Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air.... |  |
| Message Subject: Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air.... | |||
C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | OK....first...I don't want this to get into a B@tch session on the short comings of the WI DNR. But what I do want to share with you is a perspective I got last weekend from the WI DNR, which was very refreshing. Scott Hassett (Sec. of the WI DNR) and Scott Stewart (South region fisheries expert) were gracious enough to come to the Capital City Muskies Inc school and talk about the state of our muskie populations and their plans moving forward. First, a little background (from my perspective) Scott Stewart is a member of our club and is a key person, if not THEE person at the DNR that has made the Madison Chain the great fishery it has become...this guy is as passionate about these fish as we are. And, in discussions about moving foward he is very progressive and is right on line (in my mind) for making our fisheries the best they can be. Scott Hassett has been involved with the club long before he was Sec. of the WI DNR. He too is very passionate about muskie fishing and is an avid row troller. Scott came into office I think this last year. If there ever was a person in the WI DNR that is looking out to make WI muskie fishing the best it can be, he is it. I didn't take notes, though I wish I had, so what I have below are a few take-aways I got...and not direct quotes.... Mr. Hassett spoke about making changes in the stocking program. He spoke about wanting to investigate the Leech Lake/great lakes strains for potential use in WI inland waters. He said there is a list of lakes already the DNR are concidering putting the leechers into. However, it is important first to understand the impact before moving forward with just stocking these fish state wide. Scott Stewart felt we could have some genetic understanding between the differences, I think he said by next year. Scott Stewart spoke about the potential to get private groups involved with raising fry to increase the production. He said the Aquaculture group in WI is actually quite large and they have shown interest in getting involved....this is just one option he has brought up (though I thought it was very interesting and exciting!). Mr. Stewart shared some very interesting info on the current status of the fishery...and it is very strong. However, he agrees we need to definately do something about the higher end fish. Both gentleman were VERY interested in taking the next steps to take WI to the next level for trophy size fish. The importance that they both stress is they want to make sure it is the RIGHT steps. Mr. Stewart went on to talk about the potential dangers involved with moving to fast and not understanding the fish and genetics/adaption before making a decision. This guy knows muskies and is a fisheries expert...and is who I would look to to give me a straight skinny on what is right. Recently there has been a big push from some individuals to do some quick, drastic changes to the stocking policy in WI this year. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that there needs to be some changes made. And Scott and Scott spoke to this last sat. This "REVAMP" group of people have some good ideas and definately have passion. Unfortunately, the group has not been the most diplomatic (to say the least) in trying to get their changes implemented. Scott and Scott really didn't talk about this group, but being on the board for our club I have read all correspondances since the "revamp" group has send these, I think, to several muskies inc. And this friction coming from the group is ANTI-PRODUCTIVE in trying to get things done. I guess what I want people here to take away is this. If there ever were the right people in the DNR to take WI to the next level for muskie fishing it is now. I know we have all had issues with how things have been done in the past, but I am here to tell you these guys are passionate and want a lot of the same things we want....just they want to make sure it is the RIGHT decision. Have faith, and lets progessively work with the DNR to help accomplish the goals of improving the muskie fishery here in WI. But lets be realistic. It does take time to change things in our buerocratic system (both Scott and Scott said even they can get frustrated at times...but its the process). It takes time to run some studies to confirm or direct changes. Yes speed is important. But so is getting things right. I think we will see some changes this year to get the ball rolling...and I bet next year even bigger steps. If I had to bet I would say in the next few years we will really see the changes start to gain in size and momentum. Have faith, be supportive, and listen to what the EXPERTS have to say about whats right.....This is a critical time....we have the right people in place to foster changes...we have a system that needs changes....we have a passionate collective of muskie fishing folks in formed groups and as a general public that want changes....lets not fight among ourselves...patience....faith...and support... and lets give MN a run for their money! Cory p.s. Again...these are my opinions...I hope I didn't take anything out of context from either Mr. Hassett or Mr. Stewart.... | ||
| muskyboy |
| ||
Thanks Cory, that is great to hear. The WDNR needs to do what is best for the fishery long term, and they need to lead the charge with science based rationale. It sounds like the pieces are in place for that to happen.  | |||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | Totally agree...science based...and the great news is they WANT to change things for the better!! This is NOT the "things are fine the way they are and we are not changing a thing" mentality I think a lot in the muskie world thinks the DNR has, they want to improve the top end fishery like we do! Heck Scott Stewart was pushing to get the 50 inch size limit for the madison chain but the club talked him into the 45 because we felt it would have a higher likelyhood of passing... I personally am fired up! Cory | ||
| Grass |
| ||
Posts: 620 Location: Seymour, WI | Excellent Post Cory. Did they talk about at all about how they would try to impliment any of the changes? It seems like so much of the science based decisions from our very own DNR get trampled on by the CC and the general public. Grass, | ||
| muskynightmare |
| ||
Posts: 2112 Location: The Sportsman, home, or out on the water | I like what you have said they said. Very encouraging. However, being screwed over by what many state folks have said (yes, very much including elected officials, but not limited to) I have taken a "I'll believe it when I see it" stance, when it comes to state officials. I truely hope that they are honest, because, honestly, I would like to see Muskys in pretty much every body of water in this state. | ||
| Work Together |
| ||
| Cory, While I agree that something should be done, the DNR is much to blame for why things need to be done in the first place. I have read some of the documents from the said 'group' you referred to, and feel that it was a very well written and studied proposal. Though I agree with you that the group is a bit of a radical, it is because of them that the two individuals you speak of, are getting things in gear in my opinion. The idea of putting Mississippi strain fish into certain lakes, was the science based idea of the said 'group' you refered to. While the group may be doing things awkwardly in terms of harsh communications as you said you observed, it was in fact they, that openned the DNR's eyes to many of the things they were/are doing wrong that need to be fixed, and offered some biologically sound ideas to improve certain aspects of it. Studies have been done already on the Mississippi strain in WI and they were a success, though brushed off by Madison for reasons unknown. The study in Lake Nancy showed muskies growing up to 54" in 10 years, naturrally reproducing, and nearly sustaining a population in the lake. There has been no natural reproduction coming from fish stocked in waters similar to Nancy with Bone lake fish from the local hatchery there, so the fact that a strain was found to be able to do so, in waters that were once deemed not capable of sustaining natural reproduction, is very uplifting. I am very happy to see that the Scotts are onboard with this, but really, the studies have been done. Lets get to work!! there are waters in NW WI that once held Miss strain fish, that should be refreshed with them again, including the St. Croix river(which MN stocks with Miss. fish and WI stocks with Bone Lake fish). The waters in southern WI that are sustained now by stocking, and rivers that fluctuate creating the need for a fish that spawns deeper like the Miss. fish, will also be prime candidates for immediate approval. i'd say leave the rest alone. NE WI seems to be doing fine as far as strain/genetics issues go, and size limit regs should take care of things up there. Bill T. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Cory, good news, and exactly what I have heard. I don't for a second buy the idea that 'radical' (or for that matter, rude) communication or behavior will or has done a #*^@ed thing for the Muskie program in Wisconsion, nor will it, in my VERY humble opinion. I'm for working together with the DNR, assisting with raising the necessary funds through action groups, and assisting in the process of education it will take to improve the 'general muskie atmosphere' in the state. We have the best collective opportunities we have had in a very long time to get inprovements set in place. Maybe with cooperation and understanding of the issues, we can move pretty rapidly toward our goals. | ||
| C.Painter |
| ||
| Bill- I read all of the documents put forth from the "group" and agree they have some good points and SOME science based info. with a good amount of educated theories thrown in. Educated theories don't make it facts, however. I don't agree that this group got the DNR to open their eyes, since I know they have been looking at some of this stuff before the documents etc ever came out. Now I suspect it definately helped bring it to "front of mind". However, I think the approach, and the subsequent follow ups could have used a lot more tact in my opinion and probably had a NEGATIVE impact on trying to get done what the "group" wanted to get done. People don't like to be bullied around....especially the goverment. I have "listened" to both sides of the science issue. I think the DNR is taking the right steps to assure that the future of our muskie fishery is improved (yes we would all like this to move faster..but its goverment)......I rather them take the time to make sure its its right before jumping head first without FULLY understanding. I don't think anyone will argue that the past practices probably were not the best practices. But at the time this was not known. To the comment earlier, "yeah I will believe it when I see it," I agree, but I am optimistic! I definately think a little PR from the DNR on thier plans, once established, would help gain a lot of support in the muskie community. Of course, these are just my opinions.... Cory | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Folks, I'd like to object to the idea that the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project is a radical or rude group. We have tried to work quietly behind the scenes with the DNR since January to no avail. We have offered to assist the DNR with money and manpower to do the right things but are continually pushed away. Other than one single e-mail after the DNR invited us to a meeting on Feb 22nd, while having no intentions on working with us, we have treated the DNR with nothing but courtesy and respect. That meeting ended with the DNR informing us that they will continue to stock Bone Lake mutts and "Oehmcke strain" (Actual DNR term) Muskies into the Great Lakes and St. Croix river drainages as they see fit - with no concern to the native genetic stocks that inhabit those drainages. This did upset us greatly and we responded accordingly with an e-mail meant to get their attention. On that day it became apparent that we take our Muskie Fishery more seriously than the Wisconsin DNR does! We do appreciate Scott Hassett arranging a meeting with the DNR, although we wish that he had attended to assure the DNR was taking our concerns seriously. I'm also happy that Scot Stewart is working with the Capitol City Chapter on the Madison chain. Scot was one of the few people at the DNR to take us seriously, and the Madison chain should benefit from his work. Joe Kurz has also been working with the 1st Wisconsin chapter to bring Large Growing Muskie strains to Lake Wissota. I really hope that the DNR managers in other areas will listen and work with their local Muskie anglers. Most importantly the DNR in Madison needs to change. Token lakes stocked with large growing fish will not fix the problems we have. It is vital that the DNR hierarchy in Madison allow the hatcheries to work together with Muskie clubs to assist in raising large growing Muskie strains. It is the people’s hatchery after all. I feel we tried as hard as possible to work with the DNR on this and I am proud of that. Our work will continue. The Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project feels that Wisconsin has the ability to have the greatest trophy Muskellunge Resource in North America and we are proud to be taking a leadership role in the changes you are starting to hear about, but there is much work left to be done. All of us must let the Wisconsin DNR know that we will no longer allow them to ignore the changes and research done in other areas that are PROVEN to improve trophy Muskie fisheries. Minnesota made their changes overnight and are reaping the benefits today, we would like to do the same. Our children deserve that all the right changes be made immediately. We blame no one for past mistakes, but feel from this day forward those in charge need to be held accountable for their decisions. The Project Team desires changes in our Muskie Program, not more DNR studies on fish that do not grow large. Continuing to do the same things will only yield the same results. For those that have supported us over the past few months, we sincerely appreciate it, and look forward to that support continuing. For those of us who have not seen our research, it is available at www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org This will be my last post here, Thanks! Bob Benson | |||
| Sven |
| ||
| It's not what you want, Bob. its how you've approached your goal. I think you would get alot more support if you wouldn't insist it's 'My way or the highway!' I watched the whole genetics thread, and saw what was said there. Much you said makes sense, but much waht others including sworrall and first six feet said also made sense. Then a scientist posts, REALLY makes sense, and he gets basically insulted by supporters of your methodology. I saw a post suggesting Dale Carnegie. That was a suggestion I would also say is a good idea, not in a negative way at all. I AM a scientist, and can tell you I'd be insulted with the rhetoric from some post here, but still be willing to listen. So that was your last post here; why? Because folks disagree how YOU demand what amounts to a public trust be managed? You would never make it in politics, that's for sure. The musies in this state belong to us all. Get used to folks disagreeing with you and engage the public, instead of alienating. Or not. Your choice. The study will go on, new stocking efforts will occur, and our muskie fishery will improve as a result. MAYBE....Channel your efforts into what is possible in the environment we have at this moment, looking towards advancement in the near future. Either way, I like what I read by Cpainter. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| Any person that has any bit of passion about the musky fisherery in Wisconsin should be thankful and grateful for what these gentlemen have done. You can take all the information about over harvesting and slot limits and throw them out the window. If the muskies don't grow big, it doesn't matter. If the muskies grew big, we would still be getting fish in the state waters that will reach the sizes they are talking about. As a person that primarily grew up fishing for muskies in Wisconsin, I am upset that we do not have the size of fish that Minnesota, Canada, etc. has. Just about every person I know that has fished Wisconsin and caught muskies has caught a bigger fish in another state or province than they did in Wisconsin. Don't you think it would be nice to catch those fish in our state? Everyone has their opinions and they are entitled to them, but think of this in a realistic manner. Read their website and let all the "FACTS" they have from the Wisconsin DNR research and all the "FACTS" they have from all the fish registered from Muskie Inc. and you tell yourself it's ok. Our state needs help in a serious way and these gentlemen, whether you think they have done this in a rude or an aggressive manner, should be commended for what they are doing! Good luck gentleman. | |||
| guest |
| ||
| I have read the documents this group has put out and talked with some of them on this and while I'm not too sure that thier forceful approach was the best thing I also believe that the DNR gave them little choice in how to approach this and still hopefully get something done? Yes they may have gotten very agressive and forcefull on this but I grew up in rural America and still believe that at times you do need to take the redneck SOB approach to get things done and get people to listen up. That's just the way it is unfortunately! As to studying it more, it has already been done and redone by neighboring states all around us. Are we supposed to believe that that river between MN and WI is some kind of magical barrier? One which changes all rules of fish management from one side to the other. As much of the water in both MN and WI is all ultimately related to the upper Mississippi drainage is it not likely that these were all the same fish with the exception of a few waters where they evolved to a smaller fish? At least before we started "managing" fisheries was in high likelyhood pretty much the same fish, So if this is the case why not put some of those fish, aka, the Mississippi or Leech lake strain back into at the very least some of our waters? Whether you agree or not you can not deny that we are in fact doing the wrong thing when we stock unknow and mixed strain fish into waters that could negatively affect waters that have and are being stocked with the Mississippi strain fish. Waters that are in the St Croix drainage and St Louis Drianage are 2 such examples! Way way to much evidence here that what we are doing is wrong, so do we do somethiong about it or continue doing business as normal? If so maybe we need to adopt the shorter version of musky as official as it is shorter and let MN have the longer version muskie to go along with thier longer fish! I all seriousness though, it is a tough call as to what may be best but for sure doing nothing is not the way to go and like I said, much or the research has already been done on the Leechers by MN so why not use that info and go from there rather than redoing it all again? I know there is some talk here about putting Leechers into some lakes on the stocking list, great idea but where will this leave the rest of the state as all these listed waters are in the central and southern part of the state. Don't you think that if and when it succeeds in those waters and if nothing changes say in Vilas, Onieda, and Sawyer counties that it will have a very negative effect on the economy and tourism all accross the northern part of the state? Probably would as I just find it hard to believe that a lot of anglers would drive past waters producing bigger fish to get to waters that may not be as good????? If we are going down this road should we not have waters with those fish distributed all accross WI where applicable?? Lots of issues here but for sure doing nothing will get us nowhere and maybe we should work with MN and thier data and go from there instead of trying to re invent the wheel again? Just some thoughts from someone who is not involved but watching what is going on and definately has a vested interest in seeing the very best from our fisheries in WI. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| This question is for Mr. Painter and others, How long do you want to wait for our musky fishing to start improving in our state? Maybe five years? Ten years? 20 years? Or should I ask, are you happy with the size of the muskies in the state of Wisconsin as it stands right now? I am not happy with the quality of our fishery. If we do our so called research and take our time with this issue we will probably still be in the same situation we are in now ten years from now. Then if something does get accomplished, it will be another 10 years until the fishery starts to blossom. I understand that the DNR has done a lot for the fishery in Wisconsin, but being careful to do the right thing would be a hypocritical statement. The DNR did not do the right thing and that is why we are having this discussion. Our state has suffered because of there mistakes. It is time for them to correct it and move on. Mr. Painter, I respect your opinions and your comments regarding this matter, but the idea of sitting back and letting our bureacratic officials take their time and do their job just doesn't cut it for me. I want Wisconsin to be the fishery it used to be, not what it is now. | |||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7090 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | SO what is the answer? Did you get the response you were looking for? If not, was the answer an agressive and uncooperative response, or continuing efforts to positively advance the concepts you are after? I have no problem with advancing the management in the state as a cooperative effort between the DNR and the anglers here. There are realities that have to be dealt with, and those wil NOT be set aside for a couple angry anglers, no matter the data compiled. Rage at the sky, or work within the system cooperatively for change. Whatever works for you, I guess, but reality is a son of a gun. | ||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | Sure a heck of a lot of "guests" out there..... I am NOT sitting back and letting the gov move slowly along....actually quite the opposite. I have gotten a lot more involved in this effort then I thought I ever would. And Bob I would say there are very few folks out there with the passion you have....however, it at times can be funnelled in a more constructive manner. Harness that passion with a big dose of understanding, tact and patiences and results would come. I am not attacking you Bob or your group....I admire a ton of work that you guys have pulled together....so don't take it as I am....but maybe a little criticism. I don't think the DNR (and now this is my opinion) disagrees with everything your group is saying at all Bob. I know they question some of the theories etc....But being a scientist via Education and my job, I question everything. So there is nothing wrong with them not agreeing with everything. Bottom line...the DNR wants to improve the top end fishery.....bottom line....a large group of folks want to improve the top end fishery.....funny....but I think this is the same goal???? The question is how we get there and how fast. I want them to get it right....they are the experts....we can give some wonderful help and suggestions as we work together (which by the way IS happening here in Madison). But strong arming and demanding has never worked...except for communism....of course we see how well that has gone over in History.... There are ways to "help" move things along with the DNR...Giving them a reason to want to work together is a start. Work as a common team instead of bickering amongsts ourselves sure would get us there faster in my mind.... Cory | ||
| Justin Gaiche |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | The idea of stocking Leech lake strain muskies greatly concerns me. I wrote an article on it nobody would publish (not suprised) talking about past musky management methods and what the future MAY hold. Years ago Leech lake strain muskies were stocked in Mud/Callahan in northern Wisconsin. After 17 years many of the fish failed to reach 30". Spatial isolation plays a role as musky sub species are genetically pre disposed to live in certain environs. It also speaks about how heavy stocking in naturally reproducting waters like in central Wisconsin you may see a change of genetics over time with harvest of natural fish and success of stocked fish. People keep talking about Wisconsin being second rate to Minnesota. It is important to compare apples to apples in water size and forage base, two of the most important parts of growing trophy muskies. That is why Georgian, LOTW, Eagle, Leech, Chippewa and others produce giant fish, not pine pond and little lake. I am not saying that one or another person is wrong. I just think it important to completly look at all of the factors as every detail of musky management must be perfect to create world class fisheries. Lets hope the funds can be found to give each lake the individual attention it needs to be successful. Our bioloigists are good at what they do, its just road blocks like funds and public opinion that get in their way at times. I just thank God we have the quality fisheries we do! | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | 8inchcrank Sorry but I just have to correct you on this. Leech Lake muskies WERE NOT stocked in Mud/Callahan EVER! You are completely mistaken on that. If you look at lakes in WI and compare them to lakes in MN of the same size and with the same type or even what most people would consider worse forage, the lakes in MN still out produce the WI lakes hands down for large 50"+ fish. Thats a fact! | ||
| Mark Hintz |
| ||
| I look at this from a different perspective.. As a business person first and a angler/sportsman second. A guide needs something in addition to their ability to teach and entertain to help draw clients, they need a quality resource as well, one that offers a realistic expectation to the client to be able to catch large fish on a consistent basis. There needs to be quality along with quantity. To the best of my knowledge both Chad Cain and Greg Thomas, two of today's more popular higher profile names in the business, tried to make a go of it in northern WI as guides during the summer months when it was too warm for them in their southern home water. They struggled to the point of leaving WI for MN, both are now enjoying very successful careers in MN. What was the difference..? The quality of the resource they are doing business in. I also know other WI guides and resort owners in popular areas who are consistently loosing business to neighboring resources. Ask youself these questions. How many of you (unless you own vacation property in WI) even consider Wisconsin as a destination point for you fishing vacation? If yes, is it because of the fishery resource or is it for another reason? The many polls over the past few years on this board, where to get your next 50, world record potential, etc.etc.etc. tells the story... Many people I know, myself included, who used to travel to WI destinations for the musky fishing no longer even include WI waters in their options a place to go for long weekends or vacations. I am not a scientist by trade, but the work done and the information compiled and summarized by the Restoration Team sure seems to make sense. As an angler I have personally seen the quality of the fish that have come from the few locations where "spotties" have been stocked in WI. No doubt working as a team and in conjuction with the DNR is the best way to procede. But I also believe that all too often in government agencies holding people accountable for job performance is something that is severly lacking. Public scrutinty is also a tough thing to deal with and no matter what, the DNR will always be criticized for their action or inaction. It seems the problem is known and acknowledged, it seems logical that after reading and re-reading several times the information put forth by the Restoration Team that the answer seems to be in stocking the Mississippi strain of muskie. Do I personally think WI should change all 700+ bodies of water that currently hold musky, no I don't. But I do think that taking a significant percentage (20% in my opinion) in a state wide study for the next five years would certainly give us a good scientific idea as to whether or not changing strains of fish stocked is on the right track. And then decisions could be made based on results to enlarge or downsize the program. In five years the female Mississippi strain fish should be in the 38-42 inch range if the information I've read is correct. If studies show that growth rates are following the patterns established in neighboring resources then there is no reason to believe that in the next five years the trend won't continue and WI should see the same benefits that MN is currently seeing. If it doesn't work, then let the DNR go back to stocking slow growing, small maturing fish and we can all keep driving to neighboring resources for our leisure time. Again, I look at it from two points, business person first and sportsman second. No doubt private industry moves quicker than government, but it doesnt' always have to be that way. At a time when the DNR is criticized due to deer heard counts, too many turkey/not enough turkey, too many wolves/not enough wolves, etc. etc. This sure seems like an opportunity to do something positive to put WI back on the map as a leader in trophy fish management. I've got one more question for you... hypothetically. I recently asked a WI DNR biologist how many different known strains of walleye there were in WI? His answer to me...Five. I just wonder if in the course of good intent, trying to meet budgets, establishing fish hatery production methods for quantity of production (not thinking about how big they grow), if maybe, just maybe....the same thing could have happened to much of the walleye fishery as it has the musky fishery. Maybe those 11-13 inchers are mature adults...? The stocking of slow growing short maturing musky and maybe walleye? Things that make you go hmmmm. T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore Respect the other persons opinion and position, come to a mutual agreement, and move forward steadily toward a better tomorrow. | |||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | Mark I couldn't agree with you more, on several points. You mentioned doing a study for 5 years with say 20% of lakes and determine if its successful. Scott Hassett actually said, as an option, he would like to see something like that, and he wasn't talking 5 years from now either. I don't think they are throwing out all the info the gruoup has brought before them. I know they want to be darn sure its the right thing to do. I don't think any of us would want to do anything that isn't right. There is a lot of science out there to explain several points...but there is also some questions that HAVEN'T been fully addressed according to the DNR. Scott Stewart rattled a couple off to me and they made perfect sense. So the fact that they don't just grab the info given to them and run wild doing as the group says I think is scientific responsibility. Give them a brief peroid of time to get a couple answers (which I know for a fact they are in the process of going after) and let them come back with what they suggest. I am sure it won't be right in line with all the restoration group wants....but I hope it is right in line with what will give WI the direction it needs, not just for short term but for long term as well.... Oh and Mark...I think the economic reasons you mentioned IS playing a part...I know a lot of cash is flowing over the border....I have a place up north in Oneida county but am looking at making a trip over to MN this fall... ooops....have to run to church!! Cory Edited by C.Painter 3/20/2005 10:13 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I agree with Mark on most of his points. The problem comes with resolution. The State of Wisconsin IS already stocking Great Lake strain in several bodies of water. They intend to do more of the same. I am excited to see what is in the future plans, am excited about the lakes that have already been stocked, and am looking forward to working as a group with our state officails to encourage more of the same. My point is and will be that many are WAY too quick to be overly critical and overly simplistic in their analysis of the issues. I will rely on the scientists here, not laymen even as dedicated as we are. I have spoken to many of the folks involved, and there IS a movement underway to improve our fishery. The QUICKEST way to ensure communication is limited or poor between us as anglers and the folks we NEED to cooperate with is to continue the confrontational stance taken to date. A group of anglers formed about 3 months ago that will be working hard to identify issues from each zone in the state, and work with the DNR assisting in fund raising, cooperative efforts to improve public education, and forward the tropy Muskie water mentality. Let me know by emailing me at [email protected] if you want to assist! | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Having read this thread several times, I see a few points that are missed or lost. First, and most important economically, is what is any of the ongoing restoration of Great Lakes fish OR the supposedly "proposed" plan doing or going to do for the more economically depressed northern portion of the state, the upper third where 99+% of the native muskie range is. From what I have read and heard, absolutely nothing. Second, what does the DNR plan to do about past and proposed current stocking practices that are just plain wrong, especially those affecting the entire Great Lakes system affecting many other states and two provinces of Canada? To date there has been nothing forthcoming from the DNR that indicates any change, and based on what they have said to date, it will be business as usual, at least for this stocking season. Is this proper? Last, a few here have constatly taken the "messenger," the Restoration Team, to task for one occurance of supposed un-diplomatic communication with the DNR. Folks, don't concentrate on killing the messenger, but rather LOOK AT THE MESSAGE! The Restoration Team has consistently made it clear from the start that they did not wish to point any fingers at INADVERTENT errors of the past, but that now that these wrongs have been discovered and pointed out, the folks now in charge have a responsibility to acknowledge same and do something about it, rather than perpetuate it. Sincerely, A concerned, affected, Businessman and muskie angler. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest: The Restoration team is, as far as I am aware, comprised of a group of concerned anglers. Am I correct? What are you referring to with the Great Lakes stocking that is 'just plain wrong', the stocking of Lake St. Claire fish in the waters of Green Bay? Are you saying that Lake Michigan or Superior were once something of note in the Muskie catagory? What ARE you saying? What, exactly, does this group want? What ARE their demands? I will say this, so far the communication from the Restoration Team with those who question the groups ideas, motives, background, or agenda here on this board has been a bit 'rough' if I might point that out. If the communication with others is as 'short' as it has been here, then you can hardly expect anything but the questions and comments received so far. Is the Restoration group presenting itself as representing all muskie anglers in the State, or if it's a sort of PAC or activist group with a contained agenda? Either way, if they are demanding immediate changes that will effect the waters I fish, I'd like to know what those are, and what the scientists in charge of the programs in place today think of the proposals. I have a suggestion, and I'm serious about this. If you are a member of this group, talk to the rest of the group and ask them to acquire some help with PR. There are plenty of folks willing to assist in acquiring improvement in the Muskie program here in Wisconsin; acquire the services of one or more anglers with a good PR background to help put forth the agenda you wish to have implemented. IMHO, the 50" proposal failed here for reasons that could present a learning experience for those trying to get something done here in Wisconsin. The model used for that effort failed miserably. 'Because we said so' is a pretty poor PR baseline for folks who either don't have all the facts, might have some you do not, or are otherwise at odds with your efforts. If the Restoration group wants the program they have in mind implemented, they need to win the hearts and minds of the DNR and the public. This, for lack of better analogy, will be a process, not an event. Just my editorial opinion. | ||
| muskie! nut |
| ||
Posts: 2894 Location: Yahara River Chain | sworrall, Larry Ramsell (aka guest) says if the DNR stocks muskies (at pressent time they get their broad stock from Bone Lake) into waters that they are able to reach the Great Lakes, it will "poison" the gene pool. They are saying that if the DNR ever decides to stock Great Lakes Strain into that system, there could be cross breeding, dilluting the strain. The Restoration Team wants (or should I say DEMANDS) the DNR to cease any effort(s) that may cause this. The muskies stocked into the waters of Green Bay (from Long Lake) are from the St Mary's River in MI, I'm not sure if that is a direct strain from Lake St Claire or not. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yes, the fish stocked in Green Bay and the Winnebago system are from the Lake St Claire strain. 'Demands' that, do they? The restoration group undoubtedly are to a degree misunderstanding my position on this. I ( and many folks I've talked to over the last several years about this issue) support strongly a move toward stronger trophy muskie management here in Wisconsin. I am delighted that many of the anglers here in the state have taken a proactive position. That's a good thing. As has been said, there are portions of the proposed changes that seem to make sense. There are also objections from the WORKING SCIENTISTS who are going to be instrumental in moving any improved Trophy Muskie Management effort forward that seem to make sense. One thing for sure, no matter HOW sure this group is of the position they have yet to prove it out, and obviously haven't achieved a 'common ground' status with the powers that be at the DNR. That's how the process works, and everyone involved should know that. As I posted earlier, the 50" proposal failed IMHO becasue it was implemented following a similar model. Where there was a grass roots, cooperative effort that was NOT confrontational, progress was made. Where the 'because I said so' model was employed, we got our ass handed to us. In the real world of debate and politics, finance, budgets, and restraints, social mores and traditions; even if absolutely correct, a minority position of 'because we said so' just usually don't get it done. | ||
| gcrandall |
| ||
Location: Middleton, WI | Good discussion here. These are just my opinons & questions today based on reviewing the above messages. Extensive references and source documentation have been identified and have been relied upon (at least in-part) in formulating positions and perspectives. I believe that comments have been made that this has been studied before and in essence the time for studies is behind us, we need to move forward immediately, etc... I may be wrong, but I believe that one of the references was completed in 1901 (initially- it may have been updated), another in 1934 (it too may have been updated) and numerous ones in the 1970's and 1980's. In addition, a number of newspaper articles and magazine articles were referenced in 2000 and more recently. As an angler and one interested in sound natural resource/public policy, I have no way to judge if the research cited is useful, contemporary, relevant and right on the mark. Is it possible that this information might be somewhat dated and stale? I'm just wondering. The reason I bring this up is I have noticed in the last year that in several cases the medical profession has admited their errors and have taken a 180 -(diametrically opposed) view on several long established practices e.g., Hormone replacement therapy, arthritic pain relievers and Vitamin E supplements. Just a few months ago these were highly recommended by doctors - but just recently the medical profession has reversed themselves on these. This very recent reversal is based on millions of dollars of research which impacts human lives of potentially millions of people. Now when one thinks about very-tight University & DNR budgets, research and scientific information involving genetics, unique fish strains, complications from various environmental conditions-e.g., acid rain, mercury concentrations, impact of urban development and other impacts - one might wonder - has a sufficient amount of resources been focused explicitly and recently on this issue of Muskie genetics & strains in todays environment? If so, great. As a lay person, I'm wondering that since we just witnessed the medical profession admitting they were 180 degrees, flat out wrong - based on some very, very fresh research (including peer review, internal diagreements and discussions by researchers, etc.) - do the fisheries studies and references that we have access to, hold-up? Are they comprehensive, valid, reliable and sufficient? As was suggested by Cory in an earlier message, it does seem like a prudent, reasonable first step would be to get a fresh, comprehensive & thorough analysis done using various strains of fish with a sound methodological approach using the latest technology e.g., PIT identifiers - bar codes, modeling, high-tech transponders/digital recorders, etc., to get a fresh look at this. This would create a delay and put up a time barrier. It may protect the fisheries from down-side risks. It would interesting to have high-timers i.e., long-experienced fisheries biologists/researchers - natural resource professionals, describe what they believe would be useful to investigate, should such a comprehensive study be done. Thanks MuskieFirst for hosting this discussion. I appreciate the views of all the participants. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Allow me to speak for myself. No "guest" name or anon. "board name" as many like to post behind. I will be happy to engage in dialog as time permits, but first let me say that several posts here were apparently made without first reading and understanding what has been compiled on the Restoration Team's web site (www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org). Some posts carry forth only partial or incorrect information. We realize that most do not have access to the hundreds of documents that were referenced, nor the hundreds of hours of time it takes to read them all. The "FAQ" page there is an additional source of Q & A's that clarify many points made in the documents presented. Having said that, let me continue. Muskie nut: Regarding your statement: "if the DNR stocks muskies (at pressent time they get their broad stock from Bone Lake) into waters that they are able to reach the Great Lakes, it will "poison" the gene pool. They are saying that if the DNR ever decides to stock Great Lakes Strain into that system, there could be cross breeding, dilluting the strain. The Restoration Team wants (or should I say DEMANDS) the DNR to cease any effort(s) that may cause this." The DNR stocks DOES stock Great Lakes drainage lakes with the "documented" small growing strains of muskies used in both the Spooner and Woodruff hatcheries. It is not a matter of "if." In addition, the Spooner hatchery stocks HAVE been stocked DIRECTLY into Lake Superior, 2500 (two-thousand five hundred) as recently as 2003! This not only endangers the stocks there and in Michigan/Ontario's St. Mary's River (naturally producing strains of Great Lakes muskies), but has the potential over time to affect Wisconsin's Green Bay Restoration of Great Lakes strain muskies. Additionally, again over time, these stockings, against all solid genetic principals, could affect Great Lake stocks throughout the Great Lakes and the two great fisheries of the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. We do not feel that "demanding" that this practice be stopped is unreasonable. Mr. Worrall: "The Restoration team is, as far as I am aware, comprised of a group of concerned anglers. Am I correct?" YES! As for: "What, exactly, does this group want? What ARE their demands? I will say this, so far the communication from the Restoration Team with those who question the groups ideas, motives, background, or agenda here on this board has been a bit 'rough' if I might point that out. If the communication with others is as 'short' as it has been here, then you can hardly expect anything but the questions and comments received so far." This question is adequately answered in our Project documents found at the aforementioned Restoration Team's web site. No need to belabor them here unless you feel you need further clarification. Should that be the case after reading or re-reading those documents, please let me know. We thank you for pointing out that we may have been a "bit rough." Please understand that this is borne of a great passion and frustration after putting this very complex "puzzle" together and then being basically ignored by the DNR. We worked "very hard" and trying to keep this "behind the scenes" and keeping it off of the Internet for over 10 weeks...no small feat in this time of instant communication. Our goal, as was stated very frequently to the DNR, was NOT to point fingers, but rather identify the problems and "obvious" ways to fix them, rather than continue doing "business as usual." Good, sound business practice dictates that if something is found to be a mistake, to contine doing the same thing is merely compounding and adding to the problems. We find it interesting that at the State Musky Committee meeting with the DNR and State musky club Representatives, almost all there agreed that the Great Lakes stocking practices were good and should be looked into, but at the end of the meeting the highest ranking DNR person there stated that change could/would not be undertaken and that they would continue to stock as usual. We found that "position" unacceptable. As for: "Is the Restoration group presenting itself as representing all muskie anglers in the State, or if it's a sort of PAC or activist group with a contained agenda? Either way, if they are demanding immediate changes that will effect the waters I fish, I'd like to know what those are, and what the scientists in charge of the programs in place today think of the proposals." We do NOT claim to be "representing all muskie anglers in the State," but have recieved the support of all of the organized musky clubs in the state. As for knowing what the "immediate changes that will effect the waters I fish, I'd like to know what those are," again, I refer you to our web site, where they are clearly outlined. We too would like to know "what the scientists in charge of the programs in place today think of the proposals." NOW. At the State meeting, they had NO disagreement with any of our "options" other than egg availabilty for Great Lakes stain muskies (they DO have access to plenty, albeit not in the "diversity" they would like to see, but THAT factor isn't preventing them from proceeding with the great restoration in Green Bay and the Winnebago system), as well as divesity that "may" not be available from the remaining Leech Lake strain muskies left in Nancy Lake. As we have pointed out, and have checked on again subsequently, Mississippi River strain muskie eggs ARE available from a multitude of sources for use in the St. Croix and Mississippi River drainages in Wisconsin. The DNR chose to not consider those options and again, stated that it would be "business as usual" with the continued PROVEN small stain stocks from the Bone Lake brood stock. We find this too, unacceptable and wrong. As for your: "I have a suggestion, and I'm serious about this. If you are a member of this group, talk to the rest of the group and ask them to acquire some help with PR. There are plenty of folks willing to assist in acquiring improvement in the Muskie program here in Wisconsin; acquire the services of one or more anglers with a good PR background to help put forth the agenda you wish to have implemented." Attacking the "messenger," even though you feel we have been "politically incorrect," does not address the ISSUES. We will attempt (as I hope I have done here) to follow your suggestion to work on our "PR" presentation. We do not wish to be confrontational. We haven't from the start. We WANTED to work with our DNR and make THEM look good. We have offered money and manpower to help with the depressed DNR budget. We are NOT doing this for personal gain. Personally I am getting to the age that suggested changes will not benefit me. I am doing it because I feel that it is the right thing to do! As for: "If the Restoration group wants the program they have in mind implemented, they need to win the hearts and minds of the DNR and the public. This, for lack of better analogy, will be a process, not an event." You are correct! We hope and trust that your readers will appreciate our "passion" as well as our "frustration." We realistically, are "too close" to the "puzzle" and are dealing with the realization that everyone just cannot know the data as thoroughly as we do. When one concentrates strictly on the "picture" that our research painted, and not how it has at time been delivered, the bottom line is the same. CHANGE must happen, and hopefully sooner rather than later for the benefit of the State's Tourism Industry and the "estimated" 360,000 anglers (DNR numbers) that persue Wisconsin;s valued STATE FISH! Thank you for your "editorial opinion." Muskie regards, Larry Ramselll Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Correction: The last WDNR stocking of Bone Lake stock muskies into Lake Superior was the fall of 2004, not 2003...Larry | |||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | Larry- Thank you for taking the time out to comment. I don't know, but if I had to guess I bet most folks reading the boards are frustrated, in one sense or another, of the current stocking practices. And I think most would admire the amount of work your group has put forth. And I honestly understand your frustration. BUT, I think you are significantly playing down the affects of HOW the message is delievered. Steve talked about working on the PR, and I am happy to see you say that you are willing to have the group look into such areas. Personally, if I was the DNR I would be digging in my heels as well if I was, and I will use the term"bullied" around. I think this is a great cause, I may not totally agree with EVERYTHING the group is saying but I think a large portion of the info is pretty right on. I guess why I originally posted this email is two fold. 1. I seriously wanted people to know that I feel times are going to change and I think the right people are in the DNR to make this happen. 2. In a round about way, suggest to the Musky Restoration Group to take a step back, swallow hard....and proceed in a MUCH kinder, gentler way, maybe even a little appologetic. I have to think the DNR is at least LOOKING at the info they are given....but forcing the issue, in the matter done recently, will not get it moving in the right direction. SO as a personal request I would like to have the group put a little more weight as to HOW the message is being delievered, because I personally want to see results as well. Cory Edited by C.Painter 3/21/2005 8:28 AM | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | The WI Musky Fishery is clearly at a crossroads. Do we really need more studies do confirm what we already know? The beauty of the current situation lies within the simplicity of it. The state of MN took educated gamble years ago and hit pay dirt, by stocking Leech Strain muskies. The state of WI has been afforded the luxury of being able to sit back and monitor the results Unfortunately; they don’t appear to have taken notice! Only through the efforts of Bob Benson and Larry Ramsell has the WIDNR seriously taken a look at what is readily available on the MNDNR website. Given the success in MN, what exactly is stopping the WIDNR from implementing the same program?! What is the downside of upping the number of lakes stocked with spotted muskies? The WIDNR, I believe is so afraid of being wrong that they seem intent on doing nothing. So, it is up to the people of WI to take the gamble and ask the DNR to make a change. From the WMRP web site… “The beauty of having Minnesota to reference is that our waters lie within the same Mississippi river drainage, at approximately the same latitude. We aren't talking about bringing Muskies from Florida or the Arctic Circle. We know if we stock the pure Mississippi River strain and Wisconsin strains into lakes at the same time, the Mississippi River strain grows larger. We know that when we stock Mississippi River strain Muskies into lakes containing existing Wisconsin strains, that the Mississippi River strain grows faster. We believe we should monitor the progress/changes, but the anglers of Wisconsin deserve changes now and should not have to wait until after another 10-year study to begin real change. Our children deserve nothing less than this.” Let’s not get hung up on this and drag it on for years. MN has done us a great service…let’s swallow our pride and run with their results. What is the risk in doing so? That we hurt the ‘native strain’? Folks, read what is available on the WMRP site and you will see that due to stocking practices and harvest numbers, a ‘native strain’ most likely does not exist anymore! Larry Ramsell, Bob Benson and company…. I applaud you for having the gumption to stand up for what you believe is right. In addition to the thousands of hours spent on research, you then went through the correct channels at the WIDNR giving them every chance to make changes. You were even willing to give them all of the credit for the research you did. Now it is up to the people to take an educated gamble. Pressure your local WIDNR rep for change. Sean Murphy | ||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | Sean I disagree about what we already know. The restoration group said they THINK or BELIEVE the Leecher/Miss. strain was the strain that was in WI early on. We don't know that...at least I don't think we do... The one study I am hearing rumors of is one to study the genetics all through WI. As Bob mentioned we THINK the leech lake/Mississippi strain is the one that was originally in WI. I would think this WI genetic study would answer that. I am not a fisheries biologist....but for argument sake. Lets say the Leechers are NOT the native strain that was in Northern WI. Maybe the genetics show that the fish living in the WI river best represent what was and should be in WI. Would we then support capturing this strain fish and using it for stocking purposes over the Leechers??? Would this be more of the RIGHT thing to do versus what we want to do?? I guess we really don't know this answer yet... I know there is an arguement for the St. Croix area fish (and I agree) but I through this out as a "what if" for other parts of the state. Yes MN did some great work....BUT, no one can say right now that they have scientific data that shows leechers were once the strain in all of the original WI waters.... I guess I want the DNR to do what they think is right...not what WE think is right. They need to do something though...and I think they will/are. Again, optimistic. I pray this does move along at a nice clip and doesn't get sucked into the goverment vortex...But we as fisherman can either help...or hinder that progress, depending on how we funnel our efforts. I will be mad as anyone if this sits and fizzles for the next 5 years...but if over the next 5 years we make some big steps in some key areas I would be happy..... Cory | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |