Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> What are the Down Sides of Doing what the WMRT suggests? |
| Message Subject: What are the Down Sides of Doing what the WMRT suggests? | |||
HUNTERMD |
| ||
| Bob, with all due repect, your statement that MN muskies are longer and heavier is simple not the facts. Please examine WDNR Research Report #175. It states in a nut shell, if you compare the Leech Lake 40" muskie to the Wisconsin 40" muskie, the Wisconsin muskie is heavier then the Leech Lake strain. There is no room for interpretation in the report, those are the facts. Also, one other observation that can be made from Wisconsin's Nancy Lake report of the LL strain being stocked in to the lake, is that Lake Nancy's LL muskie grew, on average, at a faster rate then the average muskie actually grows in Leech Lake. Which would indicate the early stages of the stunting of muskies in Leech Lake. Granted, there were no muskie present in Lake Nancy before the introduction of the LL strain ,but there were plenty of competing species, i.e. northern pike, walleye, and small & largemouth bass. My only conclusion is that if MN continues to stock muskie at the rates they have been, they too will experience the downside of over stocking that we have been experiencing here in Wisconsin over the last ten years or so. I would have to say that if MN follows in Wisconsin footsteps with over stocking, I don't think it will be as drastic as it has been for the muskie fishery in Wisconsin. But I could be wrong!!! Again, my money is still on Wisconsin to produce the next world record muskie. We have a bunch of fatties here! Thanks, Tom McInnis | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Could someone explain to me why from the retreat of the glaciers till the mid 80s Mn and Wi musky waters where about the same, then all of a sudden beginning in the late 80s they took off with better water chemistry and better forage base? Or could it simply be the fish being stocked? If the Mn waters are that much better at producing large fish why with less pressure did they not always dominate the Musky kingdom? Not all Mn musky water is new musky water, right? One more question how is it that Lake St. Clair fish are the proper fish to stock in all the Greats Lakes basin, when Lake St. Clair is hundreds of miles away from Green Bay and Duluth, but Mississippi River Fish from Leach Lake aren’t the proper fish to stock in Wisconsin’s Mississippi River drainage basin. I think the only difference is that it has all ready been proven that the Great Lakes strain will work here by the Great Lakes project. Maybe we need to undertake a similar project with the MR strain on some major bodies of water. Like the entire Wisconsin River. Do a project like this only on southern Wi lakes and it is only giving people more reason not to drive to the Northwoods. Thanks Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Fred J |
| ||
| Tom, The statement that LL fish are longer and heavier is only part of the statement that should have been made. The statement should be that LL muskies are longer and heavier at any given age then WI muskie. Meaning that both fish being 6 years old the LL fish should be longer and heavier than the WI fish. Comparing each fish at 36" the WI fish may very well be heavier than the LL fish because it should be older and it's sexual organs fully developed whereas LL fish are not sexauly mature with fully developed reproductive organs until around 40". Fred | |||
| Fred J |
| ||
| Mike, a factor that would contribute to the big up swing of large fish since the mid eightys is that before that time MN had considerably fewer lakes with muskies. Also it wasn't till around that time that MN switched to stocking only Leech Lake strain fish. The lakes that contained these LL fish years ago did always produce large fish...ie Leech, Cass, Big Winnie Fred | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Tom In every single study ever done comparing the mississippi strain with Wi strains, the Miss strain was found to be LONGER AND HEAVIER AT THE SAME AGE! For some reason the WI DNR would rather compare fish of the same length to see which is heavier. Why? This is very ignorant. When you compare a 10 year old 40" wisconsin fish that has stopped growing or nearly stopped growing in length and is fully mature, to a 5 year old miss strain fish that is still growing rapidly in length and not yet mature, then obviously the 10 year old WI fish will most likely weigh more because all its growth goes to girth or weight at that point. Make sense? If you compare a 12 year old boy that is 5'8" tall to a 45 year old man 5'8" tall, which one do you think will most likely be heavier? The 45 year old. Make sense? The 12 year old is still growing so he does not put on girth. The 45 year old stopped growing many years ago so he will put on girth. Make sense? At the same length the older person is heavier. Who do you think will be heavier when this boy is 45 years old and 6'2" tall? Make sense yet? Comparing 2 strains of fish at the same length and not the same age is absolutely insane when determining which will ultimately be heavier. | |||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Great post MRoberts. | ||
| HUNTERMD |
| ||
| EJohnson, so in other words you do agree with the findings of the WDNR Research Report # 175 that comparing a 45" LL muskie is lighter than a 45" WI muskie. Also, I would like to have it known to everyone, that I am not trying to belittle the muskie of MN or some how attract more muskie anglers to prefer Wisconsin muskie fishing over MN or any other state or province. I am just stating there are genetic differences and in my book "there is no such thing as a bad muskie". For those of you who still are in doubt of the differences between the LL strain and the Wisconsin strain I will relay the exact paragraph discussing the issue found in the WDNR Research Report #175 " Muskellunge from Leech Lake reportedly have a less robust body shape( leaner) than muskellunge from other populations (Younk & Strand 1992). When compared to the growth standard weight, Nancy Lake muskellunge exceeded the standard at 110.6%. However, Wr an index of condition, for muskellunge 42-50 inches in Nancy Lake was 86(N=16). Mean Wr for simalar size groups of muskellunge from eight Wisconsin lakes reported by Neumann AND WILLIS (1994) was 102 (range 89-122). Theses results suggest Nancy Lake muskellunge attained greater lengths at age than Wisconsin muskellunge and this greater length at age than Wisconsin muskellunge and this greater length was reflected in heavier fish at a given age. However, Wr values compare fish of simalar length and do not take age into account. Hence, when compared to other Wisconsin muskellunge populations, Nancy Lake muskellunge of similar length weighed less". One point that must be made in the study was that the muskies age in the eight Wisconsin lakes were determined by scale samples and the age determination was probably wrong. And again, the Nancy Lake LL strain muskie out performed the grouth rate of the average muskie in Leech Lake. I guess that I prefer to fish for the healthy robust muskie with "beer bellies" and other folks like to focus on a longer specimen. I think it will not be too long before the modern muskie angler adopts another standard in muskie fishing, and abandons the notion that length is the "end all". Thanks and you all have a great season this year, Tom McInnis | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Tom Could be, yes. A 15 year old 45 inch WI muskie might very well be heavier than a 7 year old 45 inch LL muskie which probably has about 10 inches left to grow before reaching 12-15 years of age, 55 inches and 50lbs +. Its the mid to upper 50 inch, 50lb + fish being caught in MN every year that we are interested in restoring in WI. Not the 34-45 inch, 10-25lb fish we have settled for in WI for way too long. You have yourself a great year fishing and best of luck to you. EJohnson | |||
| Jomusky |
| ||
Posts: 1185 Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I feel this whole strain / stocking thing needs to be looked at in Wisconsin, but our biggest problems are size limits and indian spearing (winter and spring). | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Tom: You said: "One point that must be made in the study was that the muskies age in the eight Wisconsin lakes were determined by scale samples and the age determination was probably wrong." My reply: That is exactly correct. After age 4, aging by scale sample is not accurate, and "always" underestimates the age of the fish, and often considerably as they get older. SO, the comparisons used would have been with even OLDER Wisconsin fish at length vs. the Leech Lake fish. It really is quite simple; do you want to wait 15 to 20 years for a fish to "maybe" reach 40 inches and be a real "fattie" of 20 to 23 pounds, or would you rather have that same 15 to 20 year old fish be 50 to 55 inches long and 40 to 55 pounds? You also said: "I guess that I prefer to fish for the healthy robust muskie with "beer bellies" and other folks like to focus on a longer specimen. I think it will not be too long before the modern muskie angler adopts another standard in muskie fishing, and abandons the notion that length is the "end all"." My reply: I might be wrong, but the ONLY thing talked about these days is length, except when one of those long beauties has a "beer belly" and then it is really something special. That something special to the max is the "ONE" that Worrall, myself and many others is looking for. We would like to know that the fish being stocked at least have the "potential" to grow big. That is currently NOT the case! I don't really see many anglers looking for places to go that have a LOT of fat 36 to 40 inch fish with nearly no chance of getting one bigger. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I fish about 15 lakes in Oneida County every year. There is an EXCELLENT chance that I will catch fish in the mid to upper 40" class, and I do. There is a good chance I will catch a fish near 50, and sometimes, I do. There's a fair chance that I will get a Hog over 50, and sometimes, I do. The mid 40" fish will weigh about 20 to 25 pounds. The upper 40" class fish will crowd 30 pounds. If I am lucky enough to boat a 50 or better she could go anywhere from 33# on the skinny end to 40#. The sky isn't falling, here. Yes, I agree that some lakes follow the Restoration groups described model, and need to be adressed. Yes, I'd like to see more 50" class fish. Joe Musky has a good point, and the restoration committee continually dismisses it. I don't, and at this point with the information I have read, I can't. Harvest of fish in the 46 to 50" class is quite heavy here from the sources JM mentions. Wabigoon has a unique and fertile fishery that supports an incredible biomass. We have a couple waters in this state that could rival her although the prey is completely different there, and our DNR has already long before this argument begun stocking the Lake St. Claire spots in those waters. Maybe someday I could vacation on Winnebago and have as good a chance at the One, but probably I will stick to the Goon because of the investment of 25 years learning that water. Moderate to convincing folks that you have some really great ideas that warrant consideration.I think all three threads here indicate that there is more to this issue than should be dismissed, far more than simplicity suggests and less than might warrant sky-is-falling rhetoric. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Mr. Worrall: We are glad to hear that you still have some lakes that occasionally get some of the "lucky" stocking...the chance taking of eggs from a fish will at least intermediate genes and some growth potential. While your success is laudable, you are not the norm. Average anglers do not have anywhere near the same success, and that is the point...they can! We have never said that there aren't "some" large strain fish with the growth potential's you indicate, as yes, some very nice fish as well, but rarely anything approacing world class. You say: "If I am lucky enough to boat a 50 or better she could go anywhere from 33# on the skinny end to 40#." Skinny? Hmm. in Wisconsin? So far in these threads, all that has been mentioned is how "fat" the Wisconsin muskie is. Perhaps there are some skinny fish here as well, just as there are "fat" fish in Minnesota. Your next statement: "The sky isn't falling, here. Yes, I agree that some lakes follow the Restoration groups described model, and need to be addressed. Yes, I'd like to see more 50" class fish. Joe Musky has a good point, and the restoration committee continually dismisses it. I don't, and at this point with the information I have read, I can't. Harvest of fish in the 46 to 50" class is quite heavy here from the sources JM mentions." My response: You CAN have more 50" class fish. Why does this point get missed? You know what is going on in Minnesota. And no, we haven't "dismissed" harvest. We have always said it is a factor, but it is NOT the primary problem. The hatchery stocks, especially in western Wisconsin ARE the problem. Minnesota too, has a problem with indigenous harvest. You further state: "Wabigoon has a unique and fertile fishery that supports an incredible biomass. We have a couple waters in this state that could rival her although the prey is completely different there, and our DNR has already long before this argument begun stocking the Lake St. Claire spots in those waters. Maybe someday I could vacation on Winnebago and have as good a chance at the One, but probably I will stick to the Goon because of the investment of 25 years learning that water." My reply: From Kentucky to Canada and back. There are far more waters in Wisconsin than the Winnegabo chain that acre for acre, could rival the "goon," IF they had "the right fish!" You continue: "I have a suggestion for the restoration group. Moderate to convincing folks that you have some really great ideas that warrant consideration. I think all three threads here indicate that there is more to this issue than should be totally dismissed, far more than simplicity suggests and less than might warrant sky-is-falling rhetoric. The sky isn't falling, here." My reply: We continually find it strange that EVERYONE we talk to that isn't somehow connected with the DNR (or has a relative working there) agrees with our Project and gives us 100% support. We think most ARE convinced, and would like to see change. Since you mention that "some" of our ideas warrant consideration, let's move on to current stocking practices. I find it interesting that this continually gets brushed aside. These are as follows:Currently the DNR is stocking lakes and streams in every muskellunge river drainage in the state with muskies raised at the Tommy Thompson State Fish Hatchery in Spooner, with known mixed, slow growing strain muskies with limited ultimate growth potential, from a single lake, Bone Lake in Polk County, and is doing likewise with a known, small growth strain of muskies from Squirrel Lake (and lakes with Squirrel Lake stock) from the Art Oehmcke State Fish Hatchery in Woodruff. This goes against all genetic principals of stock diversity and cross-drainage stocking. This practice has likely resulted in out breeding depression across our native and non-native Muskie waters which is shown in the documented lack of reproduction and lack of large Muskies in our waters. This "limited" use of brood stock could also be disastrous to all stocked state lakes should a disease unknowingly get into the brood stock lakes. This was "not" the practice used when Wisconsin's muskellunge fisheries were brought back from the brink of total collapse in the 1960's. In addition, "natural reproduction" from the use of Bone Lake stock is nearly "non-existent," requiring continual stocking. The aforementioned stockings have serious management ramifications, both within and out of the state. All stockings in waters tributary to the Mississippi River could, over time, affect Minnesota's Upper Mississippi River native muskellunge populations, which have not been as dramatically altered as Wisconsin’s fisheries. Currently the DNR is stocking mixed Bone Lake fish into the non-native muskellunge lakes in the St. Croix River and Red Cedar River drainages, confounding St. Croix River native muskellunge restoration there by the Minnesota DNR, and further contributing to the possibility over-time, affecting Minnesota's Upper Mississippi River drainage native muskellunge stocks. The DNR can easily change to a Muskie strain that is compatible with Minnesota’s efforts to restore the MS strain in these drainages, but refuse to out of habit. Currently the DNR is stocking muskellunge in Great Lakes drainage waters (Lakes Superior and Michigan), with mixed strain stock from the Spooner and Woodruff hatchery's, endangering Great Lakes fisheries all across North America, including the Great Lakes Restoration Program now ongoing in Green Bay by the WDNR, which is being done with Great Lakes strain muskellunge reared at the Wild Rose State Fish Hatchery. The DNR can easily change to stocking Great lakes strain Muskies in great Lakes drainages, but refuse to out of habit. Further, the DNR has an approved "state musky clubs stocking list" where "strain is not a concern" even though most of the waters on that list drain eventually into the Mississippi River or Great Lakes. This list should "require" Mississippi River or Great Lakes strain fish, depending on drainage to be stocked. Another concern, expressed by a State biologist at the State Musky Committee meeting in Stevens Point on Feb. 22, 2005, was the stocking of muskellunge of unknown origin from fish farms into waters all across the entire state. When understanding that the DNR’s own term for Woodruff hatchery fish as "Oehmcke strain" (because they don’t know what they are) it becomes clear that the DNR has had and continues to have no concern for the genetic integrity for our Muskie stocks in this state or of the waters of neighboring states and countries. Their only concern comes up when fisherman want to stock muskies whose origin is known and their growth capabilities have been proven to exceed those of Wisconsin brood lakes. The proposed and upcoming DNR "plan" does not address ANY of these points. WHY? The DNR folks at the State Musky Committee meeting in February agreed in basics and agreed things should be changed, but then indicated that they wouldn't and it hasn't been mentioned since, only a proposed "plan" that will only deal with non-native lakes in the southern part of the state. NOTHING for the bread and butter muskie country in the northern part of the state. WHY? And, no admission of correcting past errors nor intent to correct them. WHY? No, "The sky isn't falling, here.", but as Mr. McInnis so ably pointed out, our muskie fisheries ARE in "CRISIS!" It is time to fix them, not do more studies in non-native muskie waters. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| See the "Stunning new findings" thread for new information...more to come! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The Kentucky DNR has NEVER captured a YOY muskie in Cave Run Lake. Never. The surveys with fin clip at stocking and recapture bear that out, to the letter. The fish do go through the motions, but no natural reproduction can be identified. This lake probably has more attention all by itself than most of the rest of the Muskie water in the South. If indeed the muskies are hatching in the feeder creeks, they are not making it very long. Also, the biologist showed me the overall data for growth and maximum age. The fish die before Minnesota fish reach thier average mean. He also stated his opinion about this debate. As I gather the opinions of biologists from Wisconsin and the rest of the country, they will be posted in another thread, in the Biology section. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Ramsell, I see MANY fish in Minnesota that don't make 33# at 50". Most Wisconsin fish at 50 exceed that, by my experience. I am not so sure as you that your formula will result in what you claim. If it is proven to work in experimental application as is planned, then I'm on board big time. The effects of harvest on the large fish in some waters in Wisconsin is HUGE, sir. Minnesota is in the Golden Age NOW, and as harvest and pressure increases, the effects will be cataloged. That debate is still open, and you nor I have anything to add until the pressure over there, and the associated big fish harvest begin to parallel what we have had here. I fear that may happen if protective measures are not taken over there. Wisconsin has been heavily speared since the early eighties, and I mean heavily, on many waters. Harvest by anglers has decreased, but still is too high on the 48" and up year classes, IMHO, and in the opinion of many of the biologists I have spoken to. The statement that there are many more waters in Wisconsin that could rival the Goon is PURE speculation. It's cheerleading, and could be claimed to be patently misleading. There MAY be, but the devil is in the details, sir. The Goon is a very special place. It's fairly easy to convince someone of your stance if you speak passionately and loudly from a 'cause celeb' stance, and support the ideas with the documents that support your ideas. I believe that this issue is WAY too complicated for the average layman to get his arms around; most have no real grasp of genetics, environmental factors and concerns, or even the most basic science of fisheries management. I only have what might be considered a rudimentary undestanding from a couple years of school and alot of reading. I could certainly study Largemouth Bass demanding that Florida Strain be planted here undertaking that study carefully for a few months, gather all sorts of documentation supporting my claims, and not even be close to having a grasp on the science involved with that management. I would classify myself as a layman, big time. I fail to see the horror of caution. I am NOT resistant to improving the trophy management here cooperating with the DNR. That, sir, is the only way this is going to happen. I for one am willing to see what the scientists here and across the country have to say, how many agree with you, and how many don't, and why. That's my position, and I will continue to move forward from there. I might add, it's not the first time I've approached a controversial subject that way, and will not be the last. I personally like much of what I see from your group and hope you are right. That many Lakes got 'lucky'????? Now that's just hard to believe. As I have repeatedly said, please keep up the hard work sir, and we'll see how this shakes out! | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve, If harvest is indeed the reason for the lack of big females and possibly the lack of natural reproduction than the DNR has the responsibility to stop the harvest of our large female fish - Period. THEY CAN DO IT - BUT CHOOSE NOT TO! They can stop the harvesting of sturgeon in one day if they feel too many large females are being harvested. Yet on our Muskie lakes across the state unlimited harvest of large Muskies is allowed by the DNR even thoug they state (as do you) that the number of large female Muskies in our lakes is not what it should be. If this harvest of our large fish is significant as you say - and natural reproduction is limited in most of our water as the DNR tells us, SHOULDN"T THE DNR STAND UP AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT? If we have native big fish in our waters that need to breed to sustain themselves- shouldn't they be protected instead of these "lab experiments" we have created at the hatcheries? What is the safe harvest level of the large native fish that are near extinction? With all due respect - I will accept no more excuses. It must be fixed. Another year of Doing Nothing Really is simply not acceptable. I do not believe harvest is the issue, but I am very tired of the DNR pointing out all the possible factors and doing nothing to address any of them. Bob | |||
| Sven |
| ||
| Bob, How will the DNR stop spearing? They can't, man. Talk to the Supreme Court on that one. There was a real strong attempt to pass a 50" limit on lots of the lakes and it was supported by many fisheries managers. That didn't get past the Conservation Congress. The Public voted it down in most places. The Public. Fishermen, women, business people, you get the idea. That's the way this works here. You know that. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The DNR saw a tremendous danger to our deer herd in CWD, and acted immediately to reduce the spread of that disease. There was a feeding and baiting ban implemented the general public was very unhappy with, even though the experts warned of serious repercussion. The Legislature stepped in and the ban was removed. Like it or not, we have the Conservation Congress and the people, the Legislature, and the people, and (did I mention the people?) to deal with. Complicated politics in this state. I'd LOVE to see a 50" limit imposed on about 15 lakes and rivers here. I really would. Maybe someday we can get the public's support and get that done. | ||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | Bob, I would like to start by saying YES, I think more could be done in the way of putting the right strains in the right lakes. That is a goal our Fisheries Biologist have. Having said that here are some issues for you to consider, #1 Demanding that the DNR does anything with out the proper funding is counter productive. Where do you think the needed funds for their research is going to come from?, and it does need to be" their"research for many reasons. Budgets have been cut and more of the pie is going to go to Wildlife issues and law enforcement than before. That spells less money for Musky management all around. #2, I am not sure if harvest of big Females is a issue in your neck of the woods..but it is in mine. I would think this varies greatly from County to County. #3, Your statement that "the DNR has the responsibility to stop the harvest of our large female fish,they can do it but choose not to". Just one man talking here Bob,but that statement will get you no where fast with the powers that be. The DNR can only enforce the rules,as it stands one legal fish a day if they like it or not. Take it from someone who has been working with the system, it may be flawed and change may come slow..but is bashing the DNR going to help you reach your goals?. If you want to see more funds for Musky stocking, research and habitat protection, vote for the Musky Stamp on 4/11. Maybe then the DNR will have the funds and tools to meet the demands of a pressured resource. Howie | ||
| muskihntr |
| ||
Posts: 2037 Location: lansing, il | "ditto" what jomusky says!!!!!!!!!!! and also norm brings up a great point. its odvious you guys are much smarter and more educated than i am, but for a simple uneducated moron like myself the answers are right there in black and white. if there were 7000 muskies harvested last year, how many less would have been harvested if there was a 40" staewide limit!. with a 40" limit you cant tell me there wouldnt be bigger fish growing also. regulate, not do away with spearing and how many less die? i agree there needs to be some checking into the biological end of this but, what will give faster results? yes i know.. i know.. im beating a dead horse but , its all right there! Edited by muskihntr 3/27/2005 2:15 PM | ||
| BIO. |
| ||
| Suggestion, Dr. John Farrell, Mike Butler, Steve Kerr. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |