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 -> No more stocking? |
| Message Subject: No more stocking? | |||
PFLesox |
| ||
Location: Munster, IN | Saw this letter online: To: Frank Pratt Area Fisheries Biologist Wisconsin DNR 10220 N. State Hwy. 27 Hayward, WI 54843 Dear Mr. Pratt: Due to the apparent sad state of the hatchery brood stock that has contributed to the continuous decline of the trophy musky fisheries in northwestern Wisconsin, and particularly the Sawyer County area over the past half-century, as pointed out by the tremendous amount of research work done by the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project, we, the Hayward Lakes Visitor’s and Convention Bureau, hereby request that NO FURTHER STOCKING be done in Sawyer County lakes with fish taken from the current Bone Lake brood stock, beginning immediately. We endorse the suggestion of the WMRP to selectively take eggs from the larger remaining large river strain of muskies native to this area, i.e., Lac Court Oreilles, the Chippewa Flowage or Grindstone Lake, to further enhance our trophy musky fishery, rather than the continuation of stocking the small and mixed strain of muskies currently being used from the Bone Lake brood stock. By following the WMRP suggestion of taking eggs from numbers of only the larger specimen’s, we would be more confident that our native trophy musky fishery can and will rebound and allow us to compete with what is currently happening in Minnesota. In addition, we do not feel that the current proposed plan to transfer 500 adult muskies from Butternut Lake in Price County, that has been diluted with small Minocqua Lake stain muskies from the Wisconsin River drainage, to Lac Court Oreilles (LCO) here in Sawyer County, in the Chippewa River drainage is a good idea. The high 50 inch size limit on LCO will likely protect these potentially small growth potential fish for their entire lifetime, allowing them to eat the available forage without contributing to a harvestable trophy fishery. Proposed genetic testing of a small sample of the fish to be transferred will only identify those particular fish, not the balance being transferred. We feel that this risk is too great to take. We are aware of the DNR's current plan to "study" the current brood stock situation that provides no guarantee that things would change, as stated by DNR Fisheries Supervisor, Mike Staggs. We simply cannot afford to wait until 2016, to find out that changes made did or did not work. Positive change can and should happen immediately. We are also aware of the proposed genetic study that simply cannot determine beyond what musky stocks now exist other than what has been "created" by the Wisconsin hatchery system over the past 100+ years, as was determined by the recent (1997) genetic study by the Illinois History Survey, and even then after this proposed 2-4 year study is completed, it will NOT answer the most important questions of growth and reproduction. The constant drain of our tourism dollars being lost to Minnesota must cease. The losses from musky anglers now going to Minnesota is staggering. In addition, restoration of our trophy fisheries would give this area a much needed boost in the "shoulder season" of late fall, October and November. "Build it and they will come!" Sincerely, Cheryl Treland, President Hayward Lakes Visitor’s and Convention Bureau cc: David J. Neuswanger, Upper Chippewa Basin Fisheries Supervisor Scott Hassett, DNR Secretary Michael D. Staggs, Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection James Doyle, Governor Jim Holperin, Secretary, Dept. of Tourism Mark Marotta, Office of the Secretary, Administrative Office, Dept. of Administration Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project Team Terrell Boetcher, Sawyer County Record Robert Jauch, State Senator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| muskynightmare |
| ||
Posts: 2112 Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | Four words to The author of that letter, as well as the restoration team: SHUT UP AND FISH! I have caught huge fish and runts out of alot of various bodies of water throughout the great state of Wisconsin, and I aint blaming nobody but myself. THESE ARE THE GOOD OLD DAYS of musky fishing. If I have offended anyone, get over it and figure 8, please. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nearly a quote from the WMRT's platform. To a T. | ||
| PFLesox |
| ||
Location: Munster, IN | Unfortunately they just seem to be making things worse instead of better. A little attitude adjustment might further the cause. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| well...i actually see this as a positive in that the "tone" is significantly more professional and respectful. it simply and directly presents support for their position, and requests action. one might agree or disagree with the position, but this is exactly the kind of tone that many of us have been suggesting that the WMRP adopt when communicating in public discussions or directly with officials...not apologetic, but not rude either. i'm unsure of the cachet that the Hayward convention center carries, but this is political pressure in one of it's better incarnations. Edited by lambeau 5/2/2005 8:50 PM | |||
| muskynightmare |
| ||
Posts: 2112 Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I dunno, Like I said, or failed to say, I have caught giants, as well as runts, out of the same body of water, within a 100 or so yards of eachother. I am fisherperson enough to admit that when I caught the runts, I was fishing small fish spots. I do not blame my small fish on "inferior stocking efforts" or "inferior strains". Several folks need the company of a lady, I'm thinking (that's all the nicer I can say that). Watch "The old Masters of Musky Fishing" Video. Lunker Lou, who is a better stick than all of us put together said " The Good Old days Of Musky Fishing Is Right Now". I could not agree with anyone more. I am officially off my soap box, on this subject.....for now. | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Muskynightmare Just because you are satisfied with the WI muskie fishery the way it is now and apparently don't care if gets any better doesn't mean that everyone else should be OK with that. If your attitude was the norm here, it would almost guarantee that nothing is done to try and better our fisheries. This letter is asking them to stop stocking the current fish in hopes that they will try to find a a strain that will provide a more desireable end result. They are asking for this because they obviously have seen nearly no changes for the better in decades that has shown any significant positive results there for trophy class muskies. Is the Chippewa Flowage Lake Association wrong and your right about this lake? Boy, even when people use the "right" tone they still get slammed by people for saying anything at all. | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Could you define what a giant is for us? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | PFLEsox, Where was this letter taken from, which website, if you don't mind? Lambeau, I agree to a point. On a Personal Opinion note: 'Due to the apparent sad state of the hatchery brood stock that has contributed to the continuous decline of the trophy musky fisheries in northwestern Wisconsin, and particularly the Sawyer County area over the past half-century, as pointed out by the tremendous amount of research work done by the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project' This is a direct reflection of the same platform the WMRT has been pounding, and is presented in the same EXACT tone. 'Sad state'? Did the Convention and Visitors Bureau contact the area fisheries folks and ask them their positions, look into the data, study side by side with the scientists in the field? Did they contact ANY of the CC individuals, and ask them for a meeting on this issue to hear both sides of the debate and the reasons the DNR is not immediately bending to the demands of the WMRT? What was the response to the phone conversation or meeting the folks at the Bureau had with Dave Neuswanger, a willing communicator and intelligent scientist dedicated to better Muskie management in his area? Look at Dave's credentials, please. Dave was very instrumental in developing the Missouri Muskie program, and the PMTT is touting the results LOUDLY as they prepare to have a National event on one of Missouri's Muskie waters. He is one of the Nations premier Muskie experts. 'Proposed genetic testing of a small sample of the fish to be transferred will only identify those particular fish, not the balance being transferred. We feel that this risk is too great to take. ' This is a misleading statement at the least. 'We are aware of the DNR's current plan to "study" the current brood stock situation that provides no guarantee that things would change, as stated by DNR Fisheries Supervisor, Mike Staggs. We simply cannot afford to wait until 2016, to find out that changes made did or did not work. Positive change can and should happen immediately. We are also aware of the proposed genetic study that simply cannot determine beyond what musky stocks now exist other than what has been "created" by the Wisconsin hatchery system over the past 100+ years, as was determined by the recent (1997) genetic study by the Illinois History Survey, and even then after this proposed 2-4 year study is completed, it will NOT answer the most important questions of growth and reproduction.' See the quotation marks around the word study? The implication is not lost on me. Again, misleading, and indicative of a lack of understanding of the potential of the work in progress at Stevens Point and the tremendous advances in genetic research since 1997. ASK the fisheries biologist in Illinois about the Leech Lake fish introduced into Fox Chain waters there. I did. I'm sorry, but all the experts in genetics and fisheries management I have spoken to have told me very clearly that so far we are discussing in this thead and every single other WMRT dominated conversation onsite here 'barroom biology'. I'm sure that includes my commentary.:) The context of the 'barrrom biology' references isn't necessarily negative, it's simply realsitic. Perhaps a better term would be 'chatroom biology'. I don't think that we shoudn't discuss the situation, it's a given that we should. What we need to be careful about as laymen is drawing conclusions that are premature, overbearing, unfounded, or otherwise misdirected and then deciding those ideas are management strategy. I do admire the drive and desire exhibited by the WMRT to improve Muskie angling trophy potential here in Wisconsin. I believe the DNR is already in the process of doing just that. The results of everyone working to see that our fisheries improve should be positive. My opinion. | ||
| Summer Muskie |
| ||
| Conversely, is the Lake Association right and Muskienightmare wrong.... I personally don't want Lake Associations or Chambers of Commerce managing the Muskie program in Wisconsin any more than I want the WMRT to decide management of Wisconsin muskie programs...... The posting of that letter on the Internet is more bull#*#* publicity... is a cheap shot deserving of no answer at all from anyone.... What do these people know of biology? | |||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Hi all. I've met rob and he is a true muskyfisherman. Your insulting post Mr. Johnson only furthers your organizations public demise. Another well thought out and well spoken thread for the WMRP and its loud mouth bulling tatics. The man is entitled to respond to something WMRP was looking for. Instead of thanks and maybe should get together to disscuss issues. You and the little group that represent the WMRP feel that they are heads above everyone and everything else. I sure hope I never see a flier wanting money to support this fiasco. The last nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. As far as I'm concerned theWRMP is dead. Thanks for taking a great idea and flushing it right down the crapper. You folks are just stepping #*#* everytime you all speak. Nice Job guys. Thanks Dave | ||
| PFLesox |
| ||
Location: Munster, IN | Steve, Here is the site it was on: http://www.musky.com/ Consider the source. Edited by PFLesox 5/3/2005 12:56 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Oh My Gosh. Thanks, sir. | ||
| PFLesox |
| ||
Location: Munster, IN | No problem, I thought you migth get a kick out of it. | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Hunter4 I have re-read Muskynightmares post and my response to it and I would have to say in all honesty that I find his post much more insulting and to many more people than mine. One guy comes on here and says he has caught giant muskies in WI without providing any data on actuall sizes or numbers and now everyone is suppose to think that everything is as good as it can be in WI so we should not strive to better our fisheries? The WMRP has consistantly provided supporting data to back up its statements. This is something he did not do and something the DNR has also failed to do on many occasions. Making statements without providing any supporting data to back up those statements leaves people wondering why no data was provided. Some of the WMRP's supporting data may come from sources that some people don't like or consider anecdotal or may not trust but at least they do provide it. And please remember this. The WDNR has used and printed supporting data in thier own reports which was obtained from the EXACT SAME SOURCE that the WMRP has obtained supporting data from. Is the WMRP's data from this source anecdotal and the DNR's is not? I fail to see why its OK for one group to use a particular source for obtaining data from and everyone is expected to believe it but if anyone else does this same thing then the data it is not to be believed. Someone please explain the reasoning in this to me. Steve I think the fact that the lake association sent this letter clearly indicates that these are the requests of the Chippewa Flowage Lake Association and not just the WMRP. They sent the letter, the WMRP did not. ('Proposed genetic testing of a small sample of the fish to be transferred will only identify those particular fish, not the balance being transferred. We feel that this risk is too great to take. ') I fail to see the misleading part here. How can the DNR be 100% certain that all 500 fish transfered from Butternut lake, a lake having documented stocking of different and/or mixed strains over the years and from both the Spooner and Woodruff hatcheries, that all 500 are the same fish genetically if you only test some of them? What is misleading here? Is this not to be considered any kind of risk to LCO? The letter was submitted by the CFLA. What difference does it make that this particular person, or anyone for that matter, got ahold of it and decided to post it for everyone to read? Personally I think it was wrong for this person to do this. But what diff does it make? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I agree, the letter reflects the the request of the Visitors Bureau, but requests based on what, sir? Now we have a Visitor's and Convention Bureau instructing the DNR which fish to stock where, how to acquire brood and where, paraprhasing a WMRT statement regarding the work in progress in Point and in that demeaning that work, and what's more, publishing a statement that tourism thas suffered horribly from the wholesale rush of every muskie angler in the country to fish Minnesota. Did it ever occur to these folks that publishing that sort of thing will most certainly not encourage anyone to visit the area? What do you suppose a tourist reading that letter might think about heading up to Sawyer County to fish muskies? One of the CCs at the bottom of that letter was a writer, was it not? You are correct IMHO, Mr. Sandell shoudn't have published that letter, but he's well known for that sort of thing. As far as the Butternut fish go, I'll personally leave that decision to those who are better suited, but stand by the fact that statement is misleading. If there actually is a legitimate concern there, perhaps those fish can be placed in a put and take fishery with a 34" size limit. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I didn’t want to get involved with this thread but I couldn’t help myself. I personally don’t see anything wrong with the letter as I believe it is the proper way to drum up support for the items the WMRT have researched and pointed out. Steve I disagree with you that the letter is instructing the DNR, it is merely making suggestions. I really think that it should be ok to make suggestion, it doesn’t mean they have to comply, but they could be looked into. From the sounds of it many of the items suggested are being looked into. A couple of Key Phrases from the Letter: “Due to the APPARENT sad state of Hatchery brood stock…..” “…we, the Hayward Lakes Visitor’s and Convention Bureau, hereby REQUEST…” “We ENDORSE the suggestion of the WMRP to selectively take eggs from the larger remaining large river strain of muskies native to this area, i.e., Lac Court Oreilles, the Chippewa Flowage or Grindstone Lake, TO FURTHER ENHANCE OUR TROPHY MUSKY FISHERY, rather than the continuation of stocking the small and mixed strain of muskies currently being used from the Bone Lake brood stock. By following the WMRP suggestion of taking eggs from numbers of only the larger specimen’s, WE WOULD BE MORE CONFIDENT that our native trophy musky fishery can and will rebound and allow us to compete with what is currently happening in Minnesota.” I think the above paragraph is the key element in the whole works. It’s not drastic and there really isn’t any down side to speak off. Other than dollars and there are groups willing to help with that if they can. From what I am hearing this isn’t just a WMRP issue, they started the ball rolling, in some areas like there approach or not, but I know the Headwaters Chapter of Muskies Inc. wants something done also and the members I have talked to like what the WMRP is saying. In the very small internet world many of us live, this issue has become very complicated. In the minds of many who don’t spend there nights reading as much as possible on this subject it is pretty cut and dried. TRY SOMETHING, what we are doing isn’t working. Musky fishing is as good as it has ever been in Northern Wisconsin from a numbers stand point. But the AVERAGE musky fisherman is not catching many trophy fish 50+, that is what these groups want to see changed. Some people have found ways to catch more trophy fish in Wisconsin; others don’t have the time or desire to put in that kind of effort. They want to be able to fish lakes where 1 in 20 fish is a trophy not 1 in 200 or whatever the numbers may be. “The constant drain of our tourism dollars being lost to Minnesota must cease. The losses from musky anglers now going to Minnesota is staggering. In addition, restoration of our trophy fisheries would give this area a much needed boost in the "shoulder season" of late fall, October and November. "Build it and they will come!" That statement is 100% true, I spend close to $1000 and a weeks vacation every year on a trip to Canada and I live in the heart of North Eastern Wisconsin Musky County. The goal of that trip is a 50 incher not a 50#er like some. On the last four trips I have made, my biggest fish of the year has come on that one week trip. It would be nice not to have to make that trip. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Steve I agree this letter being posted online will not help to increase the number of muskie anglers going to the area, but neither will making exagerated claims about how great the trophy musky fishing is in this area. Establishing better trophy fishing that can compete with other areas is the single best way to attract more anglers and get back those who have given up on the area over the years for areas that offer a far better chance at catching that fish of a lifetime. Steve, don't take this wrong, but how would you feel if the DNR wanted to take these Butternut fish and dump them in your lake down the road from you that you mention here often? Or Pelican? Or ??? If overstocking is really the problem with these fish not growing in Butternut and they do in fact take 500 out, then the ones left in Butternut along with the fact that they have already decreased the stocking it quite a bit over the last 10 years should mean the fish remaining in Butternut would again grow to the larger sizes they used to many years ago on this lake. So why must these fish be put into LCO to get thier answer? Take some out and study whats left. Put the 500 fish in a lake with either less or no risk involved or in a lake that people are not opposed to. It should not be that hard of a thing to do. We already have fish stocked in LCO by the DNR that are not growing. Lets just assume here for a minute that the Butternut fish put into LCO actually do end up growing. Does it matter how much they grow? I would hope so. If they grow 'X" inches in 'X" amount of years then what? If they do grow at all what does that tell us? That the fish being stocked in LCO and everywhere else in NW WI from the Spooner hatchery are inferrior or no good? Or do we now need to transfer 500 of these LCO fish to Butternut and study that, or another lake and study that, and yet another lake and study that? Where does it end? How many more years of transfering, stocking, experimenting, mixing, studying etc....and then repeating this whole process over and over again using the same fish over and over again with the same or similar results each time ever end? It would be nice to know before going into a study just what, if anything, the DNR will do differently when the study is completed based on the findings if they show us "X" or they show us "Y" as the answer. I am not totally against doing studies as long as there is some game plan of what will be done differently or changed based on the findings of the study. If the few lakes in WI that the DNR allows stocking of the MS fish into shows that they do grow larger, then what changes will be made to WI's muskie management based on these findings? I have not heard that anything will change if this is the case. All I have learned so far from studies that have been done in WI is that prior studies = more studies today = more studies in the future = no change then = no change now = no change in the near future = more of the same = live with what we have = continue to wait for changes or just give up on it and move on. One exception to much of this is the Green Bay area. It is very obvious that changing the strain used for stocking can and does work in the Green Bay area as well as many other areas and in all types of lakes of all sizes with all types of forage and nearly every other senario. We can't continue to ignore this hoping that someday all our fish from the Spooner and Woodruff hatcheries will just magically and suddenly change and all start growing to the historic sizes of years ago. This is pretty wishful thinking. We must accept the fact that some strains of fish all have the potential to grow large and unfortunately some strains do not have the potential to grow large no matter what the size limit is, how much pressure they see, what forage they have to eat, how much they have to eat, how big the lake is or where it is. Unfortunately no one including the DNR can change this regardless of what we decide to do with them or how many times we study them. | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| I have a correction to make. The Hayward Lakes Visitor’s and Convention Bureau sent the letter, not the Chipp Flowage Lake Assoc. Sorry for any confusion this may have created but this really doesn't change what has been said here anyway. Just wanted to clear this up. EJohnson | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, I will disagree with you on this one, but it's perspective and not content we disagree on. The quotes I posted from the letter meant one thing to me, another to others which is the heart of the problem. If a letter like this was meant to offer an atmosphere of cooperation while strongly encouraging continued change I would have expected to see it worded differently, without what is absolutely bound to be interpreted by the recipients as inflammatory commentary. A couple words here and there, and suddedly there is only one way to take the intent, and that's why there is such a thing as PR businesses out there. Also somewhat interesting is the issue that this letter to me seems to forward that the WMRT platform is absolute, correct in it's assumptions, and immediately available for implementation. | ||
| Musky Man |
| ||
| I'll bet the Minnesota musky boy's reading this great debate are laughing their butt's off! Minnesota may not know much about managing a pro football team but they more than makeup on managing their musky lakes. The longer this debate about right strain-wrong strain goes on, the uglier it's getting. It's quite obvious -no person or post is going to change anybody's mind about how to solve the Big fish problem in Northern Wisconsin. Having 50+ years exposure to some of the best musky waters in the state, I cannot say these are the best days right now for big fish. I've watched some trophy lakes slowly slip into numbers lakes and for no logical reason,perhaps pollution,big motors,acid rain,mercury etc,are also factors that should be looked into. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | From Sworrall: “ASK the fisheries biologist in Illinois about the Leech Lake fish introduced into Fox Chain waters there. I did.” What did they say? I thought I recently heard that during a the PWT event there, the Walleye anglers proved the existence of young musky that prior to this event the IDNR was having a hard time finding, making them think the musky weren’t naturally reproducing there. Did you hear anything about this? Thanks Steve. Mike | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall: Where is your sense of fair play? You rail against and edit supposed "inflammatory" posts, and then leave the absolute UNTRUTH in "The Truth" post unchallenged and up. Sad indeed. This will have to change before I participate further on MF. Maybe you prefer it that I no longer participate here? I/we have absolutely no problem with fair and accurate critism, but those unfounded outright lies and insuations go WAY beyond any sense of fair play. You would not allow it of us and it is not right to allow it of others that reflect an opposing position. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, They were finding the fish that were stocked the year before in the Fox, not young of the year if I understood Frank correctly. He commented that there were very few Spots being caught, and even fewer Spots that were above the high 30" catagory, but they are not certain about what makes it and what doesn't. The plan is to use fin clipping on stocked fish from this point forward, allowing better ID in the future. Larry, It's gone. Look at the pageviews on this issue, over 7500 so far. This is a busy place, and the subject has been very volatile, to say the least. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall: Thank you....Larry | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Sheesh, can't wait for the opener!!! Surprised me to see the bureau's signature on that letter. Well written too, in my opinion, and a better tone than earlier presented by supporters of the WMRT. I feel that, if the local businesses, and local tourism bureau feel this way, it should be looked at. I too disagree with the swapping of fish from Butternut. We already know they are not growing in Butternut, why take the chance of putting that type of fish in LCO. Yes, the potential exists that they will grow, but also a great chance to further cloud the gene pool in the lake with fish that do not. Why not put them in a lake with no Muskies in it currently to see what they can do? That could kill two birds with one stone. It could show that the Butternut fish will grow in the proper environment, and could prove the theory of many that the success of many lakes in MN, is due to new populations in lakes that had no Muskies prior. I would love to see something like that done. Edited by Reef Hawg 5/5/2005 10:14 AM | ||
| 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 |