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 -> Mississippi vs. Wisconsin, vs Great Lakes vs Ohio River |
| Message Subject: Mississippi vs. Wisconsin, vs Great Lakes vs Ohio River | |||
MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I reworked these questions a little, to reflect new information. What are the chances that when the genetics work is done, it turns out all these strains (Genetic Stocks) are so closely related they are considered subpopulations or even populations. If they where considered part of the same subpopulation, would mixing them still cause concern for out-breeding depression? Is it possible all these fish are that closely related? And now the hard question that will require speculation, if they are similar enough, would it maybe be possible to stock some MR or GL fish in the lakes (that had native inland WI musky) that need the fish the most to help them along the road to recovery? Notice I say maybe, I don’t want to have anybody’s feet held to the fire, I feel it would be interesting to hear some answers to speculative questions. On a little different note, I believe that it is vary possible that our problems in Wisconsin could all be related to MANMADE genetic problems. Harvest induced evolution over the last 100 years, combined with artificial evolution based on egg taking practices, over 100 years, plus mixing of small and large strain fish. This was not intentional, and actually probably saved the musky population in Wisconsin. But it could all be factors. And could explain while one part of the state seems to be far worse off than the other, if egg taking practices where different. What operational differences are there between the two hatcheries? Has this been looked into? Thanks Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 2/24/2006 11:24 PM | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | ttt | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | MIKE ROBERTS: What are the chances that when the genetics work is done, it turns out all these strains (Genetic Stocks) are so closely related they are considered subpopulations or even populations? DAVE: Mike, please re-read the definitions of "population" and "sub-population" carefully. Each assumes that all the fish in A PARTICULAR body of water (e.g., lake or well-connected chain of lakes) either interbreed freely (population) or rarely (subpopulation) due to spacial segregation of spawners. So we would not use the term "population" to describe all Wisconsin fish or all muskies on the continent, even if they were extremely similar genetically. MIKE: If they where considered part of the same subpopulation, would mixing them still cause concern for out-breeding depression? DAVE: Mike, with your permission, I'll re-word the question to reflect what I think you're really asking: If they were considered part of the same genetic stock (a group of organisms sharing a gene pool that is sufficiently discrete and nominally identifiable that it warrants management as such), would mixing them still cause concern for out-breeding depression? No, it would not. MIKE: Is it possible all these fish are that closely related? DAVE: It seems highly unlikely. Pioneering work in muskellunge genetics suggests there are differences. But we have not yet identified all the genetic stocks that exist today, the boundaries around those genetic stocks, or the degree of difference among those genetic stocks so that we can make wise decisions about propagation, stocking, and harvest management. MIKE: And now the hard question that will require speculation, if they are similar enough, would it maybe be possible to stock some MR or GL fish in the lakes (that had native inland WI musky) that need the fish the most to help them along the road to recovery? Notice I say maybe, I don’t want to have anybody’s feet held to the fire, I feel it would be interesting to hear some answers to speculative questions. DAVE: Mike, I've already expressed my opinion that they are not likely to be similar enough. I also do not accept your premise that any native inland Wisconsin lakes "need" LL or GL strain muskies for any particular reason, except maybe for inland lakes that drain directly into the Great Lakes, like the Gile Flowage (Montreal River system in Iron County). With all due respect for both your civility and your intellectual curiosity, this is not a question that I can answer. MIKE: On a little different note, I believe that it is vary possible that our problems in Wisconsin could all be related to MANMADE genetic problems. Harvest induced evolution over the last 100 years, combined with artificial evolution based on egg taking practices, over 100 years, plus mixing of small and large strain fish. This was not intentional, and actually probably saved the musky population in Wisconsin. But it could all be factors. And could explain while one part of the state seems to be far worse off than the other, if egg taking practices where different. DAVE: I do not accept the assumption that the "mixing of small and large strain fish" has somehow rendered the Wisconsin hatchery product less capable of growing fast or getting big. (Look at Rice Lake in Barron County.) Mixing of fish from different populations has occurred. Growth rate is slower and ultimate size is smaller in some of those populations than in others. One study does not prove that those differences in population dynamics reflect the existence of different genetic stocks. Environmental factors and fish community dynamics have significant influence on musky performance. The degree to which the mixing of eggs for hatchery propagation has occurred does not guarantee a pervasive influence of some slower-growing genetic stock even if such a stock exists. In summary, mixing has undoubtedly occurred. The impact of that mixing currently is unknown to those of us who study these things for a living. We may learn one day that the anglers were way ahead of the scientists on this one. But science is a process, and we will use that process to discern the truth. MIKE: What operational differences are there between the two hatcheries? Has this been looked into? DAVE: The hatcheries have frequently exchanged eggs over the years. Therefore, lakes in your area of northeastern Wisconsin have been stocked on many occasions with musky fingerlings originating from eggs collected in LCO and Bone Lake. Likewise, there have been fingerlings stocked in northwestern Wisconsin that originated from eggs of broodstock collected in lakes near the Woodruff Hatchery. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Dave, thank you for responding. I hope you understand how much I, and others, appreciate being able to ask these type of question and get good answers. Since I first posted these questions the Rice Lake issue has come up and that along with the other stuff I have been looking at really shows that there is no simple answers, even for a lake like LCO where it may seem like a easy decision to make. There are 10s if not 100s of different variables that all need to be considered. Thanks again for taking the time to educate and contribute. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Dave I have a question that went pretty much un-answered at the meeting in Hayward on the 13th. The question was - Has there ever been even one single documented case of outbreeding depression happening anywhere with muskies? If there has, can you please tell us where and when and what the effects were? Also, since our hatchery operations have knowingly for many years mixed different muskie "strains", "populations", "sub-populations" or whatever it is we are calling them today, wouldn't this actually be causing and creating outbreeding depression to happen right within our own hatcheries? Below I posted some information I found on outbreeding depression while doing some reading trying to learn more about it. Outbreeding Depression "Outbreeding depression. This phenomenon can occur in two ways. One is by the "swamping" of locally adapted genes in a wild population by straying from, for example, a hatchery population. In this case, adaptive gene complexes in wild populations are simply being displaced by the immigration of genes that are adapted to the hatchery environment or to some other locality. For example, selection in one population might produce a large body size, whereas in another population small body size might be more advantageous. Gene flow between these populations may lead to individuals with intermediate body sizes, which may not be adaptive in either population." So if I am reading this correctly, outbreeding depression can occur within our own hatcheries. This sure sounds like what has most likely happened here in NW WI due to the Spooner hatchery using Bone Lake muskies to me. Wouldn't it be safe to say that the Spooner hatchery has pretty much guaranteed that outbreeding depression has happened right here in our hatchery and in NW WI? There is no question that Bone lake has a mixed bag of muskies. The muskies used to create the muskie population in Bone Lake evolved in and came from very different waters. They evolved in very different situations before being put in Bone lake. Some came from small isolated waters, some without pike. And some came from river systems and streams, some with pike. We then puposely mix eggs and milt from all these different fish together in the hatchery to produce large amounts of fertilized eggs, many more than you would see naturally in the wild. We then protect the offspring until they are old enough and large enough to ensure that many more of them will survive when stocked than you would see naturally in the wild. This begs the question. - Did the use of Bone Lakes mixed muskies for propogation in our hatcheries cause and create outbreeding depression in the Spooner hatchery and then spread these fish throughout NW WI? Hasn't the risk (scare) of outbreeding depression been the main arguement used in not allowing the stocking of mississippi strain fish here? Is stocking Mississippi strain muskies in waters that have zero natural reproduction and all connecting waters also have zero natural reproduction any more of a risk than what the DNR has already been doing in the Spooner Hatchery for decades? Stocking mississippi strain muskies here does not involve anyone actually hand mixing the eggs and milt of these fish together with different fish and then raising them and stocking them. So then this leads me back to my first question with one revision. Has there ever been even one single documented case of outbreeding depression happening anywhere with muskies other than in our own DNR hatcheries? EJohnson Edited by Lockjaw 2/26/2006 3:12 AM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Eric Johnson asked a couple good questions that I will try to answer below. Whenever I use the words strain, population, or genetic stock, I am using them as defined in an earlier post on this thread: ERIC: I have a question that went pretty much un-answered at the meeting in Hayward on the 13th. The question was - Has there ever been even one single documented case of outbreeding depression happening anywhere with muskies? If there has, can you please tell us where and when and what the effects were? DAVE: Had I been asked to respond to questions at that meeting, this is what I would have said: No, there has never been a single case of outbreeding depression documented in muskellunge. Likewise, there has never been a single case of outbreeding depression documented in walleye, crappie, bluegill, northern pike, or most other fish species. It has been documented in largemouth bass, and it has been documented frequently in trout and salmon. This genetic problem is difficult to document. Absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of absence. Outbreeding depression has been documented for largemouth bass and salmonids because fish geneticists have studied those species more than others. Outbreeding depression is a well-known, well-accepted phenomenon among people who study fish population genetics. It probably happens frequently without notice. Any fish geneticist will tell you that if we cross two distinctly different genetic stocks of muskellunge, we risk the occurrence of outbreeding depression; and the adverse effects begin to show up in the second-generation hybrids of the fish that were crossed. There is no guarantee it will happen; but it's a real risk. It happens only if parents from at least one of the genetic stocks actually possess a "coadapted gene complex" and those linked genes get scrambled when their hybrid "grandchildren" (second-generation hybrid progeny) spawn in the wild. ERIC: Also, since our hatchery operations have knowingly for many years mixed different muskie "strains", "populations", "sub-populations" or whatever it is we are calling them today, wouldn't this actually be causing and creating outbreeding depression to happen right within our own hatcheries? DAVE: Wisconsin hatcheries have occasionally mixed fish from different POPULATIONS from within Wisconsin's native range. Were any of those populations distinct "strains" or genetic stocks? Contrary to popular belief, we (fishery biologists) are not yet sure. We need more than one study showing differential performance of offspring in two lakes (LCO and Mud/Callahan) in order to arrive at such conclusions, and there must be more supporting evidence from DNA analysis. Also, even if the fish used in Wisconsin's hatchery system have been from different genetic stocks, the degree of difference and the presence or absence of coadapted gene complexes are major factors in determining the risk of outbreeding depression. Cross two animals that are very different (and have evolved that way for a reason), and you run a high risk of outbreeding depression. Cross two animals that are very similar (e.g., brother/sister), and you run a high risk of inbreeding depression. Cross two animals that are different to an optimal degree, and you maintain a healthy, diverse genetic stock. That's the new propagation goal. While it is possible that past hatchery operations have created outbreeding depression in Wisconsin muskellunge, I'm more concerned that those operations have created inbreeding depression (on the opposite end of the spectrum of concern). Using the same lakes (or founder lakes) to the near exclusion of all others for so many years may have decreased the genetic diversity of fish being stocked in Wisconsin. That's why Dr. Brian Sloss at UW-Stevens Point has recommended that we find 5 lakes with naturally reproducing muskellunge and rotate among them annually to supply broodstock to each of the two northern hatcheries (Spooner and Woodruff). Another important step will be to identify the genetic character of the populations being used as sources of broodstock in order to know that we are propagating animals that are similar enough to avoid outbreeding depression but different enough to avoid inbreeding depression. It will be a balancing act. The legitimate fear (not a scare tactic, honest) of outbreeding depression is the primary reason why the Wisconsin DNR is not prepared to permit the stocking of Leech Lake strain muskellunge into Northern Region waters of the native range in Wisconsin. We in the fishery management profession are trying to apply what we have learned from past mistakes. We are trying to employ good science and resist the temptation to do expedient or popular things without sufficient knowledge or justification. Much as we would love to make all our musky fishing friends happy, we would be irresponsible to ignore what we now know about the risks of mixing genetic stocks. Repeating the "sins of the past" by committing them in new and creative ways will not help. Please give us a chance. In two years we will know a lot more about genetic stock structure than we do now. We may be able to replace some assumptions with a few conclusions. Maybe that will make the best path to the future seem clearer to everyone. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 3/6/2006 9:55 AM | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Dave Thanks for the response. You said "The legitimate fear (not a scare tactic, honest) of outbreeding depression is the primary reason why the Wisconsin DNR is not prepared to permit the stocking of Leech Lake strain muskellunge into Northern Region waters of the native range in Wisconsin." OK, so why then is it not being permitted anywhere outside the Northern region of the native range in Wisconsin? This is what is most frustrating to me. If the policy is to protect muskies within the native range then what is preventing the stocking of these fish in waters that are not in the native range, are not native waters, were created muskie waters, and have no natural reproduction now? This would include most muskie waters in western WI. I just don't see any good reason for not allowing it or what this the risk would be here. Doesn't stocking Bone Lake muskies in the St. Croix drainage waters put the mississippi river strain fish being stocked by the MN DNR at risk in this drainage? Thanks EJohnson | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Isn't there Leech Lake fish stocking planned for waters of the the St. Croix, Petenwell, and the Madison chain? Are not the current Wisconsin muskies going to be stocked side by side for study purposes? Wondering... | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | ERIC JOHNSON QUOTED ME AS FOLLOWS: You said "The legitimate fear (not a scare tactic, honest) of outbreeding depression is the primary reason why the Wisconsin DNR is not prepared to permit the stocking of Leech Lake strain muskellunge into Northern Region waters of the native range in Wisconsin." THEN ERIC ASKED: OK, so why then is it not being permitted anywhere outside the Northern region of the native range in Wisconsin? This is what is most frustrating to me. If the policy is to protect muskies within the native range then what is preventing the stocking of these fish in waters that are not in the native range, are not native waters, were created muskie waters, and have no natural reproduction now? This would include most muskie waters in western WI. I just don't see any good reason for not allowing it or what this the risk would be here. Doesn't stocking Bone Lake muskies in the St. Croix drainage waters put the mississippi river strain fish being stocked by the MN DNR at risk in this drainage? MY RESPONSE: Actually, the stocking of Leech Lake strain muskellunge IS being permitted in several waters outside the Northern Region of the native range in Wisconsin. You have written extensively about the stocking of Lake Wissota last fall. At least three other lakes are being stocked in the southern part of the state where there are no native genetic stocks to endanger. I know you are aware that a major DNR study involving the paired stocking of seven lakes in the St. Croix Basin is about to begin. How can you possibly claim that these events are not occurring? I think I understand your second question. It sounds as if you now wish to have the WDNR stock Leech Lake strain muskellunge everywhere outside the native range of muskellunge -- particularly in western Wisconsin. Most biologists in Wisconsin (and throughout the Midwest) are not convinced, as you are, that such a move would improve musky fishing in those waters. Therefore, we beg your forgiveness for not totally revamping our propagation and stocking programs in order to implement a new strategy with uncertain outcomes simply because three anglers have sold the idea to many of their peers based upon many assumptions and conclusions that we don't believe. We are initiating a major research project (the 7-lake paired stocking experiment in the St. Croix Basin) to determine whether such a strategy has merit. And we are already making major adjustments to broodstock collection and propagation methods, which will keep our hatchery staff very busy over the next couple years. Your often heated rhetoric makes it sound as if the WDNR has turned a deaf ear and done nothing in response to musky angler concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your third question should be directed to WDNR's long-time musky research biologist and St. Croix Basin Fisheries Team Leader, Terry Margenau. He has developed a policy regarding the stocking of muskellunge in the St. Croix Basin that is supported at the regional and statewide level. I'm sure you've seen it. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MUSKYLUND1 |
| ||
Posts: 203 Location: Germantown, WI | Dave, Thank you for taking the time to respond in such thoughtful ways to the many questions that have been posted on this topic. I know that you and your DNR colleagues have taken a lot of heat the last couple of years regarding musky management in our state. The more I read your responses the more I am convinced that a cautious approach to managing genetic stocks is a wise approach. I must admit that I am more than a bit confused about how the Conservation Congress system in WI works and impacts regulations and management of of our natural resources. While public input is desirable it is not necessarily a wise decision to let the public decide how to best manage the resource. I know that many of the regulations that have been put forward in recent years such as increased size limits have been defeated because of competing interests within the Conservation Congress system. I for one am glad that the DNR alone seems to have the power to decide which species and which genetics stocks to to use within this state. As someone who moved here several years ago from another state I never cease to be amazed about how people here complain about the DNR. I think many take for granted the wonderful natural resources that we have, thanks in no small part to the dedicated conservation professionals employed by our DNR. It goes without saying that some management practices can and should be improved. I for one am convinced that many lakes in Northern Wisconsin have long been over-stocked with hatchery muskellunge and that is as much as anything responsible for poor performance in some waters. As someone who has been a trout fisherman and a TU member for a number of years I have seen the negative impacts that stocking can have on native and naturally reproducing trout populations. I have also seen the radical differences in fish abundance and average size produced by differences in water fertility. Take for example the difference in trout populations and aquatic food sources on a limestone spring creek such as Big Fishing Creek in Clinton County, PA and a mountain freestone stream such as Hemlock Creek in Venango Countly, PA. The limestone spring creeks have more food available, grow more trout per mile and larger trout by far than the mountain freestone streams. Is is possible that the differences in fertility between Minnesota and Wisconsin can be compared to the differences that I have noted above? We know more about how those differences impact trout populations because more research has been done. It seems logical to me that if, as you have shown in previous threads, that Minnesota waters on average are more fertile and have a better PH level than Wisconsin waters then that could be a significant factor in why we seem to grow fewer bigger fish. I am also intrigued by the argument that stocking fish into new waters often has a boom effect that cannot be sustained over time. It will be interesting to note whether the impressive numbers of 50" muskies being produced in Minnesota can be sustained over the long haul. I still think Wisconsin has great musky fishing and offers true trophy potential. Could it be better? Undoubtedly so! It does not help that we have single hook sucker rigs and tribal spearing among other factors that detract from the ultimate potential of our waters. People here love Wisconsin and are proud to live here as they should be. Some are fixated on past glories whether fact or fiction (Louie Spray et al.). I for one want to work with our DNR to make the right changes that will benefit our fisheries for the long haul. I realize that because of competing interests and constituencies my personal wants will not always be fulfilled. Like it or not we have to live with the property owners, resort owners, water skiers, jet skiers, pan fishermen, etc who may not share our love or appreciation of the musky. Some only see muskies in terms of the $$ that they can make by exploiting the musky fishery for their own personal benefit. The DNR has the difficult task of balancing all concerns. Keep up the good work, Dave and please keep the dialogue open. We as musky fishermen must stay vigilant, but you as a public servant must know when to listen to us and when to politely say no. Keep trying to explain the science to us. Please don't get frustrated if we don't always understand or come up with hair-brained suggestions. We must work together. Tom Ramsey Germantown, WI member Milwaukee Chapter Muskies Inc | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Mr. Ramsey, You absolutely MADE MY DAY, sir. Thanks for sharing your shrewd insights, and for encouraging me to keep working on this issue and communicating about it openly, despite pressures to do otherwise. It's tempting to comment on many of your interesting observations, but I doubt I could improve upon them, so will just let them stand with my sincere thanks for taking the time to share them. I hope we can meet one day and visit about a resource that we both cherish. In particular, I'd like to talk with you about possible changes to the role of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress in promulgating fish harvest regulations on individual waters. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| jon |
| ||
| A couple of question for Dave N. Let me start off by saying thank you for taking the time out of your day to answer these posts. i know that it is something that you do not have to do. It does show that the dnr (or at least you) are trying to at least communicate their side of the story. I do not know how this will sound, but it is not meant as an attack, just a question that i have from following these and other posts. I guess my question is how can a qustion be asked that the Wi waters be too unfertile to grow large fish and then on the other hand have people believe that these same waters produced the 3 biggest fish ever recorded? Personnally I do not believe that any of those "record" fish except maybe the Malo fish (which i don't know too much about, but the fish has a gut on it) could have been anywhere near the size reported, but i have read in a past post someone whom i thought was from the dnr state in a post about genetics, "that there was nothing wrong with "our fish's genetics" and pointed to the "record" fish as proof." If it is believed by the dnr that these fish were real, then why are there no really large catches coming out of lakes like the chip. if the records are real then the lakes obviously have the capacity to put out really big fish. ps i have seen one pic that could honestly be called a wisconsin strain out of mille lacs (52x27), it had two worn out tags in it. others that people thought were wi fish did have bars on the side, but broke into spots right next to the tale which i was under the impression made it a leech strain fish, see a lot of fish that look like that out of vermillion. thanks for your time jon | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | JON: A couple of question for Dave N. Let me start off by saying thank you for taking the time out of your day to answer these posts. i know that it is something that you do not have to do. It does show that the dnr (or at least you) are trying to at least communicate their side of the story. I do not know how this will sound, but it is not meant as an attack, just a question that i have from following these and other posts. DAVE: Jon, thanks for your kind words. Your questions are well-taken and quite legitimate. I'll answer from my own perspective, though you are likely to get different answers from different biologists (even within WDNR) on this one: JON: I guess my question is how can a qustion be asked that the Wi waters be too unfertile to grow large fish and then on the other hand have people believe that these same waters produced the 3 biggest fish ever recorded? DAVE: This is an excellent question because it gets to the heart of the misunderstanding. The answer requires that we first recognize there are two pathways to becoming a trophy-sized fish. (I'll accept the prevailing definition of 50 inches for a trophy, though I realize trophy size is a personal judgement.) Pathway #1 to achieving trophy size is to grow faster than everyone else early in life. Leech Lake fish seem to do this just about anywhere they are stocked, quite possibly because they mature a year or two later than Wisconsin fish and can devote more of their energy intake to growth rather than reproductive activity early in their adult lives. If they happen to be in fertile, high-alkalinity waters with diverse, abundant prey, including ciscoes (like Leech, Cass, and Mille Lacs), they are in an environment that allows them to achieve their full genetic potential for fast growth and large ultimate size. In this case, that seems to be about 54 pounds (the Minnesota State Record). Pathway #2 to achieving trophy size is to grow at a moderate rate early in life, and then outlive everyone else. The presence of abundant, diverse forage helps these fish get big eventually, even in low-alkalinity waters of moderate fertility. Dr. Ed Crossman and Dr. John Casselman of the Royal Ontario Museum identified this as the most common pathway to trophy size among the large North American muskellunge for which they have been able to examine the cleithrum bone in order to obtain accurate age estimates. This seems to be the pathway of Wisconsin fish. They seem to "catch up" later in life with the Leech Lake fish, and then outlive them if not harvested or killed accidentally. This may be why many of the biggest Wisconsin muskellunge on record are bigger than the Minnesota State Record. Also remember that most of the really big fish on record in both states were caught a long time ago, when there was presumably less proficient angling pressure. JON: Personnally I do not believe that any of those "record" fish except maybe the Malo fish (which i don't know too much about, but the fish has a gut on it) could have been anywhere near the size reported, but i have read in a past post someone whom i thought was from the dnr state in a post about genetics, "that there was nothing wrong with "our fish's genetics" and pointed to the "record" fish as proof." DAVE: I won't speculate on the accuracy of the existing world records, but even if you throw out the biggest fish, Wisconsin still has produced more truly huge fish than Minnesota. Do we really want to put those Wisconsin genes at risk any more than we already have by throwing Leech Lake fish into the mix? I don't. Shouldn't we do what we can, first, to see if any of today's fish are similar enough genetically to the fish of yesteryear to warrant preservation of a genetic stock that has produced record fish? Unless and until the top records and several other large fish are discredited by independent mathematicians and professional photo analysts, I must base my judgement on standing records. JON: If it is believed by the dnr that these fish were real, then why are there no really large catches coming out of lakes like the chip. if the records are real then the lakes obviously have the capacity to put out really big fish. DAVE: I'm not sure what you mean by "really large catches" Jon. But the Chippewa Flowage has been producing a minimum of 10 fish over 50 inches long every year since I moved to Hayward in summer of 2002. That's just the number of fish for which folks have placed their pictures in the local newspaper. Presumably they were being honest about where the fish were caught, and presumably there were a few trophy fish caught by people who didn't publicize their success. I will also say there are anecdotal reports by reliable people of truly monstrous fish in the Chippewa Flowage today. Are these angling legends or real sightings? Time will tell... JON: ps i have seen one pic that could honestly be called a wisconsin strain out of mille lacs (52x27), it had two worn out tags in it. others that people thought were wi fish did have bars on the side, but broke into spots right next to the tale which i was under the impression made it a leech strain fish, see a lot of fish that look like that out of vermillion. DAVE: Interesting observations, Jon. Thanks for sharing... Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Pelican Lake |
| ||
| Muskies from Pelican Lake in Wisconsin have that same pattern; bars that break into spots by the tail of the fsih. Leech Lake fish at least those from the lakes in Minnesota I have seen, are different, strikingly so, in every shot I've seen. the coloration especially in the background is lighter, and the 'greens' so prevelant in Wisconsin fish are muted towards a pearl or white background. The deep green and tan bars I see in WI fish are more of a light borwn to gold on the MN fish I've caught. Just my observation. Either way, both populations grew very big in Mille Lacs, I'd say. | |||
| jon |
| ||
| Dave, thanks for your response. i do have more follow up questions that i will try to post when i am done with homework and have time to think how to properly word them. Pelican Lake- I was just trying to make a point about how a lot of the big mille lacs fish that are givin credit for being Wi strain do have very similar markings to a number of pics that i have seen come out of vermillion and a couple of the dirtier metro lakes here. which would be known leechers. a lot of people seem to think that a minnesota fish has spots and if it does not it is either a tiger or Wi strain. i have seen 2 50' metro fish get clubbed because they had a barrish pattern instead of spots and the people thought that they had a state record tiger, only to be disappointed that they just had a "regular" 50. i was just making an observation that i have seen among fish and fisherman. i was not trying to say that they definately were not wi strain fish, or that i am in any way an expert. i just think that people should not be so quick to jump and point at mille lacs as THE example to hold above people's heads, because there is very little proof that these fish are 100% Wi strain. the 52x27 fish i talked about earlier, i cannot say for sure that it was a Wi strain and not a leech because the tags in it were unreadable. I am 98% sure but... It has only been an assumption by much better fishermen then myself that that one was and that quite a few more are out there. good fishermen are not geneticists, and cannot say without a doubt what "strain" a fish is and i guess i was just trying to point that out. this is why i am going to wait to ask more questions, i tend to ramble instead of getting to the point. thanks | |||
| 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 |