|
|
Posts: 1295
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | WMRP Questions for the WDNR:
1) Were known small growing Big Spider lake muskies planted into Lac Court Oreilles (LCO) and Bone Lake in 1956?
2) Why does Bone lake need to be stocked?
3) What percent of native waters stocked with Bone lake muskies have natural reproduction?
4) What percent of non-native waters stocked with Bone lake muskies have natural reproduction?
5) Can the DNR provide any data that shows there has been an increase in the number of muskies 50 inches or larger in Lake Namekagon, Lac Courte Oreilles, and Grindstone lakes since the 50 inch size limits went into effect.
6) Has there been any mixing of strains of muskies from different drainages, states, or other geographical locations within WI by either the DNR or other any sources in the last 130 years?
7) Were the Muskies in Nancy Lake found to be longer and heavier at THE SAME AGE than WI strain muskies?
8) Why did the DNR recently start stocking Great Lakes strain walleyes into Great Lakes drainage waters and Upper Mississippi River strain walleyes into Wisconsin's Upper Chippewa River/Mississippi River drainage waters, but have not done the same thing with muskies and refuse to do so?
9) What is the average length female being stripped for eggs from Bone Lake?
10) What water temp does the DNR target for collecting muskie eggs from Bone Lake?
11) How many 50-inch muskies has the DNR netted in Bone Lake in the last 10 years?
12) What is the WDNR’s opinion on why LCO is not producing the numbers of trophy size (50-inch +) muskies of the past even though there has been a huge increase in catch and release, a 50” size limit on the lake since 1996 and an abundance of the type of forage supposedly needed to produce large trophies?
13) Is there an agreement between WI and bordering states about what strains of fish are to be stocked into border waters, especially the Great Lakes?
14) Is the WDNR violating the Great Lakes Charter agreement with regard to fish management?
15) Has the WDNR used Muskies Inc. data in any research reports?
16) Is the WDNR collecting eggs from a "single" known "pure native strain" of muskie for its hatcheries?
17) What strain of Muskie is native to Great Lakes drainage waters?
18) What strain of muskie is native to Mississippi River drainage waters?
19) If studies are done on some lakes in WI the results indicate that the Mississippi River strain grows larger than other strains in the same waters, will the DNR then change and use this strain in its hatcheries as its primary brood stock?
20) Please tell us when the WDNR muskie committee was formed?
21) Please tell us how many times the WDNR's muskie committee members have actually met with each other to discuss WI muskie management and trophy management before Feb. 22nd 2005?
22) What specific plans or studies, if any, were already in the works by the WDNR muskie committee to better the WI trophy muskellunge fishery prior to January of 2005?
23) Is there any credible scientific evidence that Bone Lake muskies are genetically THE SAME as what occurred in NW WI rivers historically? If yes, please tell us where we can see this evidence for ourselves.
24) What did the average size of muskie in WI increase from and increase to because of catch & release? Could you please provide this data to the public?
25) Could you please provide data that shows that the number of muskies from 40 to 50 inches has increased from Lake Namekagon since the 50 inch size limit was imposed and also on the other lakes in WI with either a 40 inch or larger size limit?
26) Why beginning in 1984 did the WDNR choose to put the Leech Lake strain muskies you got from the MDNR into a lake with out other strains from WI to study and compare with if you were seriously considering the Leech Lake strain as a new broodstock source for WI?
27) Do the people on Nancy Lake want the DNR to start stocking it with Leech Lake muskies again?
28) Why do WI’s large lakes with an abundance of forage not even come close to producing the number and size muskies lakes of similar size in MN produce?
29) Why did the WI strain muskies not grow as large as the Mississippi River strain muskies in the same lakes with the same forage available when the MDNR did studies comparing them over 20 years ago?
30) How many years will it take of studying different strains of muskie in WI waters before the DNR would make the decision to change its broodstock to a different large growing strain?
31) Will the DNR change the strain used as broodstock if it finds that a particular strain grows larger than our current strain being used in WI?
32) How many studies will need to be done and how many years will it take before the DNR would change the strain being used as its broodstock for the entire NW part of the state of WI or all the waters being stocked with Bone lake muskies now?
33) How many studies were done and how many years did it take before the DNR to decided to use only Bone Lake muskies as broodstock for all of NW WI and can we see the results of these studies?
34) Why does the DNR not acknowledge past genetic science instead of wanting to re-invent the wheel?
35) Why does some in the DNR now want to dis-credit the studies done by Leon Johnson, DNR Research Scientist?
36) Why does the DNR not acknowledge that there are differences in reproductive strategy within the muskellunge species? |
|
| |
|
| That is an awesome set of questions Larry. My favorites are #25, 31,and 34.
Edited by DJS 4/20/2005 7:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
| some of these questions are things that the answers are already known to or that the WMRT knows full well that the DNR does not know/doesn't have data about - ie., the answers are in documents/reports published by the DNR themselves and widely quoted by the WMRT.
what is your goal in asking the DNR those sorts of questions?
Edited by lambeau 4/20/2005 8:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Good questions but, you folks at the "WMRT" are going to have to tone it down a bit. If I was the one who received that letter, I'd tell you to go pee up a rope.
Just out of curiosity, how many times has someone from the WMRT had face-to-face discussions with the WNDR staff? I'm talking about a scheduled meeting...not at a hearing or a town hall meeting, etc., just you and them?
B.S.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| great questions - perhaps, and only perhaps, is there even a hint of a "bite" to these questions, however, I think, they are good, interesting questions. Certainly not inappropriate. In fact, since we as sportsman and taxpayers pay the salaries etc....of the WDNR I'd like to know the answers - if the answers are out there - just share/or tell us were to find 'um. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 354
| I tend to agree with the last couple of posts. Honey attracts more bees. Rationale? Objective? Concern for the resource as a whole? Or just your desire to catch big fish? Who would you rather work with? Someone who backs you into a corner? The DNR gets kicked around every day. More of the same probably won't work really well.
I hope you guys succeed. I'm not against your goals. I just wonder about your tactics sometimes........ |
|
| |
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | Ben, I was thinking the same thing, along the lines of, "I wouldn't wanna be the state worker who gets THAT put on his desk!" You did leave out the question about Do you still beat your wife? but maybe that's covered as a followup to some of the other leading questions. Why not just tell them straight out what the problem is instead of playing 20, well, 40 questions? Remember, these guys are on our side. m |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| I agree with BenR here, might be time to put the guns away. I have been pretty much in agreement with WMRT from the start but this line of questioning is starting to look more like a vendetta. There is a lot more to gain going forward than going back and fighting out what happened in the past.  |
|
| |
|
| Why?
Why?
Why?
Constant bickering.
Stupidity. Like Muskies hunting in packs.
|
|
| |
|
| not that this post will further the thread but, it's interesting to see the differences in replies to the topic between MF and MH...
hmmmmm
bs |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I noticed that too, Brian.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | I've HAD lists of demands similar to that dropped on my desk before, maybe not quite as caustic or accusatory...it's all part of the job; you learn to live w/ it.
K. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi,
I've been telling you Larry and Mr Benson right from your first nasty e-mail that you folks were going about this the wrong way and now look your not only pissing the DNR off the majority of the folks you are trying to get support from are starting to questions your motives. I think you need to take a new approach with some new people at the helm if we want anything to get done. My first suggestions be Mr Sworall and Mr. Roberts if for any reason as a reasonable mouth piece for WMRT and the common Wisconsin musky angler.
Thanks
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 4/20/2005 3:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I can't believe the negative comments some of you are posting,all though not too harsh!I give Larry credit for sticking his neck out,he's only trying to help us catch bigger and badder muskys,that's not so bad!I'm not offended one bit by his appraoch,in fact his straight forward-forthright style is the only way to go.If he tryed to sugar coat his appraoch the public would see right through. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| right on muskie man! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I personally dont think anyone on this board, or any muskie board would speak out against what Mr. Ramsell is overall trying to accomplish (more and bigger muskies), I believe more people are judging Mr. Ramsell negatively about the the tone that he projects to his intended audience, the DNR.
|
|
| |
|
| personally, i want this effort to succeed. bigger muskies = GOOD.
i'm excited about the possibility of seeing Great Lakes and Leech strain fish in waters near where i live.
i'm excited about the possibility of better/bigger WI strain muskies being used for brood stock further north.
however, i'm concerned that going about it in a passive-aggressive fashion will result in defensiveness on the part of decision-makers (the DNR) rather than engagement in dialog and cooperative efforts.
in my opinion, asking questions intended to embarrass the DNR by focusing on the negatives of the past is likely to receive a negative response, or at best, no response.
i can empathize with the frustration experienced by the WMRT on this. they're very clearly as passionate about improving the fishery as anyone out there. i'm no defender of the DNR, but i am willing to believe that the DNR fishery employees are passionate as well.
i'm just asking that someone who's willing to take on a visible role to be a change agent, do so in the best possible way to receive results...and i believe cooperation is more effective than confrontation.
i know the WMRT says that they tried a cooperative approach "behind closed doors" - meaning that they didn't attempt to publicly challenge the DNR at that time. a few months of frustration is not enough of a reason to throw that approach away and start taking shots at them.
i hope it works, but i don't believe it will.
alot of free "advice" has been sent the WMRT's way...which they've generally ignored. that's their prerogative. however, when you start losing your support base, you start losing the war. words have power, and LOTS of people read them and form opinions based as much on the style as on the content.
don't lose the message! this is why change groups hire professional lobbyists and spokespersons. it allows the information gatherers to focus on what they're good at, and let's the talkers do what they're good at.
take it for what it's worth. i'm not a fisheries scientist and i'm not a famous muskie personality, but i am a state employee who knows a thing or two about systems and human behavior in the social environment. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | Right on, Lambeau.
Most everyone would like to see more big muskies in Wisconsin, and I'm glad an organization is looking into how that can be accomplished. However, the way many of those questions are phrased seems to try to place some kind of blame on the WDNR (rightfully or not). The folks working in the Department have always had the best interest of the fisheries' in mind, they just may have not been able to execute their desired plans to as hoped because of outside pressure, mainly from Madison in the form of budget squeezing. It's hard to make drastic changes when money is being taken away from the DNR at the rate it is.
As far as the Bone Lake questions, particularly #11, Bone will not produce astounding numbers of 50+ inch "trophy" fish. It's not even 2000 acres and has a forage base of mainly panfish and sucker. However, while fishing it heavily over the past for years I have seen, seen caught, and helped land many fish in the 46-48 inch class along with roughly a half-dozen 48-50+ inch fish. Bone Lake grows large muskies and would seem to be a viable lake to produce brood stock with it's dense population as well.
Elwood Brehmer
Edited by woody 4/20/2005 6:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 671
Location: Twin Cities, MN | Based on the reactions people's comments got on a string under genetics with this topic, I am not sure why some people are surprised with the lack of postings on this issue on MF.
I have re-posted my comments from the genetics string below as I think they are still relevant.
"If anyone remembers, it pretty much took an Executive Order from the President of the United States, just to change a few lakes to have minimum size limits a couple years ago. I cannot imagine the frustration you must endure to get the WI DNR to review how stocking is being done, let alone what type of fish to stock. Remember, that few people like to admit problems or mistakes at your job.
I commend Larry and those others willing to stand up and say something, take the heat, and have everyone one else micro-manage how it should be done, as if some miracle is going to occur overnight and the WI DNR is going to make changes.
How much longer do those of us who fish in WI, want the status quo from our fishery ? Are we content with our fishery ? Why not make changes to improve it and make it even better. The status quo has not done much for us over the last 20 years. I myself am concerned how the WI fishery will be when my two daughters are fishing with me in a few years. "
Pal |
|
| |
|
| I wouldn't answer these questions if I were running the DNR. Larry's group has already published data from MI without permission in an attempt to justify their goal. If I were the DNR I would be very skeptical any data given to Larry's group would be used in an appropriate context and that they would get permission prior to publishing anything. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | I want to first say that I absolutely respect all of the passion the gentlemen of the WMRT have shown to the betterment of our musky fishery. I also think that there is validity to a whole lot of what they have to say.
Larry, I am 100% behind improving the fishery in Wisconsin. I run a guide business too, the more people coming here to fish, the more clients we both get.
Now comes the critique part.
The DNR, like them or not, is a govermental agency. With any gov't agency, change comes about very slowly, and that is when every thing is done right, and the people working there are 100% behind the effort. Right now, the fisheries guys are behind bettering musky fishing in Wisconsin. They have indicated that they want to better it and have announced a plan to work toward that. Your group should be very proud of itself for that fact. It may have happened without your prodding, but it is happening now, partially because of it.
I am very fearful that continually smacking the hornet's nest now is not going to help our chances of advancement. If we are going to get anything done we need these people on our side, not as enemies. Let me put it to you this way, if you have a client that continually questions and critiques your methods of guiding and outright tells you that you are doing it wrong, how hard are you going to work for them? Probably not as hard as you would for the client that always throws an extra couple bucks in the pay at the end of the day and sings your praises.
Right now the DNR is working for us. I really don't think we need to alienate our small group of fishermen from them. I am on your side, and I can feel the animosity you have toward them. Can you imagine how the fisheries biologist sitting in Madison that doesn't musky fish at all feels? I do think we need to hold them on task, but without a doubt a gentler tone would keep them on our side. My biggest fear is that we alienate them to the point where they want nothing to do with the musky fishermen of Wisconsin. |
|
| |
|
| Larry and Crew,
Keep up the good work. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 373
Location: Huber Heights, Ohio | I am getting tired of seeing this on the General Discussion forum. There have been times where the same post has been posted at both of these forums at the same time. This discussion should be confined on the Muskie Research forum. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pal,
It wasn't the DNR who stopped the proposal cold for the 50" limit here, it was the public. It was voted down resoundingly. The frustration can't be placed at the DNR's doorstep there, or with other issues defeated, like the Muskie stamp. I'm not defending anyone here, I'm simply offering the facts of the matter.
Larry asks this:
1) Were known small growing Big Spider lake muskies planted into Lac Court Oreilles (LCO) and Bone Lake in 1956?
In the study he references, the people conducting the research were surprised at the slow growth of the BSL fish. It created an anomoly in the growth rates in LCO portion of the work, and is clearly noted. It's apparent, at least to me, that the researchers were surprised by the BSL fish's progress. Keep in mind this was 1956, and the science wasn't what it is today. Larry's question makes it look like the fish were known to be inferior, and the researchers planted them anyway. From what I can tell, they were 'known' to be slow growing fish because of some unidentified hereditary trait AFTER the research. There also is an inference that these fish stocked in 1956 are creating a situation where all the fish stocked from LCO and Bone today will exhibit the genetic traits of the BSL fish, which is questionable.
Like the WMRT says 'It's the fish', I respond that if they want to get a spirit of cooperation from most folks and especially the State of Wisconsin, they need understand why it's not working. 'It's the attitude.'
I suggest moderation and patience, and at leat a rudimentary attempt form EVERYONE involved to understand and accept the position of the bologists that are working with the Muskies in Wisconsin. Mike Roberts is doing exactly that, there's a good model of how this can go!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i was going to post on the musky hunter board consistent with the sentiments here, why i didn't who knows, who cares? fundamentally whether it's business, personal or political ... a negotiation requires good faith, honesty and a potential of a win-win finish by both parties. you'll never get what you want no matter how much you may "deserve" it by starting out with disrespect of the other party no matter what is perceived right and wrong. the questions to me look like the have a foundation of logic with the unfortunate twist of a personal self-righteous agenda. this actually makes sense because it's obvious by the time and effort that it's very important to the key players; however it would make sense to me for this process to include a professional negotiator to apply some strategy to it and take it away from the "heart" of people who might be too close to be able to differentiate anger from strategy. |
|
| |
|
| Everyone,
Please remember that the DNR works for us, the citizens of WI. Their salaries are paid by us. Just because they are employees of the government, does that grant them the right to refuse to answer any and all legitimate questions when asked? I sure hope not. Shouldn't it be just the opposite? I don't think these questions are taking shots at the DNR at all. They are questions that are of great importance and should be to everyone. Why wouldn't you want to know the answers to these questions if you really care about our resources and how they are managed? The DNR works for us. Is it unfair for any of you to be asked questions about the work you have done or are doing from your employer? Wouldn't you expect to be asked by your employer from time to time about what you are doing or have done or results from your work? The answers to these questions can tell us a lot about our fishery. Whether the WMRP already knows the answers to some of these questions or not does not matter. What matters is that everyone knows the answers and gets the answers directly from the DNR. Without the DNR themselves answering or acknowledging these questions and concerns there will always be some doubt in some peoples minds about what the real answers are. If someone who does not have a biology degree reads a document written by a biologist and then passes that information on to others, they get slammed by some people because they are not a biologist themself and then the info is tossed aside as if it is not accurate or unreliable. We have seen this happen over and over for the past few months now. These questions are not intended to offend the DNR or take shots at them. They are intended to get the FACTS out to the public and straight from the horses mouth. Many issues and/or answers will continue to be unaccepted as reality by some folks until the DNR themselves provides the answers to the public. Making very vague and general statements such as "we use only wild fish" or "we do not use fish from outside the area" does not answer the questions and only begs more questions in my opinion. Everyone deserves the right to ask questions such as these and to get answers directly from those who work for us and are responsible for managing our resources. Again, this is not an attempt to slam the DNR. It is intended to get the facts out to the public and directly from the experts themselves. I would think that there are for more people out there that would like to see the DNR address and answer these questions and provide the data that supports thier answers rather than remain silent or beat around the bush when answering to the public or making statements to the public.
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Mr. Johnson,
Again I want to mention the tone of which you ask these questions and refer to the DNR. It shows up again in your latest post.
I quote you,
"Please remember that the DNR works for us, the citizens of WI. Their salaries are paid by us."
Law enforcement officers also work for us with salaries paid by the citizens. Try that rhetoric with them and see where it gets you. The people at the DNR will likely react the same when confronted with this attitude.
I don't think there is a person that has participated in any of this discussion that is not at least in partial agreement with your cause. I think the cause is noble. The path you are taking to get to the end result, however, needs some work. The current methods and attitudes, in fact, could be quite destructive to the end goal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi Norm,
That is a perfect response to the above post as far as I'm concerned. People are people and to have their integruity questioned is going to get the WMRP nowhere. I hope they change their tatics or it will be the big goose egg for all of us musky fisherman and women.
Thanks
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJ
I would add that you are using this forum for the campaign the WMRT has begun with permission of the publisher. Sure, this is a busy place, but this isn't a State Agency or the DNR.
If one is not a biologist or scientist, and wants to present scientific documents for review and possible application to a scientist or biologist, that has to be done without the layman drawing and announcing as fact preconceived notions.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1438
| Thank you Norm....
|
|
| |
