|
|
Posts: 178
| MIKE ROBERTS WROTE: Don, I think on the above mentioned lakes even getting the fish to the mid 30” mark is the problem. That is why they proposed a 34 to 40 inch slot. In these specific cases they are protecting the females because most of the males don’t grow over 30” out there.
Dave can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is the case out there. That is why specific lake management is so important, even if it is makes the regs. more complicated and costs more.
DAVE: Mike, you've hit the nail squarely on the head here. The lakes in which we proposed a 34- to 40-inch protected range are UNUSUAL musky waters in which a combination of low productivity and high musky density has led to phenomenally slow growth rate. Almost NO males attain 34 inches before dying of old age in these lakes; and the few females that make it to 34 inches are vulnerable to what little harvest actually occurs on these waters. I agree with Don that it would be very interesting to try 40- to 50-inch slots in the right waters; but if we can't even sell the 34- to 40-inch slots for lakes where THAT slot seems appropriate, we need not waste our time trying for higher slots. As it stands, DNR's statewide Musky Team is not endorsing the slot concept at all; so this is a rather moot point for the time being.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32800
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Is the resistance due to perceived potential social problems getting the concept past the public or is there disagreement amongst fisheries managers about the effectiveness of the proposed slot limits? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20181
Location: oswego, il | Dave, in regards to the female muskies not growing large in these lakes, do you attribute this to harvest or slow growth at the present time? It would seem to me some of these females would slip through with not enough harvest as you suggested and have a few become longer than 34". Skinny yes but longer.
Good debate though, Dave I admire the fact that you come to the boards to debate the issues. Agree or disagree, it's your forward gear that you keep this in that will make things better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 133
Location: Lake Tomahawk, Musky Central, USA | If Clear was changed to 50 back when it was, a lot of other lakes should have gone with it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| STEVE WORRALL asked: "Dave, Is the resistance due to perceived potential social problems getting the concept past the public or is there disagreement amongst fisheries managers about the effectiveness of the proposed slot limits?"
DAVE: Steve, here are the reservations I've heard expressed about slot limits from some of the professional fishery managers with whom I interact regularly:
1) Some fear that allowing harvest of sub-slot fish will take us back to the days of "bonk an bake" -- setting back decades of catch-and-release ethic building while dangerously depleting muskellunge populations in some waters.
2) Others fear just the opposite problem, claiming the catch-and-release ethic is so widespread that we could not get anyone to keep a sub-slot musky if we tried. That camp asks, "Why go through all the rigamarole of a regulation change for something that will have virtually no impact because nobody will keep small fish?"
3) I've also heard that the overpopulation problem in some waters will correct itself after several years of reduced stocking; though I have not and would not propose slot limits for waters that are dependent primarily upon stocking to sustain a muskellunge population. The lakes for which my staff and I proposed a 34- to 40-inch slot limit have not been stocked for over 16 years. In those waters, natural reproduction and recruitment is excessive. The word "excessive" is a loaded term, but generally it means there are too many little muskies being produced naturally to grow at an acceptable rate and establish an adult population size structure that meets angler expectations, even for "numbers" fisheries.
That's my analysis, anyway. I think a change that puts slot limits into our "bag of tricks" for managing muskellunge is going to take some time.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 11/21/2007 2:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| TODDM asked: "Dave, in regards to the female muskies not growing large in these lakes, do you attribute this to harvest or slow growth at the present time?"
DAVE: Todd, I'd say 90% of the problem with females in these over-populated lakes is slow growth. And then, it doesn't help if even a handful of females that DO make it into the mid-30s range get harvested in such waters. In the most over-populated lakes, our sampling reveals ZERO fish over 34 inches -- male OR female. Hard to believe, I realize, but true.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | I've not read all of these very informative posts, but I have to ask the question: to the angler, of what value is it to harvest one small muskie per day? I've not consumed muskie, but if they are like small pike, those little bones are a real pain to eat around and don't seem to come out as easily duing cleaning as from bigger fish. m |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Dave I think if presented right anglers will keep some muskies on those lakes. I am not sure it would become a problem with too many being kept. We have shown c&r works and now understand it. By implementing another rule change we only need to show the benifits that will come of it. I should hope that the anglers are able tosee this as the deer hunters have seen changes in deer hunting. Years back nobody would shoot a doe. Now they do and at the same time practice trophy management.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Dave,
In your summary of the the "three oposing viewpoints" you fail to mention one that I espouse, "Why assume it's broken!??".
Many muskies? How bad IS that? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| firstsixfeet - 12/12/2007 10:42 AM
Dave,
In your summary of the the "three oposing viewpoints" you fail to mention one that I espouse, "Why assume it's broken!??".
Many muskies? How bad IS that?
DAVE: It's only broken if a majority of human stakeholders say they want something else. In this case, we have data suggesting that anglers are not satisfied with wall-to-wall muskies under 30 inches long. They still want a moderately high density of muskellunge in these "numbers" lakes, but they want fewer than there are now, and they want slightly larger fish on average. They don't expect lots of fish over 40 inches or any over 50 inches in such lakes, but they would like to see some fish in the mid-30-inch range with the possibility of an occasion fish over 40. We believe that is possible, but only if there are fewer hungry mouths to feed. Also, because muskellunge are not our only concern, anglers targeting other species want balanced muskellunge populations so there are more of their favorite sport fish available for the catching, like yellow perch. In my experience, most people favor balance, and balanced ecosystems tend to be the healthiest. Lake fish communities with high densities of skinny, slow-growing muskellunge under 30 inches long are out of balance. I'm not ASSUMING they are broken. I KNOW they are broken.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20181
Location: oswego, il | Dave, if you are suggesting the slot from a stanpoint of balance and if the muskies are surpressing other sought after fish from the 9 lakes with a 28" miimum, I can understand it from that viewpoint.
To increase the fish size potential to the one you have just posted, does this not bring these lakes into a category of probably 100+ lakes which have that size range in wisconsin? My only gripe if you want to call it that is that this management strategy brings those lakes into a nothing special about them category. Being dilluted, this may bring less fisherman to those lakes who sought them for their uniqueness. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| To keep trying to tie all lakes to one standard seems like a case of tunnel vision to me. You still don't recognize the uniqueness of these waters and that they may actually be a resource rather than a problem to be solved. I have now fished 4 of these lakes and have at least some basic knowledge of the others. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that manipulating the musky population is going to translate into any kind of quality fishing experience for other species. That seems to be what you are promoting, and I have to tell you I'm skeptical. We also have plenty of lakes like this that DO NOT have muskies and these lakes are near the musky lakes we are talking about. I can appreciate "local stakeholders" but you may actually be missing the real consumers for lakes like these, and that would be out of "county" visitors and fishermen, and those are the guys carrying the cash to support much of the economy.
Also, I have to object to your use of "balance" in these cases. The populations are at equilibrium and that is all the balance that exists in any lake. Your use of balance becomes somewhat self serving here, and would suggest that there is some well defined population and size structure that is the standard for all lakes. We all know this is not a truth, otherwise we would expect all lakes to produce 55" 50lb fish at some point or another, or rarely produce a 34" fish. All lakes are good at something, or as pointed out by Todd, one of a hundred other lakes that get lost in the shuffle. Why not just go ahead and let these lakes continue to be different AND good. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| TODDM wrote: To increase the fish size potential to the one you have just posted, does this not bring these lakes into a category of probably 100+ lakes which have that size range in wisconsin?
DAVE: I don't think so, Todd. There are no lakes currently where harvest of small (sub-slot) fish is allowed or deemed desirable for any reason. And a modest objective to alter the size structure of these high-density populations such that 5-10% of the fish exceed 38 inches does not come close to having them match the majority of musky waters in Wisconsin, where the AVERAGE fish caught is 37 inches long (which means ~40-45% exceed 38 inches).
FIRSTSIXFEET wrote: To keep trying to tie all lakes to one standard seems like a case of tunnel vision to me.
DAVE: Who said anything about just one standard? If our single, statewide objective for Wisconsin musky waters was to have only 5-10% of the muskellunge over 38 inches long, folks would be VERY unhappy with the DNR. Heck, even I would be unhappy with the DNR if that were true  Fortunately, we have very different objectives for different waters. We have no intention of making them all the same, nor could we do so if we wanted to.
FIRSTSIXFEET: You still don't recognize the uniqueness of these waters and that they may actually be a resource rather than a problem to be solved.
DAVE: I agree they are a unique and valuable resource; and I see these musky populations as problematic only because a majority of people I have consulted (you are in the minority) would like to see slightly fewer and slightly larger muskies in these lakes. And as a fishery ecologist, I also happen to know this would benefit the overall fish community. When public sentiment and science mesh, it sets the stage for positive change.
FIRSTSIXFEET: Also, I have to object to your use of "balance" in these cases. The populations are at equilibrium and that is all the balance that exists in any lake. Your use of balance becomes somewhat self serving here, and would suggest that there is some well defined population and size structure that is the standard for all lakes. We all know this is not a truth...
DAVE: A couple decades ago, two progressive leaders in the fishery management profession -- Steve Weithman and Dick Anderson -- published a classic paper entitled "The Concept of Balance in Coolwater Fish Populations." It appeared in an American Fisheries Society special publication of papers presented at a national Coolwater Fish Symposium. If you want, FIRST, I can make a copy of that paper and send it to you. It's critical background for anyone who wishes to understand and discuss the concept of balance in coolwater fish communities. I'll need your name and address.
Dave
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32800
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Send me a copy if you can, and I'll post it if it is not copyright protected. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Thanks for the offer to post that paper, Steve, but I don't think it's available in electronic file format. I was going to photocopy it directly from the book (symposium proceedings) for FIRSTSIXFEET if he is interested in reading it. I'd be happy to send you a hard photocopy too, if you wish.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I am thinking, in light of this article, that the design of slot limits and the Couderay pike netting might be questionable management paths.
http://www.pacgb.co.uk/aboutpike/cullsbb.html
I will include a few excerpts from this paper that I thought were relevant, though the whole content is easily grasped I think and it is very interesting reading. Also enjoyed the introduction. Reminds me of certain MN groups and their interaction right now with the musky fisherman!
This balance is a so-called dynamic equilibrium - in other words, it will swing one way or another in response to entirely natural phenomena (such as spawning success or outbreaks of disease). Equally, if the balance swings markedly in favour of one 'side', ecological pressures ensure that eventually it will swing back in the other direction (described in detail by Carlander 1958 and Anderson & Weithman 1978).
Agrees with my interpretation of balance equalling equilibrium.
If this were not the case, there would be countless examples of fisheries in which pike have become dominant or have totally eradicated the stocks of prey fish, and this would be a continuing situation on unmanaged waters. I have reviewed a huge volume of the published scientific literature on pike in the British Isles, Europe, North America and elsewhere, and there appears to be just one example where pike had 'eaten themselves out of house and home' (Munro1957).
Obviously the stocks of prey have not been eliminated in these lakes but total dominance? I don't believe I would call some of the lakes on the list totally dominated by musky, in spite of the healthy numbers of fish in them.
"Predators at any given abundance take a fixed fraction of prey species present, as though there were captures at random encounters". This means that predation is dependant on the numbers of prey, rather than the numbers of predators
This is an interesting concept but does it mean what I think it does, that changing the numbers of musky may not really change the growth rate all that much?
However, the scientific literature does not support the notion that pike will always 'prefer' a particular prey species - irrespective of its abundance - an allegation often levelled at pike in salmonid fisheries
Hmmm, we usually use this one too!! Except we use it to support our fish, musky always eat suckers, carp, shad...fill in the blank with anything but walleye!! 
Kell (1985) concluded that recruitment to the pike population is largely determined by survival of the younger stages in the life cycle, rather than the number of parents or the quantity of spawn which is shed, with predation and starvation being the prime causes of larval mortality. Clepper (1975) also failed to identify any correlation between the size of the spawning stock and subsequent year-class strength for a variety of predatory fish, including pike.
Good news for limited reproductive populations, hmmm, bad news for culling operations or slot limits?
The extent of intraspecific (pike on pike) predation has been noted by many authors (e.g. Toner & Lawler 1969, Pitcher 1980), and this has particularly important consequences for the survival of pike during their juvenile stages. Bry & Gillet (1980) report figures of 79 per cent losses of young pike through cannibalism; and Wright & Giles (1987) discovered that pike fry contributed 27.3 per cent of the number of fish in the diet of small pike kept in experimental ponds.
The consequences of pike culling exercises have been reported by several authors, including Otto (1979), Bouquet (1979) and Kipling (1983), and they are widely recognised by fishery managers. After an initial decline in the number and overall biomass of pike, there is often a rapid recovery in the size of the population as a result of successful spawning and improved rates of survival of small pike. Where culls occur every few years, the net result may well be that the pike biomass recovers to its pre-culling status, although this often consists of more but smaller pike (e.g. Kipling & Frost 1970).
Kell (1985) reported the impact of pike and zander culling on the Middle Level drainage system in East Anglia, where the pike standing crop of 5.0kg/ha at the end of culling (1981) more than quadrupled, to 21.6kg
Hmmm, if we start taking out the so called smaller musky in these lakes, what will happen in terms of reproductive success? Even I don't want to see the musky pops in these lakes quadrupled! But now, there are some other lakes I can think of, .......hmmmmmm
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32800
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Sure, I can convert it easily enough. Thanks sir! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Steve, I appreciate your interest in learning about the concept of "balance" as it applies to freshwater fish communities. Sorno expressed a similar interest in receiving a copy of the 1978 paper by Weithman and Anderson. I'm mailing photocopies to you both today. I find it interesting if not ironic that folks who actually know the most, like you guys, are the ones most interested in learning more. Happy Holidays!
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | MRoberts - 11/14/2007 8:17 AM
Don, I think on the above mentioned lakes even getting the fish to the mid 30” mark is the problem. That is why they proposed a 34 to 40 inch slot. In these specific cases they are protecting the females because most of the males don’t grow over 30” out there.
Dave can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is the case out there. That is why specific lake management is so important, even if it is makes the regs. more complicated and costs more.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Mike, that's what I gathered out of what Dave has said as well. It sounds like the most of the males are in the <28" size and are older males at that size. That means that when they get a fish in the 34-40" range, it should be a female, not a male. (or chances of it being a male are reduced).
Don, I think on most normal lakes with a good balance, you would be closer as far as your size ranges go. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I find it interesting there has been no response to the review of the pike culling I posted here. Oh, wait, interesting and ironic...:) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20181
Location: oswego, il | FSF, been trying to get to it, just been busy as crap. I don't even get on the puter most evening untill 9pm the earliest, tonight it was 11:15pm. I will get to it, I promise. |
|
| |
