OUR goal as 'Muskie conservationists', and in order to attain it we all need to be mindful of all the pitfalls, social, scientific, and political....and look them over now, not before the CC hearings when the vote is so critical so education of the public as to why we are looking for the 54" vote to pass....everywhere in the State....can be accomplished.
I fear the recent revival of the extremely negative attack oriented rhetoric elsewhere (the original reason for this thread posting) has probably put us at least as many miles apart as Sean fears with some of the very folks we need the most to win the day here. We will make sure the discussion on this board sticks to the debate at hand, which, by the way, Tom's interest and involvement and folks like Mike Roberts well considered input helps along.
I play 'devil's advocate' now and again to make a point, so some points posted may at times seem a rather blunt challenge...they are. If WE can think of a reasonable challenge, so will those who would not like the 54" limit to happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | From the info provided to Sean by the creel clerk:
“they believe that the Great Lake strain actually grows too fast (50"s in 7-10 yrs)”
Without going to my reference file I believe that the average age of maturity for musky is someplace between 3 and 5 years.
That means there could be 50” fish being harvested that only spawned two years based on the above info. If those fish truly are reaching 50” in 7-10 yrs. Then in my untrained opinion they should be left to grow to 54” that could easily double or quadruple their spawning life. Sure seems like a good biological reason when self sustaining population is the goal. Plus I would guess these YOUNG big fish would have very viable eggs, and LOTS of them. It’s not like their 30 year old fish, and right now we don’t know how long they will live in the cold water of Green Bay. Maybe in years 15 to 30 is when they go from a 53” 30 pounder to a 55” 50 pounder. I believe this has been stated about Leech Lake fish. The grow fast and put on weight later in life.
Also, I believe there has been a number of documented mid fifty inch fish, so there is good reason to believe they have the potential to get that big. It’s not a pipe dream.
Nail A pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 7-10 is a heck of a spread, that number isn't verified by the managers over there working that project; this is 'dock talk' at a landing. I think we need to do the math from original stocking to the really big (over 50") fish showing up in any number at all, looking at each stocking and the year class sizes available from same.
Facts.
Then we can leap to our barroom biologist conclusions, which may have some merit, and may not. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | The model published by Kapuscinski et al shows that the average female fish will reach the 50" mark at about 12-13 years. I don't know where the 7-10 years comes from. I have spoken to our biologist about this several times, so I am quite sure of the 12-13 year number.
Check out his presentation: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/documents/GLS_Musky_April2nd.pdf
It's a very nice presentation, and quite informative. Look at pages 18-20, especially.
The other thing to remember is that Mr. Rowe has updated the "all fish" growth model, and consequently the Average Ultimate Length (AUL) for all fish, after he received numerous cleithra from known length fish. I believe he has increased the all-fish AUL from 47.9 to 48.1 inches. However, because these fish were of unknown sex, he could not use the data to update the AUL for *female* fish, so that remains at the 53.3" originally published by Mr. Kapuscinski.
I should add that if anyone is interested, Mr. Rowe is a very good guy to talk to--and extremely knowledgeable on the Green Bay muskellunge population. I would encourage people to contact him with any specific questions on this presentation, because I cannot do it justice in the short span of this post. I have said this several times in public forum, but feel that it is worth repeating here--I am quite confident that the GB musky fishery is in good hands under his care.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 6/9/2008 10:02 PM
Meant 'down' south of the Bay, Tom.
Sure, the objectives were what you posted, but so far there's not NR indicated yet, which worries me, do you think study of the system will show NR in the near future?
I didn't declare anything, but so far, I think you have to agree...if there's no known NR, the system's immediate spotted muskie program's future will rely on stocking. If there's limited or no NR, and there's good numbers of Muskies there (which seems to be the case )...why is there limited or no NR; habitat? Substrate? Competition from other fishes? I suspect if we follow your line of reasoning, Tom, one would have to indicate that the numbers of spawning Muskies MUST be maximized due to one or a combination of issues and therefore harvest forbidden for success to be achieved...is that the case?
SNIP...
Well Steve, you raise some good points as usual. My argument was pretty much intended as your was--picking a polar position, and arguing it. I cannot believe that the original biologists who conceived the reintroduction plan back in the 80s, had any real idea as to just how successful this fishery would become. Maybe in their "wildest dreams" they did, but I bet there weren't many of them sitting around telling their bosses that they were confident there would be WR-class fish swimming around in 15-18 years! Maybe they did, but I doubt it.
About the NR issue... I think that all we are looking for is a "qualitative" conclusion on spawning success; not necessarily a quantitative one. So if the biologists can document that there are indeed YOY muskies swimming around in the fall, in numbers that have statistical significance and can be reproduced to some degree, then that's probably good enough. At that point one can probably presume that the original objectives have been achieved. I don't personally think it's fair to have to enforce a criterion of "enough NR to sustain the population" before declaring success directed towards the original goal. It just isn't realistic, when so many things are different than when the plan was originally conceived 20 years ago.
I think that overall, even without documented NR in the system, the WDNR has done a TREMENDOUS job with the fishery to date--and I believe that it will continue to improve. Certainly there has been much help from the DNR partners...especially the Musky Clubs Alliance folks, who have contributed $200K PLUS to the effort to date. The program simply wouldn't be where it is today without these folks. But there are risks (VHSv, for example) and as is human nature, we always strive to make things better--hence the 54" limit. But what's wrong with that? What's wrong with being resource-frugal, and not wanting to see the fishery depleted as so often happens at the hands of man? I certainly don't have to tell you about Wabigoon and Lac Seul--you know that as well as anyone does. I am simply trying to do everything possible to prevent the words "Green Bay" from appearing in that group...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | sworrall - 6/10/2008 12:12 AM
7-10 is a heck of a spread, that number isn't verified by the managers over there working that project; this is 'dock talk' at a landing.
Exactly Steve, which is why I believe it should not be used as a talking point from a any DNR employee, LTE, or volunteer. Because that could lead to 'dock talk' from the other side and so on, just like my post above.
Tom you have so much good information that there is a chance the message could get lost to the average fisherman. One thing I did when lobbying for the Pelican Lake 50” limit is write up a FAQ sheet. We new just about every argument we where going to get against the increase, because they had been used before. I wrote it up and answered the questions as best as I could based on what I remembered from reading many reports and talking to many biologists. I then sent it to the County Biologist, his supervisor, the head of the WDNR Muskellunge Standing Committee, Steve Heiting, and Steve Worrall. I then took all the comments and suggestions revised the answers and again sent it to the experts for approval and ended up with the FAQ that Steve still has up here on Muskie First:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/06.12.2008/1029/Muskie.Siz...
When I suggested a pamphlet before I was thinking something like this. A tri fold brochure that hopefully could be put in a distribution box at the GB landings, answering all the questions that are sure to come up in laymen’s terms. I did this with my FAQ and had it at the Muskymart, and some of the bars that supported the increase. The owners said it really helped when people would come in complaining about the proposal or just asking questions about it.
I think this technique could be used for just about any Musky proposal, and I think it is key to getting grass roots growing.
Good Luck!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, you are absolutely correct. |
|
| |
