|
|
| As is common sled, you miss the point and feel the need to be an antagonist.
I never claimed you guys don't know how to release. I'm just saying if your release rates are actually that high, then there is obvioulsy another problem.
What is it? Is it poor releasing? Is it not having a successful stocking program?
Are a lot more fish being killed than people know about or want to admit?
Why are lakes that should have good numbers of fish that can get big not showing that?
If all you want to do is pick a fight with someone that is interested in knowing why 2+2 doesn't add up to 4 in WI than I'm out of here.
If you can actually use your intelligence to contribute to a meaningful conversation that would be a nice change.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | can you grow the same tomato in Le Sueur as you can in Waupaca?
edit:
why don't we ever talk about stocking food??
Edited by jonnysled 2/23/2012 7:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | reality - 2/23/2012 4:54 AM
The "stories" you've heard, J.S.? Come on. The 90% number comes from creel surveys and research and its actually higher than that among average fishermen. Among dedicated muskie fishermen its over 99%. The dirty little secret no one wants to admit is that this is the same in MN...people are people everywhere. We've all seen the wall at the Emmaville store (or many other bait shops near muskie lakes). The biggest difference in harvest is size limits, not some distinction in the character of fishermen. Which is exactly why raising the limit to 40" is so important. MN's limit was 40" until VERY recently and fish were harvested all the time...grandmas on Mille Lacs ate pretty well.
A 90% overall release rate is too low to maintain a trophy muskie fishery. At that rate plus the rate of delayed mortality plus natural mortality and you probably would have a 20% mortality rate annually in many lakes with high pressure. I know in the metro here where we C&R each fish several times a year (by the numbers) the fishery would be unsustainable for anything over the length limit. So if the overall harvest rate truly is 10% then I see the problem for the lakes that have potential.
Yes, some lakes like Wild Cat and others are never going to produce big fish, but there are MANY waters in WI that have great forage. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| Jerome...I can't help but feel called to the carpet in your post. I had no intent of turning this thread into a weiner measuring contest about my catches...so you win. Please see I wasn't the one who posted the information that you felt compelled to challenge.
Hear is my point on size limits and I would hope this will make some sense to my fellow MN anglers. Why do we not have a 48" size limit on Shoepak Lake?
As stated, there is not doubt it is effective on specific waters and I highly support the higher size limit regs... but it is not a "cure all".
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
| A 90% overall release rate is too low to maintain a trophy muskie fishery. the overall release rate in Wisconsin is much higher than that, i think you're misreading the numbers. most muskies are caught be dedicated muskie fishermen who release more than 99% of the fish they catch. a much smaller percentage of fish are caught by average/multispecies anglers who still release a high percentage of the muskies they catch - but the ones they keep aren't anywhere near to 10% of the total fish caught - probably more like 1%. regardless of the percentages, higher size limits will help in WI, just like they've helped in MN...but WI won't ever become the same fishery as MN because the lakes are different and the fish are different. the fish in MN are "right" for those lakes, and the fish in WI are "right" for these lakes. different, not better or worse. LotW has unlimited size, unlimited forage, and it's extremely fertile...but it doesn't produce 54"+ fish in the same way that lakes in MN have been doing. should they start stocking LotW with Leech Lake strain fish? of course not. different, not better or worse. at the same time, the average size has been steadily increasing on LotW since they raised the size limit. the trouble with harvest is that it tends to be the largest fish, such as what occurred in Green Bay a couple years ago...or that young man in Detroit Lakes...get the size limits set appropriately high, don't overstock/overpopulate so they stunt, and let the fish reach their own natural potential.
Edited by lambeau 2/23/2012 8:46 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| Why would leech lake fish not be right for WI? There's not eutrophic lakes very similar to French lake in southern WI? There's not 1000 acre mesotrophic lakes that could be stocked? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'But every lake in WI isn't acidic and infetile. There are plenty of waters that are just as capable as anything in MN to put out big fish. Maybe concentrating on why those big fish aren't there instead of making excuses for why big fish are in MN would be a step in the right direction.'
Hey, John, that commentary came off very badly for you, and clearly indicates you don't understand as much as you need to about the biology of the fish, watersheds, etc. OR were just being 'difficult'. Hard to tell which.
No one is making 'excuses', but a few folks ARE discussing why things REALLY are as they are in both States.
I don't care what you've 'heard', I live here and have been as involved in Wisconsin's muskie program as you have been in MN's for just as long...in fact, maybe longer(not sure) I might have missed you at the first Symposium. Were you in Indiana?
My son is a creel clerk in the winter and a fish tech in the open water period, runs a netting crew stripping muskies in the Spring, and then runs a crew stripping suckers so the muskies and walleyes have something to eat at the hatchery. He knows a little about the muskies in this part of the state.
We have Bay of Green Bay and will soon have the Winnebago system, and that is similar to much of the water over there. That's a 'New' fishery in the context it was pretty well depleted, and during the timeframe MN's lakes were being stocked with muskies, Wisconsin re-established the fishery there. I was standing on the bank when the first fish were stocked there. That water came of age, 'new reservoir' syndrome and all, and it kicked out giants and large numbers of giants and became a destination for a ridiculous number of anglers and still is. I am sure it peaked and will never be as good as it was when the anglers here hit it hard the first time. That water has a 50" limit. Some folks here are trying really hard to get it to 54"
Sound familiar?
Much of the rest of our waters offer little or no natural reproduction and were admittedly managed for high density, lower size expectations during the time when MN was just deciding to begin a new muskie program...because that is what the anglers of that time wanted. Most of the lakes that offer muskie angling here ARE very small and infertile, look at the surface acres of muskie water and the AGE of the fishery in both states. Now comes the decision in WI whether to continue to stock those action waters as the social mores change here...and I believe we will begin losing our 'action waters'.
Given the commentary about Dr. Sloss's work and our DNR Muskie management team's program that's been underway for over a decade, perhaps you need to look at context. During that same timeframe, many lakes were moved to 45" and 50" limits, something the DNR biologists who actually DO know what's needed to achieve the goal a trophy angler would like to see doesn't decide over here, the PUBLIC does. We have the CC, a double edged sword that usually cuts against big fish management practices, but sometimes works well for it, if there's concentrated activism pushing hard enough to get the vote out.
Not everyone is a serious muskie angler and over here our fishing public can vote down size limit increase proposals and kill them dead. That happened wholesale about ten years ago, which was a shame; we could have had a bunch of 50" water with a decade of management for big fish under the belt.
Trophy muskie fishing is better in WI now than it has ever been, and will continue to improve if the economy doesn't destroy our program wholesale first.
IA,
We have Leech fish stocked is some waters here that offer no natural reproduction that were stocked due to activism by MI and some very determined anglers. Everyone knows those fish should grow a little faster; the unknown is at what size those fish will peak. The Yahara might tell the story well, as that system is just now coming of age and is kicking out some pretty impressive Wisco fish. I wish more lakes in WI were stocked with Spots, I like them. Pretty fish, and IMO easier to catch for a number of reasons. And, they seem to jump more during the battle.
Stocking any other strain over the top of one that is established and reproduces well is a very bad idea and won't happen. Look at that fish that was speared in the image above, that's one of three out of LCO recently. Nothing wrong with those genetics.
|
|
| |
|
|
Steve my point about the excuses remark is that about every 6 months somebody from WI brings up a thread about size limits. They want to know why they can't be bigger like MN and Canada. Every time this discussion comes we hear about all the reasons why MN lakes grow big fish and why WI lakes don't. It's never because of the size limits or whether or not the C&R stats are different from WI. It's because MN lakes are bigger, or have different chemistry, etc. etc. That may be true on a small scale, but there are many waters in WI that are similar to lakes in Canada and MN
which aren't up to the potential they have.
I think those are "excuses' to dismiss the idea that higher limits are more effective than people think. I also believe many of my WI friends that I fish with that tell me killing muskies in WI is more common than in MN.
I really don't see any point in trying to discuss this further. It seems unless you are from WI that you can't understand anything about the fishery.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | OK, you were and are being 'difficult'. Thanks for clearing that up.'Don't see ant any point in discussing it further' is a cop-out releasing you from responsible debate. Weak.
Most of the lakes in WI that support a naturally sustaining trophy potential are for the most part already at 45" or 50" and that doing battle within the Conservation Congress procedure.
How many MN lakes have a 50" limit? How many stocked lakes with little or no NR with a 54" limit on them exist in Ontario? How many lakes in MN are sustained by a put and take stocking program? How did the DNR generated Pike spearing ban challenge go? We all have our challenges, and we are addressing ours as MN is theirs. MN's issues are as new as many of the muskie waters there. |
|
| |
|
| Why would leech lake fish not be right for WI? There's not eutrophic lakes very similar to French lake in southern WI? There's not 1000 acre mesotrophic lakes that could be stocked? I should have been more clear: I'm referring to those areas with naturally occurring populations of muskies, primarily in the northern part of the state. the process of speciation and natural selection picked which fish are "right" for certain areas, and nature should be respected/maintained in that regard. for those lakes with no natural population and no direct connection to natural waters (primarily in southern WI as you point out), stocking the best performing strain to meet angler wishes is a great idea: for large numbers of fish, for large growing fish, whatever. in concert with the WI DNR and with the help of the Hugh Becker fund, Cap City Muskies Inc is actively stocking Leech Lake strain fish in Madison and studying them side-by-side with Wisconsin Chippewa strain muskies to see which ones perform better. they're implanted with PIT tags to study survival rates and growth rates. i've personally donated significant money to this study as have many other members of CCMI. the results are still very preliminary, but we're having difficulty recapturing and scanning many Leech strain fish, while at the same time catching more reasonable amounts of Chippewa strain fish (both by angling and netting). this year our club went so far as to have a special outing in the fall just to try and catch and scan a Leech strain fish; we got one. we're not sure why that is, maybe the nets need to be set in different locations or different times, but they aren't showing up as often at the end of fishing lines either. we'll see over the coming years what happens, my point is simply that it's not correct to assume that Leech fish will always be the best fit for every water. to JS's very correct point: since the size limit in Madison was raised to 45" we've seen an increase in the average size of fish caught every year...it's inches bigger now than before the limit was raised. members of CCMI catch thousands of fish from the chain so our sample size is more than adequate to say definitively that the higher size limit is directly contributing to larger fish...including the appearance in the past 3 years of Chippewa strain muskies exceeding 50". at the same time, WI has waaaay more lakes with 45"-50" size limits than it gets credit for...count 'em up some time and compare them to any other state.
Edited by lambeau 2/23/2012 10:12 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | I actually went back in the search field and found a couple of those old threads and JS is right about the fact that every 4-8 months or so, the forum inititiates a thread such as this just like clockwork.
But none of the threads in the past ever offer up a true solution to getting WI waters like MN waters (assuming it truly is much more than just water chemistry and dynamics) in which case, I suppose we really can't do much about either of those. But if it is something else, then why isn't WI putting out the size of fish that MN is supposedly putting out?
What's the constructive abilities in order to get WI there, if it truly isn't already?
I'm asking moreso as a beginner to this kind of subject as I honestly don't know the answers to do those questions...?
Thanks, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| I knew the Yahara chain got some leech fish - when was the first stocking 4-5 years ago? Does it get some leechers every year now? It will be interesting to see what happens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | I remember reading a five year study about Waconia. They initially planted 50% Leechers and 50% Wisco fish. I wish I could still find it. After five years, they found that Leechers only outgrew the Sconnie fish by an inch or two, carried less weight per inch, and had higher mortality rates. Maybe Dave Neuswanger posted it...can't remember.
Either way, initial stockings way outperform the supplemental stockings. When the first stockings are in the 90's and 00's with that level of science, it makes it a lot easier than trying to "fix" a lake that was initial stocked in the 50's or 60's. Hell, they were still pumping 1 fish per acre into Deer in the early 90's. Couldn't catch a 45 incher to save your life there for a long time. |
|
| |
|
| I knew the Yahara chain got some leech fish - when was the first stocking 4-5 years ago? Does it get some leechers every year now? It will be interesting to see what happens. yes...i think the first year was 2005 or 2006 maybe? it's been around 500 Leech strain every year (plus the Chippewa strain) with the exception of one time when we couldn't get any Leech fish from the supplier. like i said, the results are still very preliminary and variability in sampling is still too high, but we're curious why the Leech strain aren't showing up at this point in at least close numbers to the Chippewa strain. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | PSYS,
Getting the program where it is now IS the answer.
Many of the southern stocked waters are just now coming of age, Mike did a great job of describing the progress in the Madison area waters. The fish don't reproduce there, but they do get big. Leech fish were stocked there. Cool.
Pelican now has a 50" limit and ZERO stocking for a decade. Size structure is improving steadily, and the fish that naturally reproduce there are no longer competing with those that are stocked and don't reproduce. It's complicated. And the hybrids are back there, too. That lake used to kick out BIG hybrids...over 50"...before the massive stocking program by the State and Muskie clubs dramatically changed it in the 80's. Easy it was to tell the difference between the stocked and naturals, the stocked fish were barred and pretty, the Pelican Lake fish that have always been there were gold sided ugly beasts for the most part. No hybrids are stocked, that's part of the natural process between the Pelican naturals and the pike population. Also cool.
Moen is a flowage. That system isn't stocked much anymore either. The CPR ethic has taken hold there as it has across the range of the muskie by force or education, and the size structure there is steadily increasing. Big hybrids, too, which is really cool. The Guides who literally killed that system 15 years ago are now gone or adopted CPR. Good news.
Difference is, MN didn't HAVE the fisheries they do now 15 years ago, or the process would have paralleled. Like I said, I remember when it was quite common the see muskies harvested off Leech and Cass. Not so much any more. Mille Lacs and many more waters now putting out big muskies wasn't exactly a muskie angling mecca then, and therefore didn't have the culture of muskie angling CPR and Muskies Inc worked so hard to change. Not too hard to establish a strong CPR ethic on water that literally came of age as CPR did...no changes needed.
Bay of Green Bay saw harvest levels that were enough to alarm some folks, and most of that by ONE GUY. Most of the muskie anglers who fish that water are CPR guys because the water came of age in the era of CPR. I'm not sure how else I can make that point without pointing out the smug self righteousness from some quarters. Easy to proclaim 'we don't have those issues' when one never has had, and isn't dealing with the diversity of culture and waters.
Spider is a little couple hundred acre lake managed for numbers. Little skinny fish for the most part, but great action. A monster there is mid 40's. Very little if any harvest, and near zero pressure from 'uneducated' anglers. No NR.
Another little lake in the area has not been stocked since the 80's. Fertile and full of forage, and the substrate there supports NR despite strong competition from LM Bass. There's a few strong year classes of muskies doing really well there, and the lake holds a few true giants. Very few people fish it. That's the water I shot the muskie on the crib ice video on, and it's a tiny lake. I know of three caught there last year in the low 50's, all released. Some of the strangest marked yet beautiful hybrids I've ever caught came from that puddle.
Wisconsin has huge diversity in it's muskie waters, presenting quite a challenge to be managed to meet everyone's expectations. Tough to do with a one size fits all philosophy.
Moltisanti, bullseye. Well said.
I believe Illinois had the same issues with the spots they stocked in the Fox Chain. Couldn't find the buggers.
I LIKE fishing spotted muskies. I just don't live where they were recently introduced and took off extremely well...and have come of age first generation. If I did, my average fish would be much larger, making me a MUCH better muskie angler...right?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I do belive a few years back Lake Nancy over by Hayward was stocked with Leech Lakers and they grew huge fast even with a poor forage base. How does that fit into the equation? I'd love to see Winnebago stocked with Leech Lakers or more of the Great lakes strain. It sucks because of the VHS laws this isnt happening right now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Larry Ramsell wrote that piece on Nancy and I remember a huge argument ensued with the Upper Chippewa Management District about it. The management team used the "initial stocking" argument, which I tend to believe. Keep in mind, Big Round in Polk County (super low density fishery) kicked out a legit 51 pounder in 1988 which is still a line class world record. I know of a confirmed 51 X 33 caught last fall on a lake that hadn't been stocked at all until recently...it was a fish that migrated into the system. Plus, Mille Lacs Chippewa strain fish were enormous...they netted a 54 incher that was 18 years old there.
Plus, when you factor in the increased mortality of Leechers, it would be pretty inefficient to buy fish from Minnesota when you could raise them 30 miles away...when science doesn't support the fact that they truly get bigger. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As it was deemed inefficient for MN to buy WI strain fish with Leech in the center of the State. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Thanks for the thorough reply, Steve.
I actually find this pretty interesting.
Is the most sought after strain typically going to be the 'skis from Leech despite the higher than average mortality rate?
Will the Leech Lake strain reproduce with other varying strains of musky that will genetically allow the fish to essentially obtain the best of both worlds? i.e., the size of the Leech Lake strain with the "standard" mortality rates and other averages of the other strains? Or have we not quite gotten that far from a research perspective? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | From what I understand, outbreeding depression is considered to be more of a negative than positive possibility IF crossbreeding takes place. In the case of the hatchery fish stocked in LCO, for example, Dr. Sloss's work indicates none took place. We won't find out in WI, because the DNR will not stock Leech Lake fish over an existing population that is reproducing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8781
| I've heard every argument:
It's the strain of fish
It's spearing
It's harvest
It's delayed mortality
Research would indicate otherwise. 200 acre glacial potholes with stunted perch and panfish, and a population of stunted bass for forage, very infertile, with a limited capability for biomass will never produce large muskies. There are lakes with varying water chemistry, some are much more fertile than others. The successful ones are connected to other larger bodies of water, with a more suitable forage base. The flowages are good. You can point fingers and blame whomever you like, but a great many of these lakes are relatively unfished. I can think of one in particular that hasn't been fished in several years because the water has been too low to get a boat in the water. Even the lakes without public access are not known to produce trophy fish, and the only people fishing them are the handful that live on the lake. Not sure what everyone is arguing about. It takes the right combination of acreage, fertility, water chemistry and forage to grow big muskies. There is so much more to creating a trophy fishery than just pouring fish in the lake and putting a high size limit on it. First and foremost is that they need enough to eat. And it has to be the type of forage that they don't expend more energy chasing down and eating it than they get from the meal.
If WI had the potential to cretae the kind of fisheries we are seeing in MN today, I would think the WI guys would have gotten that done a long time ago. The DNR, the CC, the local clubs, the resort owners, the residents, and the biologists would rather see people fishin in WI. But even the WI guys are fishing in MN.
I think I said this before, but if you build it they will come. And they have. And now the MN guys are pointing fingers everywhere they can, because they would rather believe that WI is simply doing something wrong, something that can be "fixed". I guess I can see the rationale. If WI can be "fixed", then there's hope that the great unwashed masses will leave MN and go back to fishing in WI. If WI is what it is because of simple geologic and biological factors, as research would indicate, then it only means that more and more anglers will be flocking to MN, putting more pressure on lakes that are already seeing too much of it. Oh well.. I guess it will give the MN folks someone to blame over the next decade when the first year classes start dying off and the fishing returns to something a bit more realistic and we see what the MN lakes can actually sustain over the long term. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Well said addict! |
|
| |
