|
|
| Earlier this summer during one of our Muskies Inc. Chapter outings, one of our members caught a 49" Muskie. Try as he might, the fish just wouldn't go back down. A Minnesota DNR officer, who is a member of our Chapter, cut out the piece of jawbone used to date the fish. I don't know how to spell it, but I think you know what I'm refering to.
Anyway, last night at our meeting he said the results show that fish to have been 12+ years old. I was trying to find a chart I once saw showing the approximate age of fish per year, but can't seem to find it. I thought that to get to 49" in 12+ years shows a very good growth rate, but maybe it's just normal? Does anyone have any ideas or comments on this? Thanks a lot.
PS. He found a 50-51" fish floating on a neighboring lake that shows that fish to have been 15+ years old. |
|
| |
|
| Nothing? Hmmm. I guess I'll have to keep looking for that chart. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1060
Location: Palm Coast, FL | Brad,
Thanks again for a great meeting last weekend! A friend of mine caught a 42.5" muskie in the Barbee Chain of Lakes a few years ago. We sent the picture to the local DNR. It had a fin that had been clipped. The DNR said that the fish was 5.5 years old. They had clipped that fin of the fish one year and that was the onlly year they had done it. Now...I believe Indiana fish typically grow faster because of the longer growing season. Hope this helps. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | That's a pretty good growth rate. I believe that the rule of thumb is 15+ years to get to 50" (for fish that will get there). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | I would say that 49" in 12 years is a good growth rate. Growth rate depends on a few variables. Sex of the fish is the most obvious. But the strain of fish it is can explain big differences in length you may see between 2 fish of the same age. An example of this was when Terry Margeneau of the WDNR used clerithium bones to age female muskies from LCO. He found and documented that it took an average of 13 years for females in LCO to grow to 40". So in comparison, your 49" MN fish at 12 years old would be considerd good growth to me. The WDNR also found and documented muskies in Mud Calahan that were 20 years old and still less than 30" long. And the Spider lake muskies that were stocked into LCO in 1956 were found and documented by the WDNR in 1976 to be 19 years old and 35" long. Clearly there are differences in growth rates in different strains of fish. Location, lake size and forage may also effect growth rates but I believe the strain of fish explains most of the differences we see between fish originating from different places. There is a lot more documented evidence around that also clearly shows that growth differences do exist between different strains of fish. Or in other words,...its the fish.
Here is a link to a page on the MDNR website with graphs that show differences in length of 2 different strains at the same age. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/muskellunge/muskie_northern.html
Hopefully you will get a chance to read this post before the moderators here delete or edit it as they usually do with posts like this of mine that provide documented facts from the experts themselves, despite the fact everything mentioned above is TRUE and can be verfied by spending time digging into DNR records.
Edited by Lockjaw 10/25/2006 2:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks Lockjaw, the Clerithium bone is what I was referring to. I thought 49 inches in 12 years was pretty good. I remember a Largemouth Bass in New York State was once aged to be 22 years old. It weighed 6 pounds. That same fish in Florida would probably be 6-8 years old.
I did get to read this obviously, and don't feel bad, as I've had many posts Frozen or Deleted. I thought it was something against Muskies Inc. Who knows.
Thanks for the help and information. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32815
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In our area, the same 'strain' of fish stocked from the same hatchery the same year show that in some waters the fish reach 50" in 13 to 15 years, and other waters never seem to get over 45". Again, our friend Lockjaw is manipulating selected personal interpretation of a tiny portion of a data set to push a personal vendetta. This also has been covered near to death and as usual, Lockjaw is trying to rehash and manipulate the same data set over and over again trying to personally acquire a totally new and different set of scientific conclusions, which plain doesn't work.
I think many of the 'Anti Wisconsin fish' fraternity and Lockjaw will be a bit surprised when the preliminary results on genetics in LCO and elsewhere are released. I want to thank the WIDNR and Dr. Sloss in advance for the hard work and dedication to this project, and especially those involved in the scientific interpretation of the study willingness to offer information as the study progresses, and again will ask Lockjaw and the rest of the WMRT to let it be until conclusions can be reached and results posted, which will be much earlier than this group has charged might be the case.
Lockjaw, just click that mouse and head on over to whatever website suits if things here are not acceptable for you. 
Brad,
I'm a member of MI, and have been most of my adult life. I own a business that places advertising dollars for a muskie related product, and we advertise loyally in MI magazine and have done so for years. I have donated considerable amounts of money, time, and effort over the years to forward the Muskies Inc agenda, so please don't insult me or MuskieFIRST with assertions we are anti Muskies Inc. And you wonder why your post might be deleted... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1316
Location: Lebanon,Mo | a 49inch was landed out a lake here in missouri last year that started stocking in 1996. i think that is way to fast for a fish. warmer water,but fish here dont live as long. |
|
| |
|
| "I think many of the 'Anti Wisconsin fish' fraternity and Lockjaw will be a bit surprised when the preliminary results on genetics in LCO
and elsewhere are released. I want to thank the WIDNR and Dr. Sloss in advance for the hard work and dedication to this project,
and especially those involved in the scientific interpretation of the study willingness to offer information as the study progresses......."
Steve,
Any idea when this information will be released?
Also do you know if any decision has been made about the stocking of Butternut fish into Lac Courte Oreilles.
I thought it was going to be either this fall or next spring?
Thanks,
Paul
EZE Does It!
www.lakeshorelureco.com
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32815
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As I said in an earlier thread, I expect a news release in a few weeks. The details of the Butternut/LCO project will be covered there, I believe. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Steve, the news release you mentioned will come in the form of a two-page report by Dr. Brian Sloss, which is in its final stage of review this week. There is a possibility that your readers will get to learn of Dr. Sloss' first significant results as early as this weekend. I hope to have copies with me if I'm able to stop by and visit with folks at the Fall Trophy Outing at Presque Isle. To answer another question right now, we will not be transferring adult muskellunge from Butternut Lake to LCO any time soon, if ever. Folks can read Dr. Sloss' upcoming report to see why. We'll have to go to "Plan B" to improve the musky populations in those lakes. Hope to see some of you folks this weekend.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
| Not to jump to any conclusions before I see anything, but if Dave says that the Butternut/LCO transfer is not occurring, that leads me to believe that we are dealing with two distinct, divergent strains. Which is kind of odd since I thought the Butternut population was mostly made up of LCO sourced fish. If we have one population that is NR in Butternut and one that is Non-NR in LCO, it will be interesting to see what we have genetically, and how it compares to the other waters tested.
Does plan "B" involve increasing the stocking? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 176
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | If it were not for Lock Jaw and the rest of WMRP team, we wouldn't even be discussing the results of Sloss's research, would we?
"Musky stocking plan panned; Muskies Inc. says state is breeding
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Jun 11, 2006 by BOB RIEPENHOFF
In the wake of a report critical of Wisconsin's muskellunge stocking
practices, the state has changed some musky hatchery practices and is
conducting research on musky genetics and comparing state hatchery fish with
muskies from Minnesota's Leech Lake.
Last year, three members of the Muskies Inc. fishing club, including Larry
Ramsell of Hayward, issued the "Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project,"
a report that concluded Wisconsin has been stocking genetically inferior
muskies in state waters for decades. The report contends the state hatchery
program often unintentionally used genetically small, slow-growing strains
of muskies, which are incapable of growing to trophy size.
Tim Simonson, co-chairman of the Department of Natural Resources Musky
Committee, disagrees with that conclusion.
"We have pretty good evidence that our fish have a growth potential equal to
any fish anywhere, given the right conditions," Simonson said.
Advertisement
But Simonson acknowledged that the report was a catalyst for some of the
research and for changing some practices at the state fish hatcheries at
Spooner and Woodruff."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32815
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Much of the project we are talking about was already underway before the WMRT began their 'campaign'; they took advantage of the fact things were open to change and began an absolute frontal attack of misinformation coupled with character assassination and even worse. I think that has changed dramatically with a few supporters, at least I hope so.
I don't think anyone disagrees they managed to get the attention they deserve. If they would have undertaken a positive and cooperative campaign, I think most folks would see those efforts as laudable. As it is, the scientific community has dismissed them and their platform out of hand, and rightfully so. All I have ever done as editor here was to the best of my ability respectfully question the WMRT data and the platform, ask them to prove out what they claim, and to find ONE fisheries biologist who would support them so the debate could continue from their viewpoint with at least a shred of credibility.
Don't even get me started on the mishandling of the politics and PR by the WMRT; it was severly self defeating in my opinion. They actually attacked the work under way in Point until it became clear supporting it would be better for the image and slowed the campaign to discredit the work. Some of the supporters of this group were also roundly critical of gentlemen who actually DID get something done working in concert with the fisheries folks. How to make friends and Impress people....
So now some of the work has been completed, and thanks to Dave Neuswanger, the WIDNR, and Dr. Sloss, we will be able to share updates as they are available.
As I have already stated, the debate from the WMRT side has ended because there is nothing new or different from them, and all they have to say has been said and debated to death. We'll see how the data supports their ideas, maybe there will be some substance there, maybe not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Sean61 wrote: "If it were not for Lock Jaw and the rest of WMRP team, we wouldn't even be discussing the results of Sloss's research, would we?"
Dave N: Before you begin re-writing history, Sean, I will remind everyone that Dr. Sloss (who was shown great disrespect by the WMRP Team at the outset of this) began developing modern genetic markers (microsatellites) for muskellunge at least a year before there was any angler-driven controversy over the genetic integrity of muskellunge stocked in Wisconsin. Dr. Sloss did this in hopeful anticipation of the WDNR-funded genetic stock assessment project that is underway currently, which utilizes the markers he developed a couple years ago. Good science takes time. It was proceeding nicely before amateurs began drawing unfounded conclusions and rallying support for premature and unwise action on the basis of those conclusions. Good fishery science and management were delayed by those unproductive pressure tactics. Now we're back on track. In fact, one member of the WMRP Team (Mr. Ramsell) has been very helpful in the past several months, personally collecting tissue samples (scales) from enough muskellunge (~40) on Moose Lake in Sawyer County to allow Dr. Sloss' lab to eventually characterize that genetic stock. THAT is the kind of outstanding cooperation we need.
In the absence of any angler-driven controversy, Wisconsin also is beginning to assess the nature of our walleye genetic stocks. Work is underway at both Northland College and the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. Conservation genetics is a relatively new, complex, and expanding field that gradually is being incorporated into the field operations of state conservation and natural resource agencies nationwide. Researchers and managers are working together to apply the best available science to fishery management decision-making. For that to proceed as rapidly as possible, we need angler support, not ultimatums to take reckless action based upon incomplete understandings. We ask for your patience and support as we do our best to serve your interests. In exchange for that, we will do our best to keep you informed of developments in our understanding and our management practices. To that end, a report by Dr. Sloss will be posted on this site very soon.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 176
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Dave,
I was simply trying to point out, with a little help from Tim Simonson’s quote, “But Simonson acknowledged that the report was a catalyst for some of the
Research and for changing some practices at the state fish hatcheries at Spooner and Woodruff”, that the WMRP has played a role pushing forward genetic research.
What has gotten twisted and spun around in all of this, is the notion by a few, that the WMRP is more about the members of the team than anything else. What? How in the world did “Anti Wisconsin fish” get labeled on these guys? These guys are absolutely passionate about WI musky fishing! The reality is, they are catching the vast majority of their big fish elsewhere, and would love to see that change. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that Mr. Ramsell is doing whatever he can to help possibly make that happen.
I look forward to Dr. Sloss’s report.
Thanks,
Sean
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32815
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That isn't a notion, Sean. It's what the WMRT has said over and over, 'it's the fish'. They have insisted the muskies stocked in Wisconsin are not capable of attaining trophy class, that the fish here are now a 'hatchery strain' that is inferior and should not be stocked anywhere, calling the Wisconsin Muskies 'mutts', and notably, have INSISTED that is what is wrong with the fish in LCO and Bone. That is the BASIS of the original platform, not 'spin' as you put it. The folks from the WMRT insist that the only 'pure' strain of fish left is the Leech Lake fish. Those are the facts, and if that isn't 'anti Wisconsin Fish' rhetoric, I'd like to know what is.
I also know a bit about that article, and what was meant by the reference BOB RIEPENHOFF made to Mr. Simonson's remarks. He was not talking about the work in Stevens Point. Context is everything.
Lately, my good friend Bob Benson broadsided me and MuskieFIRST with a laundry list of accusations. I'd like to address them, and clear up any misconceptions ANYONE might have after reading that tripe or listening to his rant.
1) MuskieFIRST is not anti-Wisconsin-Stocking. That's ridiculous.
2) I am not personally Anti-Wisconsin-Stocking, that is also ridiculous.
3) I am NOT anti-people-of-the-WMRT. I AM, VERY MUCH, anti-Bull, especially in this forum. If the two become mingled in the WMRT dialog, check your shoes, Bob.
4) I at no time was lobbying for a transfer of fish from Butternut to LCO without checking for the genetic compatibility of the fish as Bob claimed in a mis-truth ladened tirade last night. I won't speak for Mr. Neuswanger, but in fact neither was he. Dr. Sloss isn't 'bringing to a halt' anything, he simply will be answering the question posed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as to whether the two populations differ genetically enough to make a transfer unwise. Bob's comment to that was rude, inaccurate and untruthful. That isn't a surprise.
We have done our very best to hold the WMRT to a standard of accuracy and truth they SHOULD aspire to, but for some reason avoid. That also is why the debate with them has ended here, they simply cannot let it go despite the fact there has not been the slightest support from ANY scientific corner ANYWHERE for the demands, platform, data interpretation or for that matter, behavior of his group.
5) The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources HAS to deal with people like the WMRT, they are state employees and of course wish to defend the record, the science, and the actual practices they must adhere to while they do the best possible to serve the anglers of this state; ALL the anglers, not just a small group of pseudo-scientists. I will not speak for the DNR either, but I was totally embarrassed by the public WMRT presentations I DID attend, including the Muskie Symposium this last Spring and the Hayward meeting. The beligerent attitude, attack oriented dialog, and even the body language spoke to them wanting a fight, not the truth, as they insist they HAVE the truth despite scientific concurrence to the contrary and have no intention to allow any of the real science to get in the way of their interpretation. It is extremely difficult for a scientist to answer claims like the WMRT have made without phrasing the answers in a way that makes the accusers look just plain stupid, making it tough on the biologists because they are keenly aware of the propensity of the public to jump on a activist bandwagon if it looks cool and demands something that seems easy and good. No one in the DNR wants to openly embarrass anyone, and that, IMHO, is an unfortunate PR weakness caused by the necessity to bend to the politics of public pressure. If I'd accuse the DNR of anything in this process, it would be wasting too much time trying to 'be nice' to the WMRT.
5) The WMRT had nothing to do with the genetic testing under way. They did, however, in concert with Greg Ide( who is a nice guy, by the way), bash Dr. Sloss repeatedly until it became clear the information and delivery was, indeed, unwise to state and untrue.
6) I am not against Leech Lake fish. I like them, they have cool coloration. I hope they work out well in the side by side comparisons that are under way.
7) Buzzwords can be effective, but every time I hear one I will ask for proof of concept. 'Slow growing' is what the WMRT INTERPRETED many of our Wisconsin fish to be. I asked for proof, and got a ton of gibberish in return, none of which proved a thing they were claiming.
8) LCO fish were a large subset of the original WMRT debate. I suggest anyone who believes Bob's assertion that he has always wanted fish from LCO stocked in the waters of NW Wisconsin to read ALL the comments and data interpretation the WMRT has put forth insisting the fish there were 'ruined' by creating a hatchery strain of Muskies. If necessary, I can earmark some of the debate regarding that topic, it's right here and easy to find.
AN EXAMPLE from the debate, a WMRT commentary:'Combine that with recent new information that this stocking of small growth fish from BOTH Spider Lake AND we sadly now learn, two additional hatchery uses of Spider Lake fish AND even sadder yet, two hatchery uses of eggs from Callahan Lake and this issue becomes far more important, and certainly cannot be considered "minor." In two of those five occurances, a large percentage of the eggs used for hatchery propagation for those years were from these stocks. To quote a former WDNR propagation manager, "We should have never used eggs from Callahan Lake."! Former WDNR Researcher Leon Johnson, also indicated in Technical Bulletin #49, that "most of the fingerlings stocked" in LCO in 1956, "were derived from a slow-growing population of muskellunge from Big Spider Lake."!
The insinuation even at this early stage of the dabate is clear, the fish in LCO were 'ruined' by the Spider/Callahan 'slow growing' fish. This is why Dr. Sloss' work is so important!
9) I don't have any problem whatsoever with any members of the WMRT personally. The fact they DO with me is reflective of the 'passion' Sean mentioned, I believe. That is unfortunate, because that renders any debate useless because the argument immediately degenerates to accusations of bias, outright mis-truths, and worse by two members and a couple supporters of this group. Why should MuskieFIRST encourage this sort of train wreck WMRT behavior and waste our time moderating the same fight over and over if the answers are still the same as last winter's; especially when we are so close to learning what some of the future holds for our Wisconsin Muskie program from those who actually make their living in that endeavor? I see no reason to cloud the actual science with any more of the oft repeated, unproven, unscientific banter from this group. For that reason, I have announced that in OutdoorsFIRST's opinion the material the WMRT has presented has been covered completely and you, our reader will gain no benefit from positioning over that debate at this point in time. We await the conclusions of the studies underway to continue this conversation unless the WMRT can come up with something that withstands scientific scrutiny and actually applies to reality on the ground in fisheries management today.
If that makes me biased, it is a bias to the facts. I will not apologize for that, ever.
The claim we are misleading the public or publishing mis-truths is laughable. MuskieFIRST is very aware that you, our reader, can make up your own mind on the issues based on what's been said to date. The new data as it becomes available should help all of us along that path in the near future, and down the road in this process.
|
|
| |
|
| Being in Minnesota, I have no idea what you guys are refering to. I do know that about a week ago, Fargo-Moorhead Muskies Inc., which is my Chapter, stocked 182 fish into a new lake in MN. 500 more are do to arrive tomorrow. I would expect them to be Leech Lake strain fish, but I'm a bit out of the loop of information. I think South Dakota has been getting all of their fish from Indiana. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 738
| If your looking for a lake for those Butternut fish, how about the chetek chain? 3800 acres of highly fertile water with a great forage base. Lets see them fish GROW! In a short period of time the chetek chain can become another Rice lake success story but on a much bigger scale. Kdawg |
|
| |
