|
|
| Attached, is a recent article describing the effect of commercial harvesting of large Cod. The conclusion of this article is, that by taking the largest fish out of the population you are taking the ‘large fish’ genetics out as well. Quite simply you are ensuring that the fish will only get smaller.
Isn’t this exactly what has occurred to the ‘Trophy Musky Waters’ of Wisconsin? I will not take a side on whether Louis Spray caught all those giants, but for those who ask why we no longer see fish of similar size coming out of Wisconsin lakes, I can tell you why. The genetics are gone. Have been for a long time.
To me, this only makes the recent no vote on 50” limits in Wisconsin, a sign of the shortsightedness and blindness of the Resort Owners and some of the guides. By harvesting the largest of the fish we are ensuring that they will only get smaller.
What does everyone think of this idea…in general (obviously different from lake to lake), muskies caught between 34-40”s can be kept, muskies between 40-51” may not be kept, muskies over 51”s may be kept ( 1 per year , or something like that).
Just an idea. I would love to hear other’s thoughts.
Let’s grow them bigger, not smaller.
Sean Murphy
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0520/p15s01-sten.html?s=rel
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think the commercial fishing model would apply here, and the idea that a genetic attribute could be eliminated in that fashion is in my opinion a stretch, anyway. Normally, a slot style limit is imposed to protect reproduction by making sure the fish in their reproductive prime remain in the system. Not enough of the total Muskie population from the waters that would support fish of that quality has EVER been harvested in Wisconsin to cause what you describe to happen. I think the numbers of big fish in Wisconsin waters has increased over the last twenty years due to CPR, and by a considerable amount. The reasons Wisconsin looks anemic when compared to Minnesota are several, including the introduction of Great Lakes strain muskies in BIG, fertile, Minnesota impoundments and lakes and the successful introduction of a couple strains in GIANT Lake Mille Lacs and other bodies of water. Great fisheries because of great management and because of the ecosystem involved.
Watch for the BIG water areas in Wisconsin the Great Lakes strain has been introduced, and watch what happens with the quality, it will be there. CPR philosophy is strong in Wisconsin, with most fish getting returned.
I think some of the systems here in Northern Wisconsin should be designated as trophy only, perhaps at 50", maybe even 52". Will that insure greater numbers of 50" class fish available? No one is sure. I for one would sure like to see it tested.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | The size limits should definitely be bigger than 34 inches. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| It's just like QDM for deer hunting. If you shoot a spike buck, you'll never find out if he could have scored in the 150's.
Until size limits are increased, it's a moot point.
CPR is the best that we can do, and from the number of big fish showing up, I'd have to say that it's working.
The combination of CPR and higher limits would make a greater impact.
Just my opinion.
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Marine_1,
On many lakes and rivers in Wisconsin the limit IS more than 34". |
|
| |
|
| I was born in WI and I have fished it my whole life. It is so far behind other states like MN, IN, and IL, and the MNR in Canada in terms of fisheries management, but the state has come a long way from where it was. All Class A musky lakes should have a 50 inch limit, and WI should follow the IL DNR in terms of more progressive regulations like no single hooks. Spearing is another issue that must be addressed, and it can be done successfully working directly with Native American Groups. I know of tribes that pretend to spear to keep other tribes that will spear off of their home waters.
I have seen bigger fish in WI than anywhere else in the musky universe, and those big fish genes are still in the breeding pool. Let's figure out ways to be proactive and improve the state of WI musky fishing keeping in mind it will never be perfect.
Or one day we will all be floating around Green Bay randomly searching for Big Bertha  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Steve W. lives in WI.....so take his opinion into consideration. WI just doesn't get it.
People still love to kill muskies up there. But the resort owners must not mind the drop in business from hard core musky fishermen.....because I know very few people who would travel to WI for a musky trip. The fishing is so much better in Minnesota, Canada, heck, even Indiana.'
My opinion isn't based on where I live. It's based on fact and information from the DNR Fisheries folks here and in other areas as well. It's based on reality instead of emotion, and you have taken it out of context and attacked me and other muskie anglers from Wisconsin without justification based on what; your decades long experience muskie angling and dedication to the preservation and expansion of the sport? I think not, your comments are as usual when you go off on a rant, based on rhetoric and your acidic personal opinion, but stated as fact. I take special exception to the comment 'People love to kill muskies up there' Bull. Absolute Bull. The release rate here is as good or better as many to most areas in the country, WITHOUT legislating it to be so. I DO know many folks who came here to fish muskies this year, and can't tell you of a single killed fish out of many, many caught. I don't have to defend my personal record, that speaks for itself, but I WILL defend the record of other Wisconsin Guides and Muskie anglers from garbage slinging like that. You are out of line. The debate over the 50" limit proposal (and the reasons it failed, straight from the DNR Fisheries manager in Madison) was discussed at length here, and I believe I made my position clear as did many of the other anglers from this State. Everyone here feels we will get Trophy Only designations passed on more waters that will support the management technique, and soon.
The Muskie fishing is better in Indiana??? I have about 200 muskie lakes within easy driving distance of my house. Many hold and give up fish in the 50" class every year. Most muskies caught from these waters are released, just like most are in Indiana, Minnesota, and Canada.
I can fish 4 small muskie lakes in a day around home, and see maybe 3 or 4 other muskie boats. Many of these lakes and rivers see little or no real pressure. Unfortunately, most are under 500 acres, and are not suited for many reasons to support many muskies over 50", if ANY. I will wager there are nearly ZERO fish harvested off these waters, yet HMMMM, no really big muskies despite the fact the waters have been managed for Muskies for over 30 years. Does that mean they are poor lakes? Not to me. Lots of muskies, into the low 40" to mid 40" class, where they top out despite being into the upper teens or more in age. Not because of harvest, either, so don't even go there. Actually, there are many lakes JUST like that in Ontario, too.
I believe I covered the Minnesota issue. By the way, what IS the size limit on Cass, Leech, and Mille Lacs? Is it 50 or 52"? If not, why not?
What are the size limits on the Indiana lakes? Is there natural reproduction there as there is in most of the waters in Northern Wisconsin, or are most to all the muskies stocked there?
To clarify things a bit better, what the original poster was missing in the discussion is an understanding of Natural Selection and genetics, and what it would actually take to have the model proposed occur.
|
|
| |
|
| Wisconsin GETS it........they just dont have the lakes Minnesota does.
It's not a true comparison......enough of the Wis DNR sucks this and Wis muskyfisherman suck that....yadda yadda yadda.
I have a trailer in Minnesota and fish there much more now because I have seen much bigger fish there.....BUT, the smallest lake I am fishing is 3,500 acres, up to 16,000 acres on a regular basis............the average Wis lake I fish is a just a drop compared to these...much much more potential for them to thrive. |
|
| |
|
| Wisconsin does not get it. Period. I don't think enough people will ever get it to make the necessary changes.
For the last 100 years we've killed the large Muskies and let the small ones' go. It does remove the big fish genes from the population, and guess what - they don't come back. Catch and release & high size limits in Wisconsin will never help as even today - when fish hit 50 inches they get killed. I Live here. I watch it happen.
This alone would be similar to the commercial fishing study - BUT THEN WE MAKE IT WORSE.
We send the DNR to run off and take eggs from 34 inch muskies. Here is a fact for you - In NW Wisconsin's brood stock lake 2 in 2800 muskies caught make it to 50 inches. (From the Muskies inc historical logs) This is the lake we take our eggs from. If we take fish from this lake and stock them into another body of water why would we expect them to grow larger? Would your dog grow larger if you had a bigger yard? I'm a catch and release nut - but I'm starting to think that if a fish is 34" long and ready to spawn, we should remove it from the population.
I love it when Biologists do a study and fisherman disregard it. There was a similar study on Antlantic Silverside minnows, and the affects were mind boggling after only 4 generations. (This study was mentioned in a Sports Afield article 2 years ago and also in ESOX magazine but only from a write-in letter.) These magazines are SCARED to write about it. All you outdoor writers - I hold you responsible. Think about it. Write about it.
I'm probably going to make some people angry - BUT I'm angry too. I don't want to drive to Minnesota and fish. I want to stay home. I want to catch Big fish right here. I WANT MY KIDS TO CATCH BIG FISH RIGHT HERE.
Do not tell me that it has anything to do with the size of the lakes.
Let me put the size of the lake issue to rest: Lake Plantagenet (2500 acres) in Minneota vs. Lac Court Oreilles (5000 acres) in Wisconsin. Do some research on your own, don't just believe me or anyone for that matter - similar Lake types, with lac Court Oreilles being much larger. Where are there more Big fish being caught? No contest - Plantagenet. That should not be possible if lake size is so important. May be it's because they take eggs from 50"muskies and throw them in Plantagenet, where in Lac Court Oreilles, they are using eggs from 38 inchers. Wisconsin has the greatest collection of Muskie lakes in the world, we just need to do the right things.
I want to be clear on one other thing - I don't blame the DNR for how things are. But I do want to hold them responsible for making things better.
I do have a solution. And the DNR can do it, starting this spring.
We put a size limit on the Wisconsin DNR. No eggs taken from females under 50" and no Milt taken from males under 45". We stock only Muskies with the potential to grow big. I'm not convinced that the strain of Muskies makes a huge difference in how big Muskies will get. I believe that the Muskies in Wisconsin did grow big at one time, but we basically just killed them off. If the DNR tells us they can't net fish that big, the problem is bigger than I think it is.
I also think it's very important that we start a new brood stock lake using only eggs from very large fish - I'd like to say at least 52" for females. Then we put a Slot Size limit on the lake - only fish from 38" to 44" on the lake, PLUS the DNR should remove any female muskie under 42" if it is ready to spawn. In Minnesota and the Great Lakes female muskies do not typically come into spawn until they are bigger than 42". I think they should also remove smaller males. I think we can manufacture bigger fish, like we have manufactured smaller and smaller fish over the years. I believe this is how we get a new World Record.
It's up to the Muskie Fisherman to make it happen. Most importantly, we need to get the word out. Websites, Magazines etc. If you believe this would help - talk about it.
This is also imprtant in Minnesota - don't get complacent up there. Just a few tweaks to your DNR and you'll likely be catching fish a few inches longer too. It'll be scary.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The last post is a blanket statement and has some merit, but isn't the 'solution' either. There are several arguments I would make.
1) Taking spawn from a 50" fish doesn't gaurantee a thing as to how big the offspring, stocked in another system with different water chemistry, food chain, water temps, and more. Ther IS no direct correlation between a fish reaching 50" and a guarantee the offspring will. Way too many variables. Will every female hatched from a 50" fish grow to 50"? No.
2) The DNR here KNOWS the strain they are using to stock, and what that strain is capable of. Explain why roe stripped from a 43" fish that is 10 years old and at the peak of it's reproductive capacity won't reach 50"? I know the DNR stripped fish from Pelican many times over the years, and that lake has kicked out many 50" fish. Same with lake Tomahawk. the strain of fish stripped and stocked DOES make difference, but that difference is subject to the ecosystem and all the variables contained there.
3) There is much more to the lake size issue than acreage. Cover, habitat, food chain, chemistry, water temps and size of the spawning areas in the Spring, fertility, and so much more including successful access to the big fish by the angler.
4) A study about a saltwater population of fish under commercial fishing pressure is pretty diffucult to compare to a completely different ecosystem in fresh water and a type of fish that is positioned in the ecosystem in a totally different fashion, not to mention the angling pressure isn't even remotely comparable. I'm not 'ignoring' the work, I just feel it's a stretch to transfer that one study to a new management philosophy for muskies.
5) Would generations of dogs grow bigger if the bigger yard allowed for better foraging, better puppy health at birth and throughout early development and allowed for natural selection/competition to assist in making that so? Maybe. Absolute apples to oranges there. You feed, care for, and either allow or not allow the dog to breed, both male and female. Take that controlled environment into the wild and have food become sparse over continuous generations because of bad populations of prey animals, and the dogs might just grow smaller.
6) A female muskie will be ready to spawn at too soon in nearly every case for the idea that all under 42" should be destroyed. Here is a good place to start reading about the subject. http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol04.html Here's another with a writer's perspective. http://www.fishontario.com/articles/world-record_muskie/
7) It's true that if 'every' fish that reaches 50" in a body of water is harvested, that there will be few 50" fish in that water. I doubt that is happening in most cases, but can be on some smaller or extremely heavily pressured waters in areas where CPR hasn't been brought to the front yet. If one wante to GUARANTEE no fish under 52" will be harvested, then that should be the limit if the fisheries folks feel the system will support it. I recently caught a couple in that class from a lake less than a mile from my house, which gets average pressure but produces a fair number of big girls every year because of the CPR ethic here in Oneida County pretty much 100% CPR and the system supports big muskies. The walleyes, though, do very poorly, because the prey they rely on is sparse.. That goes back to the education factor, not management. The DNR planted these fish in the late 80's and early 90's, and they are doing VERY well. CATCH AND RELEASE!! Some want that mandated for all waters here at over the capacity of that water, which makes little sense.The attempts to get the systems that match the models in the above mentioned articles and papers failed because it was rushed, there wasn't enough PR and educational work done with the public. We can and WILL get it done, if a bit more slowly and carefully so the public understands the project.
There is a huge reference out there in the scientific community that will get you the information you want about this issue. When I get back in off the road, I'll post another group of links on the 'net and get some book titles up.
Wisconsin gets it, alright, but we DO need to get the lakes capable of kicking out the big girls up to a 50" or even 52" limit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1504
Location: Oregon | This is a great thread, very interesting. Bob your comment about "biologists telling us something and people disregard it" could not be more true. I am a fisheries biologist working in Northeastern Oregon and in my business the running joke is "everyone is a biologist". If you have a problem with the electrical system in your home you probably call an electrician and acknowledge his professional recommendation. But if you have a concern with a particular fishery just ask any angler, he will tell you how to fix it and the heck with what the biologist tells you.
I have never caught a musky guys, here we don't have them but the management of fisheries whether it be for salmon or smallmouth have some similarities to draw upon. When we collect adult salmon in our rivers for broodstock we collect a percentage of the fish throughout the migrational period..so from say September 1 through October 31 for fall chinook. Beyond that we also include a wide spectrum of sizes in our sample. By doing so we are best representing the genetics that a "naturally spawning" population would include. The comment of choosing "only the large fish" for brood may not be the best choice for the long term health of the species. Keep in mind that we cannot improve upon a system that has worked and evolved for a particular species for thousands of years. A naturally spawning population of fish generally includes a wide range of sizes.
There are so many variables to consider for each lake that it's very difficult to make a management decision that fits all situations. Some lakes may limit the production of big fish by winter habitat, spawning habitat, food, cover, the list goes on and on. If I were interested in managing certain waters for "big fish", however, I would look for a "reference lake" that consistently pays out "trophy fish". Once you have found this water look very closely at the predator prey relationship, the ratio of prey species to predators, water temperatures and various other water chemistry parameters, lake form, juvenile survival, and angling pressure. Once these are understood you will likely have a far better understanding of what it takes to raise "big fish".
CPR can be a great thing for sure but is certainly not always the answer. When you release a predator back into the system you are also returning another "mouth to feed" and some lakes may very well be limited by the availability of food. Put one predator in a lake full of prey species and he is likely going to grow quite well. But as you continue to add predators to this same system at some point you will find fish fail to increase in size and number. Many of our more eutrophic systems here in Oregon have literally millions of crappie in them. When these fish are removed through heavy angling pressure subsequent years produce far larger fish.
On the flip side a lake with an over-population of prey species creates other problems. Juvenile musky/pike may be removed by larger pisciverous fish (crappie, perch, bluegill, etc.) at a rate that allows very few fish to survive to a size where they are no longer on the menu. If only 1 out of a 1000 juveniles survives to see 10" you can see how this alone would provide few fish with an opportunity of reaching 50" or more. Beyond that, fish are not different than any other species on this planet in that some of the population "get large" while others "stay small". Some fish are genetically set up to get big, others will never get big regardless of their environment. Some smaller lakes may be affected too by a small genetic pool to pull from and the introduction of outside genes and resultant "hybrid vigor" may prove useful.
If you think about it, many lakes go through "trends" where they produce big fish and then seem to lose them for a period of time. Most of these trends are a result of predator prey relationships, the coyote and rabbit scenario that has been playing out for millions of years.
In general slot limits are a good thing for many systems. Slots allow a certain number of fish to get large enough to prey on more abundant species, keeping them in check. At the same time they allow a part of the population to get large enough to reach a viable spawning age. And finally, some of the fish will by chance survive past the slot limit and become "trophy fish" allowing the angler to have a shot at a 50" toad.
Jed
www.bikinibaitcompany.com
Edited by RiverMan 10/16/2004 12:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually the comment was regarding when biologists do a study and anglers disregard it. I'm not one of those anglers, by the way. I was simply stating I felt the study on Cod doesn't necessarily correlate, and the concept that contemporary evolution is in play with the Wisconsin trophy Muskie population isn't based on or supported by the data available. Also, the CPR ethic we all want to spread encourages trophy release, not just smaller fish. There was a recent attempt by the DNR here to designate several lakes as 50" trophy only waters that failed due to the fact the public plain didn't understand the proposal. The public has a 'vote' in Wisconsin through the Conservation Congress, and can send a great proposal to the recycle bin in a hurry.
I agree with you many folks disagree with fisheries management because they are uninformed. My son works for the Wisconsin DNR and constantly is amazed what the 'locals' believe about the waters under study. I have a couple years study in the field as well, abandoned formally because of many reasons including the wage scale in Fisheries Management at the time. I continue to read, study, and learn as much as I can, despite the fact I chose a different field of endeavor. Whenever I run into a wall, I have a couple Fisheries Management buddies I can call to get straightened out. You'd be surprised how many folks visiting MuskieFIRST have a formal Fisheries, marine biology, or environmental science based education and are not practicing. It's a shame the folks who are so dedicated to the science and practicing management are not paid what the job is worth in so many states.
'There are so many variables to consider for each lake that it's very difficult to make a management decision that fits all situations. Some lakes may limit the production of big fish by winter habitat, spawning habitat, food, cover, the list goes on and on. If I were interested in managing certain waters for "big fish", however, I would look for a "reference lake" that consistently pays out "trophy fish". '
The links I posted do just that, and give away why I spend my vacation time fishing muskies where I do.  |
|
| |
|
|
I'd like to counter a few of the points made from above - hopefully in an effort to continue the discussion. I think we agree on most things, but I'm not OK with the number of large fish in Wisconsin. I think we can do much better. Before I start, I want to mention that I'm leaving the STRAIN of fish out of the discussion. I think we can do this with Wisconsin strain. (I also think it may be quicker and easier to use another strain, but this is mostly an issue of local genetics being affected by Fishing Pressure on smaller lakes.) There was a Huge set of JAWS found on the Chippewa Flowage a few years back I believe it was estimated at 56-58 inches and 17 years old. It's fish like these that we need to breed. We need to focus on capturing and breeding these large fish, instead of capturing the most eggs as cheaply as possible by heading off to Bone Lake to net 38 inchers. We have big fish here - let's use them.
1) I agree that taking eggs from a 50" fish does not guarantee that all of the offspring will grow to 50 inches. I am 100% sure that eggs from multiple 50 inch fish have a better chance to grow to 50 inches than eggs taken from multiple 40 inch fish. Would you be for or against using egg's from only Large fish? I'd love to be able to take age into account, but I don't know how you do that in the field.
THERE IS CERTAINLY a direct correlation between eggs from large fish producing large Muskies vs. Eggs from small fish producing small muskies. Lakes with Big Muskies continue to produce BIG Muskies, while lakes with all small muskies do not. At least proportionately speaking.
Let's remember that muskies that grow large fast will likely get harvested sooner and spawn less years than a muskie that reaches an ultimate size of 38 inhes and never get's harvested. I want us to offset that balance.
2. Between Item 2 in your post and the links you published, the data seems to say that most female muskies spawn at age 7 and 38 inches. Personally - I don't believe that any female musky spawning at age 7 & 38 inches long will ever grow to 50 inches. I may be wrong - but I'd like to see proof. I base my thoughts on data given to me by Minnesota DNR and Ontario MNR research done on Georgian Bay. Essentially the Females in Minnesota and Georgian Bay averabe aver 48 inches long, and there are very few females (0) under 43".
3. I agree 100%
4. The angling pressure on a 5oo acre lake is incredible when compared to fishing the ocean - even commercial fishing. I'd like to have a biologist tell me there is no merit to this. I've seen numbers that suggest on pressured waters in Wisconsin, close to 100% of the muskies in a given lake are caught each season. (Thank GOD for C&R) From those fish, we harvest the largest and let the smallest go.
On one hand it's suggested our lakes are too small, then we suggest a study done on the ocean had too much pressure. I'm convinced this study is right on.
I believe in 50 years the line " the lakes are too small" will be right up there with "Their teeth fall out in August".
I think we can show the world this in 10 years by stocking the right fish. I see no reason not to try.
#5 The dogs would grow bigger in the same yard if you only bred the largest of those dogs and sold off the smaller pups. They'd be smaller if you only the bred the runts and harvested the pick of the litter. What have we done for the last 100 years? Kill big fish and let small ones go.
We can breed bigger dogs, bigger tomatoes, bigger corn, but not fish?
#6 - I think I covered this one while I was rambling about number 2.
#7 - It's great that you released those large fish. It's exactly what we need and what most of us do. I also believe the facts are that in general:
1. Fisherman keep larger fish and let smaller fish go.
2. Smaller fish are more easily released successfully.
3. Fisherman target larger fish.
Because of these reasons I believe we need a management philosophy that focuses on the breeding and stocking of genetically large fish. The smaller fish will/can take care of themself. Our Laws make sure that we take care of the small fish. I will not accept any response that points to lack of acreage, forage, etc. until we take eggs from only large fish, and compare that to other lakes that get 2000 fingerlings taken from an action lake known to produce lots of small fish. If the fish in our new lake are not noticeably larger by age 10 (and likely much sooner) I'll agree to the lake size/forage argument.
We can do this.
If we keep doing things the way we have always done them, fishing will always be the same as it is now. If we do things smarter and better, things will get better - FAST.
I don't care what the environment is - Shaquille O'neal's kids are likely to be bigger than mine. |
|
| |
|
| More related to the original question on whether the study on Cod is relevant to the state of our Muskie fishing:
I'd like to reference the Compendium of Muskie angling History (2nd edition) starting on the botto of page 59, where a writer back in 1900 talks about the fish already running smaller. This after periods of huge harvest - some commercially, as other sections of the book talk about muskies being packed in barrels and shipped to Chicago. Some of these lakes mentioned as having huge fish back then are known as small fish lakes today (Too shallow, too small, too little forage, etc.)
If you have the Compendium - Read chapter 2 again, then think about the study on Cod in the ocean.
I believe the severe fishing pressure and harvest put on the smaller lakes years ago, had THE EXACT effect of the Cod study. Only it would happen much faster on bodies of water that are thousands of times smaller.
I do not blame today's fisherman or today's DNR personnel for the state of things. I think we all deserve better and can do better. I want Muskie fisherman to band together to get the DNR personnel what they need to make this work.
100 years ago fisherman did not have a clue about genetics - and either did the DNR. They threw back small fish thinking they all grow big. The DNR took eggs from small fish and thought they would grow big - they don't. We can right the wrongs of years past. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 189
Location: Barrington, Il | All 50" fish were once 38". |
|
| |
|
| Maybe Larry Ramsell can shed some light here. I heard form a good source that Larry was part of a study done on Muskies on the Chip. Evidently, the conclusion, or at least what seemed to be apparent was that, muskies on the Chip were taking forever and a day to reach even the low 40"s.
Is anyone aware of this study. Larry, perhaps you cold shed some light? |
|
| |
|
| Yes and again, there is no guarantee that taking large fish for brood will insure large offspring. Musky are not different than any other fish in that they have a range of water temperatures that promote maximum growth. The text I have (for Tiger Musky...sorry that's all we have out here but they are closely related) reports that "maximum growth occurs between 66 and 70 degrees F" , get outside this and you lose growth. Lakes lacking good food will not grow big fish either....to grow big a fish must eat, digest, eat, digest, and lakes lacking prey items will not grow big fish regardless of the genetics involved. The text goes on to mention that "growth of tiger musky in waters with spiny rayed fishes (perch, bluegill, etc.) is much slower than in waters with preferred soft-rayed forage (trout, suckers, shiners)". And "stocking tiger musky in waters with northern pike or musky may result in competition that leads to slower growth of all pike species". Juvenile survival goes down in lakes that lack an abundance of zooplankton. Juvenile survival also goes down when lakes lack an abundance of shoreline vegetation as small musky are highly cannibalistic. Winterkill occurs in lakes that have low dissolved oxygen during times of ice. The point being that there is a very long list of variables that decide how fast and how many musky will reach 50" and managing a lake for these fish is not an easy thing to do.
RM |
|
| |
|
Posts: 66
Location: Wales Wi. | Putting the right strains in the right lakes in the appropriate amounts IS the goal. But I do not see that as the problem. With Musky fishing growing at the rate it is and the D.N.R. getting hit with budget cuts, is that taking the resource in the right direction?. Less money for research,stocking and habitat protection coupled with angler harvest will need to be addressed. I think cpr morality is the highest its ever been,but thats in Musky circles. The average size Musky harvested in this state is only 37 inches long and I am sure its not Musky fishermen/women. It would be hard to believe we could not improve on this some. Our laws are going to be to liberal with these budget cuts and decreased stocking. the good times are right now and easy to see. Howie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob
Answer:
The age of the fish stripped is not that hard to obtain through scale sampling and general knowledge about that water and it's Muskie populations. Yes, I would be opposed to stripping spawn from only 50" fish, as that wouldn't be a viable program even in waters where the 50" class of fish is large when compared to total population. The idea that the fish reached 50" strictly or even mostly because of genetics discounts environmental factors that can cause considerable differences year to year in growth rates in a single lake's population and substantial maximum growth differences in same sample year classes planted in different lakes. In short, I stand by the original concept that stripping big females doesn't mean one will get big females from stocked fish propagated from that effort in multiple lakes, impoundments, or rivers. In fact, the fish that actually reach that size might do so BECAUSE of environmental factors that favor the fish's genetics, which might not exist in the waters in which they are stocked. Look at Pewaukee, a near total put and take fishery. CPR and management has created a pretty good fishery that has produced a number of fish over 50" this year alone. The ONE true supertanker came out of that water after an extensive attempt to stock brown trout. Could the big fish and the brown trout have any cause/effect relationship? I don't know.
I would disagree with the idea that lakes producing big muskies do so because of the genetics alone, and the lakes producing small muskies do so for the same reason. The concept is simply incorrect. Also, your following statement implies that muskies from the lakes you are critical of mature more quickly, and do not have the genetic capacity to reach trophy size. How do you reach that conclusion? Also, there IS no 'strain' of Muskies that I am aware of that reaches a maximum of 38" as a female. By the way, the average length of a 7 year old female in Georgian Bay is 37.7", and the St. Lawrence average for a 7 year old is two inches longer. It is true that the growth rate at 7 years for a female muskie on some waters dictate the fish at viability will be 42" or more, but much more than genetics enters into that equasion.
I disagree that 100% of the available muskie population or anything close is captured on most waters, and can catagorically refute that idea on many northern Wisconsin lakes where creel data and fyke netting/boom shock data is available. Also, comparing a commercial fishing operation on saltwater that is HUGE, very concentrated due to the Cod's location, and extensive beyond most folks comprehension to sport fishing where catch and release is a clear and excercised option is very dicey. I still don't see a direct association on most Wisconsin waters to that article. Do we harvest most or all of the largest muskies? No. Many waters in fact show as much as 90% release rate due to CPR.
I mentioned a lake down the road from my house that sports a great population of 45" to 52" muskies from a stocking effort by the DNR. Fin clipping shows a direct link between the fish stocked and those in the 50" range today, they are one and the same. This is a 500 acre lake, well managed and well cared for by the local muskie anglers who have been accused here of 'not getting it'. There are several busy resorts on the lake as well, yet the overall release rate is excellent. Why does this lake support 50" fish and the SAME strain, stripped out of the same waters, that when stocked in another 500 acre lake here never seem to get past 45", despite the fact both lakes are fished by the same crowd and maintained similarly, and both have good habitat? It's the ecosystem itself, NOT the fish. By the way, both lakes support natural reproduction, successful enough to have great year classes available from the stocked generations.
Your statement number 5 totally disregards natural selection and all the associated elements effecting a population in the wild. The DNR can't 'breed' muskies successfully as you suggest, the undertaking would have to be MASSIVE, would be unbelievably expensive, and might not work in many waters anyway due to environment. I bet it would be a Fisheries Biologist's dream job to try, however!
Selective breeding is a controlled undertaking that doesn't allow ANY crossbreeding at all, so most lakes would have to be killed off completely to even begin the process. In short, your idea is noble, would probably work in a totally enclosed/controlled perfect environment (raising certain breeds of dogs, for example) at least short term if everything else was perfect.
By the way, commercial fishing for Muskies has been around in Canada for generations. Between 1837 and 1936, a total of 13,202,348 pounds of Muskies were harvested commercially in Ontario, and 2,888,045 pounds in Quebec. The practice has been severly curtailed, but the fish seem to be growing to an exceptional size despite the tremendous depletion during that time.
The last couple paragraphs are well intentioned I am sure, but what you are asking for isn't going to happen. It's simply not possible from so many standpoints it becomes a nice concept, but only that. There is strong evidence that the concept you are promotiong probably will not give you the results you seek. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | There is much more to MN Musky greatness than lake acreage. There are several small lakes over there putting out more 50" fish than WI does in a few years. Much of this has to do with the fact that these lakes are just reaching their prime, and the muskies had little or no competition,or angling pressure. It has been proven on many up and coming WI lakes even(won't mention them here, as some are my favorite places to fish), that the first few year classes of fish in the system, often reach magnificent growths. Eventually with pressure, competition, etc etc. it will taper off. MN also has a breed of 'Super' fish in the Mississippi river strain(or Leech lake strain as some call it), that WI just cannot compare to. MN used to stock a couple different strains of WI fish and they never reached the sizes(mostly length wise) that the leechers do, hence their cessation of WI fish stocking.
Edited by Reef Hawg 10/18/2004 8:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Where did the barred fish in Mille Lacs come from? there are some true monsters in that pond these days. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | <p> Mil lacs definately has the size which others talked about here, and it seems both strains can thrive there. Do you know when the last barred ones were stocked in mil lacs? Wasn't it the 60's?(not sure) Great to see the natural reproduction workeing well there. I do correct myself in the case of Vermillion as well where some of the WI fish that were put in there, became some true hawgs, and some of the longer ones caught out of there. I do know that the barred ones can attain the big sizes quickly too, as evidenced by some of the very young 4 footers we get here. The leech lake strain just showed even more promising results than the other strains that were tried. Unbeleivable that 50+"ers were showing up in 8-9 years on some waters. Even the test lake in WI where the leechers were stocked, put out fish to 54" in 11 years. WOW!!!!! That said, I still agree with higher limits on some WI waters, as evidenced by my own efforts to raise the limit on the WI river here(known trophy producing water). I feel that as long as some of the lakes with trophy potential are managed like the small fish factories down the road, WI lakes will not realize their full potential.</p><p /><p>By the way, are there any lakes currently on the table for size increase votes next spring? </p> |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Oh, genetics. Sure wish I knew more. What I do know is if you want small fast dogs to run field trials then you breed a small fast dog to another small fast dog and and keep going until you get what you desire. Same goes with raising hogs for market, you don't breed the fat ones to fat ones. Grade and yeild did away with that now you breed lean to lean, oh yea and throw in a fast growing gene while you are at it. Can't have that pig on the feed floor eating up profit. Point is while we don't know that a 38" inch fish can't grow big, we sure do know that a 50" fish already has and if you want big fish you breed big fish. Natural selection in the predator world only lets the biggest and meanest survive. Man has intervined and needs to help the cause a little. Doesn't mean everything that big fish throws is going to be big or have the potential it just means that you are tipping the scale in that direction. Do it enough times in a line breeding type of format and you can really up your odds. It doesn't take many generations to get the desired result. Tell you what made me smile last spring was hearing the state of Iowa had a 55" fish in the tank that they were stripping. Talk about genetic potential I like that type of potential. |
|
| |
|
| Here's a Wisconsin strain stocked Iowa Muskie. 53 incher. The best research I could come up with was it's year class was stocked from Wisconsin's Lake McKenzie stripping. Back in the eighties McKenzie was known for football shaped fish. The genetics are still here as have also caught McKenzie fish with similar proportions.(not as big as 53 however) Colors are very similar also.
Edited by muskiemachinery 10/19/2004 7:07 AM
Attachments
----------------
 muskie1.jpg (18KB - 335 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Haven't heard of any big fish out of Lake McKenzie in many many years. Could it be because it to is being stocked with eggs from 38" Bone Lake fish like many other NW Wisconsin lakes? Using Bone Lake as a brood stock lake is not a wise choice in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
The answer to that question is probably not, no. |
|
| |
|
| Since Big McKenzie is mentioned in this conversation, I feel compelled to post.
First, that IA fish doesn't really look like the fish in Big Mac.
Have had a family cabin on Big McKenzie for a little over 10 years now. The fishing was pretty darn good when we started there. Had a 50.5" in the boat, and lost a few in that class as well. It seemed like there was a fair number of mid 40ish fish around. Now I barely fish it ... it's an absolute joke of a muskie lake. That's a cold, hard fact.
In addition to the insane number of hours I've spent fishing it, I offer as evidence peices of a conversation I had with Larry Damman, the Spooner area fisheries manager.
I asked him about the impact of spearing.
Larry: "Since spearing began in 1985 the tribe harvest a total of 75 muskie from Big
McKenzie. They declare a muskie quota every year but some years they harvest
none and the highest harvest in one year was 13. Average is 3.9 annually. In
the early 80's the estimated annual angler harvest was 70 muskies."
I can't believe anglers don't have a huge impact on fish populations! If there had been a 50" limit in place in the 70's, I believe my family cabin would be on a first-rate muskie lake. But I'm not a fisheries manager and I could be dead wrong.
I asked Larry about five other (smaller) area lakes and asked him to name some densely populated lakes.
Larry: "All the lakes you mentioned probably have better muskie populations than Big Mckenzie. The best numbers lakes in the general area are Bone near Luck and Big Sissabagama near Stone lake."
I understand that McKenzie had a huge population of muskies in the 70's and 80's. I wasn't there for the golden years, but I definitely caught the tail end of the good fishing. I wish I had been more prepared/experienced for it, because it's gone now.
McKenzie receives about one fingerling per acre, every other year. That really doesn't seem that bad to me, and it's relatively on par with most MN lakes. But there's a 40" limit, and I think that hurts. I don't care how many people believe in catch and release ... there are always going to be people that don't. I also think that the genetics are a bit off. The MN/Ontario fish I catch don't just look different on their sides. They have relatively small heads and just plain look like they grow faster/bigger.
As an angler, I know there used to be a good number of med/big fish in the lake. I know there is a TON of forage. When I have spotted for walleyes in the spring, I've run into thousands of suckers on the sand. I have seen shiners (some big ones) and understand there to be some ciscoes in the lake. There are a gazillion stunted panfish and more northerns than I care to deal with. I don't understand why the lake can't support a better muskie population.
Bottom line is whether it's the stocking, the lake, the genetics, or the size limits, WI doesn't have what MN has. Apples to oranges is absolutely right. WI either can't or won't do what MN has done, and either way the muskie fishing in WI sucks in comparison.
John Nesse
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve
If the answer is no, they are not Bone Lake fish, then where are they from? If you no for sure they are not from Bone Lake then where are they from? Please tell us so we can ask the DNR to quit using them.
Thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, the reason for the poor conditions there is probably not because the stocked fish come from Bone Lake. I am jot familiar with the Big McKenzie population, but do remember hearing about a problem over there a few years back. 'More Northerns than I care to deal with' might be a part of it. Angling pressure ( is that area a strong CPR area, or is it a put and take mentality?), forage, year class success stocking and natural reproduction, water quality and chemistry, and the list goes on, and on... I'll try to do some research when I get time (hahahaha) and find out what is the deal there. Hopefully there will be some recent fyke net data, perhaps some boom shocking as well.
I guess I can condense alot of what I said in posts here to this. Wide, sweeping management statements, ideas, and ultimately, techniques won't work for every system when considering the management of HUNDREDS of Muskie waters in a single state.
Pick a subject, there's WAY more to balancing a system and 'creating' a trophy fishery than just one item. Variables, variables. The devil is in the details. I can tell you this, the State of Wisconsin has a fine group of Fisheries Management folks. VERY fine. They are under some pretty severe budget restrictions and a system that allows the public at large to dictate management to a degree, and that's a big problem. But to say they 'don't get it' is an undeserved insult to a hard working, highly regarded group of scientists.
I ask again, what is the size limit on Cass, Leech, and Mille Lacs? Other Minnesota lakes an rivers? I honestly am not sure.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 333
Location: menasha wi 54952 | Here is a link to the Minnesota 2004 fishing regulations
http://search.state.mn.us/dnr/query.html?qp=site%3Adnr.state.mn.us&...
Statewide 40" with special length limits listed. Also note that spearing is not allowed on many lakes. PERIOD
MR |
|
| |
