|
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Where do you plan on getting the fish to do this? The MN DNR can't even meet their own stocking quotas for the few lakes we have much less have fish to expand the range in MN. Do people expect them to come from MN? I would say that there would be a HUGE outcry if fish were being shipped over to WI when our own needs aren't being met. I would lead that fight.
It also seems to anyone that's read anything about this arguement that the WI DNR is incapable of maintaining a viable broodstock population with WI strain. How does anyone expect them to do it with Leech Lake strain fish?
Stocking Leech Lake strain may be a viable solution to the "small fish problem" in some peoples minds, but it seems to me that nobody has thought out the logistics. Maybe the WI DNR has and that's why they're dragging their feet.
Fire Extinguisher in-hand.
|
|
| |
|
| Tonka was supposed to get 3000 last fall,,,it got 300 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | We got 500 from a private hatchery in MN last fall to stock into Petenwell. We had ordered them in July, and he told us there were several people/clubs that would take them if we didn't want them. I agree with you. There has to be a supplly. Anyone in MN reading this, with a few unused shallow ponds in their backyards might want to reconsider using them for duck ponds...... |
|
| |
|
| Long Lake and Wild Rose hatchery has them I believe. That's where the Green Bay/Winnebago fish come from. |
|
| |
|
| i know the Monona fish were purchased from a private farm (MN Muskie Farm?) and i'm pretty sure the ones for Wissota were purchased as well. so not being taken from the MN state fishery supply.
i'm not sure where the WI DNR is planning to obtain fish for the 10 study lakes in NW part of the state.
as the lakes getting LL strain fish increase, the pressure on the supply will clearly go up...good opportunity for someone to make some money raising fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | The fish in the Long Lake are being eliminated with an open season soon. By the time it begins, the estimated population will be less than a dozen fish, so it doesn't really seem like the DNR is working too hard at keeping the Leech Lake strain going there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7037
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Dumb question: where is the $$$ going to come from?
Fish are not cheap, and to create a viable (that will be able to reproduce) population in lakes over 500 acres, I'm guessing you're going to need at least 1/4 a fish/acre to survive each year (and knowing that only a smaller percentage than most of us think of even fish in the 14-16" range actually survive to sexual maturity) to create that population. So if you're going to need that 1/4 of a fish/acre, and its a 1000 acre lake, and allowing for 25% survivability to sexual maturity (and thats being liberal)....how many fish is that, and how many years would it take to create that? AND, at $10 a fish (again, being liberal), how much is that going to cost.
Also, how are these fish going to escape the spear? Are the habitats in these lakes suitable to natural reproduction? How are these fish going to survive long-term when the size limit is 34", and we're already saying (by saying there arent older, larger fish) that catch and release isnt working?
No one doubts that the LL fish grow to 40" faster, but the Nancy Lake situation demonstrates that creating a real viable, self-sustaining population, is not something so easily done. My thought is that putting these fish in to create the opportunity to catch larger fish in the next 6 years is do-able, but to create a self-sustaining population will be a much bigger undertaking.
So, where is the money going to come from? The DNR is strapped for funds already, and I know from observation that fisherman (especially muskie fisherman) lose their collective minds when license fees go up, and if this is a 'muskie only' proposition, and muskie fisherman only make up a small percentage of those who actually buy a license. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Slamr
I think at this point all you'd have to do at any of the club meetings is say "leech strain fish", "10 dollars each" and pass a hat around. It's not going to be cheap, and there are logistics to consider, but I can honestly say if it was my home water I'd happily throw in $100 without even thinking about it, and I'm sure a LOT of other guys would too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | lambeau - 2/16/2006 7:48 AM
"i know the Monona fish were purchased from a private farm (MN Muskie Farm?) and i'm pretty sure the ones for Wissota were purchased as well. so not being taken from the MN state fishery supply."
-Lambeau, where do you think they get their muskie fry? They are using fry that they purchase from the MN DNR. So whenever orders are placed with them to have fish exported to other states when there are orders that can be filled in MN, they are infact taking fish from MN. There's a lot of politics here that I don't want to get into at this time and I respect Rob and his business too much as they've been a good supplier to work with.
"as the lakes getting LL strain fish increase, the pressure on the supply will clearly go up...good opportunity for someone to make some money raising fish!"
-You have to get the fry to get the fish. You can only get the fry from broodstock. If you have no broodstock you have no fry and a fish can only product so many eggs. Also, raising fish is WAY more difficult then anybody here realizes. Being involved into what has to happen to get a good yield has shown me that it's VERY easy to say "raise more fish", when in reality it's a monumental task to do it right and in a cost effective manor. Just throwing fry in your backyard pond will not work.
So again, where are the fish going to come from?
Edited by Muskie Treats 2/16/2006 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Wausau, Wisconsin | John is right. The DNR has determined to leave the muskies in Long Lake a few years longer than they originally stated they would. This has caused a nightmare. The shallow-minded lake association (you'll soon realize I don't care for lake associations very much. Typically no scientic data behind anything they say while they rake the weeds from "their" shoreline so their rich grandkids can swim) sorry, anyway, the lake association on Long Lake has hated the muskies from day one. They want all of the fish dead now! They stated that the fish are reproducing (not true) and that they ate all of their panfish. (I caught a limit through the ice earlier this year, population seems to be fine) It is likely that once an open season with a size limit is allowed. They'll whack every one of them. I wish they would just shock it and transport the fish to Winnebago. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | By the way, the fish stocked in Green Bay are from lake St Clair, not Leech. As with any subject where we as the public declare we know what to do and demand that our desires are immediately met, it usually turns out that there is WAY more to any one or several issues than meets the eye. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| we don't need no stinkin minnesota fish! We have great lakes spotted.they're badd a$$ enough. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 145
Location: Eau Claire, WI | The one thing I don’t understand is why the WDNR refuses to look at creating our own source of LL strain eggs. Nancy Lake is in the St. Croix Drainage where these studies are going to be performed. It has a reminent population of Leech Lake fish that performed well there. There are no other strains of muskies present in lake Nancy besides the LL strain thus maintaining the purity of the fish. We do have a perfect candidate here for a LL brood lake to help us be self sufficient.
If in 10 years when the LL / WI strain side by side evaluations in the St. Croix drainage conclude that the LL strain performs well there and it compliments what the MN DNR is doing in the St. Croix River and the drainages connected we are still at square one. We have no source of LL strain eggs without depending on the MN DNR. If we stocked Lake Nancy along with the other lakes in the study, by the time the study was completed we would have our own source of LL eggs to move forward with. The WDNR did already successfully harvest eggs from the first planting of Nancy and successfully raised them in the Sponner Hatchery. It could be done. It worked once before. If for some reason the LL strain fails in the St. Croix River Drainage, we have lost nothing.
|
|
| |
|
| where do you think they get their muskie fry? They are using fry that they purchase from the MN DNR. So whenever orders are placed with them to have fish exported to other states when there are orders that can be filled in MN, they are infact taking fish from MN.
are you saying that the MN DNR is filling orders for fry to a private business before meeting their own needs for stocking?
if true, no one is "taking" fish from MN...the DNR is selling them off for profit.
and it's hardly the buyers fault if they are willing to do so!
Edited by lambeau 2/16/2006 10:41 AM
|
|
| |
|
| The one thing I don’t understand is why the WDNR refuses to look at creating our own source of LL strain eggs...If we stocked Lake Nancy along with the other lakes in the study, by the time the study was completed we would have our own source of LL eggs to move forward with.
this makes good sense.
however, it seems the DNR's assessment of L.Nancy specifically was that it wasn't a suitable brood lake. i know, i know...this is hotly debated, but clearly the DNR doesn't see this particular lake as the one they'd be using.
finding suitable lakes (plural...per the DNRs current plan based on genetics recommendations) for use as a brood source and creating a viable, self-sustaining population would be smart planning in the event the 10-year study is a success.
has there been any talk that the lakes in the study itself could act as brood lakes for wider distribution of LL fish after the study is complete? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Lambau, I'm not saying it's the "buyers" fault. It's the system. A system that will be changed if George and I have our way. If it does, then where will the fish come from? |
|
| |
|
| Treats,
I'd have to agree that if the Wisconsin DNR is going to move ahead with taking eggs/fry/fish from the Minnesota DNR without starting a plan to become self-sufficient as soon as possible - it would be irresponsible on the part of the WDNR. Minnesota can benefit from this too, as Minnesota could use some fishing pressure relief, and this is a way to do it.
I've mailed letters suggesting the DNR create a brood lake - but like most things, it's not up for discussion. (Nancy was not determined an unsuitable brood lake - it was determined to have an insufficient population. Of course we feel they stopped netting just as the large females showed up,but thats been discussed over and over)
People from Wisconsin and Minnesota share the Upper Mississippi river drainages. I feel if it's best for us all to work together.
Thinking about it realistically - The MN DNR would only need to milk one or two more females to get enough eggs for all of Wisconsin. My understanding is that the limiting factor in MN lakes getting fish has been public and private hatchery and pond space. If I was the MN DNR, I'd ask that the Wisconsin DNR put some skin in the game by establishing brood lakeS, and attempting to actually take spawn from the existing MS strain Muskies in this state. (Lake Neshonic - from another post - should be considered for a brood lake if it does not have Muskies today)
Wisconsin clubs that would like to continue to purchase Muskies should also contact private hatcheries about raising this fish for them in Wisconsin.
I think it'd be best not to start a Minnesota/Wisconsin fight over this, just as it should not be a fight between the fisherman and DNR. Minnesota could use some fishing pressure relief, and this is a way to do it.
Everyone is better off if we work together.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | heres another point to ponder. one of the issues raised at the hayward meeting(from what i've read) is about the loss of tourism revenue to other areas with better "quality" muskie fishing. wouldnt it then be irresponsible for the MN DNR to send that increased business for MN back to WI in the form of better fish, at least from an economics standpoint? |
|
| |
|
| I reguards to what Slamer said, "where is the money going to come from?" What if the state of WI started a "muskie stamp"? Proceeds would go directly into improving the states muskie fishery. Similar to the Great Lakes Stamp which is such a sucess story.
Just curious about everyones opinoin?
Lee Tauchen |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lee,
That would be a Conservation Congress request, and would be REALLY tough to get done. Not that the muskie anglers wouldn't approve, but most of the vote at the CC hearings is from other interests, and usually very ANTI anything that represents an additional tax or charge. It would take a huge effort, and we couldn't even get enough folks out to vote to pass an obviously beneficial trophy lake 50" minimum proposal a couple years back. Not many walk the walk when it comes to actually getting out there and representing the Muskie angler's interests.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Lee,
i know thats somethingthats been put forward in the past. from what i remember the DNR was reluctant to do it because of all the logistical headaches. if it was required to simply fish for muskies, you'd end up with alot of pike fishermen. if it was a harvest stamp, many wouldnt buy it as they dont intend to keep a fish.
also the cost associated with producing the stamp negates some of the monies brought in, although perhaps with electronic licensing, that wouldnt be an issue.
it would also have to be protected from other user groups then saying moeny for muskies efforts could only come from stamp dollars instead of general fund, which could possibly lead to a decrease in funding.
there are many issues to be considered from what i recall.
that being said, it would be cool to be able to colect the stamps and associated artwork wouldnt it?! |
|
| |
|
| It's the system. A system that will be changed if George and I have our way. If it does, then where will the fish come from?
how are you hoping to change it?
if a ready supply of fish was MN was slowed/stopped, it would obviously force the WI DNR and private clubs to reconsider current practices.
this could be good/bad:
a) have to create own brood source (good)
b) abandon LL strain study (bad)
i'd be all for a muskie stamp if the money was guaranteed to be used for muskie only purposes, and not simply tossed into the general fund. other stamp programs have had varied success on this, with some being preserved for that resource and some getting "raided". |
|
| |
|
| I have a real problem with all the dicussion on "costs".
Since we are already raising Muskies - there are no additional costs in raising fish. (Unless we want more, but I think the discussion centers on replacing existing "unspecified" strains with MS strain Muskies. If we want more muskies, there are more costs no matter what strains are used)
The only real additional cost is in procuring MS strain eggs. Since the MN DNR is already netting Muskies, we simply have them "squeeze a couple more". Yes there are costs here for the MN DNR - Possibly the Wisconsin Muskie clubs provide a grant (of about $3000/year) to the MN DNR that allows the MN DNR to raise a few more Muskies to be stocked in MN lakes.
Under this scenario, everybody wins. This includes the Wisconsin DNR that has to squeeze less fish. The Muskie clubs win because they get the fish they want cheaper from the Wisconsin DNR than they would from a private fish farm. Minnesota fisherman get more Muskies stocked from the MN DNR.
If we have brood lakes, we are self-sufficient in five years. There are answers....everything doesnt have to be a fight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| we had a brood stock in long lake for the Great lakes strain, those fish are now being erradicated out due to locals not wanting them there anymore.
We now get our stock from actual fish in the system. Getting a broodstock going of another strain would be cool if you can find somewhere to do it.
but like muskie treats says, why would MN give up their own fish to help out WI in something we have a hard time doing anyway?
I believe with the leaps and bounds that the dnr has made with our great lakes spotted program it will only be a matter of time before they stock those guys in lakes that are in need of serious adjustment. These fish have a growth rate that blows away just about all other strains.
WHY DO WE HAVE TO BOTHER WITH MN FISH? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | We're hoping to be able to make the DNR accountable for it's stocking practices. It blows our minds how we can continually miss our stocking goals yet have over 10,000 muskies sent out of state via 3 party sources. I don't have a problem with people purchasing fish because it's a free market system once they go to a fish farm. I just want our DNR to take care of MN before it sells it's fry to everyone else in the world. If we're not hitting our goals then we need to keep more and more fry until we can hit the numbers on a regular basis. We're NEVER going to be able to add new waters in MN until our muskie production increases.
Another way that we're trying to work with the MN DNR is through hatchery improvement. Right now we're getting a list of improvements that MI chapters can contribute to. We figure the easiest way to increase the amount of fish is through more efficient hatchery practices. I believe that it was the Bemidji ponds that were improved and their yield went up by around 10%.
Also, you'd need WAY more the 2 fish to get enough eggs for WI. On a typical year I think we end up getting around 200,000 to 350,000 fry to hatch. Of that about 10% make it to fingerlings. Of that about 10% make it to maturity. Remember, we barely have the personal and financial resources to maintain the current levels much less grow the program (another issue we're working on). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| Also in response to the muskie stamp- I think this would be the biggest step in the right direction of keeping fish safe from being harvested. The normal joe fisherman isn't going to buy a stamp if he doesn't plan on fishing for them, so when he hooks one walleye fishing and can't keep it to feed the familly, well, you get the point.
In turn, if he does buy one, that is just more revenue for the state to feed a fish or two. I would probably bet my house that any conscious musky guy/gal would purchase a stamp if they new it was helping out our fishery. 5-7 bucks, man who hasn't blown that on half a bait before? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I found Castmaster's point about MN not wanting to necessarily return its newfound tourist dollars back to Wisconsin particularly interesting. I can certainly understand the frustration Wisconsin business people have watching part of their livelihood move west. Hell, I'm from Wisconsin. However, if I'm a MN resort owner that's been watching this from afar, and I've seen my income go up due to guides and tourists crossing into MN, I'm not so sure I want my state to declare, "here's a better fish, let us help you get back on your feet." Especially if the shortages previously mentioned are a fact. It might be easy to squeeze a few more fish as someone pointed out, but I could see many MN businesses saying "hey, squeeze 'em here, here, and here, instead of Wisconsin." As someone new to musky fishing I've followed this debate for the last six or seven months. When I see a thread like this pick up momentum, I can't help but wonder if there might be some economic subtleties that might not seem so subtle to MN businesses when it comes time to provide the resource.
That's a rookie opinion on the economics of the situation. There very well be much I'm missing, but I'm in a competitive business myself, and when it comes to their paycheck, people have a tendency to look out for themselves, and who can blame them.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Treats,
no doubt Minnesota should take care of Minnesota first.
However, there has to be a point where eggs can be taken from Muskies when it would not affect Minnesota's Muskie production. If done properly (with funding) it could even increase it. This should be a requirement before fish farms get involved or the state of Wisconsin. You guy's need to take care of yourself first - no doubt about it! (I disagree on how many fish need to be squeezed - although I meant 2 females - do you know how many female muskies Minnesota uses each year?)
Your points speak volumes about why Wisconsin needs to have it's own brood lakes.
All the fans of Great Lakes fish - I lOVE EM TOO! You know where the ones in the Fox River/ Green Bay came from? Hundreds of miles to the East in the state of Michigan.
Bob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | yup, the fish in Long lake are Great Lakes spotted, not to be mistaken with Leech Lake fish. The DNR only got a couple small males in all of their nets this past spring out there, and are getting enough from the bvery waters they are stocking, to need Long and its whiny Lake Ass. anymore. The Lake Ass. should be happy, though, for the DNR propped up a lake with walleye, Bass, and Pike to numbers that were never before seen in it. I am thankful too. Both for the DNr improving the laes' overall fishery, and for the lake association not beleiving there are any fish left in it. I will be headed there again Saturday......
That said. As I was doing the work for the Petenwell project, I was told that the WI DNR planned to use 'spare' hatchery space in the state of WI to propogate the breed. I am a bit ignorant to alot of it, but in my dealings with raising fish, lack eggs and fry have never been the issue. Rearing ponds, space to raise the fish, and funds to feed them was always the issue. Maybe WI(after giving Pete much of the surplus of course...) could someday help MN with its program. With WI cutting much of its Brook Trout program, is some of that space available? Could one of the larger rearing ponds be used for brood, as is done at some of the private hatcherys?
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/16/2006 3:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Treats
It is my understanding that the WDNR has already made arrangements with the MDNR to obtain eggs from Minnesota. The Leach Lakers that Wisconsin stocks next year will be raised in Wisconsin by the WDNR. The fish will no longer be purchased from private farms. They made this arrangement after the WDNR determined that Nancy could not be used as a brood source. This should not affect the amount of fish that the MDNR produces in Minnesota at all. As Bob has stated they will just be milking some fish for the WDNR. It sounds like Minnesota has production issues of their own, I fail to see how the MDNR giving the WDNR some eggs affects the amount of fish that the MDNR produces. |
|
| |
