Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Wisconsin DNR Answers Hayward Muskie Stocking Meeting Questions! |
| Message Subject: Wisconsin DNR Answers Hayward Muskie Stocking Meeting Questions! | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Excerpt: A meeting to discuss muskellunge genetics and stocking issues was held at the Hayward High School Auditorium on the evening of February 13, 2006. Over 150 local anglers, guides, and business owners attended the meeting, which was sponsored by the Hayward Visitors and Convention Bureau (HVCB). Presentations illustrating different viewpoints were made by Steve AveLallemant, Northern Region Fisheries Supervisor for the Wisconsin DNR, and by Bob Benson and Larry Ramsell of the three-member citizen group calling itself the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project (WMRP) Team. Presentations were followed by a lengthy question-and-answer period. Most questions were directed to Mr. AveLallemant of the WDNR. Time constraints and a desire to maintain a positive atmosphere kept the answers friendly and brief, resulting in post-meeting interest in hearing the rest of the story from the DNR by many attendees. The next day, Cheryl Treland, President of the HVCB, formally requested that DNR provide more detailed responses, in writing. We agreed. On March 2 we received an audio cassette recording of the meeting from HVCB Executive Director, Linda Clifford. Audience questions are transcribed as accurately as possible below; and detailed answers to those questions are provided on behalf of the Wisconsin DNR. We were unable to avoid using some of the specialized language of aquatic ecologists and fish geneticists in our response, so a Glossary of Terms is attached. We appreciate the opportunity to further explain our beliefs and management decisions. We want Hayward area anglers, guides, and business owners to know how seriously we take their concerns and our responsibility to conserve this valuable fishery resource today and for future generations. Read the entire document here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.16.2006/1025/Tape-Recor... | ||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | WOW....my head hurts after reading all this. BUT, it definately lays out some sound judgement as to the steps that are being taken and why. Thanks for all the work to put this up. Cory | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | Now that I am done with the trivia...I can finish reading this. Thanks for putting this up Steve. I read some of it yesterday and found it very interesting. | ||
| John Myhre |
| ||
| The inaccuracy of One particular statement in this document makes me wonder just how much more Mr Neuswanger does not have right? A post I made on Pastikas site in answer to someone asking if many of the resorts going condo on the flowage would lead to lack of places to stay and lack of resort business. Somehow Dave took it and turned it around to fit his agenda? Yes I did make the statement that the resort business in Hayward is alive and well and that most of the resorts are filled by March. However this was a general statement not referring to musky anglers and was instead referring to summer vacationers and tourist trade. The resorts are pretty much full from early June to Labor day. Where there seems to be a shorfall is in the month of May and again in September and October. This is likely due to smaller walleye bag limits on many alkes and YES the lack of as many musky anglers on many lakes! Dave, please if you must take one of my statements, do not do it out of context!!!!! I know what I said and it not only refered to the resorts being full in the summer but had nothing to do with the musky fishing. But you conviently left out that info. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's your comment, John. If you said this, then you said it, and you can't expect that the statement will only be interpreted or read by people you like or agree with. 'There are some resorts going condo on several lakes, however I have not heard of more that 2 or 3 on the flowage. This happens in most cases not because of a lack of business but instead as a result of simple economics and higher property values. Also just because a resort goes condo does not mean that it will cease to operate as a resort, infact most of them still rent cabins and provide services as they always have done. Don't worry about finding a place to stay and enjoy the area, Actually the resort business is doing quite well in the Hayward area with very few exceptions and most resorts are or will be booked up by the end of March. John H. Myhre www.wiscnorthlandoutdoors.com' Here's the question you answered: 'I have been fishing the Chip for the past 35 years. I recently heard a rumor that numerous reosrts are closing on the Flowage. Is this true? If so which ones?' Here's the quote from the q&a: 'Regarding economic losses, we wonder what an independent professional economist would say about calculating county-wide economic losses based upon an estimated decrease in one activity (guided trips for trophy muskellunge) without examining what, if any, income-producing activities may have increased as a result of concurrent changes in local fishing opportunity. For example, might there have been a compensatory increase in unguided trips by people who are thrilled to catch 40-inch muskies, which are now more numerous than ever in Sawyer County? Arent those average musky anglers spending money at local resorts, bait shops, restaurants and gas stations too? Did anyone try to measure their increased contribution, if any, to the area economy? In response to a posted concern about Chippewa Flowage resorts by a visitor to Pastikas web forum on 2/27/06, a well-known local fishing guide, resort owner, and outdoor radio talk show host replied, ' Actually the resort business is doing quite well in the Hayward area with very few exceptions and most resorts are or will be booked up by the end of March.' That's what you posted to Pastikas, and how that post was quoted in the DNR quote, in complete context. I fail to see any misuse of that statement in the q&a. Can't have things 'both ways', John. There was no inaccuracy in the quote, nor is it out of context. I think the question, statement, and following queston by the DNR is valid, and your comment used EXACTLY in context. | ||
| John Myhre |
| ||
| Steve; In essencey You are correct, but still wrong, in what was said but when it was said it had nothing to do with people staying at resorts to musky fish! When you read the post you will see that it had nothing to do with muskie fishing and as such left a lot out. If I had known I were to be quoted for that purpose I would have included a lot more info that at the time did not feel needed. If Dave would have done any research or is simply asked me or anyone else he would have found that, yes the resorts are full in the summer between June and Labor Day but have a lot of openings in May, Sept, and October. While the lack of anglers in May is likely due to lower walleye bag limits and the perception that there are less walleyes, which is a whole other subject. All you need to do is venture out onto any of the lakes in the fall to see why. Simply, there are less muskie anglers out there. Now I am not trying to blast Dave here or saying that all is bad with our musky fishing. We actually have a good number of smaller lakes that are now maybe better than ever but the big lakes like LCO, Grindstone, and Round are simply not even close to where they once were or should be. Could be lots of reasons for this but the fact still remains they need fixing. Still, with all what is going on with the fisheries and media, northern Wisconsin is losing avid musky anglers to elsewhere and replacing them with maybe more less avid anglers who fish for everything, including musies some, and also with people who do not come to the north to fish at all. For whatever the reason this is in fact costing WI tourism it once had in the months of May. Sept, and Oct. But again, as for quoting me on the resorts, what he did was not right. What's right is right and we all need to be as accurate as we can when we are in a position of putting info out to everyone else. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You posted what you posted, and it ws quoted elsewhere. What, if someone wants to repeat what you said on that forum elsewhere, they are supposed to call you up and ask if what you said was is open to some other esoteric interpretation? Your comment was in answer to an angler saying he had fished the Chip for years; that angler didn't comment on what he was fishing for, and neither did you. You said the resorts in the area are doing well and are booked by March in most cases. The claim the Q&A was answering was that there are millions of dollars in losses to Minnesota muskie angling opportunities, and the challlenge is, in essence, 'we would like those claiming that to prove it out, seems way high to us'. The idea here is that it isn't just 55" muskies that draw resort clients; it's good multi-specie angling opportunities and much much more. The question was if indeed the numbers that have been thrown around are correct, and here's the gist: ''Regarding economic losses, we wonder what an independent professional economist would say about calculating county-wide economic losses based upon an estimated decrease in one activity (guided trips for trophy muskellunge) without examining what, if any, income-producing activities may have increased as a result of concurrent changes in local fishing opportunity." | ||
| John Myhre |
| ||
| Steve; I responded to the post with the info they wanted, nothing more. If you respond to a post do you not do the same? Or always include info that may not even be relative? Just because I responded to the poster does not infer I would or should either. No, I do not expect everyone to contact me every time they want to quote me but if I were drafting as important of document as this one, if I were in that position I would and I expect the same from anyone who wanted to quote me. The fact still remains that he left out a lot that was not there, whether intentionally or not, that should have been included. As for response to his speculations, I can't speak for specific dollars lost, that's just not my expertise, but as a guide who has spent more than a quarter century plying the Hayward area waters can tell you that there simply are not as many anglers in the fall as we once had and that they are spending less money on guides as well as some other things. That is fact and real! Not speculation. That being said, I never said that tourism was not good, because it is in the summer even if it has changed considerably in it's base, however it could be better if we had what we once had in the spring and fall and from what I am seeing from the DNR is that they refuse to acknowledge that at all but instead come up with suppositions surmising how great everything always is. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Left out alot that was not there. Exactly my point. If you do not want to be quoted verbatim, I would suggest you don't post comments on message boards, John. Where did the DNR say how great ANYTHING is or is not in the Q&A? I see a question and somewhat of a challenge to those talking losses in Hayward area tourism in the millions. I have no idea if those figures are even approaching any reality or if they are possibly less than actual, but those statements have been made, and the response was what it was, a question as to whether an economist might agree. | ||
| John Myhre |
| ||
| Steve; I guess I am not supposed to post to simply answer someones basic questions without also posting a whole bunch of negative and non pertinent info without fear of someone bending my statement to mean whatever they want it to??? Come on! As for the DNR part, that is not why I posted in the first place and really don't want to get into it but as long as you asked, did they not say in the response they wanted to work with the VCB to get their viewpoint out, and are you abosolutely sure thier viewpoint is 100% correct ? Way too many variables and factors involved here to be 100% sure. What is fact is that there is a problem on some lakes and that same problem as well as perception there is a problem everywhere could also be the reason for the loss. The cost in actual dollars I agree is speculation but it has to be considerable from what I am seeing and hearing. | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
| John, are you saying that the area resorts used to be full in September and October? are you also saying that summer business used to be largely muskie-fishing related, and that this has been replaced by more general fishing/vacationing tourists? ie., Memorial Day - Labor is full as ever, but that there used to be enough fishing-only business in the fall to fill all those resorts up and this is no longer coming to NW WI? my "gut" tells me that resorts aren't full in the fall like they are in the summer, and never have been, no matter who the customer base is - but i've got no evidence/experience to base this supposition on. if you're experience is different, that is quite interesting. does anyone have any real numbers (booking histories perhaps?) to substantiate this? Edited by lambeau 3/20/2006 1:22 PM | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Who said anything about my perception of either viewpoint? No one 'bent' your statement, sir. You posted EXACTLY what you posted, it's right there to read, in answer to a question which is also right there to read. It isn't murky, unclear, or cryptic, it's what it is. I'm saying only that you can't expect a quote like that to be interpreted any differently than it was, and you certainly shouldn't demand or expect that it should be because you want it to mean different things to different people. | ||
| John Myhre |
| ||
| Lambeau; No I did not say the resorts all used to be full up in the spring and fall but most of them have more openings then than they used to have! Just are far less anglers and musky anglers out on the lakes in the spring and fall too. Guides were booked more too. Also I never said it was mostly a musky based business in the summer, maybe more fishing in general and musky than it is today though. Sheesh!!!! Maybe need to add a disclaimer to all future posts ? | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | I stand by everything I wrote in the Q&A document, including the accurate quote of a noted area fishing guide, resort owner, and radio talk show host. I never mentioned him by name, but I guess he decided to come forward on his own. His choice. What is MUCH more interesting to me is the additional analysis I've been able to do with the excellent tagging study data that Rick Bruesewitz has been kind enough to share. Rick is MDNR's Treaty Assessment Biologist on Mille Lacs. Here's a quick summary of his data: Shoepack Lake fish were stocked in Mille Lacs before 1984. Only fish from Wisconsin were stocked from 1984 through 1987. No fish were actually stocked in 1988. The first Leech Lake fish were stocked in 1989, including a few yearlings of the 1988 year class. Fish were captured, tagged, and aged by MDNR during 1996-1998. Recaptures have been noted ever since. All 13 fish reported to date as recaptures over 50 inches long were from the 1984-1987 year classes (Wisconsin fish). Also, 19 of 26 fish (73%) 45-49 inches long originated as Wisconsin fish stocked during 1984-1987. These are the "Wisconsin hatchery mutts" that the WMRP Team has assured everyone cannot grow fast or get big because of bad genetics. Really?! The irony of all this, of course, is that much of the outstanding trophy musky fishing in Mille Lacs and other Minnesota lakes over the past five years is probably associated to some extent with the stocking of Wisconsin hatchery fish during 1984-1987, before the Leech Lake broodstock lakes came online for statewide propagation and stocking. We're glad the Wisconsin fish are providing such exciting fishing in Minnesota. And for everyone's sake, we hope the Leech Lake fish displace the Wisconsin fish completely in the years ahead so that outbreeding depression does not compromise the chances for natural reproduction, sustained good growth, and survival to trophy sizes of future generations of Leech Lake strain fish in their native waters. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 3/20/2006 10:02 PM | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
John Myhre - 3/20/2006 4:32 PM Lambeau; No I did not say the resorts all used to be full up in the spring and fall but most of them have more openings then than they used to have! Just are far less anglers and musky anglers out on the lakes in the spring and fall too. Guides were booked more too. Also I never said it was mostly a musky based business in the summer, maybe more fishing in general and musky than it is today though. Sheesh!!!! Maybe need to add a disclaimer to all future posts ? actually John i was asking questions because i didn't know the answer and i figured you did. i wasn't editorializing. thanks to your information, i have a clearer picture of things now. why do you believe less muskie anglers are fishing the Hayward area in the fall? were these traditionally MN anglers who are now fishing closer to home? if so, do you believe that addressing the issues with the lakes you listed (LCO, Round, Grindstone, etc) will lead those anglers to leave closer waters such as Mille Lacs in favor of NW WI? what would like to see happen in order to recover the lost numbers of muskie fishermen in the area? (disclaimer: i'm not saying those issues shouldn't be addressed, i'm just hoping to get a perspective about the economics of things in the area from someone who depends on them for a living) Edited by lambeau 3/20/2006 7:15 PM | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| Lambeau; What I feel we have lost are some of the more avid musky anglers in search of bigger fish. No I don't think they were necessarily MN anglers but from all over. Why, just look at any of the musky media and the positive promotion going on for some of the areas where there has been the big fish boom going on. Whatever can be done should be done to bring some of those bigger lakes that historically produced the biggest fish back to where they once were. If that were to happen, yes it would probably bring some of those anglers back. We may never know. At least we still have a good number of lakes that are better than they were but still those lakes are only producing a good number of mid 40 inch fish and a few bigger. Those larger lakes were always better for the bigger fish in the past. Dave N; You've read what I had to say so I won't go into that again except to say that I was informed that someone had suggested you contact me before you quoted what was siad in the post just to ensure you had the right info. As I said before, that post was simply to help someone who was concered about the availability of lodging out with a little info and as such referred to the busy time when loding can and does fill up in the summer. Not the spring and fall when there are more openings available. At the time I did not think that info was needed. Yes a few of the resorts that cater more towards fishing are booked up more then but there are lots more resorts that are not all that busy too. If you had asked me I would have provided you with more info and also told you that there are plenty of openings in the spring and fall, more than there used to be anyways. I would have been happy to filled you in on all this but even though someone suggested it you did not ask. I'm sorry if it might offend you but I just don't like for something I said under a totally different set of circumstances being used for something else without all what was not said being included. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John WHERE was all this other stuff you didn't say? I posted your entire comment on Pastikas, the whole thing and the question ( from a fisherman, not a jet skier or power boater), nothing excluded, including what you didn't say. Wow. Talk about trying to play both ends against the middle. Sorry John, it just makes me crazy when someone plays both sides of the fence. Not so much when ON the fence, just when both sides seem to be the destination, depending on who's reading. I suggest you look at that SAME media and all the NEGATIVE press about your area. Look no further, there's a large portion of your problem, IMHO. Resort owners demanding we leave the 34" limit on when we propose a 50" trophy only protection for many lakes because thay WANT harvest of smaller fish to support tourism, then complaining when big fish are available elsewhere but not at home as much as desired. That is Minnesota next if they don't protect those fish. | ||
| John Myhre |
| ||
| Steve; Just what part of this is too hard to understand? I am not as you say playing both sides of the fence. I simply said I had a problem with Dave using what was said under a totally different set of circumstances in his document. He was even told by someone else that It might be a good idea to contact me before using it. The only problem with his using it is that it does not accurately tell the whole story as that post related to the summer period only. Do you not think accuracy is important? You respond however you want but I grow tired of disussing it, my point has been made. I only respond to this to support the Hayward area and get accurate info out, myself I do just fine and stay as busy as I want, just would like to see a few more bigger fish in some of the lakes. Yes there has been way too much and in many cases undeserved negative about WI in general and this area as well. I particularly do not like it however, we were losing some of those avid musky anglers before all this. Probably not because of the fishing here as much as what has happened in MN. Like they say, if you build it , they will come. As for the resorts wanting to keep the 34 inch limit, that's your problem over East. For the most part we do not have problems getting larger size limits established here. I have said all along that harvest is a significant issue we have to look at but then I think stocking practices and genetics are too. Lots of issues involved. | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Dave - "All 13 fish reported to date as recaptures over 50 inches long were from the 1984-1987 year classes (Wisconsin fish). Also, 19 of 26 fish (73%) 45-49 inches long originated as Wisconsin fish stocked during 1984-1987. These are the "Wisconsin hatchery mutts" that the WMRP Team has assured everyone cannot grow fast or get big because of bad genetics. Really?!" Question for Dave - Where was the spawn taken from that was used for the WI muskies that were stocked into Mille Lacs? Do you know if these WI fish that were stocked into Mille Lacs and other MN lakes you seem to believe are doing so well were the result of spawn taken directly from Bone Lake only, the same lake and fish the WDNR has been using for stocking in NW WI the last 35 years? You might want to check that out before claiming they are the same as the "Wisconsin Hatchery Mutts", A.K.A. Bone lake fish, that the WDNR has stocked for 35 years all over NW WI. This kind of reminds me of how in the past, and even this time around with the studies to be conducted in the St. Croix drainage, how the WDNR always takes spawn from lakes OTHER than our brood source lake, Bone lake, when they are going to be doing side by side studies or growth studies with other fish. Why would the WDNR suddenly take spawn only from lakes other than Bone lake, our brood source lake for NW WI for the last 35 years, and only when they are going to do these kinds of studies? It makes no sense at all to use spawn taken only from lakes other than the one we actually are using as a brood source for all of NW WI for the last 35 years unless someone believes there is a need to do this for some reason. Would doing this possibly skew the results of the studies one way or another and perhaps hide the truth about how the fish actually being used in our hatchery and for stocking in NW WI would really perform against the competition? I find it very interesting that since Bone Lake became the brood source for the WDNR stocking program for all of NW WI 35 years ago, each time the WDNR has done side by side studies or growth studies against other fish, the WDNR used spawn taken only from lakes in NW WI OTHER than Bone Lake. The muskie stockings that were carried out specifically for these studies were the only times the WDNR took spawn from any lakes in NW WI other than Bone Lake in the last 35 years. Is this just a coincidence? Why has the WDNR avoided using spawn and/or fish from Bone Lake every time they have done these kinds of studies over the last 35 years and apparently again for these new studies? John M. Welcome to the wonderful world of Muskie First. I see you have been welcomed here with open arms by everyone lurking in the land of denial. | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
It makes no sense at all to use spawn taken only from lakes other than the one we actually are using as a brood source for all of NW WI for the last 35 years unless someone believes there is a need to do this for some reason. which by inference suggests that you believe the WDNR has been knowingly, intentionally using fish that would not grow big. and yet the WDNR has changed their brood source practice this year based on good science. when you're convinced that someone is "out to get you" (especially a large institution) it tends to skew the way you see everything they do. Welcome to the wonderful world of Muskie First. I see you have been welcomed here with open arms by everyone lurking in the land of denial. how is posting something like that helpful? how does it make you look like someone people would want to hold discourse with? i'm a part of MuskieFIRST and i don't consider myself "living in denial", nor do i think it about you. | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| The Chippewa Flowage has been stocked with more than 3 million Bone Lake muskies over the last 35 years. Is that good science? If the DNR is not able to get the eggs they need for the hatchery from there then Bone Lake will be used as a backup even though Dr. Sloss has said they should not be using Bone Lake. Is that good science? Maybe he should have said not to use muskies from Bone lake or any other lake that has been stocked with over 3 million Bone lake muskies instead? Just wondering why when the DNR has done any side by side studies or growth studies against other fish, why they have always elected to take spawn from lakes other than the lake that has been used as our brood source for muskie stocking in all of NW WI for the last 35 years. Instead they take spawn taken from other lakes and use those fingerlings for these studies? That is a legitimate question I would think. And I'm not sure if this would be considered good science either. | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Dave - "Only fish from Wisconsin were stocked from 1984 through 1987. No fish were actually stocked in 1988. The first Leech Lake fish were stocked in 1989, including a few yearlings of the 1988 year class. Fish were captured, tagged, and aged by MDNR during 1996-1998. Recaptures have been noted ever since. All 13 fish reported to date as recaptures over 50 inches long were from the 1984-1987 year classes (Wisconsin fish). Also, 19 of 26 fish (73%) 45-49 inches long originated as Wisconsin fish stocked during 1984-1987." Another question. How do you know that the fish that were tagged in 1996-1998 were WI fish? From the info you have provided here they apparently were not tagged when they were stocked so how can you be so sure of this? There were also LL fish there from 1989 on. They could have been LL fish unless you left out some info. Also, how did they age these fish in 96-98? You know as well as I do that aging fish older than about 5 years of age using scale samples can be very inaccurate. How were these fish aged? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJ, I believe that is information the MNDNR provided, perhaps Dave can go into more detail. I'm really weary of the constant attack on this forum by your people. I've known John for many years and think he's a great guy, but will not leave unchallenged conspiracy theory double standard rhetoric in this discussion. If you have a problem with staying to the facts and away from personal attacks or negative rhetoric that is not germane to the discussion that's unfortunate, but MuskieFIRST won't alter our posting policies and permissions or our editorial policies to make you or John or anyone else feel warm and fuzzy. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John, If you research the subject, you will find some resort owners on the Chip and from other lakes in that area were dead set against a size increase during the first attempts to increase trophy lake limits to 50". It's a Wisconsin problem, and isn't an east or west thing. | ||
| Curious |
| ||
| In 1981, the Wisconsin DNR did a "growth study." That year they did NOT take eggs from Bone Lake that year! Why? In 1984 (the first year of Mr. Neuswanger's Mille Lacs stocking example above), the Wisconsin DNR did growth studies with the MN DNR. They did NOT take eggs from Bone Lake that year! Why? The Minnesota DNR had their OWN Wisconsin strain brood stock lake. Where did those fish come from? Was it "those" fish that were used to stock Mille Lacs??? Did the MN DNR's "Wisconsin strain" muskies come from IOWA? And if so, where did those fish come from?? Many questions, but obviously those answers weren't researched before Mr. Neuswanger made his "finding!" | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
| brain function research with people who hold strong partisan political views found interesting results. when exposed to information from the "other" side of the political fence, it was perceived as threatening and the emotion-centers of the brain were highly activated; the cognition portions of the brain were not activated much at all. that's right, when given information that doesn't match their pre-existing beliefs, people respond based on their feelings and don't think. when the genetic mapping project is completed on WI muskies, we'll actually have information to think about and make meaning from in regards to where fish were taken from and whether or not that impacted the results of side-by-side growth studies. throwing mud in each other's faces is more about feeling than thinking... Edited by lambeau 3/21/2006 8:18 AM | |||
| John Myhre |
| ||
| Steve: Thanks for the compliment, however I am not part of any conspiracy theory as you put it. I simply had a problem with what I felt was incomplete and inaccurate info being used to draft an important document. Yes the reisistance to size limits is a WI thing but we seem to have less of a problem over here with it as evidenced by the percentage of our lakes that are managed with size limits of 40 to 50 inches. On a side note to that, some of the lakes that have the 50 inch limit are the same ones that once produced good numbers of big fish but not are not??? As for the conspiracy theory thing you brought up. While I don't want to believe such things could go on, I can also see where some are coming from. I personally believe that our DNR personel want to see the best they can in our natural resources, however they are part of a Bureaucracy that has in fact done quite a few things that could cause some to think otherwise. I could go into citing some instances and names but I still have to much respect for a lot of DNR people to do that, and I do mean that! Just wish the DNR as a a whole would learn to accept responsibility when they do make a mistake instead of coming up with a myriad of other reasons why it went wrong and shifting the blame. Also wish they would accept the fact that there are a lot of folks out there with an IQ higher than minus one and that some besides them have good info and some ideas worht pursuing. | |||
| Ty Sennett |
| ||
| You know all this bickering doesn't need to happen if our lakes are just plain and simply stocked. Is the Mississippi strain or the WI strain better? Yes and no......but we need fish stocked either way. Why is one of the best lakes in the country for producing huge muskie (Round Lake) sitting with an unfishable population right now? That is unexcusable!!!! Now I know you like to back up the DNR Steve, but if you haven't seen what has happened up here you might want to listen to Eric and the WRMP just to get a few of our lakes to the fishable populations they once were. If you have spent your whole life up here you could have seen what was and now discracefully what is. Is it because of overharvest, spearing, or natural reproduction? No!!! Stocking can be used to combat all of that just the same way Cave Run does it, White Bear in MN does it, and many other areas have also. Are we losing fall muskie fishermen? #*^@ right! Why would the people that used to fish LCO and Round Lake even think about coming up here now? Unless a boat ride is their preference there is no need to waste the hours on those lakes these days. I think you would have a little different view on things if this were Pelican or the Goon that were totally overlooked. What if the DNR stopped stocking Pelican? I think you'd be just a little upset about the whole thing. Well we, meaning the people that know the lakes and area up here, know a little more than you do just as you know way more than I do about Pelican. Sometimes you just have to let the John Myhre's of the world rant a little because he actually knows what he is talking about. Might not say it right in the heat of passioon, but he knows nonetheless. Is the strain a problem up here? More so, stocking in general is a problem. I like our DNR agents up here and maybe it's beyond their grasps. There could be other problems we don't know about in the system. Sorry for the rant, Ty | |||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | Curious - 3/21/2006 7:42 AM In 1981, the Wisconsin DNR did a "growth study." That year they did NOT take eggs from Bone Lake that year! Why? In 1984 (the first year of Mr. Neuswanger's Mille Lacs stocking example above), the Wisconsin DNR did growth studies with the MN DNR. They did NOT take eggs from Bone Lake that year! Why? The Minnesota DNR had their OWN Wisconsin strain brood stock lake. Where did those fish come from? Was it "those" fish that were used to stock Mille Lacs??? Did the MN DNR's "Wisconsin strain" muskies come from IOWA? And if so, where did those fish come from?? Many questions, but obviously those answers weren't researched before Mr. Neuswanger made his "finding!" Another Oliver Stone....now it is a 35-year-old conspiracy, this is pathetic. When the WMRP first appeared I was a supporter 100%…after listening to their rhetoric over the last year I am now a 0% supporter. Can somebody from the WMRP answer a few questions for me? 1. Wasn’t it part of your mission statement that you wanted to have eggs gathered from the Chippewa Flowage? Wasn’t that listed as a preference over the Leach Lake strain? Isn’t that is what is being done this year? Yet, you guys don’t seem to be satisfied. Lockjaw seems to be implying that the side by side study that is starting this year should use Bone Lake brood. What is with that? 2. Wasn’t the WMRP opposed to the work being done by Dr. Sloss? Didn’t you guys change your tune on this position AFTER you found out he was telling the WDNR that they should change their brood lake? 3. Does the WMRP believe in Dr. Casselman’s maximum growth work? That each body of water has it’s own maximum growth rate? 4. Does the WMRP believe that Muskies, regardless of strain or should I say perceived strain, will perform better in lakes when they are first introduced into a lake? 5. What does the WMRP feel about the Bone Lake “mutts” performing very well in Rice Lake? 6. What does the WMRP have to say about the performance of the Leach Lake strain in Illinois? 7. Does the WMRP have the support of any fisheries bioligist’s? Anywhere? | ||
| Doug Bradley |
| ||
Posts: 190 | SLAMR I agree with, it is apples and oranges when we consider number of lakes and quantity stocked. But it comes down to the same thing I think, a program that works for a given area and people that are willing and interested in finding that program and making it possible along with identifying the problems and solving them the best way possible big or small. Like I said I am an outsider and this is an outsiders point of view not meant at bashing or pointing fingers but also a point of view from a vacationer and a serious musky fisherman that very much enjoys the chance at huge fish.I do not think anyone can challenge the overall beauty of the Hayward area but that mixed with better genetics would keep me coming back with my son as he grows into the fisherman he is trying to be for many years to come...........Doug | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 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 |