Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Nancy Lake Discussion |
| Message Subject: Nancy Lake Discussion | ||||
sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | s Posted 11/11/2005 9:02 AM (#165159 - in reply to #164281) Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete Posts: 280 100100252525 Location: Rhinelander, WI Thanks again Dave, very interesting stuff. I really appreciated you coming into this public forum and answering these questions. Slamr, I don’t know who MuskyMonk is and I understand you guys have been embroiled in a, sometimes bitter, debate with the WRMP people, but I think you are being a little harsh, on Monk, relating to this thread. It took his comments as personal experience, which is worth something in my book. You have to understand their frustration when it comes to LCO. A trophy lake with a great history, and a recent history of not living up to potential, even with a 50” size limit. If a person has successful experience on a lake my guess is they will consider it a success even if netting success is dismal. Who knows the variables involved with both experiences. Here is one of my personnel experiences: A number of years ago I had two lakes on my hit list. I talked to a respected friend at the DNR who was working on netting crews at the time. I asked him about the two lakes. Lake one he told me was full of stunted panfish and didn’t have enough oxygen to support forage for a fishable population of musky. Lake two would be dynamite, they had captured loads of musky in the two year survey they had just completed out there. He suggested I spend my time on Lake Two. I spent my time that summer exploring lake two and never even saw a musky. Another friend fished lake one, I never had the chance to tell him of my conversation. First time out he saw a couple nice fish. By the end of that year we had over 10 fish from lake one with an average size over 43 inches, 48 ½ was the biggest, with a couple of sightings of fish over 50. Lake two gave up one fish that summer, and I still to this day have personally never seen a fish out there. Are the fish out there? Sure they are, they where captured in the nets. I just haven’t been able to hit the lake when the time was right. If the DNR tried to net lake one would they get fish, who knows? Maybe we just figured out a way to catch a limited number of fish in the lake. But no matter what the DNR would find, the lake would be a success in my mind. What we consider successes as fishermen, doesn’t necessarily mean they would be good brood stock lakes. That is what we pay the DNR for and if they can’t capture the fish when they need to be captured the lake can’t be used. By the way, I still have great respect for my DNR buddy, he was just passing information on to me. They can only work with what they have, if you want to use that info you need to interpret it for yourself and look at all the variables. These fish can drive a sane person to the nut-house, imagine how the people that know LCO feel. I think this is where all the passion is coming from. They have been waiting for LCO to turn around for years and it’s not happening. People who have invested in this body of water emotionally and economically want something done and they want it in a hurry. I can feel their pain. Nail A Pig! Mike Profile Private message E-mail Homepage Slamr Posted 11/11/2005 10:04 AM (#165174 - in reply to #164281) Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs MR, Possibly I am being a bit "harsh" at times in this debate, and if I'm offending people in my approach, for that I apologize. However, as an interested party in the results of the efforts of both the WMRT and the DNR, I am looking for real IMPERICAL knowledge that things are as they are stated. As a group that fights the use of "anecdotal" evidence or information in studies, I think it is only proper that in trying to influence the public, they present to the public REAL PROOF. If fish are being caught, lets see the pictures! If they're film pictures, scan'em! If Minnesota DNR guys are saying that the nets are placed in the wrong places, get them on record saying that they are. Maybe I'm a picky one, but I prefer to base my opinions on proof that is backed up by scientfic or tangleable proof. The WDNR muskie stocking is a huge effort, costing almost a million dollars a year, and I think many people within DNR the would agree that mistakes have been made in the past, and they would admit that they have NOT been perfect in all their approaches over the last 100 years. However, the groups attempting to shift policy (in my own opinion) should be working in a professional manner; presenting TANGIBLE PROOF, backed up by the DIRECT WORDS of DNR/Fisheries Biologists/Researchers to those in charge of the programs. But, thats just me, my editorial thought processes at work. I guess I'm starting to see it like this: if a court of law were judging this issue, how would it be judged. Who is bringing the "expert witnesses" and scientific data to the table, and who is not. ----- Andrew "Slamr" Golden [email protected] Reese's Country Store, the Place for Hughes River Jerk Baits (304)679-3502 or [email protected] for information Profile Private message E-mail Homepage MuskyMonk Posted 11/11/2005 12:57 PM (#165192 - in reply to #164281) Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete Slamr, Take a chill pill, I'm not out to pick a fight. The pictures exist of the two people I referred to, contact Larry Ramsell and he probably will show them to you. And if you read his posts, you probably can figure out who the fisherman he is referring too. And listen, I understand that the DNR did not have success netting this spring. AND I AM NOT QUESTIONING THERE RESULTS. Maybe there were other factors involved on why they didn't catch more fish, maybe not. WHAT I DO KNOW, FROM THE FACTS, is the fish that were netted were big. Much bigger than what has been netted elsewhere. And the fish that were documented to be caught were big. An average much better than what I have experienced on LCO and the Chip. If Larry's information is correct, the two fisherman noted above caught 32 muskies in about 90 days of fishing that averaged 45". To me, THATS A TROPHY FISHERY. Point me to another lake in Sawyer county with that type of success and I'll gladly trailer there. What I do know personal experience is that LCO sucks wind as a musky lake and change is badly needed. That lake has so much potential its scary. And what I'm trying to understand is since the current strain in LCO is failing, why not try another one? And my question still stands to Mr. Neuswanger: Why weren't any Sawyer County lakes given permission or considered to stock LL strain fish? And please tell me why LCO WOULDN'T be a candidate to study this strain? Because to me, the current strain used there is a disaster. Slamr Posted 11/11/2005 1:07 PM (#165195 - in reply to #164281) Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete Posts: 3579 20001000500252525 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs I was a bit over the top, and for that I apologize, again. Passions run high in this debate, eh? And NO ONE is saying there arent big fish. But the purpose of Nancy Lake wasnt to see whether or not the fish got big, but to see whether or not you could create a self-sustaining fishery with LL stock fish in this lake. The presence of big fish, without small fish in the nets shows a population of mature fish, and I know that certain people will say that the nets were set "wrong" to find these fish, but is anyone catching fish that give evidence to natural reproduction, as in smaller fish that were the product of LL fish makin babies? If this is going on, can we see evidence? I guess for me 11 fish in the nets doesnt show anything except that there are a few big fish remaining from stocking a number of years ago. And the presence of 2 fish without fin clips over 110+ net pulls doesnt say anything to me significant, and it doesnt to the DNR either. But I like to make a habit of being wrong at least 10X a day, maybe this is one of those cases. Maybe I'm wrong, lets see the pics. Larry, I know you're watching, what is the easiest way to get the pics of these fish onto the site? ----- Andrew "Slamr" Golden [email protected] Reese's Country Store, the Place for Hughes River Jerk Baits (304)679-3502 or [email protected] for information Profile Private message E-mail Homepage sworrall Posted 11/11/2005 1:08 PM (#165196 - in reply to #165192) Subject: RE: Musky Vs. Pike - Do they compete in the first months of life? Quote Reply Edit Delete 500020001000500100252525 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin I agree, Larry's associates' angling information sounds great. I'd like to know the year and timeframe, that should help bring this into perspective. There's alot more at play on that water body that is not being discussed, remember that up to 40% of any muskie yerar class can die every year, and if NR is poor or absent, the year class can disappear in one heck of a hurry, leaving only a few large fish. Problem here is this is a thread about muskie/pike interaction and competition, and it has been hijacked somehow. I'm moving the debate about the nancy Lake fish elsewhere, it doesn't belong here. ----- Steve Worrall OutdoorsFIRST Media OK, there it is so far. I'll direct you to scientific data when necessary ro answer questions as best as I can locate same, and perhaps Mr. Ramsell can shed more light on when those 32 fish were caught, if not by whom. | |||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | This is a excerpt from a communication we received to a question we asked about the research work on Nancy this Spring: 'The objective was to assess feasiblity of using Nancy Lake for LL strain broodstock for a research study. Our conclusion was that the numbers handled would not be sufficient to support a hatchery egg take operation, given practical limitations to staffing and concerns about inbreeding depression ( a problem when small numbers of fish are used )and the need to hold individual fish (1/day can't be spawned!). Nine nets were set at eleven locations (a couple of nets were moved during sampling) on the lake, including most locations reported to yield fish in previous netting surveys. We did not do a population estimate.' It would indicate that there was no population estimate done, but the determination was made that due to low capture numbers over a 10 day period with 9 nets and 78 pulls, the population was not large enough to use the stocks in Nancy for the prescribed purpose and Leech Lake muskies would be purchased from Minnesota. We will clarify if there is anything missed or misquoted. ----- Steve Worrall OutdoorsFIRST Media | |||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | From Musky Monk Thanks Dave, I do appreciate your answers and was able to understand your points. Just to let you know, I do support WRMP's efforts mainly because I am life long musky fisherman that chooses to fish in Wisconsin (Hayward area) and want to see our area's musky fishing improve. From my standpoint, the musky situation on LCO is absolutely deplorable, if not critical. This really saddens me because my cabin is roughly three miles from this lake and would really like to see that situation improve. The one thing bothering me with the current Leech Lake study and stocking efforts underway is that not one Sawyer county lake is going to be included. Now I follow you on the issue of outbreeding depression, but given the situation with the current musky population on LCO, I would think that the WDNR's better option would be to attempt to stock LL strain fish instead of transporting 500 Butternut muskies there. Obviously, whatever musky strain exists in LCO now is not working, why not try a different one? I have to think the costs would be less to stock than to spend time and effort in capturing and transporting fish. Nancy Lake was a success, an overwhelming success. It would be amazing if we could replicate those results in LCO. But for now, my next trip up north, I'm going to leave Sawyer Co. and fish Nancy Lake. Again, from Muskie Monk | |||
| Bob |
| |||
| Musky Monk, In the future you will be able to fish Lake Wissota near Eau Claire for these large growing fish that were stocked in Nancy lake. A successful stocking of MS strain Muskies occurred this past week in Lake Wissota! The 1st Wisconsin Chapter of Muskies Inc. worked very hard to get this accomplished. Mark Hintz, Fred Johnson and the whole club in general should feel very proud of what they accomplished. None of this would have been possible without the Local DNR there. The 1st Wisconsin club is thankful to have a DNR rep that is willing to listen and work with the local Muskie clubs. Bob Benson | ||||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| |||
| IN RESPONSE MuskyMonk's POSTING TRANSFERRED HERE BY STEVE WORRALL: MONK: I do appreciate your answers and was able to understand your points. Just to let you know, I do support WRMP's efforts mainly because I am life long musky fisherman that chooses to fish in Wisconsin (Hayward area) and want to see our area's musky fishing improve. DAVE: Thanks, Monk. I assume you mean WMRP. It is refreshing to have a CIVIL dialogue with someone who does not agree with WDNR policy in this matter. And just so you know, I am a lifelong musky angler too, as are many of my colleagues. My grandfather virtually crawled in and out of a wooden rowboat to fish for muskies on Sevenmile Lake in Forest County (east of Eagle River) until two weeks before lung cancer finally ended his life. My wife’s parents have fished for muskies in the Hayward area since the late 1940s. I still have a great black-and-white photo of my petite mother-in-law in a safari hat, holding up a fat 44-incher she caught in Little Round Lake in 1949. It’s hard to guess who weighed more, Julie or the fish! Musky fishing has actually improved in Wisconsin over the past 20 years (no thanks to me, I’ve been in Missouri), but I think it can be even better. We’re working on it. And we need support, not fist-pounding directives, from anglers who care. MONK: From my standpoint, the musky situation on LCO is absolutely deplorable, if not critical. This really saddens me because my cabin is roughly three miles from this lake and would really like to see that situation improve. DAVE: Many people agree with you about LCO, including me. I didn’t know what to believe about LCO when I first arrived in Hayward in summer 2002 and was approached by a number of local musky guides about the situation there. We met with several of them that fall at the DNR office in Hayward, where Sawyer County biologist Frank Pratt shared data from seven population estimates over a 30-year period. The results showed that muskellunge population density had not changed much at LCO during that time period – that it had always been a relatively low-density population capable of producing some large, old fish. Existing data failed to document a decline in number, and the proportion of really big fish had actually increased in WDNR samples. But knowing that population estimates can sometimes be misleading, especially on a lake as large and complex as LCO, we decided to conduct a special volunteer angler diary project to examine catch rates of muskellunge by musky anglers during 2003. Mike Persson and Art Malin of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. were instrumental in helping us design the record-keeping forms, and they recruited enough volunteers to provide us with data on almost 1,000 hours of musky angling effort during the following fishing season. The results confirmed what the guides had been telling us – average angler catch rate was a dismal 1 fish per 76 hours of effort directed toward muskellunge. (Compare that with the excellent Wisconsin state average of 1 fish per 25 hours of directed effort.) Many of the cooperators were experienced anglers. Something was happening at LCO that our population estimates were not detecting. MONK: The one thing bothering me with the current Leech Lake study and stocking efforts underway is that not one Sawyer county lake is going to be included. DAVE: Neither are any other lakes in the native range of muskellunge in northern Wisconsin. I support my agency’s science-based policy decision 100%, but everyone needs to know that this is not just Dave Neuswanger’s Sawyer County policy, it is WDNR’s native range policy. MONK: Now I follow you on the issue of outbreeding depression, but given the situation with the current musky population on LCO, I would think that the WDNR's better option would be to attempt to stock LL strain fish instead of transporting 500 Butternut muskies there. Obviously, whatever musky strain exists in LCO now is not working, why not try a different one? I have to think the costs would be less to stock than to spend time and effort in capturing and transporting fish. DAVE: Whatever strain exists in LCO was there, and apparently worked, for thousands of years before we Europeans came upon the scene and started introducing non-native species and strains. I hope that one day LCO muskellunge will again produce enough natural recruits on a regular basis that we will not even have to stock it. But in order to get to that point, where native fish can once again sustain themselves in the ecosystem where they evolved, we may need to take dramatic action to tip the esocid community balance back in favor of muskellunge. Most anglers at LCO feel strongly that northern pike are more abundant now than in the past. Frank Pratt and I are hoping that an infusion of adult muskellunge from Butternut Lake will begin to tip the scales of esocid community balance back toward muskellunge. Nobody knows if this will work, and my final approval of the project still depends upon whether the fish from Butternut Lake are genetically indistinguishable from those in LCO. They should be, because Butternut was stocked for many years with fingerlings from LCO broodstock. But we won’t know until we test. Fin tissue samples were collected last spring (50 from Butternut alone). The genetic testing will be conducted this winter. I hope you will agree that we are making a serious effort to understand and solve this problem. MONK: Nancy Lake was a success, an overwhelming success. It would be amazing if we could replicate those results in LCO. DAVE: Nancy Lake muskies grew fast and got big, but natural recruitment has been virtually nil, so I’m not sure how that translates to the “overwhelming success” claimed by proponents of stocking Leech Lake strain fish all over Wisconsin. In fact, WDNR fyke net capture rates at LCO last spring were much higher than those in Nancy Lake. As I mentioned above, we will not be stocking Leech Lake strain muskellunge into LCO or any other lake in the native range of muskies in northern Wisconsin. MONK: But for now, my next trip up north, I'm going to leave Sawyer Co. and fish Nancy Lake. DAVE: That is, of course, your prerogative. I know there are a few really nice fish there, and I wish you the best of luck in catching one. The Missouri Department of Conservation actually stocked some Leech Lake strain fish into Hazel Creek Lake in northeastern Missouri when I was still a fisheries regional supervisor down there. They are interesting fish. For some reason, they jump out of the water when being played on hook and line more often than the Pennsylvania-source fish that we had stocked previously. We also found them far more difficult to handle in our nets (more energetic) than the Pennsylvania-source fish. (The two strains were easily distinguishable – Leech Lake fish being silvery and spotted compared with the brown-bronze barred or unmarked fish from Pennsylvania.) Survival of the Leech Lake fish was not particularly high there, so we discontinued stocking them and returned to using the Pennsylvania-source fish that had performed so well. I know the Leech Lake fish do much better in their native range. Anyway, best of luck to you at Nancy Lake, Monk. Let us know how you do. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| Thanks Dave, again, appreciate the response. I will definitely report my efforts on Nancy... even if they are extremely limited. Couple of followup questions if I may, and please bear with me. However I would like to challenge you on a couple of points: Dave: "Whatever strain exists in LCO was there, and apparently worked, for thousands of years before we Europeans came upon the scene and started introducing non-native species and strains. I hope that one day LCO muskellunge will again produce enough natural recruits on a regular basis that we will not even have to stock it. But in order to get to that point, where native fish can once again sustain themselves in the ecosystem where they evolved, we may need to take dramatic action to tip the esocid community balance back in favor of muskellunge.. Frank Pratt and I are hoping that an infusion of adult muskellunge from Butternut Lake will begin to tip the scales of esocid community balance back toward muskellunge. Nobody knows if this will work, and my final approval of the project still depends upon whether the fish from Butternut Lake are genetically indistinguishable from those in LCO." Monk: You state that your goal is to develop a self-sustaining LCO musky population. I agree with that goal ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. And I do recognize the effort the DNR is employing. However my challenge to you is this, when was the last time LCO was documented to have a self sustaining population and can we identify WHAT strain contributed THAT success? Per the information from the WMRP, its possible that LCO has had no or little natural recruitment since as early as the 40's or 50's. And if this is the case, can we conclude that whatever native LCO stocks that were in the lake originally, that may have been sulfsustaining, have been wiped out due to angling, stocking, pike invasion etc. And if we were to conclude that the current stock in LCO is not the native stock and the Butternut fish show the same genetic profile to the current LCO population, why should we continue this strain? Are we introducing the Butternut fish to increase the predators of pike? Dave: "Nancy Lake muskies grew fast and got big, but natural recruitment has been virtually nil, so I’m not sure how that translates to the “overwhelming success” claimed by proponents of stocking Leech Lake strain fish all over Wisconsin. In fact, WDNR fyke net capture rates at LCO last spring were much higher than those in Nancy Lake. As I mentioned above, we will not be stocking Leech Lake strain muskellunge into LCO or any other lake in the native range of muskies in northern Wisconsin." Monk: I am glad we are in agreement that the LL strain in Nancy grew fast and got big. To me, that alone would exhibit a successful strain. The Green Bay restoration has been deemed a success based on the same criteria. However, you challenge the Nancy Lake success story due to a lack of natural recruitment. I would challenge you may not have the evidence to make that conclusion. From angler information presented by WMRP, the fisherman that caught the 32 muskies from Nancy said that 10 to 15 did not have noticeable fin clips or tags. Granted they are not fishery personnel, but they did put up to 90+ days on that lake and had success catching muskies. If they made the statement that 10 to 15 muskies did NOT have fin clips, then the remaining 17-22 muskies DID have noticeable fin clips. Even if we were to make a conservative estimate and say only 10 did not have fin clips, you still are talking about 33% of the fish caught were the result of natural recruitment. Couple that with the results of the netting, that 2 of the 6 fish netted did not have fin clips, 33% natural recruitment. See where I am going with this. To say that natural recruitment was virtually nil is premature and unjust based on the body of evidence. I challenge that the DNR does not have enough time and experience on this lake to make a conclusion as to the reproduction habits or success of the strain in Nancy lake. I understand that the goal of the netting effort was to determine if a brood source from Nancy Lake was possible AT THIS TIME. I do not disagree with the conclusion reached by the netters: The conclusion being that AT THIS TIME, there wasn't a enough NETTING SUCCESS to gain the neccessary material for a brood source. However, to make a conlcusion on the reproduction success based on one year of effort over a two week time span does not, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, constitute conclusive evidence. I realize that the DNR may never have the financial or human resources to make an accurate population estimate of Nancy Lake, or gain enough evidence to make a determination of the level of natural recruitment. What may be possible is to do on Nancy what was done on LCO. Engage local fisherman to put time on the water there and report and analyze their results. I believe it is important to get a complete picture of the story Nancy Lake has to tell and this may be a way to do it. Just my thoughts. And the fact that we are moving forward with the LL stocking elsewhere in the state, I believe that this should be a NECCESSARY addendum to the project. LAST QUESTION FOR TODAY: Much has been discussed about maintaining the genetic profile in LCO. However, the Chip has shown evidence in the past to have a large growing strain. Is there going to be any effort in id'ing that strain in the Chip so that we may stop stocking other strains (such as Bone Lake) into that system. | ||||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| Believe me Bob, I'm keeping close tabs on those lakes that are getting the LL strain. In 5 or 6 years, I'll be definitely hitting those as well! | ||||
| Slamr |
| |||
Posts: 7039 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | I might be nutty here, or speaking from a lack of knowledge, but it is POSSIBLE, and I'm just pontificating.....that the reason the lakes in NW WI. (LCO, Grindstone, etc.) arent turning out the numbers of fish.....is something other that the "strain" of fish in there? I'm not saying that Leech Lake fish dont grow fast and get big....but is it POSSIBLE that before we go changing the stock of fish in the waters. that we look at other factors involved? Could it be... -lower size limits leading to angler harvest? -spearing? -pike infestation (preying on ANYTHING small, whether it has bars or spots) -single hook sucker rigging? -spawning ground destruction? | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| -lower size limits leading to angler harvest? - Nope, 50" limit on Grindstone and LCO since I believe the mid 90's. -spearing? - Possibly, I'm not up there in the winter but I know both lakes are hit with spearing -pike infestation (preying on ANYTHING small, whether it has bars or spots) - Seems like a definite factor on LCO, don't know how much so on Grindston. Hence, maybe go with a strain that can coexist with pike? -single hook sucker rigging? - On these waters, don't think this is an impact. If I'm mistaken, you can't even buy single hook rigs in the Hayward area. -spawning ground destruction? - Seems like a definite factor on LCO. See the Musky Bay lawsuit for the damage done there. But outside that, I think history has shown that even with spawning grounds in good condition, the strain in LCO has shown poor natural recruitment for years. | ||||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk, Some pertinent info: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/photos/photo-thumbnails.asp?a... From the Symposium: Mr. Diana, University of Michigan (General Session Symposium presentation: Human influences on natural spawning), on the subject of coexistence between Northern Pike and Muskellunge in Inland Lakes in Wisconsin and genetic strains, Panel Discussion, Genetics section of the discussion, apparently in response to another panel member's comments about Northern Pike competition in Wisconsin Stocked lakes: Mr. Heiting asking for perspective on 'Superior strains of Muskellunge': "Mr. Diana, do you have any perspective on this please?" Mr. Diana: " Well, just to bring this to a different point and that has to do with the coexistence of pike and muskellunge. I don’t think there is any evidence we have to say that a strain that is comfortable in location where both pike and muskellunge exist, will have any better capability surviving in the long-run in a new situation with pike. I think that we need better research on that coexistence and what causes one or the other to become dominant, but at this point we really don’t know, and I don’t think you can say that the Leech Lake strain will be any better in an inland lake in dealing with pike as a competitor than would the Wisconsin strain. " In a nutshell, there is an impressive amount of evidence that Wisconsin muskies and pike coexist (and naturally reproduce) in many waters. So do Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and for that matter, Rock Bass and crayfish. Red Rusty Crayfish ( an exotic stream creature used for bait and introduced in waters across the state) are unbelievably efficient in scouring the bottom for anything edible, and have, IMHO, been a detriment to ANY NR of ANY specie of fish where they have benn introduced. Rusty crayfish eat spawn, weeds, and even small fish sometimes. Carp are trouble where they exist, too. Habitat is probably as large an issue as any, IMHO, Dave can corect me if I'm upside down here. Also, spearing takes place through the ice and in the Spring. It's certain there is an impact anywhere Treaty Rights are exercised, but the exact impact on LCO is not known. We need to find a way to improve communication between folks like Mr. Neuswanger and the folks spearing and keeping the records of harvested fish there to improve information flow and add that data to the information we do have. I have spoken to Mr. Neuswanger about this at length, and feel he's on the right track on this issue, for sure. Monk: 'I am glad we are in agreement that the LL strain in Nancy grew fast and got big. To me, that alone would exhibit a successful strain. The Green Bay restoration has been deemed a success based on the same criteria. However, you challenge the Nancy Lake success story due to a lack of natural recruitment. I would challenge you may not have the evidence to make that conclusion. From angler information presented by WMRP, the fisherman that caught the 32 muskies from Nancy said that 10 to 15 did not have noticeable fin clips or tags. Granted they are not fishery personnel, but they did put up to 90+ days on that lake and had success catching muskies. If they made the statement that 10 to 15 muskies did NOT have fin clips, then the remaining 17-22 muskies DID have noticeable fin clips. Even if we were to make a conservative estimate and say only 10 did not have fin clips, you still are talking about 33% of the fish caught were the result of natural recruitment. Couple that with the results of the netting, that 2 of the 6 fish netted did not have fin clips, 33% natural recruitment. See where I am going with this. To say that natural recruitment was virtually nil is premature and unjust based on the body of evidence. I challenge that the DNR does not have enough time and experience on this lake to make a conclusion as to the reproduction habits or success of the strain in Nancy lake.' I've been following this portion of the discussion very closely, mostly because I desperately hope the LL fish will do well where experimentally stocked this year. In what timeframe were those fish caught by the mentioned anglers? Were many ( or most of the fish) caught in about 2000 to about 2003? If so, would you agree that with the loss of about 20 to 30% of any year class (about, if I remember correctly, again I'll get a correction if I'm upside down here) that an additional three years of loss would have a significant impact on the adult (large fish) left in Nancy if NR was poor as reported throughout the entire study? Wouldn't that be consistent with findings to date? The thing that trips this line of thinking into gear for me is NO ONE is reporting catching small LL fish there, and no one has for a very long time. I catch them ALOT in Leech and Cass from the upper 20" class all the way to just under the 40" minimum, so it's obvious that if there ie NR, small fish should be caught in a rough ratio of numbers of small fish to angler hours on Nancy. The survey this Spring was conducted over a timeframe that was THREE times longer than the average fyke netting work, from what I can find out. The fish that were captured near the end of the work there were free flowing, and for all intents and purposes, coming down the home stretch on the spawn. If that was true as posted by others who looked into this, then more fish, more males, and certainly more females should have been captured, I would reason. Only one time were there two caught in one night out of multiple pulls, so it's a stretch to insist there were muskies somewhere else just getting ready to spawn but out of the capture zone the 9 nets represented; those nets were placed in the areas where capture had been successful in other surveys, and a couple were even moved to be sure. I'm not arguing with you, I just trying to apply math, logic, and reason as a layman based on what we know about Nancy to the situation there today. However, angler data, as Dave has stated, IS important. If the 33 fish were caught in '04 and '05, and the anglers were reasonably sure that there were few (if any) recaptures represented there, then there's strong evidence you are correct to a point in your thinking, I'd say. If, on the other hand, the fish were caught over a several year span and most were caught 3 to 5 years ago, the math works almost perfectly to insinuate those year classes are declining and there are few, if any, coming up to take their place in the Frabill. | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| Mr. Worrall, I've read that statement before... and yes I agree there probably isn't enough evidence out there to conclusively say that any certain strain is better adapted to coexist with pike. However, I don't think you can completely ignore the fact if a certain strain does coexist in a number of systems with Pike and have show to have natural recruitment in those systesms. I agree, there are a littany of other factors involved in the reproductive success of a species in a given system. And I do recognize the negative impact of tribal spearing. However...... HOWEVER...... my point in this discussion.... what I am trying to understand is the following: Given the same environment that currently exists in LCO. With no significant changes in habitat, regulations (as to spearing or other fish harvest), fish populations (as to % of pike, walleye etc.)... what good will it do to plant 500 adult Butternut Lake muskies in LCO. If they are proven to be genetically identical to the current stock which has failed to produce a selfsustaining population for decades.... decades, where is the benefit? Why is more of a bad thing, good? All I see is the lake population increasing by 500, with little hope of increased recruitment and even less hope of those fish attaining trophy size. | ||||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Several points there, and I can address a couple of them and will defer to Mr. Neuswanger for the rest. The fish from Butternut represent several positive factors IF they are proven by Dr. Sloss to be acceptable. First it is certainly possible that the Butternut fish are capable of reaching 'trophy size' if removed from an 'overstocked' water and placed in a low density situation. No one seems interested in harvesting enough fish from Butternut to reduce the population of young adult fish there, and there is no concrete indication that strain is not capable of reaching acceptable maximum size under the right conditions. There certainly are concerns, so why not press the issue and find out what happens? The fish are there, can be transferred with relative ease, and the genetics testing and perhaps more of the project can be paid for by a MuskieFIRST auction. Those fish will represent a known number of introduced 'adult' fish, and the data gained from a cooperative effort of anglers, perhaps the Tribe, and the DNR about recapture in the nets, those harvested by spearing, and those caught by anglers (CPR or kept), may be quite valuable to the data set the DNR fisheries management folks have now. There are some social implications, all positive far as I can see, which will bear discussing when and if the stock transfer is about to take place. There is an underlying assumption in your question that these fish will do poorly because there is a problem in LCO right now. If angler reports are correct, LCO has a real problem, and it's going to take experiments and studies like this one; reintroducing a significant number of genetically acceptable ADULT fish and following immediate and future results closely to help find out what has actually happened there. Since it is not at all likely there will ever be Mississippi strain fish released there, (WIDNR policy, not area fisheries management alone) this is a shot in the arm that might prove your ideas out, or disprove them, that's the nature of work like this IMHO. Point is, it can happen with relative ease and based on what I've found out about the proposal, should happen. | |||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| |||
MuskyMonk - 11/14/2005 5:46 PM MONK: Given the same environment that currently exists in LCO. With no significant changes in habitat, regulations (as to spearing or other fish harvest), fish populations (as to % of pike, walleye etc.)... what good will it do to plant 500 adult Butternut Lake muskies in LCO. If they are proven to be genetically identical to the current stock which has failed to produce a selfsustaining population for decades.... decades, where is the benefit? Why is more of a bad thing, good? All I see is the lake population increasing by 500, with little hope of increased recruitment and even less hope of those fish attaining trophy size. DAVE: I think Mr. Worrall did a fine job of answering this question accurately. The only insight I can add is that the muskies in Butternut Lake have been reproducing naturally at an excessively HIGH rate since WDNR stopped stocking musky fingerlings in 1999, and that high reproduction/recruitment is occurring in the presence of northern pike. So if genetic testing reveals no significant differences in existing microsatellite DNA markers between fish from Butternut and LCO, and if the within-stock transfer occurs, and if muskellunge recruitment remains low or nonexistent in LCO, we will strongly suspect that the problem in LCO is not genetic but rather ecological in origin (because those Butternut Lake fish were recruiting just fine in Butternut Lake). If we do the transfer and recruitment improves at LCO, I will be delighted, but we will want to identify the mechanism of improvement, which will not be easy. Of course, if genetic testing reveals significant differences between musky populations in these two lakes, we won't risk the transfer. I'm hoping the fish will test similar enough that we can try the experiment, learn something, and maybe improve the musky fishery of both lakes in the process. I think we've about covered this one, gentlemen. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||||
| guest |
| |||
| It seems that Steve and Dave are reasonably intelligent people, but isn't it clear to everyone that if natural reproduction has been failing for 60 years in LCO while being stocked heavily, that all the fish are stocked fish - and thus have the genetics of stocked fish. So the plan is now to test the genetics of stocked fish in LCO with the stocked fish in Butternut lake.....Gee do you think they will match? So then the choice is does the DNR stock muskies with the same genetics of Muskies that are proven to fail in LCO? Fish that are not wanted by the sportsmen and businesses of NW Wisconsin....Fish with recognized growth problems in Butternut lake.Fish that no genetic test can tell if they were the native fish in that lake because the natives have been gone so long. Or Dave & Steve can support a plan that includes stocking a strain of Muskies that is proven to grow large. A fishery that the sportsmen and businesses of Wisconsin desperately want and need a chance to fish for in NW WIsconsin. The choice seems easy, yet Dave and Steve seem eager to risk the livelihoods and fishing future of those in NW Wisconsin, in order to stock fish that have been proven not to provide a trophy fishery in High density Butternut or Low Density LCO? I guess since Dave and Steve were the ones to support the Bone lake fish last year - a lake that the WDNR is now scrambling to get away from - they are just hoping to find something they are right on. IMHO I doubt this will be it. | ||||
| Lockjaw |
| |||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Monk This may answer one of your questions. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/muskellunge/muskie_northern.html One comment on Butternut. I have fished Butternut and know many others who have fished it and never caught a pike there. I think trying to say that muskies in Butternut are reproducing just fine in the presence of pike could be a little misleading. A few questions. Can the DNR provide any netting or other type of data to show us what the pike population actually is there? Can you define similar enough? Also, if the transfer of Butternut fish to LCO does acually take place and those fish do not grow in LCO either, then what? If you do start finding YOY fish, how will you be able to determine if they are offspring of fish taken from Butternut or the LCO fish? Or a combination of the two creating yet another man-made musky strain? Since the Butternut and LCO fish would be genitically the same or should I say "similar enough" to one another how will you determine this? (There is an impressive amount of evidence that Wisconsin muskies and pike coexist (and naturally reproduce) in many waters?) ????? Steve or Dave - Please name the lakes in NW WI that have an impressive amount of evidence that the Wisconsin muskies and pike coexist (and naturally reproduce). Thanks Eric Johnson | |||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw, What was posted above was information, not "stuff". I'm not going to allow the same rude, angry, point counterpoint we had last year; I find myself answering in the tone the post I am referring to was written, and I'm sure that happens with other folks here too. Keep your comments straight up and questions properly directed without any slams or digs. I'll edit your comment this time, but will immediately delete any in the future which is nasty or unfriendly in tone. We can discuss this as reasonable adults, or not at all. I can list an abundance of water here in North Central Wisconsin where good NR in the presense of large NP populations exists. I can't in NW Wisconsin, because I'm not from that area and do not know the waters there other than fishing trips a couple times per year, so I'll defer to Mr. Neuswanger on that one. I'd direct you again to Mr. Diana's statement, and for that matter to the last paragraph in your linked MNDNR article; read those carefully. Read the linked studies here. Look at the available science we have today. There are SO many factors that could limit NR in SO many waters, it's not a given it's the pike/muskie interaction that is the problem. Guest, First and foremost, don't attach any of the DNR decision making processes to me, and be careful not to attach same to any one individual in the DNR. The policy that doesn't allow LL fish stocking in LCO is an Agency stance, not just your area fisheries folk's. I'm moderating and participating in this discussion, adding material I can reasonably prove to be beyond reproach and accurate where I see the need, and assisting in getting the truth out from ALL sides on a very contentious topic. There is no scientific proof genetics has anything whatsoever to do with the LCO population problem. There are, as mentioned earlier, 'concerns voiced by the public', and that's been noted repeatedly and in fact is mentioned in a recent DNR document. I would also argue with the statement that no genetics test can tell if those LCO fish there today are the same as those in the distant past, Dr. Sloss is working on that as we speak. His work and participation is also one reason for the future gathering of muskie spawn from a more diversified group of waters, along with answering public concerns. That document hardly describes a 'scramble', but it SHOULD be recognized by activists on your side of the fence as a victory of sorts, don't you think? I thought so, and was happy to see the adjustment. I resent the charge that I personally am risking any livelyhoods or business success or lack thereof in NW Wisconsin. I repeat, what I AM doing, as is required by my position here, is providing a forum where the facts can be presented in an even handed and reasonable manner. Just because we seek the truth doesn't make anyone here at MuskieFIRST anti ANYTHING. I didn't 'support' the Bone Lake fish, I asked a series of questions about the claims made against that source of hatchery material, asking for concrete scientific proof for the emotionally charged issues raised, and looking for the actual facts of the matter. The transfer of the Butternut fish and resulting data collection on the success/failure of that project will asist in doing just that! It's been obvious over our history that to manage ANYTHING based on emotion and passion may cause worse problems than the ones the changes were meant to address, especially regarding our Natural Resources. The 'choice' you refer to as 'so easy' has, unfortunately not been supported by ONE single fisheries biologist or geneticist we have spoken to over the last year, so it's moot at this point, I think until LL introductions in waters like LCO ARE supported by the scientific community. MuskieFIRST will do our very best to present facts, and those may or may not reflect my personal feelings or anyone elses here. On this issue that I personally am somehow against a good muskie fishery in NW wisconsin, that's absolute hogwash. There are a few folks over there who have an axe to grind with me because I have a tendency to look for the truth instead of accept rhetoric, especially if that rhetoric threatens to cause future confusion or even harm to the flow of accurate information. If I find the truth and make it public, as is my job, and it either supports or doesn't support the rhetoric, that's the way it is and I personally challenge all of those who feel slighted by the material here to present well documented opposing material without personal attack attached, there's NOTHING PERSONAL meant by any of this. I am NOT making anything up here, sir/madam, I'm just asking questions and doing my best to acquire the actual 'for real' answers whether they come form the WMRT, the DNR in Wisconsin or any other state or country, leading genetics experts across North America, or anyone else who represents a credible source. Those sources might just include you, if you wish to discuss the issue in a reasonable fashion. Social considerations ARE important, and SHOULD enter the conversation when appropriate. Edit: See the genetic study completed by Dr Brian Sloss. End of debate about the genetic integrity of the LCO fish. No changes at all, same genetics that were ALWAYS there. Instead of creating 'mutts' as the challenge was presented, the stocked fish neither reproduced nor bred with the LCO native Muskie population, creating a two tiered population. The stocked fish did not show much or any NR. So look for other reasons and for once in this debate, offer something of substance in your arguments...anything of substance. It's been quite some time since you were posting about the LL stocking and you heading over to those lakes to catch 'fast growing' monster LL muskies stocked there. How's that going for you? | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| Last reply on this thread, and then I'm done. In reply to Steve on Nancy Lake: We are both speculating as to what the real answers are, and we are both interpreting the data differently. I see a success. I see a lake that was stocked three times 15-21 years ago. A trophy musky population developed under the worst possible conditions. Abundant Norhtern Pike population, small lake, small forage base. Reproduction DID occur (based on DNR and angler reports), whether or not a self sustaining population exists is yet to be determined. However, trophy class fish from natural recruitment DID occur. The Green Bay project has been deemed a success based on less. To ignore this success in conjunction with the current evaluation of the LL strain would almost wrong... flat out wrong. But I agree with you Steve, I'm hoping for the best in the other LL stockings. In reply to Steve and Dave on the LCO transfer: Your responses have made me less confident of this project than I was to begin with. It seems that we are doing a lot of wishing that once the Butternut fish hit LCO, they all of sudden will turn into trophy fish. And yet there is no documented evidence that this strain of Butternut fish has that potential, other than the fact that they may be related to the current strain in LCO that is failing. Dave you stated if recruitment improves, you will be delighted. But then say that it will be difficult to determine to what degree it does improve. What I have yet to hear from the two of you is the GOAL to manage LCO as a TROPHY musky fishery. LCO has a 50" limit because it was deemed to be a TROPHY fishery. IF you go through with this transfer, and those fish do not start growing, it will be a failure. Plain and simple. LCO should be a lake that produces 30-40 POUNDERS, not 30-40 INCHERS. And believe me, that is the criteria that people who care about this lake will hold people accountable for. Whatever project plan you put together, there better be a significant effort to given to track the growth of these fish and make decisions based on those results. | ||||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk, No reason to exit the conversation, you have asked excellent questions and have posted your feelings on the matter. A discussion ensued presenting opposing or even parallel viewpoints, which is, I hope, the ultimate goal here. You do a credit to the discussion, sir. | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| I won't be exiting the discussion. As new information is made available I'll comment on it. I will be anxious to see the complete project plan for the transfer. I know the project is dependent on the genetic match that is going to be made, but at this point, the transfer seems to be in the good idea stage. There may be a project plan, there may not, I don't know. What I do want to see is how this project is going to be evaluated before it is implemented. What are the measurables that will determine whether this effort worked or not. Whart are Year 1, 2, 3, 4 goals and objectives. Dave made the statement that if the Butternut fish do not reproduce, then ecological factors should come to the forefront as to the reason for failing NR. I don't agree with this. To rule out genetics without experimenting with the LL strain would be premature. I do agree that there are ecological factors involved at LCO, but the LL strain should be given equal opportunity to succeed or fail. If in 5 or 6 years down the road the LL strain is a success elswhere in the state, and if in 5 or 6 years down the road LCO has not shown significant improvement, I hope the powers that be have the open-mindness to try new solutions. | ||||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Important point: The Butternut Lake fish are reproducing in Butternut. That's an important point. If they reproduce well there, but do not when transferred to another body of water, there are conclusions to be drawn, I'd guess. | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| Steve, the conclusion I would draw is that the current strain, no matter where its origin, cannot succeed in LCO. But again, we are only talking about one side of the equation, recruitment. The other side, the more important side is growth. Maybe that issue belongs in another thread, maybe not. Dave spoke of increasing recruitment, good thing. Dave spoke of swinging the balance back toward the musky, good thing. What I did not hear is how this plan will be evaluated on in terms of growth of the muskies. That lake is big enough and has a substantial forage base to support a trophy fishery. At one time, there was a strain existing in LCO that grew to enormous size, I doubt that the strain exists there today. If it did, you would see more 30-40 pounders coming out of that lake. I would like to see how many fish over 45" came out LCO in that 1,000 angler study that Dave oversaw. Based on those results, could LCO still be classified as a trophy fishery? Does it warrant a 50" limit? What fish are we protecting? LCO should be managed as a trophy fishery, same with Grindstone, same with the Chip. That should be the #1 driver on all decisions made with these three waters. "Is this 'such and such' decision going to better this lake as a TROPHY fishery". Is stocking Bone lake fish in the Chip a good thing (something that ANGERS me more than the LCO issue)? Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but that will be my question until its answered. And the question is, what are going to do to specifically (and differently) to manage LCO, Grindstone and the Chip as trophy fisheries? And I have yet to hear how the Butternut transfer will make LCO a better trophy fishery. | ||||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| |||
MuskyMonk - 11/15/2005 9:51 AM MONK: In reply to Steve and Dave on the LCO transfer: Your responses have made me less confident of this project than I was to begin with. It seems that we are doing a lot of wishing that once the Butternut fish hit LCO, they all of sudden will turn into trophy fish. DAVE: Less competition in LCO. More prey per musky. More diverse, high-quality habitat in LCO. And most fishery biologists (including me) can cite several instances in which slow-growing fish transferred from a lake where they were over-crowded became fast-growing fish in a more suitable environment. I have seen it personally with largemouth bass and bluegill. I don't believe it's been tried or documented with muskies, but based upon what we know about fish in general, it's not a whimsical fantasy. MONK: And yet there is no documented evidence that this strain of Butternut fish has that potential... DAVE: I need to remind everyone that we have no idea if Butternut Lake has its own "strain." It's very doubtful. But DNR records and musky anglers on both sides of this issue agree that the proportion of LARGE muskies (including fish over 50") was once much higher in Butternut Lake when the overall number of adult muskies was much lower than it is today. If Monk wishes to send me his e-mail address, I'll send him a copy of the Butternut Lake Fishery Management Plan that details what we know about the recent history of that musky population and our goals/objectives for that fishery. My e-mail address is [email protected]. MONK: Dave you stated if recruitment improves, you will be delighted. But then say that it will be difficult to determine to what degree it does improve. DAVE: Monk, please review what I actually said. I said it would be difficult to determine the MECHANISMS (causative factors) for improved recruitment. It will be relatively easy to document the DEGREE to which recruitment improves by using conventional survey methods (looking at capture rates of age-0 and age-1 muskies in fall shoreline electrofishing samples along with fyke net capture rates of young adults once they become fully vulnerable to capture by that gear at 4-6 years of age). MONK: What I have yet to hear from the two of you is the GOAL to manage LCO as a TROPHY musky fishery. LCO has a 50" limit because it was deemed to be a TROPHY fishery. IF you go through with this transfer, and those fish do not start growing, it will be a failure. Plain and simple. LCO should be a lake that produces 30-40 POUNDERS, not 30-40 INCHERS. DAVE: I couldn't agree more. One of the things that troubled me upon arriving in Wisconsin was a scarcity of goals and quantitative objectives for individual waters. We met with local stakeholders in the LCO fishery last summer, and it was agreed that muskellunge were the NUMBER ONE species of sport fishing interest there. Furthermore, we developed a written, trophy fishery goal with quantitative objectives that will serve as our benchmarks for success. I am currently assembling the results of that stakeholder visioning session, and will share them here for all to see as our long-term fishery management plan for LCO comes together. I ask your patience as I seek concurrence with angler goals and objectives from our LCO tribal partners (half the lake is on Reservation property) before I release that information. (There would be no point striving toward goals that another sovereign nation sharing that water does not recognize and support.) Please stay tuned... MONK: And believe me, that is the criteria that people who care about this lake will hold people accountable for. Whatever project plan you put together, there better be a significant effort to given to track the growth of these fish and make decisions based on those results. DAVE: If this project comes together, we certainly will track the growth rate of individually tagged Butternut Lake fish. But "growth rate" is not an objective; it is merely one of several indicators that help us to understand what is happening in a fish population. Like recruitment and mortality, growth is a rate function that influences density and size structure. THOSE are the parameters around which we should build our objectives -- HOW MANY and HOW BIG. Fish can get big in two ways -- by growing fast even if mortality rate is relatively high; and by growing at a moderate rate with relatively low mortality. The most esteemed fishery scientists in North America (Ed Crossman and John Casselman) are on record as saying it is the latter mechanism that has most often produced fish of world-record caliber. Regardless of the mechanism, our objectives will be clear and we will keep trying reasonable strategies until we achieve them. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe Dr. Casselman said at the Symposium he felt it was preferable to have a muskie that is capable of reaching what would be considered trophy size over a longer span of years, in other words a slower growing fish with trophy potential, in waters that support really big fish. I'll review the video and get a quote when I get some time. | |||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| |||
| ERIC JOHNSON (a.k.a. Lockjaw) of WMRP fame made this challenging remark in a previous post: "One comment on Butternut. I have fished Butternut and know many others who have fished it and never caught a pike there. I think trying to say that muskies in Butternut are reproducing just fine in the presence of pike could be a little misleading." DAVE: Mr. Johnson may be right in a way. I may have actually understated the success of natural reproduction of muskellunge in the presence of pike at Butternut Lake. To quote a popular phrase, here are the "stunning new findings" from 1,000-acre Butternut Lake in Price County: Butternut has been one of the most intensively surveyed lakes in the Upper Chippewa Basin over the past two decades. WDNR biologists conducted seven fall electrofishing surveys during 1985-1994 and eight similar surveys during 1995-2004. On all survey dates, at least four miles of shoreline were sampled, and 11.2 miles of shoreline (most of the lake) were sampled on five of those dates. Young-of-year muskies that may have been stocked just prior to the fall electrofishing survey were recorded separately from those that had been produced naturally. In this summary, we will focus on naturally produced fish because they are more reflective of the reproductive fitness of adult muskies in Butternut Lake. Because it is difficult to present tabular data in this format, I will summarize the data by ten-year period, referring to 1985-1994 as Decade 1 and 1995-2004 as Decade 2. During both Decade 1 and Decade 2, the average number of naturally produced young-of-year muskies captured during fall electrofishing surveys was 1.4 per mile of shoreline sampled. The range was 0 in a couple years to a high of 4.5 per mile in 1998 – a year when no muskies were stocked. But the average capture rate during both decades was 1.4 per mile. This did not vary from decade to decade, despite the fact that the average electrofishing capture rate of northern pike (all sizes) more than doubled during that time period, from 2.7 per hour during Decade 1 to 5.9 per hour during Decade 2. As the northern pike population was increasing, so was the population of adult muskellunge to its present level of 1.0 fish per acre – too many to sustain good condition and satisfactory growth rate. We will be presenting other data in the near future to demonstrate that northern pike do not necessarily prevent adequate recruitment of muskellunge where they co-exist in Wisconsin waters. By the way, Butternut Lake was stocked with 15,500 fingerling muskellunge during Decade 1, but only 3,000 during Decade 2. All musky stocking was suspended in 1999 when it became apparent that natural recruitment was more than adequate, and perhaps even excessive, to sustain a desirable adult population. It is impossible to conclude any cause-effect relationship here, but it is interesting to note that a five-fold decrease in musky stocking coincided with a doubling of mean electrofishing capture rate of northern pike from Decade 1 to Decade 2. Despite all that, natural reproduction of muskellunge remained constant. These are the fish that WMRP members and their supporters claim will do no good if transferred into LCO, supposedly because they can never get big (wanna bet?) and “cannot co-exist with pike” like a popular strain from Leech Lake, Minnesota. For skeptics who do not believe that WDNR electrofishing results indicate the existence of a significant northern pike population in Butternut Lake, I have included (I hope) a few photos of successful young anglers at Butternut. All these fish were caught during the past couple years. I cannot explain Mr. Johnson’s lack of success in catching pike at Butternut Lake, but I suspect he was targeting muskellunge. Many thanks to Senior Fish Biologist Skip Sommerfeldt and his great family for sharing these data and photos. Editors note: We will have the pictures posted tomorrow.
Attachments ----------------  Butternut Pike 25.5 inches 2-05.jpg (35KB - 278 downloads) Butternut Pike 28.5 inches 2-05.jpg (34KB - 276 downloads) Butternut Pike 29.5 inches 2-05.jpg (30KB - 293 downloads) Northern Pike 23 inches 5-04.jpg (38KB - 270 downloads) Northern Pike 30 inches.jpg (33KB - 304 downloads) | ||||
| firstsixfeet |
| |||
Posts: 2361 | I see no reason to have slower growing fish as a target for trophy fish. I believe that most northern strains live 15-20 years anyway and generally real trophy fish seem to be hitting trophy size in less than 12 years. It is easy to see the difference in life span of the northern and southern fish(due to habitat and ecology)but it really does not seem to serve any logical purpose to have a northern strain slow growing if it can be fast growing. I think the original statement about this was in relation to northern waters vs. southern waters, NOT northern waters vs. northern waters. A slow growing individual, stands much more chance of fatal contact with the number one musky predator before it hits major proportions. | |||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF, We'll have Dr. Casselman's complete video commentary from the Symposium up soon. Please view his opening presentation and graphic demonstrations here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/muskievideo.asp It's definitely worth watching!! Taken in context, the idea isn't that the fish grow painfully slowly, they actually grow pretty quickly during the first few years of life; it's that fish like those from G B, the Ottawa, St. Lawrence., LOTW ( by the way, incredible year classes on LOTW have caused a downward spike in the averages(angler diaries, etc.) there, because the numbers of relatively old fish to relatively young has been bumped down as a ratio by those strong NR years) and many other waters DO have a longer 'growth curve' and if I remember correctly life span on the graph over time much like the Muskies from some Oneida county waters (eg> Jonnysleds 40# fish this summer from the Wi River). Fish from these waters regularly live to be as old as upper 20's or more, and depending on the water they are from, grow VERY large and VERY heavy. That is one reason the Ministry in Ontario decided to protect some waters with a 54" limit, effectively making them CPR waters except for that very special 1% or better fish, partly to address your last comment; low density in fertile waters, great long term survival, and the ultimate combination of weight to length. To my surprise, Wabigoon was lower middle 50" class upper CL, so I may not be searching the 'right' water for a 70# plus fish. He specifically addressed that the world records are generally considered by weight, and as such, these fish would be more likely to reach an upper confidence limit in waters he discussed of about 61# from GB, a figure close to that from the Ottawa, and 73# from the Larry. These would be, as I understand his points, old, healthy, upper 1% of the available population muskies. I have seen the 'slower growing adapted fish are desirable' (to wildly paraphrase) commentary in the literature. I'll do my best to link to author and study for reference. Interestingly, the Kentucky fish from the Licking and if course Cave Run peak and might even pass on at about 10 to 12 years, so the upper confidence limit of that population is going to be 'smaller', despite a MUCH faster growth rate. They grow quite quickly, but die younger, according to the folks I talked to there this spring. I hope I didn't butcher the concept to badly, if I did, the videos will help me stand corrected. | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| Dave and Steve, Sorry, I'm not buying it. And this discussion is making me less confident in the Butternut Lake transfer. And I apologize beforehand if the tone of this post will be somewhat emotional. Why? Because it has been admitted that we are attempting to do something "THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE" on a lake that shouldn't be treated as our own petri dish. If you want to determine if the Butternut fish can survive and grow to trophy size, pick another lake to put those unwanted fish in. I have a suggestion, why don't we plant those fish in Nancy Lake. Seems to me that the decision on that water is there isn't a viable musky poplulation there anyway, and then come back to me in 10 years and show me the Butternut trophy fish. Then we will have accomplished two goals: A. We will know the growth pattern for those Butternut dinks. B. And we will have a side by side comparison with the LL strain. I'm sure there are a few studys on how the growth of a bluegill and bass population improved based on such a transfer. GREAT! But I have an idea. Why don't we do whats proven to work with the musky species. Why don't we find SIMILIAR situations as to what is happening in LCO and Grindstone and find SUCCESS stories based on those situations and DUPLICATE those efforts. To me, that might be a better option than hoping something works that has NEVER BEEN TRIED BEFORE with a species. I have to think, there are waters in MINNESOTA, that were in SIMILIAR situations as LCO and Grindstone. Aren't there DNR and fishery people you can talk to in that state? Everyone is so quick to quote from scientists and fishery people, well, why don't talk to THOSE people? This is what I am going to challenge either Steve or Dave with. WMRT has compared Grindstone with Pelican, White Bear and Plantagenet; and LCO with Bemedji and Miltona. Based on the catch data that they have presented, I would conclude that ALL those MN waters are good TROPHY fisheries. Why don't one or both of you find out who manages those MN waters and talk to them. Ask them about the history of their lakes and how they developed those fisheries. Ask them about the composition of each lake (habitat and competeting fish populations). Ask them what they have SPECIFICALLY done and continue to do to maintain their TROPHY fisheries. Ask them what there thoughts and concerns where when they switched strains in stocking, AND if those concerns came to fruition (i.e. outbreeding depression perhaps?) If you truly want to stand by your decisions, then YOU have to challenge yourself from every avenue to make your arguments stronger. Don't just seek out those people and materials that will SUPPORT your position, but find those that are willing to maybe challenge your position and KEEP AN OPEN MIND. THAT is how you find the RIGHT answer to this thing. The one thing that I haven't seen done by those that have oppossed the WRMT stance is to hold meaningful conversations with the MDNR and explain why what they did WOULDN'T work in Wisconsin. Ask them what they would do if they managed Grindstone and LCO based on those lakes history? And until I see that effort, I have spent all the time I can on discussing this. | ||||
| MRoberts |
| |||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | “Why can’t Leech Lake fish be stocked in LCO?” The answer to this has been grazed but I don’t think fully given. I know the official stance is LCO is in the natural musky range in NW Wisconsin. One concern with stocking non-natives into a lake is down stream pollution. When making a decision on weather to stock or not stock the entire drainage basin is looked at. Can the Non-Native be isolated. The following is what you have down stream of LCO which is a A1-3: Little LCO B-3 Couderay River B-2 Billy Boy Flowage B-3 Grimh Flowage A2-2 Chippewa River B-2 Holcombe Flowage A1-2 Cornell Flowage B-2 Old Abe Lake B-2 LAKE WISSOTA A1-2 Class: A1 – Premiere Trophy Musky Water A2 – Premiere Action Musky Water B - Intermediate Class Musky Water Category: 3 – Stocking is required to maintain musky population. 2- Some natural reproduction, however some stocking occurs to supplement natural recruitment. Up stream you have Grindstone Lake, A1, 3, I don’t know if there is a dam there preventing fish passage up stream. If not any fish in LCO could easily end up in Grindstone. If I am not mistaken Wissota is getting Leech fish. There are however no major flowages south of Wissota. Wissota is also approximately 90 miles south of LCO (by river). What puts LCO in the natural musky range and Wissota not? If the powers that be could be convinced, I am wondering why not stock a non-native in LCO, especially if it can be proven that successful spawning is the major problem. Maybe the non-native would do better at spawning because they spawn in different areas, specifically areas that may not have been, potentially, polluted by the cranberry industry. They also potentially spawn deeper which makes them less accessible in the spring, to the end of a spear. Would any of the lakes listed above be in danger if fish from LCO migrated down stream? That question would need to be answered to get the fish there. Looking at the classifications I don’t see that as a problem. If there was a class A1 or A2, category 1 lake in that group it might be the case but every thing is a cat. 2 or 3. I think a great study would be take the 500 fish from butternut and put them in LCO and get 500 adult Leechers from some place and put them in LCO and do a comparitive study that way. I think everyone agrees there are major problems someplace with LCO. A study like the one above could make everyone happy, if there is no know risk to the downstream waters. Which really what would be the risks, are any of them thriving naturally producing musky waters? It doesn’t look to be the case. The first question that would need answering if a study like this was to be done is: Are there any lakes out there with an over population of Leech Lake fish? Is LCO in such bad shape that a study like this would be warranted, prove it is an you might have case for non-natives? One more quick question: Has out breeding depression been observed in any of the MN lakes where they where stocking WI fish for years and then abruptly switched to Leech Lake fish? Thanks, just more fuel. Nail A Pig! Mike | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| |||
| Mike, I think you and I are on the same page here. You have valid questions, much like I do. How bad is the situation... would you choose to fish a lake where the average is 80 hours for ONE legal. I too would support a side by side study on LCO, as is being done elsewhere in the state. But to just put Butternut fish in LCO is only telling half the story. The ball is in the oppositions court to address the questions Mike and I have brought up. | ||||
| sworrall |
| |||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk, I'm just providing information I have found and archived, and have absolutely nothing to do with decisions on stocking LL fish or any other muskie anywhere. I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm trying to get all the facts out there in an atmosphere that encourages reasonable debate and conversation. As to the proposed transfer, it's apparently one position that the fish are not wanted, are slow growing and are an inferior strain. That certainly is not everyone's opinion; there are those who have studied the issues with the 'open mind' you suggest and feel this would be a valid project with no negative and MANY positive possible outcomes. Therefore, there is more than one opinion, and all the information surrounding all opinions should be aired. I honestly cannot see ONE single reason why the transfer and resulting intensive study shouldn't take place. Since it is the position at this time of the WIDNR that no Leech Lake fish will be introduced there, this is an immediate (adult fish) opportunity to begin investigating what the mechanisms are in play on that water and gain some very important information. If the stance is to be that Leech Lake fish should be planted because of percieved superior performance, why then not use Ohio Strain, a fish that has out performed the LL strain in several recent studies? Why not fish from Lake St Clair, those fish are getting big in Green Bay, why not fish from Lake George here in Oneida County, those fish are definitely reaching HOG status and survive very well with NR occuring. Why not those from the Ottawa, where the upper confidence limit is around 60#? Why not from the St Lawrence, where the upper confidence limit is 73#, according to Dr. Casselman's statement at the Symposium? For the very same reasons the LL intorduction into LCO probably is out. Also, keep in mind there is the 'shared resource with another Nation' influence there, too. Why NOT use muskies from Butternut if Dr. Sloss finds they are compatible? Please post a statement from a working fisheries scientist or biologist that would contradict what Mr. Neuswanger has said. I have tried to find one, and can't. Statements from Casselman, from the esteemed folks at Trent, from the Illinois DNR, Kentucky DNR, University of Michigan scientists, Minnesota scientists, all are what they are, none have offered support for the type of stocking that LL fish introduced in the Chippewa Basin represents or have stepped forward to support the agenda of the WMRP on that particular issue. Some even took great care to step outside of the box a bit at the symposium to address the issue, in fact. If there are indeed those in the fisheries management trade who would support the LL introduction there, I'd like to see the opinion in print, if for no other reason than to see the opposing scientific viewpoint. It is my experience that scientist DO frequently and heatedly disagree, but I find that after more than a year of this discussion not one fisheries scientist with an opposing viewpoint has emerged. I expected to see at least one or two opposing viewpoints from the biologists and scientists during our coverage of the 2005 Symposium, yet witnessed none. I see no alternative to applying the universally accepted position of the best scientific minds out there to make sound muskie management decisions, regardless of the motivation or the pure of heart desires projected from those who would object. I would suggest we accept where direct scientific and perhaps even more importantly, social challenge can be applied from ANY source successfully and influence management strategies as a result, witness the Madison, Petenwell, and Wissota fish stocking, and the St Croix Basin, all to be perceived as a victory for the hard working folks who got those projects underway, the WMRP, AND the WIDNR; at least to me. I spoke to biologists from many muskie states last spring, and couldn't find one that was willing to support or encourage the idea of LL fish in the Chippewa Basin or here in our waters in Vilas and Oneida County. I found that several who had direct experience with spotted muskies felt that other strains were superior in the applications they had studied, in fact, and even those fish were felt to be unacceptable for application where the WMRP is focusing; the Hayward area. Did you view the Casselman video yet? It really is worth watching, if you have the time. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |