Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> What are the Down Sides of Doing what the WMRT suggests? |
| Message Subject: What are the Down Sides of Doing what the WMRT suggests? | |||
MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok my mind is kind of mush after trying to read the info on www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org web site and keep up with the thread on this site over the last three days. Of everything I have read the information about the 1982 Post, D.D. and W.H. LeGrande study bothers me the most. I have not read the study but if what the WMRT say is true, and the study clearly showed that the fish the WDNR where using for brood stock at both the hatcheries had the same Genetic traits as the Shoepac fish used in Mn., this is all the evidence I need to support this project. Mn took this information and used it to begin there current stocking program and look what they have now. The reason I am starting this thread is I just don’t see any significant down side to implementing at least item #1 as proposed by the Team. 1.) Capture and select ONLY large males >45" and females >52" from Lac Court Oreilles, Grindstone or the Chippewa Flowage, to take the necessary (Neubich pers. comm.) 500,00 eggs (5 to 10 females) for the Spooner hatchery operation. A like event would be required for the Woodruff hatchery from an appropriate water body, such as perhaps an previously un-stocked section of the Wisconsin River or other suitable candidate. Please don't beat me up for asking this question, but what are the possible negatives that could come from doing this if the money could be raised to offset the extra cost associated with collecting the eggs and milk? Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Fish-n-Freak |
| ||
Posts: 259 Location: Alexandria, MN | I do not see any down side to doing this! The only negative factor is the extra time and money needed to find the larger fish. They won't be able to collect all their eggs in a short time frame. I think if the WDNR could net a number of large fish and use them as the base for the stocking, there would be far less of an issue. The sad thing is that these big fish are in many cases the old Mississippi Strain that has continued to exist. Bringing these fish in from outside would be faster and easier than trying to capture them locally. Why not bring in some stock that is proven to grow large? Once there are more large fish to pick from, the WDNR could start taking eggs locally. Sure would like to see this happen sooner than later. Steve Sedesky | ||
| ChadG |
| ||
Posts: 440 | Mike I think that #1 is dead on. Probably all that really needs to happen. I really don't think fish should or need be brought in from outside Wisconsin. Just some effort put forth to gather up the right fish. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| and it might be relatively easy to convince the DNR to do so (vs. completely changing strains). the counterpoint to this is...if the fish are genetically topping out at approx. 48", is taking "big" specimens going to have any impact on growing 50+" fish? the proposal to change strains is largely based on a belief that there's a better genetic range in the Leech fish. | |||
| Esox chaser |
| ||
Posts: 154 Location: Appleton, WI | I think getting the DNR to change strains is going to be very difficult. I do not believe the information that is there that proves the leech lake fish are superior. I would give that what has happened in MN has been successful. I think we need to identify some of the other growth factors, water productivity, prey species. Taking bigger fish to gather eggs does not guarantee the offspring will be large fish. I do think that diversifing the collection process is a good idea. | ||
| muskyboy |
| ||
| I have no problem with Item #1, it seems natural to do | |||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | #1 would be better than what is currently being done, but I don't think it is a solution. Reintroducing the Mississippi strain is the proper thing to do. We used to have these fish in our waters. It looks to me like our stocking program ruined our genetics here in Wisconsin, so we shouldn't use Wisconsin fish for this project. | ||
| BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | I honestly have not figured out a downside to do what the group wants. They took the time and did the research and I truly think they have the "puzzle" put together. | ||
| HUNTERMD |
| ||
| There is an inherent problem with the premise. The argument seems to be that stocking the "right strain" of muskie is going to be the cure all, when in fact the stocking mentality is what caused most of the problems we have here in Wisconsin. Don't get me wrong, muskie fishing in Wisconsin is still "world class", in terms of numbers of muskie caught each year and the amount of 3o pounders being caught each and every year. But it can be better. The problems that we have here are not necessarily visible but has to do more with the health of our fishery. In order to improve our muskie fishery we need to abandon the concept of stocking pen raised muskies in waters that are natural to muskie. Since the state has started to the practice of stocking muskies in native muskie lakes, the number of lakes that can now sustain their population through natural reproduction is less than 20%. This is an alarming rate and it should be THE major concern for every muskie angler. I want to get the point accross that this is a "CRISIS"!!! If we don't bite the bullet now and stop all stocking of muskie in native muskie lakes, then we will be just like the junkie who needs his fix, we will have to continue to stock and stock and stock because we would have displaced the naturally spawning muskie along with elininating their genetic diversity that exist in each and every lake forever. I hope that it is not too late for most of our natural muskie but I am sure there are some lakes that are too far gone for the us to reverse the damage that has been done. It might sound to some that I have placed the blame on the WDNR and nothing could be farther from the truth. Over the years the pressures from fishing groups, business owners, and the average fisherman(myself included) have forced("force" might be too strong of a word for some so you can substitute "persuade" in its place) the WDNR to stock more and more fish without fully realizing the consequences. I do believe that stocking muskie in lakes that don't have a natural population is OK. And that if you are going to stock such a lake it should be from the biggest specimens. I do favor the stocking of the Leech Lake strain in waters that are found in the southern part of Wisconsin, where there would be no way that those muskie could find their way in to the northern lakes that have muskie or are void of muskies. The notion that more stocking can improve what damages that stocking has created in the first place, is not logical. Thanks and you all have a great season and you enjoy your time on the water, Tom McInnis | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Tom You say - The notion that more stocking can improve what damages that stocking has created in the first place, is not logical. I'm afraid this is exactly what MN did to fix the same problem we have and it worked. They just made sure they did it with the right strain of muskie. | |||
| AirMuskie |
| ||
| In my opinion, there are no downsides whatsoever. Can't go wrong with a strain of fish that simply gets big. Air | |||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7090 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I think, personally, it all comes down to this attitude: "Can't go wrong with a strain of fish that simply gets big." Sure you can. Example: the Fox Chain of Lake in Northern Illinois. Spotted muskies "Leech Lake Strain" have been put in the system for years, yet no large spotted fish are being caught. To my knowledge, no spotted muskies are being caught over 32". I dont personally know why that is, but I know it didnt work. So, just to say "it worked in MN., it will work here" MIGHT be a bit short sighted. The DNR spends ALOT of $$$ to maintain the muskie program in WI, and yes changes need to be made, but MASSIVE/FAST changes DO NOT necessarily mean that changing how that money is spent, will help. Does the DNR need to make changes? Yes, and they know this, and have communicated this to people. Are they going to make changes just because "arm chair biologists" (and no, there has NOT been a single fisheries biologist comment on a SINGLE thread running right now) think they should? No, and I agree they shouldnt. Reading other studies, and ONLY finding evidence that supports your hypothesis is NOT science. The DNR might not have made all the right choices in the past, but they have communicated a desire to do so in the future. Communicating to the DNR our concerns, our hopes about and for the muskie fisheries is GREAT, telling them what should be done, will do nothing. We can yell in the wind all we want, but there is TOO MUCH MONEY at stake here to say that if we yell loud enough, changes will be made. We ALL need to make strides to work TOGETHER. So much goes on in the muskie community to keep us apart; the tourney vs. non-tourney fights, C&R fanatics telling others how to HOLD a fish, sites like Musky.com and MuskyAmerica.com publishing information that is personal attacks on other industry pros, arguing on the internet.....that needs to end. COMPRIMISE and working WITH THE DNR is what is needed here....as well as comprimising together. The DNR is NOT going to make wholesale changes, right or wrong, in their muskie programs, and we need to work WITH THEM TO HELP THEM TO HELP THE PROGRAM. And, I'm going fishing tomorrow! Yeah me. | ||
| guideman |
| ||
Posts: 376 Location: Lake Vermilion Tower, MN | Wisconsin has more than just a stocking problem. The whole system needs to be changed. Take the self interest out of the process and let the WDNR use good science to fix the problems. The attitudes of the resort community is a major problem. I'd doubt MN would let groups of resort owners, make policy on size limits and stocking programs. "Ace" | ||
| Luke_Chinewalker |
| ||
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Adding to what Slamr said, are all the people that think the Leech lake fish are the answer aware of Project Green Gene in Illinios? The ILDNR recognized a few years ago that fish generally don't get over 50" and often have trouble getting to 50" depending on the lake in IL. They also recognize we have very different types of bodies of water from north to south. I may not be totally accurate on this because I'm not close to it but my understanding of the project is that it is an attempt to understand what species are most suitble for each type of lake in each region of the state. They divided the state into three regions and are evaluting the success of each strain in each region. The project is designed to take 10 years because it will take that long to develop enough data to be meaningful. In high school science and stats classes we all learned that you have to have enough data to make a hypothsis with any integrity. Simply saying Leech Lake fish are successful in MN and the water that is in MN is also in WI may not be enough. Perhaps the WI DNR should talk to the ILDNR at the Muskie Symposium about Project Green Gene? Maybe they can develop a similar study that would deliver some improvement? | ||
| HUNTERMD |
| ||
| EJOHNSON, Although you do bring up a good point, the muskie fishing has improved due to the changes made in the stocking of muskies by the MDNR, the history of muskie and muskie management in Wisconsin is very different and the two should never be compared. First off most of todays MN's muskie lakes didn't have a natural population and only have populations due to stocking and just the opposite is true for Wisconsin. And yes you are right E, at first the brood stock that was being used for MN was inferior and by the MDNR recognizing it and changing to the Leech Lake strain did make a drastic improvement and I do agree with the decisions made by the MDNR in implementing those changes. It is my contention that the natural way is the best way. I think it must be the innate arrogance that are shared by all humans, "that we can improve on natures design". We have been moving in a dangerous direction that if we don't stop the stocking of pen raised muskie in Wisconsin native muskie waters, we will be dependant upon stocking and we will loose the diversity that in the long run could save our muskie fishery if some parasite or disease would sweep through the lakes of Wisconsin. The most important consideration in muskie management in Wisconsin should be the health of the fishery and genetic diversity! Thanks, Tom McInnis | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Tom I think the point is that it is very possible that the Mississippi River Musky is the natural Wisconsin fish at least in waters that are in the Mississippi drainage basin, which includes the Wisconsin river and it’s tributaries. By restocking the MR Musky into these waters they will reproduce just as they have done in the Miss. Drainage basin waters in Minn. It would help ensure natural diversity. Wisconsin waters have been stocked for over, I think the number is, 104 years. If I am not mistaken the DNR doesn’t even know which lakes had natural populations or not. There is no Genetic integrity to be protected, because of the way the fish have been stocked over that time period. Add in lakes with pike that didn’t originally have pike and it makes the situation even more mixed up. I can understand the point about maybe not taking all large fish, don’t know if I agree, but I am not a biologist. Maybe a better thing to do would be to start with Mn. Fish and harvest eggs the exact way the Mn biologist do it, eventually creating our own brood stock lakes here. The Wisconsin biologists know how to do it as I believe they did it on Long Lake and now will be doing it in Green Bay every year to keep that program going. Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 3/24/2005 9:09 PM | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Tom First I would like to say that I believe that there are basically 2 species of muskies. A large growing strain that evolved to co-exist with northern pike in river systems. And a smaller strain that evolved in land locked lakes with no pike present. Beyond that both have adapted to local conditions somewhat over time. Larry or Bob are able to best handle this so I will not get into it too much. The differences between the two species have been discussed before on this site so I will not go into that. One thing that I dont think has been talked about though is the ovaries of these fish. Thats something Larry could best answer so maybe he can talk about that sometime. Its pretty interesting. Anyway I think the situations in both MN and WI were very similar before MN changed its brood stock in 1982. Here is a partial list of the similarities between stocking practices along with similarities between Shoepac fish, Spooner hatchery, and Woodruff hatchery fish. 1) Stocking focused on numbers, not quality 2) They are easier to net 3) They spawn in shallower water 4) The egg survival was better than with eggs from larger fish (because the eggs they got from the larger fish were taken before the were ripe because they were taken too early in to cold of water temps) 5) They spawn in colder water temps 6) These fish rarely exceed 42 inches in length. 7) They mature at very small sizes 8) They mature at very early ages 9) They only spawn once 10) They do not do well in waters with northern pike Mn has about 80 waters listed as musky waters today, although the number is actually closer to 100 due to fish entering into other waters through rivers, creeks etc.... Prior to MN changing its brood stock and expanding its musky waters there were at least 42 native musky waters according to the MDNR. I can name each and every one if you like. And, yes they increased the number of waters through introductions of muskie to new waters. How many native musky waters were there in WI before man? I don't know. Even our DNR does not know. They believe that fish were being moved around before anyone started keeping records of this practice. So we can only speculate on that. My guess would be rivers and drainage waters associated with the mississippi river and the great lakes, but its anyones guess. Something that we most likely will never know for sure. The pen raised theory is one that Bob and I have discussed on a few occasions ourselves. Does raising muskies in pens (hacheries) alter them in any way over long periods of time? Are we slowly but surely creating a new breed or strain of musky by doing this? Perhaps a strain that thrives in hatcheries but not in the real world? Very good point. I don't have the answers unfortunately. I doubt the DNR would either. I agree the natural way is the best way but with all the human intervention that has taken place for the last 100 years or so with mixing fish, moving fish, building of dams and other obstructions, continously destroying lakes, lake shores, spawning areas, introducing pike into waters where they did not exist prior to us putting them there, and I'm sure this applies to other species as well, pollution, harvest, C & R, and the list goes on and on. I often wonder how just how well muskies survived before man came along. Obviously they did or they would not be here today. I agree that genetic diversity is an important thing. However you can achieve that with a pure strain of musky. MN does it. They rotate thier broodstock fish (change them out with replacements) every 5 years I believe. They also use at least 7 brood stock lakes, I think it may be 8, that were puposely selected in 3 different regions in the state for good reasons. WI uses 2 brood stock lakes, with the exception of the green bay projects brood lake. Both states had same situations going on 25 + years ago. Both were lacking large muskies. Both were stocking small strains of muskies. Both were stocking for numbers, not quality. in 1982 Mn changed, WI did not. MN now has large muskies, WI does not. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wisconsin does not?? Let's look at this: Most of the Minnesoa experience is relatively new, since what, 1982? Thats a generational difference fo what, over 100 years between Wisconsin's programs and Minnesota's, for the most part?? Let's see what happens as Muskie angling grows in popularity over there, and harvest of the big fish increases. Down side? Arm chair biologists are trying to create policy by forced audience. This group has by it's own admission studied this for months. Biologists I have spoken to in Wisconsin, scientists working within the field, have made many observations that refute some, but not all of the conclusions of this group. Slamr has it right, and I believe HUNTERMD does as well. There are already FIFTY lakes earmarked for NO MORE STOCKING in the area I fish as part of an ongoing program underway before this group surfaced. The introduction of Leech Lake fish was also in planning stages in at least three large bodies of water here in a planned experiment. This also was underway before this group surfaced. A muskie genetic study is underway in Stevens Point that has actually identified the genetic marker at the mitochondrial level, and are scheduled for continuation to conclusion; concrete genetic study that will result in a far greater understanding of the Muskies we have across the range of the fish today. One member of the restoration group called that study a waste of taxpayer's money. I have news, if those scientists were NOT studying the Muskie genetics, they would INDEED be studying the genetics of some other organism. I'd prefer they study the Muskie, but that's me. Read my post in the other thread about the Cave Run fish. That's all evidence I pulled right from the documents that were shown to me today in the fisheries manager's office. The fish can and DO reach OVER 50 INCHES at just 9 years old. Just one more detail I left out so far. In Cave run and many of the rivers here in Kentucky, the Muskies die at an average age of 10. So many variables, so many details.... That's EXACTLY why it takes several years of College to get a fisheries biology degree, and even more to become a working scientist. Waves on the water make the wind blow. Moderation and working within the already fast changing system of management in Wisconsin, adaptation of the ideas that do work, that's the key here. | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Steve You pointed out something to me. When I said "MN now has large muskies, WI does not" I see I was in error. I left out two words. Lots & few. Sorry. What are the 3 lakes that were already slated for a study using leech lake fish? I would think that would have been pointed out to us during one of the many discussions we have had with DNR folks over the last 3 - 5 months or at least at the meeting in Madison or Stevens Point. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Tom McInnis said: "There is an inherent problem with the premise. The argument seems to be that stocking the "right strain" of muskie is going to be the cure all, when in fact the stocking mentality is what caused most of the problems we have here in Wisconsin. Don't get me wrong, muskie fishing in Wisconsin is still "world class", in terms of numbers of muskie caught each year and the amount of 3o pounders being caught each and every year. But it can be better. The problems that we have here are not necessarily visible but has to do more with the health of our fishery." My reply: Tom your statement is right on target, but it fails to consider the most important "why" in the mid 1900's. Yes, man stocked since 1874 for a myriad of reasons, in 1901 it was economic. Muskies had been fished down and they wanted more to draw tourism. It worked. They also expanded the range of the muskie, considered a "glamor" fish for the same reason. In the '50's and 60's and beyond, it was done "en-mass" to over come over harvest. In retrospect, and this is where you are right on target, it would have been better to simply close the endangered lakes to harvest. This is something that then and even now would not be well accepted, but it would have been the better course of action. Tom continues: "In order to improve our muskie fishery we need to abandon the concept of stocking pen raised muskies in waters that are natural to muskie. Since the state has started to the practice of stocking muskies in native muskie lakes, the number of lakes that can now sustain their population through natural reproduction is less than 20%. This is an alarming rate and it should be THE major concern for every muskie angler. I want to get the point across that this is a "CRISIS"!!! If we don't bite the bullet now and stop all stocking of muskie in native muskie lakes, then we will be just like the junkie who needs his fix, we will have to continue to stock and stock and stock because we would have displaced the naturally spawning muskie along with eliminating their genetic diversity that exist in each and every lake forever. I hope that it is not too late for most of our natural muskie but I am sure there are some lakes that are too far gone for the us to reverse the damage that has been done." My reply: Tom this is basically what we have been saying. As you point out, unfortunately some of the native muskie lakes are too far gone to survive without re-stocking of the large strain fish. Selective egg taking would at least use the "local" gene pool if taken only from big fish, and still a crap shoot. As you also pointed out, AFTER the DNR began stocking many of the former trophy musky lakes, there was a decline in both large size fish AND natural reproduction. It is simply because of the FISH strain used. We know that the stocked fish from Bone Lake have very little reproductive success where ever stocked, but they continue to use them and indicated that they will again this year. This is WRONG, and yes, it most defiantly is a "CRISIS!!" Tom continues: "It might sound to some that I have placed the blame on the WDNR and nothing could be farther from the truth. Over the years the pressures from fishing groups, business owners, and the average fisherman(myself included) have forced("force" might be too strong of a word for some so you can substitute "persuade" in its place) the WDNR to stock more and more fish without fully realizing the consequences." My reply: We too have indicated right from the start of this Project that we are not trying to point fingers at what was done in the past WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS FROM WELL MEANING, HARD WORKING, DEDICATED DNR PERSONAL. When most of the mixing was done in the mid 1900's, they did not have the knowledge available to them that we have today. They did the best they could. Now we have better information and should/must use it. Tom continues: "I do believe that stocking muskie in lakes that don't have a natural population is OK. And that if you are going to stock such a lake it should be from the biggest specimens. I do favor the stocking of the Leech Lake strain in waters that are found in the southern part of Wisconsin, where there would be no way that those muskie could find their way in to the northern lakes that have muskie or are void of muskies." My reply: We believe that this is a no brainer, especially since "downstream" is the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers being restored by Minnesota. As for the northern lakes, please remember that the drainage lakes there had Mississippi River strain muskies prior to man's intervention. If the DNR cannot or will not do selective egg taking, for whatever reason, and a native lake MUST be stocked (beyond hope as you noted above), there is no reason not to use a known, native, pure strain for stocking and hopefully expect a return to a self-sustaining population. Your final comment: "The notion that more stocking can improve what damages that stocking has created in the first place, is not logical." My reply: We agree to disagree here. My previous statement above pretty much covers it. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Slammer say: "I think, personally, it all comes down to this attitude: "Can't go wrong with a strain of fish that simply gets big." Sure you can. Example: the Fox Chain of Lake in Northern Illinois. Spotted muskies "Leech Lake Strain" have been put in the system for years, yet no large spotted fish are being caught. To my knowledge, no spotted muskies are being caught over 32". I don't personally know why that is, but I know it didn't work. So, just to say "it worked in MN., it will work here" MIGHT be a bit short sighted." My reply: Slammer, your facts are not correct. Leech Lake muskies were stocked in the chain in 1991 and 1992, in numbers that would have to be considered small for that size of water bodies. More recent stockings of Leech Lake took place in 1998 to 2004, again in relatively small quantities for water body size. Those have hardly been there long enough to contribute to the trophy fishery. There has been some large spots caught, obviously from the '91 and 92 stockings. Another thing to consider, and it has been discussed, is that just because they are Leech Lake fish, that is no guarantee that they will be spotted. Steve Sedesky said just yesterday that he catches spotted, barred and clear, for Leech Lake proper, which has NEVER been stocked. Slammer continues: "The DNR spends A LOT of $$$ to maintain the muskie program in WI, and yes changes need to be made, but MASSIVE/FAST changes DO NOT necessarily mean that changing how that money is spent, will help. Does the DNR need to make changes? Yes, and they know this, and have communicated this to people. Are they going to make changes just because "arm chair biologists" (and no, there has NOT been a single fisheries biologist comment on a SINGLE thread running right now) think they should? No, and I agree they shouldn't. Reading other studies, and ONLY finding evidence that supports your hypothesis is NOT science. The DNR might not have made all the right choices in the past, but they have communicated a desire to do so in the future." My reply: As we have repeatedly pointed out, if the choice to change were made to Mississippi River strain fish, the ONLY thing that would change is the "EGGS" placed in the hatchery jars. No additional cost! Apparently almost all agree that changes need to be made, but just what is it that has been "communicated?" So far, the only thing we have heard that they intend to do is yet another study, and then only in the southern, non-native waters. There has been NO addressing of the many other things we have pointed out, including continuing to stock mixed small strain fish into native waters and the Great Lakes. Call me an armchair biologist if you wish, but I find your statement; "Reading other studies, and ONLY finding evidence that supports your hypothesis is NOT science." completely without fact and merit and we would appreciate an apology. We have read and included everything available that we could find, both pro and con. Quite simply, the material supporting our statements was overwhelming. That no biologists have chosen to participate here is unfortunate. I have made many queries of a nature that was directed at them, but only they can say why they don't participate. We welcome it! You continue: "Communicating to the DNR our concerns, our hopes about and for the muskie fisheries is GREAT, telling them what should be done, will do nothing. We can yell in the wind all we want, but there is TOO MUCH MONEY at stake here to say that if we yell loud enough, changes will be made." My reply: Various folks have been trying to get something done about this small strain stocking in Wisconsin for 30 years. All have been ignored. As Tom McInnis so ably pointed out, most of our trophy muskie lakes are in CRISIS. Something needs to be done NOW, not after 10 more years of study in southern, non-native muskie waters, while northern Wisconsin muskie tourism continues is rapid decline! You finish: "We ALL need to make strides to work TOGETHER. So much goes on in the muskie community to keep us apart; the tourney vs. non-tourney fights, C&R fanatics telling others how to HOLD a fish, sites like Musky.com and MuskyAmerica.com publishing information that is personal attacks on other industry pros, arguing on the internet.....that needs to end. COMPROMISE and working WITH THE DNR is what is needed here....as well as compromising together. The DNR is NOT going to make wholesale changes, right or wrong, in their muskie programs, and we need to work WITH THEM TO HELP THEM TO HELP THE PROGRAM." My reply: You are correct, and hopefully, despite all of the things you mention, muskie anglers can come together on this very important matter and get something done. Heck, I'm even communicating with Pete Maina because of this, and we haven't exactly seen eye to eye over the past several years!! Due to the current state of affairs, I don't see a lot of "compromise" from the options in our proposal to the DNR. If they are unwilling to move ahead rapidly, perhaps a stocking moratorium in native muskie lakes is in order. I know several folks who would think this would be a "good thing," rather than continuing on with "business as usual." Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| From Luke Chinewalker: "Adding to what Slamr said, are all the people that think the Leech lake fish are the answer aware of Project Green Gene in Illinois? The ILDNR recognized a few years ago that fish generally don't get over 50" and often have trouble getting to 50" depending on the lake in IL. They also recognize we have very different types of bodies of water from north to south. I may not be totally accurate on this because I'm not close to it but my understanding of the project is that it is an attempt to understand what species are most suitable for each type of lake in each region of the state. They divided the state into three regions and are evaluating the success of each strain in each region. The project is designed to take 10 years because it will take that long to develop enough data to be meaningful. In high school science and stats classes we all learned that you have to have enough data to make a hypothesis with any integrity. Simply saying Leech Lake fish are successful in MN and the water that is in MN is also in WI may not be enough. Perhaps the WI DNR should talk to the ILDNR at the Muskie Symposium about Project Green Gene? Maybe they can develop a similar study that would deliver some improvement? My reply: Luke, we, and I am sure the DNR are aware of Project Green Gene in Illinois. Illinois is south of Wisconsin and is over 300 miles long. They have several different thermal regimes there and are wanting to know what strains perform best in each. Our native, and most of the non-native are similar to those in Minnesota, where "change" to the Mississippi River strain has shown phenomenal results. For you and Slammer to compare Illinois with Wisconsin is like comparing apples to oranges. I was involved for many years in getting the Illinois musky program started, and have kept abreast of what has developed there. They have a tremendous "mix" there as well. However, stocking of Leech Lakes muskies there in more recent times have yielded fantastic results, including a high forty inch class fish last year that was in its sixth year and a 53 incher from a 135 acre lake! Yes, LL fish work there too. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Just "borrowed" the following from another board: From: "kydave" 2. "RE: When the male muskies miss the spawn" "I'm no biologist or anything but I can tell you what I've seen from personal experience. I live about 15 minutes from Cave run and each year in mid April you can see dozens upon dozens of muskies swimming up any of the creeks that feed the lake. Some people say that these fish do not actually spawn but I have seen it. The males and females together and countless baby muskies swimming around in the creeks shortly there after. There were muskies in the Licking River long before Cave Run even existed (the licking was dammed to form cave run). My great grandfather told me of stories of huge muskies running the creeks way back in the 20's and 30's. I saw a baby musky once that had gotten stuck in some chicken wire trying to get to some minnows that had taken up refuge between it and the tree roots that was tangled. When I was younger we used to wade one of these creeks a lot pan fishing and bass fishing, we would catch a lot of baby muskies 6-12 inches. We actually had one that stayed in this one pool that stayed there until he got to be 28-30 inches and finally moved on out to the lake. Now I don't know how many of these fish survive form the spawn or anything but these big fish are effective spawners. I don't know if this helps or not but I just thought I would share my experience with you." MR. Worrall: From this Kentucky gentleman's first hand obversations, it would appear that perhaps there is natural reproduction in Cave Run, just not in the lake proper, but rather the native feeder streams. More food for thought. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| nwild |
| ||
Posts: 1996 Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I have stayed out of this for a long time, not to say I am not interested, in fact just the opposite is true. I wholeheartedly agree, there is something missing in the WI musky management. We are not managing for big fish. My own "anecdotal" opionion is that we are killing to many small muskies before they have the chance to become big muskies. I agree that there may be some issues with the strain of fish used to stock WI waters, but the long and short of it is this; you will not grow bigger muskies if they are harvested before having the opportunity to become big. I really believe that we have the proverbial cart in front of the horse here. We need to first put our efforts into protecting the fish so they have the chance to get big. There is no strain of fish in existence that grows in the freezer. Also, Larry Ramsell writes, "From this Kentucky gentleman's first hand obversations, it would appear that perhaps there is natural reproduction in Cave Run, just not in the lake proper, but rather the native feeder streams. More food for thought" Purely anecdotal. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Norm: Appreciate your getting involed. The more input we get the better it is. As we have repeatedly pointed out, high size limits will not allow small stain fish with limited growth potential to get big. They could change to catch and release only and it would make little difference with the stocks being used in the hatchery system. As for the Kentucky observation, I sincerely disagree with you that it is "anecdotal." It is rather first hand observation of what was seen. Hardly anecdotal. It doesn't counter what Mr. Worrall learned from the KDNR, it merely shows that natural reproduction may be taking place in areas that weren't surveyed, nothing more. Just more "food for thought." Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| HUNTERMD |
| ||
| Mike, you are right, the WDNR's long history of managing muskie in Wisconsin. Also, one thing to consider that until fairly recent, the WDNR stocked primarily the hibredized muskie, or "tiger muskie", because it was cheaper and the technology wasn't there to pen raise the pure strain of muskie with any high degree of success. Yes there was some stocking of the pure strain of muskie before the 1980's but it wasn't wide spread and most of them were what is refered to as " wild cat stocking" and it had little to no effect on the population and the genetic diversity. The problems that we face now in Wisconsin are relatively new. Can it be halted and reversed? YES!!! But now is the time we have to act and let the WDNR know that we want all stocking of muskie in native muskie lakes to cease. I for one am not convinced that the "Leech Lake strain" of muskie is superior to the "Wisconsin strain" of muskie. The Leech Lake strain has some good attributes to it's genetic makeup, such as it grows at a faster rate but this has only been due to the advent of catch and release that length now plays an important role in the success or lack of when it comes to measuring a person day, week or season of muskie fishing and I can foresee this trend to one day be an anachronism. It is true in the WDNR Research Report #175 concluded that the LL strain spends most of its energies in length where the WI strain spends most of its energies in gaining mass. This brings us to the point that a 50" Wisconsin muskie is going to weigh considerably more than a 50" Leech Lake strain muskie. And if someone is going to catch a new world record muskie, everyone will be concentrating on how much it weighed, and the length of the muskie will be a side note. I still believe that your best chance of catching a "world record muskie" is right hear in Wisconsin and the chances of that can increase with a new approach to our muskie management and I am hearing the right things coming from the WDNR. As a side note, I talked to a very good freind who landed and released on the Minocqua Chain, a 57" plus muskie trough the ice before the walleye and pike season closed and it barely fit through the 10" hole. I do beleive that "PIE" is 3.14 which would give that fish a 31.4" girth. We will soon be having photos of this giant on the WMT's web site for all to see. I think if we concentrated more on obtaining a healthier fishery through a natural process instead of trying to artificialy boosting the numbers and tinkering with the genetics, we can have a greater chance of encountering more examples of the Minocqua Chain brute! Thanks and you all have a great season and please don't be asking me where on the chain he caught the muskie, that you are going to have to find out for your self and if you do, what a story you are going to have, Tom McInnis | |||
| woody |
| ||
Posts: 199 Location: Anchorage | Norm, you believe that part of the problem is that we, in Wisconsin, kill too many small muskies before they have the chance to become big muskies." In my opinion that simply isn't true. Since C&R has become the standard in serious muskie circles, Wisconsin anglers have always had the rap of being the "catch and club" anglers in our sport. I haven't seen that to exist. I do not know of a muskie angler who considers muskie to be their main pursuit who has killed a muskie in the last 10 years, be that in WI, MN, or anywhere. The stigma may have applied 15, 20, or 25 years ago, but I don't think it does now. As far as muskies caught and killed by people fishing for another species, it happens everywhere. My third cent is something that I don't believe has been mentioned on this post yet. Though there may be a difference in the genetics between Leech and WI or MR fish that gives one a better opportunity to reach the magical number 50, and I don't think it exists, maybe we should look at the bodies of water these fish are inhabiting. Mille Lacs, Leech, Vermilion, all famed for producing huge fish in MN. All big bodies of water. The Chip, Turtle Flabeau, LCO, all famed for big fish in WI. Not on the scale as the MN lakes, but big in their own right. Point is, Minnesota produces MORE big fish, NOT BIGGER fish than Wisconsin becuase it has the water bodies which can support the multiple species of large forage to produce huge muskies. Bigger bodies of water also less affected by weather which produces a bad spawn, fluctations in prey popluations, and FISHING PRESSURE. WI smaller lakes do not have the capability of producing numbers of big muskies on the same scale as the MN lakes do. And to agree with Mr. Ramsell, I believe natural reproduction occurs in many more waters than we realize. Sex is the number 2 drive in any animal. Muskies can adapt to get their groove on. There, another guy with no expertise except for what he has observed telling you what you should believe.  Elwood | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Tom, For the record - ALL studies we have located that compare the LL and Wisconsin strains show that LL fish are longer AND heavier at each age than Wis strain. These studies were done by the experts. No bias here, just the facts from reports by Biologists. There is no available information that show Wisconsin fish weigh more than MS strain. You will find that in RR 175 and IR 418 both are available on the WIS and MN DNR websites. Everyone - repeat after me "Mississippi strain muskies are longer and heavier than Wisconsin strain Muskies". This wasn't always true.... Up until the late 1970's the Muskies throughout the Mississippi River drainage had the same length, girth and weight measurements. They appear to be the same fish with the same ultimate size ranges. Angler Water State Date Weight Length Girth Kelner Leech MN May-73 51-1 59 29.5 Slack Jr Big Round WI Jun-73 51-0 56.75 27 Allen Flambeau lake WI Sep-75 51-0 53 25.25 Lapp Lac Vieux Desert WI Jun-51 50-4 56 26 Schaft Lake 26 WI Jun-59 48-0 52.5 26.5 Holsapple Big Winnie MN May-74 45-8 55 24 Slack Jr Big Round WI May-72 44-12 51 25.75 Banks Mississippi River MN Nov-76 44-1 53 26 Weller Chippewa Flowage WI Jun-75 43-0 57.5 23 Cotton Leech lake MN Sep-76 40-3 56.5 24.5 LeMay Chippewa Flowage WI Aug-73 39-11 53 5/16 22 3/8 Mcfaul North Twin WI Sept -53 53-12 57.5 Bob | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Woody, Nice try but when you compare lakes of equal size MN wins by a landslide. It's not the lakes it's the fish. Check out the Muskellunge data tab at this website for a summary from the largest Muskellunge catch database available - A source often used and referenced by the Wisconsin DNR. http://www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org | |||
| woody |
| ||
Posts: 199 Location: Anchorage | Fair enough, all I'm saying is that A LOT more goes into growing a big muskie than good genes. What lakes were the longer and heavier fish taken from. This is where we in WI can get the "grass is always greener" syndrom without looking for solutions within. Look at the Twin Cities lakes for example, some have multiple strains of fish while others on the MN strain. Are the MN fish noticably larger in those lakes than the others. I haven't heard of or seen any difference. This is a great discussion and I would encourage a fisheries boliogist or two to give a word, maybe as a chat guest? Bob, you got in before me. I'm not trying anything, I'm just throwing ideas into the pool, right or wrong. Edited by woody 3/25/2005 1:35 PM | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 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 |