|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | The Rice Lake thread got my brain turning on a idea I had awhile ago after the many discussion on stocking and genetics and possible reasons the East half of the State seems to be in better shape than the western half, or at least some lakes over here appear that way from mine and others on these boards experience.
Now the Rice Lake information is very interesting because from a stocking stand point it compares very favorably with the stocking numbers on some the lakes performing well over here. For example:
Rice Lake stocking averaged 1fish/acre/year for 16 years. One year it received 2 fish/acre and 8 years it received 1.5 fish/acre
Compare that to Grindstone which averaged .52 fish/acre/year for 16 years. One year it received 1.5 fish/acre, 3 years it received 1 fish/acre
And LCO averaged .4 fish/acre/year for 16 year. Had 2 years at 1 fish/acre and the next closest was 1 year at .6 fish/acre.
What does this mean? Well maybe to produce BIG fish the stocking year classes need to be increased. Look at the lakes regularly kicking out 50+ inchers in my neck of the woods.
Rhinelander Flowage averaged .75 fish/acre/year for 13 years, with 1 year at 1.7 fish/acre, 2 years at 1.5 fish/acre 1 year at 1 fish/acre and 2 years at .75.
Steve Worrall’s Lake X averaged .85 fish/acre/year for 13 years, with 1 year (surprisingly about 18 years ago) at 6.75 fish/acre, 1 year at 2 fish/acre and 5 years at 1 fish/acre.
Pelican was at .45 fish/acre/year for 10 years, between LCO and Grindstone, but had 6 years with more than .7 fish/acre stocked.
Most of these lakes had the highest stocking years back in the late 80s and early 90s right where they need them to be to produce big fish today. I am afraid that with stocking being severely cut in the last 10 years and into the future it is going to get worse before it gets better. By the way this is one of the main reasons we started working on the size limit increase for Pelican. To try and protect the fish that are there now, and hopefully increase natural reproduction.
Anyway maybe one thing the DNR could be looking at doing right now is stocking larger year classes. Rather than 1 fish/acre or .5 fish/acre every other year they could stock 2 to 5 fish per acre every 3 to 5 years. If trophy fish are the goal. Give those year classes the best chance of making it all the way to the top.
Of course this could only be done on lakes that could handle the numbers.
It sure seems interesting that with a quick look at lakes I know are producing big fish all have the common connection of either one very large year class or a few big year classes stocked between 10 and 20 years ago.
Maybe those 500 adult fish being transplanted to LCO isn’t such a bad idea, I would think it’s the equivalent of a very very large year class of fingerling.
Something more to CHEW ON!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32839
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe that was a question addressed by Steve at Monday's meeting in Hayward. Dave, alittle help here? |
|
| |
|
| Good points Mike. Doesn't the DNR cap lakes at 2,500? I thought that was a number being thrown around... could be wrong though. If there are caps to the fingerlings a lake can recieve, then your fish/acre does make sense. LCO at 5,000+ acres is going to have a less fish/acre than some 300 acre Lake "X".
Anyway... this Winter's topics are starting to drag. I can't to bust out the rods and start hitting some IL lakes. Once that first cast hits the water... gonna kiss these damm message boards goodbye!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| sworrall - 2/22/2006 11:53 PM
I believe that was a question addressed by Steve at Monday's meeting in Hayward. Dave, alittle help here?
I read Mike Roberts' post with interest. The first thing I'd like to say is that the main lesson learned from Rice Lake is not "The more you stock, the more big fish you get." The message is, "If you stock a suitable strain of muskellunge into a productive lake with lots of forage that had no muskies previously, they grow fast and get big." Another important thing to realize in THIS case is that MORTALITY RATE of an INITIAL STOCKED YEAR CLASS (1987 in Rice Lake) into a NEW ENVIRONMENT is almost always lower that it will EVER be again. Wisconsin researchers have documented an average short-term mortality rate of 61% for 10-12" fingerlings stocked into existing musky populations in northern Wisconsin lakes. But that figure does NOT apply to suitable lakes in which muskies are stocked for the first time in the absence of cannibalistic predation by adults.
An initial stocked year class is almost always an anomaly. These fish have the place to themselves. The world is their oyster. They eat what they want, when they want, and generally have little to fear from predators, except maybe great blue herons and large pike if present. They grow fast and begin to "fill the void" for a top predator in their new environment. At some point in time, that nebulous state of "carrying capacity" is reached. Beyond that point, we could stock enough muskies to choke a horse and still not increase the population substantially with fish that grow fast and get big. (CAUTION: Frequent overstockings over a long period of time have led to excessive density, slow growth, and poor size structure in some waters.)
It's almost impossible to PROVE by direct observation, but we believe big muskies (and big pike in some waters) are the ultimate "control" on how many little muskies eventually become big. That, of course, can be influenced by a number of factors, including how much forage is available to large muskies and pike to divert their attention away from eating small stocked muskies.
I can illustrate the "new fish in new water" phenomenon by briefly describing what happened in 530-acre Hazel Creek Lake in northeastern Missouri. When I was a young field biologist with the Missouri Department of Conservation, we stocked Hazel Creek Lake with 1,500 10-12" muskellunge that originated at the Linesville Fish Culture Station in Pymatuning, Pennsylvania in 1983 (a real mish-mash of genes from Lake Erie to Lake Chautauqua, NY to streams in Ohio; so they were of no particular strain). Survival of that initial stocked year class was phenomenally high. We stocked no muskies into Hazel Creek for 8 years and we documented NO natural reproduction (plenty of suitable habitat, but too many big largemouth bass). In spring of 1991 we did a major fyke-netting survey and estimated the population density. The only fish present were those initially stocked in 1983. We estimated that OVER HALF the muskies we had stocked in 1983 WERE STILL ALIVE in 1991. So much for 61% mortality the first few months and 30% mortality each year thereafter! But this was expected in a new lake with no predators. Growth rate had been good also. After 8 full growing seasons, males averaged 36 inches (10 pounds) and females averaged 42 inches (20 pounds) during that survey. (We had protected these fish with a 42-inch minimum length limit -- the highest length limit in North America when that lake was opened to fishing in 1985.) The fishery was, and still is, fantastic. The Missouri Department of Conservation has continued to stock muskies periodically into Hazel Creek, but never again will they see the high survival rate documented for the initially stocked year class in 1983.
Similar processes were at work in Rice Lake, Wisconsin and have been at work in many Minnesota lakes over the past 20 years. We cannot compare long-established fisheries to fisheries where muskellunge or a new strain of muskellunge have been recently introduced to the system. But we can learn some interesting things by studying what happens after such introductions. In the case of Rice Lake, we learned that hatchery-produced fish originating from LCO and Bone Lake have the potential to grow fast and get big under the right conditions.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 2/23/2006 7:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Dave I understand the theory of initial stocked year classes into new environments and how that first generations is often the healthiest.
But with 1400 fish/year for 5 years in a row on a 939 acre lake, plus at least 1400 fish every other year for the next 7 years couldn't those numbers also have had some effect on the lakes current condition. It can’t just be those initial 1400 fish from 1987.
I also completely agree that you can’t continue this level of stocking forever, as it will most likely cause an over population.
But on trophy lakes where the goal is big fish, why not hit that lake every 5 years with a 1.5 to 3 fish/acre stocking.
I just really feel it’s interesting that the lakes (that have been stocked in the last 20 years) in our neck of the woods that are consistently producing big fish all have the common connection of a few years with more than a 1 fish per acre stocking. In many cased closer to 2 and some over 3. These are well-established lakes that have had musky in them for many years, for sure back to the 70s.
Other than the three I orginaly listed there is another of my favorite lakes that I will call Lake Y 700 acres stocked since at least 1974, hasn’t been stocked with fingerling since 1996, that year they put in 2800 it was stocked 4 other time back to 1985 2 times at 1 fish/acre and 2 times at 2 fish/acre. This is one of my favorite lakes because of the large fish we see and catch out there, not the numbers we catch there.
On a lake with low density and high forage will .5 or less fish/acre every other year, really cut it to bring that lake to a trophy status, if there is very limited natural reproduction.
For example take LCO why not stock 7500 fingerling every 5 years rather than 2500 every other year. It will cost more, but get clubs and local groups to help. Is there possible damage that could be done by doing this?
Thanks for the comments.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 2/23/2006 10:32 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32839
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Isn't it also necessary to consider that some stockings will be more 'successful' than others due to conditions immediately after stocking and during the following season, not to mention a host of other variables? Is that why many muskie programs 'spread out' the stocking over the course of several seasons instead of hitting a water body with a large introduction and then nothing or near nothing for a few seasons? I thought I read something about this, perhaps in the AFS book, Managing Muskies from the '84 Symposium. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | A couple more thoughts as I had to leave for a meeting, before I finished my train of thought.
With the 60% first year and 30% every year after that mortality. If in a continuing 5 year period a lake is either stocked once with 7500 fish or every other year for with 2500 fish, at the 10 year out mark the lake SHOULD have approximately 169 fish left from the 7500 and 56 from the 2500, cumulative over time it should be about equal. What I am trying to say that is it possible it is not? What my experience on local lakes is showing is that one year of higher stocking appears to be producing more large fish.
Is it possible that the higher initial density is somehow decreasing the overall mortality rate; more make it though the gauntlet, than doing multiple lower density stockings. If this is the case I would guess it is the first year mortality that is decreased and the remaining years stay steady. Has this ever been studied? There may be statistical data out there right now that could answer these questions, even if they have never been looked at in this way.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | The Mille Lacs thread got me thinking about this topic again.
I completely understand that high levels of stocking cannot be a continuous thing or the musky will become over populated. And the target lakes need to be capable of handling the biomass.
But look at the lakes in Wisconsin that are CONTINUOUS producers of 50” class and bigger fish. Then look at their stocking history. I mentioned many above, add to that Okauchee Lake, and Pewaukee Lake. Plus look what’s happening with the Madison Chain right now it is climbing the peek every year, based on some heavy years of stocking in the early and mid 90’s.
If TROPHY muskies are the goal, I think stocking numbers are one variables that need to be seriously looked at in the equation. It is something we can have COMPLETE control over.
Nature does this all the time by making weather and water conditions perfect for a large year class of spawners. I think it pays to look at the possibility of artificially creating a excellent year class by periodically stocking a large number of fish. On lakes that require stocking to supplement natural reproduction. I am not saying discontinue the yearly or every other year stocking, as that is most likely needed to sustain the complete population. I am saying once every 5 to 10 years give it a major boost just like mother nature does on a natural system.
The lakes have to be able to handle the higher density and the goal should be for trophy fish, but it sure still makes sense to me that this could be tried, as it appears to have worked well in the past.
If predation by pike and adult musky is a major concern, maybe the fish could be planted at an older age. I am guessing there are many musky clubs that would get behind a project like this with volunteer effort and dollars, if it means the possibility of more large fish.
I am not saying this is a magic pill, just something that COULD be part of the witches brew. There are just too many examples where it has produced big fish. No doubt many of the lakes where initial stockings, but there are also many where they where just supplemental stockings.
No doubt it’s a very fine balancing act, and man am I glade I am not the one walking the tight rope, but I think it bears looking at closer, where trophy muskies are the goal.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | I think Mike's theory has some serious merit. But... I'm an engineer like Mike... and not a biologist.
Unfortunately, I'm certain that there are not many biologists out there willing to listen to an engineer and take the theory seriously.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 746
| I read an article in the Rice Lake Chronotype that Heath Benike, after their April nettng survey is considering a higher size limit for Rice lake. Right now the size limit is 40 inches. Heath is recommending 45 or even going up to 50 inches. As an angler who fishes Rice often, that's GOOD NEWS! Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I know there is some people out there who have read this and just written it off as Bar Stool biology. Which it isn’t, IT’S INTERNET BIOLOGY! 
But anyway, to me it looks like this theory has worked in the past wether by design or by accident.
What would be wrong with taking a lake that is being managed as a trophy lake and requires stocking to do the following?
Continue stocking the lake according to current WDNR procedures, but have local musky clubs raise money for a one year flood stocking of 3 to 5 fish per acre. Then watch the lake for the next 10 years continuing the entire time with the regular WDNR plan.
What would be the downside to this, if private money was willingly given and used for the stocking.
I want to make it clear, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS FOR EVERY LAKE. Only trophy lakes where the forage base has been proven and the current practices do not appear to be working, as far as growing what the majority of Wisconsin anglers consider trophy fish.
To quote my favorite Dick Pearson line, “If you always do, what you always did, you’ll always get, what you always got.”
Nail A Pig!
Mike (SirStockAlot) |
|
| |
|
| Mike,
What's the regular WDNR plan? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Guest, considering this is not an across the board proposal, I’ll use a couple lakes as an example.
A lake talked about a bunch and considered by many not to be producing to it’s maximum potential even though it already has a 50” size limit.
According to the WDNR Muskellunge Management Update (revised 2003)
Sawyer Counties, Lac Courte Oreilles, is 5039 acres and is managed as an A1 trophy lake. WDNR management strategy for A1 lakes is to increase the catch of 50" and larger muskellunge. It is classified with a class 3 reproduction status, which means Stocking is required to maintain the fishery.
The WDNR plan is to stock 2500 Tier 1 fish and 19 Tier 2 fish every Odd year.
Since 1987 has never had more than 1.1 fish per acre stocked. Averaged .5 fish/acre on the stocking through 2003.
My plan would be to let musky clubs supplement stocking every 5th year +/- with more fingerling to get the number up over 2 or 3 fish per acre stocked in that one year. NOT CHEAP, but I think clubs would get behind it.
Ok now for an example of why I think this theory holds water.
Again according to the same WDNR Muskellunge Management Update (revised 2003)
Waukesha Counties, Pewaukee lake is 2493 acres and is managed as an A2 action water. WDNR management strategy for A2 lakes is to manage for a catch rate of 1 muskellunge per 25 hours of muskellunge angling. It is classified with a class 3 reproduction status, which means Stocking is required to maintain the fishery.
The WDNR plan is to stock 2,500 Tier 1 one fish every year and 2,486 Tier 2 fish every even year. So every even year Pewaukee is supposed to get 4,986 fish. 2 fish per acre.
In 1987 had 2.6 fish/acre stocked, 1992 had 1.9 fish/acre stocked, in 1996 had 3.5 fish/acre stocked, and in 2001 had 2 fish/acre stocked.
Any musky fisherman in the State of Wisconsin knows which of those two lakes is a more consistent producer of 50” fish.
Want an example to watch in the future look at Dane Counties, Lake Monona it is 3274 acres and is classified as class B, supports intermediate populations that provide good fishing, but with generally lower catch rates than in Class A waters. (This classification may have changed, since 2003) It is classified with a class 3 reproduction status, which means Stocking is required to maintain the fishery.
The WDNR plan is to stock 2500 Tier 1 fish every year, 2500 Tier 2 fish every odd year and 1548 Tier 3 fish every odd year. So every odd year Monona gets 6548 fish, 2 fish per acre.
In 1996 had 1.4 fish/acre stocked, in 2001 had .76 Large fingerlings stocked/acre and 3.05 small fingerlings stocked/acre.
Earlier in the winter a list of lakes in Wisconsin where the best chance at a 50” fish was generated on the Musky Hunter message board. A DNR biologist listed the Madison chain as one of the waters. He was really beat up for it because to date there hasn’t been very many 50” fish caught out there. But they are coming, he knew that and the Capital Cities Muskies Inc. records show it. In the next couple of year there should be a great year class of fish that will be growing over that 50” mark. Could that be the 2001 class.
None of the Class A lakes in northern Wisconsin are being stocked or are planned to be stocked at the same level as the southern lakes even the Class 3 reproductive lakes. I think that is a shame especially considering there are many Muskies Inc. members and other musky clubs that would be willing to raise money for the extra stocking.
A couple of things I DO NOT know. I don’t know the difference between a Tier1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 fish. Also I don’t think this plan has been implemented yet, as looking at the stocking number it doesn’t appear that the goals have been stocked in the last 3 years.
Again there are many variables that effect musky populating and even more that effect trophy musky populating. But the two easiest to control are harvest and stocking. We can argue all we want the merits of, habitat destruction, predation genetics, and other issues, but their effects on the end population are much harder to quantify. Tweaking harvest level though size limits and reproduction through stocking levels seems to make the most sense to get the fastest results.
Every Lake needs to be managed according to it’s specific needs, that makes this job even tougher.
Lots of info above, I hope it made sense.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 6/21/2007 11:29 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Mike,
WDNR Fish manager/biologist musky stocking decisions are based on a couple priority systems. First, (priority 1) is rehabilitation, second (priority 2) is research or evaluation and thrid (priority 3) is remediation or recreation. While fishing classification (Class A1, B C), comes into play on some occasions, most decisions are based on biology and stocking guidance provided to each biologist based on anticipated hatchery production and budget. Fish from Coop musky ponds fall into priority 3.
‘Tiering’ is an additional decision layer which overlays the Priority system. Tiering recognizes that when the availability of fish is limited by either budget or production issues, large water bodies with large stocking quotas will impact the availability and distribution of fish disproportionately with respect to the cost effectiveness of the stocking. Tiering applies only to priority 3 stocking. So, stocking quotas get changed based on tier. (Example: in a year of decreased hatchery production Monona may only get 1548...these decisions are made by the fisheries biologists and the statewide musky team.
So your presumtion that Monona gets 2500 fish every year plus 2500 and 1548 tier 2 and 3 fish every odd year respectively is incorrect. The stocking records show this with the exception of 2001. In 2001 it looks like Monona got 10,000 small fingerling (4-6" fish) and 2500 Large fingerling (>7" fish). I have no idea what happened in 2001 but will look into it.
Regarding your comments about the 2001 year class being the one that contains fish approaching 50"...that is most likely not the case. A musky that is 6-7 years old and 50 inches is unlikely, even under the best growing conditions. Assuming your theory is correct, I would point my finger at the 4935 fish stocked in 1996.
However, even at 13 years those fish would be showing exceptional growth.
Monona
Year Species Size Number stocked
1977 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 31
1986 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 27
1987 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 543
1988 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 1,417
1990 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 398
1991 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 2,625
1992 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 2,500
1995 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 362
1996 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 4,600
1996 MUSKELLUNGE FINGERLING 335
1998 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 2,600
1998 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 80
1999 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 1,400
1999 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 2,161
2000 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 176
2000 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 2,324
2001 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 2,500
2001 MUSKELLUNGE SMALL FINGERLING 10,000
2003 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 1,000
2004 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 2,500
2005 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 700
2006 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 35
2006 MUSKELLUNGE LARGE FINGERLING 997
Hopefully this clarifies some of the stocking questions you mentioned in your posts.
Good luck fishing!
Jordan |
|
| |
|
| Regarding your comments about the 2001 year class being the one that contains fish approaching 50"...that is most likely not the case. A musky that is 6-7 years old and 50 inches is unlikely, even under the best growing conditions. Assuming your theory is correct, I would point my finger at the 4935 fish stocked in 1996.
However, even at 13 years those fish would be showing exceptional growth.
the '96 year class has been showing up in Cap City Muskies Inc records every year since about '99 from both Monona and Waubesa. for most of that time it has been the dominant year class, and now that they're starting to age (and decrease in numbers as a proportion of total population) they're still a distinct "bump" that sticks out from the numbers of fish just above or below them size-wise.
the good thing about this is that it's meant that each year, this large cohort of fish has increased by about 2". if i recall correctly from this year's awards banquet, i think that year class was showing up in the 46"-48" range in 2006, and many people are hopeful that 2007 is the year that a documented 50" fish will be caught on the Madison chain. Craig Eversol would know for sure as he is the club's records guru.
the Madison chain lakes seem to be progressing nicely along a path very similar to that experienced by Pewaukee and Okauchee, which started significant stockings earlier. those lakes now consistently produce trophy-size fish, and we're all hoping that Madison will as well. it was absolutely unbelievable to go out this spring and see 20 fish in a day of which more than half were over 40". good things to come!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | Between MRoberts "research" and the infinite number of testimonials on these "strong year class stockings".... I still find it funny that the "biologists" keep turning a deaf ear to the idea/concept. I'd love to see the private sector try to take on the task and conduct its own "study" of sorts if the red tape of "agencies" is too large of a hurdle.
Just like trophy size limits.... I think knocking off one lake at a time is a good and valid approach for re-establishing trophy musky fisheries here in Wisconsin. And... with these "younger" southern waters "coming of age" now and in the next few years.... I think the northwoods tourism may feel the impact as well. MN has stolen plenty of tourist dollars already... and now the southern part of the state may further divert tourist money. Thus, perhaps the local Chamber of Commerce would be another approach for funding???? Just a thought.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for the clarification Jordon, that explains more, and Mike thanks for the Madison numbers.
Jordon if I read you correctly the Tier 2&3 fish in the plan are bonus fish if everything goes well with budget numbers and hatchery production.
And my mistake I absolutely should have mentioned that 1996 in my summary at the end of my Monona discussion. I guess I was trying to point out that there is also an exceptional class on the horizon from 2001.
However, there is something important to watch. The 1996 class had the benefit of a lower overall adult musky density in the lake when it was stocked. If the 2001 class performs similarly to the 1996 class it will show that is not an issue, if not that could be the reason.
But looking at Okauchee and Pewaukee this doesn’t seem to have negatively affected them.
Not going to list the entire stocking years there has been pretty consistent stocking throughout the years, but here are the floods years:
Pewaukee:
1987 2.6/acre
1992 1.9/acre
1996 3.5/acre
2001 2.0/acre
Okauchee
1987 1.6/acre
1992 2.7/acre
1993 1.7/acre
1996 8.4/acre
1997 4.3/acre
2001 2.3/acre
2002 2.0/acre
2003 2.0/acre
I didn’t pull the report up again, but if I remember correctly the 1996 stocking on these to lakes included a lot of what is listed as small fingerlings. But either way the results, as far as big, fish from these two lakes speak for themselves.
Does anyone out there have some actual numbers on big fish from these two lakes. I am just going by memory and seeing all the big fish posted on these sites.
I want to make one thing clear before I finish this post. I understand it’s easier to manage these southern lakes as natural reproduction is pretty much a non factor, my guess is this makes management easier. I know managers don’t want to create an issue like what happened on Butternut, where a number of years of high stocking combined with a number of years of great natural reproduction resulted in an overpopulated fishery. By the way if I am not mistaken before the lake tipped to overpopulation there was a large number of big fish caught out there. A very fine balancing act indeed.
Thanks for reading.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 6/22/2007 9:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Where is this Madison Chain that you guys are referring to? I have never heard of the Madison river. The Yahara Chain, located in Madison, McFarland and Stoughton is really coming on.
Jordan as Lambeau mentioned the dominant class in Monona and Waubesa is the 1996 class, these fish are in the 45"-49" size range right now, incredible growth rates for fish that are 11 years old. The fish down here only live for 17 years, the downside of the fast growth rates. Our fishing will only get better over the next 6 years.
I like looking at the stocking of true strain muskies in Waubesa because it never received any until 1992 and then not again until the large stocking of 1996.
1992 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 1,500
1996 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 4,250 7.77
1997 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 173 10.00
1998 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 2,710 11.73
1999 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 954 9.83
2000 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 2,500 11.20
2001 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 2,500 9.00
2003 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 500 11.40
2004 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 1,580 10.70
2006 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 MUSKELLUNGE UPPER CHIPPEWA RIVER LARGE FINGERLING 688 11.20
Several Hybrids have been stocked in recent years , also. These fish appear to be growing even faster but I don't think that they will live as long as the trues. These fish were all put in by the Musky Busters club (Oregon, WI).
2000 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 NORTHERN PIKE X MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 2,000 8.00
2001 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 NORTHERN PIKE X MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 1,650 8.20
2003 LAKE WAUBESA 6N-10E-3 NORTHERN PIKE X MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 274 10.00
So far this year the biggest trues that have been caught and released that I know about have been a 48.5" and a 48". The largest Tiger 42". These fish are all very robust. The future of the YAHARA CHAIN is very bright indeed.
I'll be out there in about three hours trying to locate some of these 1996 fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for the support Jason, but to be fair I have only presented this theory once to any real biologist (other than those brave enough to get involved here). And I don’t know if I conveyed my train of thought very well in that email. As I was very excited about what I appeared to have found and that probably came across in the original email. What I am attempting to do with this thread is figure out a coherent line of reasoning. So I can maybe send another email or make some phone calls and not come across as the guys who where pushing for the genetic change did. Also when I first posted this thread last year and sent the email it was in the heat of the genetic discussion, so I am sure the last thing those guys wanted was what could appear as another crack pot theory.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| Jason,
Excellent use of "quotation marks"!
Love, Jordan |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32839
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Long sometimes forgets himself. Since he has so far failed to apologize, I will do so for him. Use of quotation marks around the term Biologists indicates a negative connotation. I'm not sure that Mr. Long intended that, but none the less.....
|
|
| |
|
| jlong - 6/7/2007 8:53 PM
I think Mike's theory has some serious merit. But... I'm an engineer like Mike... and not a biologist.
Unfortunately, I'm certain that there are not many biologists out there willing to listen to an engineer and take the theory seriously.
Why does that surprise you ? Would you, as an engineer, listen to and take the opinion seriously of a fisherman who thinks they know how to engineer something better than you ?
I always laugh at fisherman who think that because they FISH, they also know how to manage fish. Hell, I like to cook toast in the morning, but I don't know how to build a toaster. I feel sorry for biologists. It seems to me to be one of the few professions out there where every one of your constituents think they know better than you do ..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Muskie-fisher, thank you for resurrecting this it was fun to read again.
I won’t answer for Jason, but I will answer for myself.
As an engineer, I wouldn't necessarily take the opinion of a fisherman and let it affect a design, because most likely that opinion would not be relevant to a design project I was working on. If they had an opinon on a boat design, I would most definately listen.
When I worked as a municipal design engineer I took the opinions of city crews, contractors and machine operators into account all the time. In fact on many occasion the solution to a complicated design project comes from the people that spend the most time using the end product.
Just because one doesn’t have a piece of paper on the wall declaring them an expert doesn’t mean they don’t have knowledge on a subject. I have run into contractors that have been doing sewer and water project for years and years, I guarantee those guys know more about building sewer and water in their specific area than any engineer I know.
I know guys who work on old cars, and I would bet they know more about how those cars work than the engineers that originally designed them. In many cases they have had the cars apart and put back together many times.
I know there are fishermen who fish Pelican lake who know more about the fish population on pelican lake than the biologist that manage the lake. It’s not a knock on the biologist, but these guys, some of them retired, spend 7 days a week on the water, some chase walleye, some chase perch, some chase musky. The Oneida County biologist has hundreds of lakes to manage for all species. They don’t have the time to get that intimate with specific bodies of water.
There are also some that fish once a year and think they are experts, it's important to be able to judge that experience level.
I in NO way am saying I am even close to expert in anything musky related. But a biological problem is very similar to an engineering problem, I was just trying to make sense of the stocking numbers and the known results. I still believe the above theories are valid, to date I have found NO data that disputes them. Other than extremely low pressured populations. There are many cases of big fish even if there was no stocking, this includes Northern Wisconsin lakes as small as 100 acres. Some of these lakes biologist don’t know even have musky or wont admit it. 99% of the time the have extremely low fishing pressure.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 11/15/2008 1:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Mike, after seeing some info today on a study being done, I will say Genetics, Genetics, Genetics, are key, and the with WI strain growing slower in the top end, and mortality(angler and delayed) might be the biggest issues. For example if the Mad City Fish of 96 were leech/great strain they would have been popping 50's the last 2 years, still to date I have not heard of a verified 50" from mad city after talking to Jeff and others in chicago. I heard that Sloss has come up with 31 strains in WI, cannot wait to hear he presentation tomorrow.
In Mn they do not stock anywhere near 1 fish per acre
To reduce delayed mortality we are raising and stocking 1 1/2 of lake with High density of northerns. We will be working with the MN DNR this year to document this effectiveness of this program. So leechers maynot be your silver bullet, but 2 fish with MR B's genetics breeding will not grow a giant.
Troyz
Edited by Troyz. 3/22/2009 11:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32839
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Watch the video I will be publishing tonight or tomorrow of Brian Sloss's presentation on Wisconsin Muskie genetics at the the Madison Muskie School.
The muskies in the Madison chain are hitting 48.5 to 49 now. Dr. Sloss addresses the concept you forward quite a bit. I'd argue that there's no indication that Leech fish will grow heavier, longer, or faster in Madison waters at this point...we'll see! True trophy potential is in long life and continuous growth, according to Casselman, so the net results COULD be that the Wisco strain could end up heavier and no shorter than other strains given identical environment and forage. One thing he did indicate is that the work on Lac Court Orielles indicated it's unlikely there are interbred slow growth 'mutts' out there as was assumed earlier by some.
I believe he stated there are two strains at this point that are distinct to watersheds, but I need to listen to it again as I was busy working on the live feed camera. He mentioned he was doing some work on the Leech Lake/Wisconsin genetics in Mille Lacs, the results to see if the muskies there are interbreeding or two tier, the results of that work will be interesting.
The video is 300 MB, and I have a limit here as to what I can upload each day, so I might have to upload it during the 3 AM to 6 AM period when there's no fair access policy in effect.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | I guess the question after seeing the video is that LCO did not lose its genetic indentity. So are the stocked fish not reproducing in LCO, were there any signs of those spider/mud/callahan fish in LCO. If the stocked fish are not reproducing that explains the genetic integrity, or are the LCO fish not reproducing naturally?
There is some crossing going on in Mill Lac, of all fish over 50" none had WI/kalep genetics in the sampling. Also fish that were comonly called WI strain, when tested 80% were not from WI. There will be more sampling be taken place this year on Mill Lacs and Leech. I have a contact to DNR that I will be forwarded you, to see if the MAC participants might be interested in doing some data collection in the prefishing for the MAC event.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32839
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, there was no sign whatsoever of the stocked fish long term, Dr' Sloss mentioned one generation of stocked fish that were evident until the simply died off; those fish were stocked from the hatchery over here.
Dr. Sloss mentioned looking into the apparent interbreeding of Wisconsin and Leech strains in Mille Lacs, should be interesting.
The LCO fish heve been reproducing, but I've read recruitment is poor as a result of environmental changes there. The point is the fish there are the same genetically as the fish in LCO when the lake kicked out some very large fish. The implications are pretty obvious. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | I wondering if stripping of LCO fish and raising them to 1 1/2 year old would greatly decrease the delayed mortality on the lake and bring back the population. The lake is full of small pike which probably love fingerlings, when we spent our summer there, you could catch them faster than panfish, never ran more than 3 rods with the kids. There are still some large fish there, but few at best, I believe catch ratio was 1 fish to 90 hours.
Another thing I heard sloss talk about is there is X amount of "Calories" in a lake, and this would kind of go against Mikes though about stocking high fish per acre and having them fight for X amount of calories. What has the WI DNR practice been for stocking lakes?
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | There are so many variables it is truly hard to determine the deciding factor.
My above theory is predicated on the assumption that the lakes have the capacity to handle the biomass associated with large fish. I am assuming that is the same as “X amount of Calories" I have yet to watch the video but plan to when I get time.
The theory is also predicated on the assumption that stocking larger numbers of fingerlings could have the same effect as your stocking of 1 ½ year old fish. If there is a predation problem, lets say by pike. Stocking larger numbers allows more fish the chance to survive to a point where they are no longer preyed on. Stocking larger fish basically does the same thing. Which is more expensive, I suppose depends on other variables. I will also point out that if predation is to high it won’t matter how many fish you stock there will be problems, then stocking large fish may be the only solution. However if there is some other event stocking lower numbers of large fish could be detrimental as there just aren’t enough fish to survive.
I you stock to the point you over tax the biomass then I am guessing that is when stunting becomes an issue. Whether it’s by stocking large numbers 10” fish or fewer numbers of 24” fish.
I know me discussing this topic really angers some of my biologist friends, but past performance of lakes should be worth something.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | MRoberts - 3/25/2009 3:57 PM
There are so many variables it is truly hard to determine the deciding factor.
The theory is also predicated on the assumption that stocking larger numbers of fingerlings could have the same effect as your stocking of 1 ½ year old fish. If there is a predation problem, lets say by pike. Stocking larger numbers allows more fish the chance to survive to a point where they are no longer preyed on. Stocking larger fish basically does the same thing.
Mike
This is the tactic I took when I was the biologist at Pineview. We were stocking into a very healthy black bass population, and virtually all of the literature indicated that stocking muskies less than 7" TL would fail. In a 2800 acre reservoir I shot for 10,000 to 20,000 fingerlings (2-4" TL) anticipating high numbers of mortality. It seemed to work primarily based on the fact that we experienced incredible growth rates - fingerlings stocked in mid-June attained 15-20" TL by November of the same year. Admittedly, the predation window is smaller for black bass than it is for pike, but it worked here.
You can also get an idea why the best practices for one area may not work at all in others. Environmental conditions, in my experience (and not limited to just muskies), generally form more of a basis for success or failure of a program than any other factor.
S. |
|
| |
