|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave Neuswanger, Upper Chippewa Basin Team leader, today reported in a telephone interview with MuskieFIRST that LCO will be the source the Hatchery crews will use for Muskie spawn for the Upper Chippewa Basin this year.
Despite claims elsewhere to the contrary, there are several reasons for the change from the intent to use Moose Lake as a source this year. Water flow is allowed through Moose, situated above the Chippewa Flowage, at a level as much as five feet low as the ice melts, and the water is not allowed back up to pool level until iceout is complete; in part to protect docks and lifts of lake property owners from potential damage. Moose features varied bottom features including structure that if water levels are too low would interfere with the operations crews would undertake to gather the needed number of Muskies. The Hatchery staff and DNR crews are concerned that the very late ice out and uncertain water levels may create problems gathering the numbers of fish necessary to meet the Hatchery's needs. The short window of opportunity possible with a late ice out and fast warm up might contribute to possible difficulties leaving Hatchery crews unable to gather enough from Moose, as the numbers available if conditions are normal are a relative unknown despite the overall consensus that Moose should offer ample opportunity to meet Dr. Sloss's recommendations as to numbers of fish and varied size structure. The logistical risk was deemed unacceptable, and the move to LCO approved. Contrary to reports elsewhere, LCO netting last year provided one quart of eggs, which was in the 5% to 10% range of the total collected last year, so use of LCO Muskies again this year will not conflict with recommendations by Dr. Sloss's lab. Four quarts came from Whitefish last year.
Netting on LCO will take place mainly in Muskie Bay as usual, but work elsewhere on the lake may offer opportunity to use fish from different areas on LCO, if successful.
Moose will be test netted this year not for roe collection, but to determine if numbers and size distribution in Moose indeed do meet DNR needs for use as brood stock in the future, and to determine if logistical concerns this year are warranted. Results should, if the test netting is successful, help reduce concerns about the population of Moose Lake Muskies expressed by some in the public. Lost Land and Teal will also be test netted this year.
Conversations between anglers claiming the possibility that the Muskies in Moose are genetically predisposed to 'slow growth' did in fact result in some contacts with the DNR expressing concern. MuskieFIRST earlier published an interview with Mr. Neuswanger answering some of those questions, and MuskieFIRST asked him today if he felt that the extra year afforded by this decision will be enough time to reduce or answer those concerns. He responded that he felt much will be learned this year, and it will be a much easier task to better answer any questions about the Muskies in Moose lake in the future.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | That is not unusual at all. As a fisheries manager or biologist, it was a rare occasion that I was ever involved in a plan that was able to be carried out as originally printed. My hat's off to WDNR for having the professionalism needed to make use of the adaptive management strategies when the risk of not getting the needed amount of eggs became too great. They will no doubt take a lot of heat for 'not following the plan' and there will be people standing in line trying to take credit for 'getting them out of Moose Lake' but I know how modern fisheries management works; this was a good and decent plan that just had to be altered for a year due to non-biological reasons.
S. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Can anyone give us a report as to how the collection of eggs went this yr? Were they able to obtain the eggs they needed from LCO? Were other lakes used? How did the test nettings on Moose and the Quiet lakes go? What other lakes are being considered as brood sources for this area?
Just curious,
Grass |
|
| |
|
| Im guessing it did not go well because of the spearing that took place on LCO this year. A 57 incher, a 52, 51 ,50 and multiple upper 40's were speared out out LCO this spring. Something needs to be done.....I cant believe that the Indians are still allowed to spear large female muskies..... unbelievable  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| I was not personally involved in the egg-taking operation at LCO this past spring, so I don't have exact figures; but I heard from staff that it went exceedingly well. The crew from WDNR's hatchery at Spooner met their quota for fertilized eggs in a timely manner, and they did well with respect to our relatively new and ambitious genetic conservation objectives (good numbers of matings and ratio of males to females). I know that two females over 50 inches long donated their eggs to the cause this year, as did several others in the mid to upper 40s. But females of all sizes (and genetic potentials) were used in the matings. With respect to rumors about the number of females over 50 inches long that were speared by tribal fishers last spring, I cannot confirm. Not saying it isn't true; I just haven't seen the data or heard about it.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for the update regarding the DNR activities this spring. The deep-clear water lakes in Hayward like LCO are true gems and with the forage and 'real estate' available, nearly all fish species present have trophy potential. It is just frustrating to hear the rumors of large fish being killed because it hurts both the lake and our efforts, as fisherman, to take care of a precious resource. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks for the update, Dave. Some really big fish are being boated over your way this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert |
Semi frustrating, but it is what it is. It really could be much worse, I think a lot of people miss that point of how bad it could really be. But lets look at this another way for a second. A 57, 52, 51, 50......Apparently these must be Minnesota fish that evolved legs and walked on over because it is common knowledge that Wisconsin simply just does not grow big fish. Darn immigrant fish.  |
|
| |
