|
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read the report here:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/10.30.2006/1124/Update.On....
MuskieFIRST would like to thank Dr. Sloss and the Department of Natural Resources for preparing and supplying this Report. It is not necessarily standard procedure to create updates as research of this magnitude progresses, and we appreciate the time and effort extended. Dave Neuswanger also was instrumental in providing this document for publication. Thanks again, sir!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules of Discussion:
Questions about the Report by Dr. Sloss may be posted to this thread. Questions only, please! If and when an answer to your question is available, we will post it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Lots of questions.
What does this mean for the transfer of fish from Butternut to LCO? On hold for further study. Not going to happen. Will happen anyway.
How is it possible there is such a difference in genetic markers, considering these lakes have had fish stocked from the same hatchery over the last 20 +/- years.
Does this mean that stocked fish are not reproducing at all, in any lake.
Have any samples been collected from the big Wisconsin strain fish currently showing up in Mill Lacs, What is the suspected origin of those fish?
Thanks for the update,
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think Dave said they will not be transferring the fish, even though the report does mention it may not cause any problems.
Looks like the idea that the stockings from Spider, Bone, and Callahan didn't create a 'hatchery strain' in the lakes studied, if I'm reading this right. LCO has remained consistent to what was there before the stocking from what I see reported.
'1) the LCO population appears to have avoided significant genetic impact from this stocking, and 2) the genetic approach being used can identify impact from the introduction of stock fish in this system thereby strengthening the findings of no impact from the two stocking events in question. Efforts are underway to confirm the genetic identity of fish from the 1976 sample to ensure this scenario is indeed correct.'
Would be good to get some samples of thos Mille Lacs fish just to see! |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Bone Lake fish are different than LCO. Is that correct?
Are they going to stay away from Bone as a brood lake? |
|
| |
|
| I'll post some more questions once I'm home from work and have a chance to digest all that was said. But I did want to challenge you a bit on the hatchery strain topic.
While there doesn't appear to be evidence of a hatchery strain existing in the lakes that were stocked, tested and compared to Bone (Butternut and LCO), one might conclude that a hatchery strain was developed at Bone lake, especially since it was significantly unique from LCO.
If Bone was supposed to be similar to LCO due to its stocking orgins, why is it now classified as a completely divergent population? The only conclusion I can think of is the stock mixing that was done to create and sustain the brood lake ultimately transformed that population from one being similiar to LCO, to one being a unique population. And the fact that Bone lake is not a natural recruiting population, could this be evidence of outbreeding depression. Especially if there may be evidence that the LCO strain has survived over the last 50 years and continuing a natural recruiting population in LCO.
Very interesting stuff. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My question would be how a 'hatchery strain' would be created by stocking LCO fish in Bone and adding other fish from other sources, if the Spider/Callahan/Bone/Woodruff stockings had no significant effect on the LCO fish? Maybe the original fish stocked in Bone were from more than one source, say Grindstone, or another lake? Seems like a very short time frame for that much difference between Bone and LCO. Must remember the paragraph following, though:
'In other words, we cannot say if the levels of divergence we are observing among these populations are consistent with a normal between-population level of genetic difference that occurs within a single stock of WI muskellunge. This is not out of the question. Stocks are not simply significantly different populations, but represent a combination of unique populations that share enough genetic similarity to be managed as a genetic unit. If this was the case, the data, while showing significant differences between populations, would not necessarily mean a successful translocation.'
And wouldn't the changes in the genetics between LCO and Bone Lake fish occur only if the Bone Lake fish WERE reproducing?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Mike Roberts asked the following questions:
MIKE: What does this mean for the transfer of fish from Butternut to LCO? On hold for further study? Not going to happen? Will happen anyway?
DAVE: Not going to happen any time soon, if ever. The muskellunge in these two lakes are different to a statistically significant degree. Based upon what we know now, it would be irresponsible to proceed with the transfer, so I have cancelled it for 2007. When all the genetic testing is completed in a couple years, we'll have a better handle on the biological relevance of these statistically signficant differences. We'll be able to see the full range of genetic variation across northern Wisconsin. If it turns out that most lakes differ by about the same degree that Butternut differs from LCO, and if that difference ultimately is judged to be biologically irrelevant, we may reconsider a stock transfer between the lakes. But until then, we are going to play it safe and assume that we might harm LCO by moving adult fish there that did not evolve in that lake and might not perform as well as the record-producing genetic stock that did evolve there.
We will still look for a home outside the native range of muskellunge in Wisconsin for some of the overabundant fish in Butternut; but we don't have one lined up yet. At LCO, we will focus more on reducing the density of northern pike. Dr. Sloss' results suggest that a very limited amount of natural reproduction and recruitment of muskellunge may be happening at LCO -- so low that we fail to detect it with our usual method of fall electrofishing. If there are places on LCO where musky eggs will survive and hatch (likely, in my opinion), we need to reduce the moderately high pike density (2-4 adults per acre currently) so that young muskies (2-12 inches long) have a fighting chance of surviving to adulthood.
MIKE: How is it possible there is such a difference in genetic markers, considering these lakes have had fish stocked from the same hatchery over the last 20 +/- years.
DAVE: Maybe stocked fish have not been surviving at the rates documented in past studies. Or perhaps they survive but do not reproduce as successfully as fish that evolved in each system. We don't know. These results surprised even the geneticists to some extent, but the results are clear. Hopefully someday we will understand why.
MIKE: Does this mean that stocked fish are not reproducing at all, in any lake?
DAVE: No, not necessarily. But it certainly casts more doubt than existed previously on the extent to which stocked fish contribute to musky populations in which there is some natural reproduction and recruitment by the fish that evolved in each system.
MIKE: Have any samples been collected from the big Wisconsin strain fish currently showing up in Mill Lacs, What is the suspected origin of those fish?
DAVE: You'd have to ask the Minnesota DNR that question; but I know they intended to capture fish from Mille Lacs in spring of 2006 and send samples to Dr. Sloss for analysis. We know that any muskellunge stocked into Mille Lacs from 1984 through 1987 originated in Wisconsin (mostly Kalepp's Fish Farm), and Kalepp's broodfish came from a variety of sources in north central Wisconsin.
I hope this answers your questions, Mike.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 10/31/2006 6:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
| My point exactly. If Bone Lake fish were reproducing with other genetically different strains (Mud, Spider, whatever), isn't that situation in which the risk outbreeding depression occurs? If Bone Lake fish do not recruit at this time, is it an indicator of such a situation? And if the Bone Lake fish do not share the genetic profile with any of its documented "source" waters, would we say that a unique population developed?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Dave,
When do you think the genetic info from the Chippewa Flowage will be available?
Thanks,
Corey Meyer
Edited by muskymeyer 10/30/2006 3:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Cory,
The report indicates a late 2007 date for further information, I believe.
Monk, I think you ase getting just a little ahead of the data here. The Bone Lake fish were unique; that was listed as 'interesting'. I'll let Dave answer my questions as he has time, which should answer yours. I again ask, how would fish from the lakes you mention cause what you suggest if there is low to no NR IN Bone, and when they didn't effect the same brood stock in LCO? Would it not be more likely we are looking at a multiple source stocking in Bone originally? Not too sure about this one!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Corey, here is a direct quote from Dr. Sloss' report under the heading of "Genetic Stock Identification of Wisconsin Muskellunge:"
"No preliminary data on this project is or will be available until the release of the interim project report in fall 2007." I know that includes data collected from muskellunge on the Chippewa Flowage and many other waters in spring of 2006.
We are lucky to have a popularized summary of what Dr. Sloss knows thus far. Normally, research scientists do not open up their work for public review (including possible misinterpretation and criticism) until they have actually published their results in a scientific report or professional journal article. But Dr. Sloss knows how intensely interested everyone has become in this subject. It was very considerate (and voluntary) of him to provide this much information at this point in time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Steve Worrall asked, "My question would be how a 'hatchery strain' would be created by stocking LCO fish in Bone and adding other fish from other sources, if the Spider/Callahan/Bone/Woodruff stockings had no significant effect on the LCO fish"
DAVE: First, I really don't think the term 'hatchery strain' applies in this situation, which probably is why Steve put it in quotation marks. That terminology usually is reserved for situations in which captive broodstock are held in a hatchery and bred over multiple generations, usually resulting in young fish that do not compete well with wild fish when stocked. (Past trout rearing and stocking practices in Wisconsin provide the best example of that phenomenon.) Bone Lake muskellunge are wild fish with their own genetic characteristics that now differ significantly from those of their presumptive founder population -- the muskellunge of LCO. Why do Bone Lake muskies differ from LCO muskies after only 50-60 years in Bone Lake? Nobody really knows at this point in time. But ONE hypothesis (mine only) is that relatively few LCO fish were used as broodstock for the first Bone Lake stockings, comprising an incomplete copy, if you will, of the LCO musky genetic stock. In other words, Bone Lake may not have received the full complement of genetic diversity LCO had to offer, and so the populations look different today and perhaps have been different from the start. It's this very concern (about genetic diversity) that led to a new protocol regarding the number and method of mating of adult broodstock -- implemented last spring for the first time on the Chippewa Flowage where we mated ~26 females with ~3 unique males each. All this aside, I am speculating about why LCO and Bone are different today. I do so only to point out that there is more than one possible explanation for some of the things we have just learned. I don't see much value in speculating further.
It's time for folks to acknowledge that the handful of instances in which some eggs were taken from Mud-Callahan and Big Spider had no measurable impact on the genetic stock structure of muskellunge being propagated in Wisconsin. They clearly had no impact on LCO, probably because muskies stocked back in the 1950s when most of that mixing occurred were only 5-6 inches long and were not as likely to survive in the wild as the 10-12 inch fish we stock routinely today. Anyway, I am glad to know that LCO fish look the same genetically as they did back when Cal Johnson caught his momentary world record there in 1949. You won't see us (DNR) doing anything intentionally that would endanger the integrity of the genetic stock that produced THAT fish.
I think Bytor (Troy Schoonover) asked if we were done using Bone Lake as a source of broodstock. Possibly, but not because we think there is anything inherently wrong with them. The new protocol developed by Dr. Sloss and adopted by WDNR requires each hatchery (Woodruff and Spooner) to rotate annually among five different waters that have fish of all sizes AND significant natural reproduction. We have not documented much natural reproduction at Bone, but that may have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. I don't know enough about Bone Lake (outside my management area) to comment further, but I think I've answered Troy's question.
OCTOBER 31 AMENDMENT: I need to clarify something important about the Bone Lake genetic results to date. My first paragraph above is a bit misleading (unintentionally). I just re-read paragraph 3 of Dr. Sloss' report more carefully. Note that fish sampled from Bone Lake were all young-of-year fingerlings from a single year's hatchery production (2004). Dr. Sloss did that comparison merely out of interest to see if the fish being stocked into Butternut, LCO, and other study lakes were genetically different or similar to the adult populations sampled in those lakes. They were not, which causes us to wonder if the genetic stocks in Butternut and even LCO may be more heavily influenced by natural reproduction than we thought previously. But if we want to know the true genetic make-up of the Bone Lake muskellunge population (not just the young fish propagated in one year by spawning a sub-sample of adults), then we need to sample a representative cross-section of Bone Lake adults, just as we did for Butternut and LCO. (I don't think this has been done yet.) This would eliminate the inherent restriction of diversity seen when using only a single sample of broodfish. Dr. Sloss did not elaborate on this point in his report because it was ancillary to the primary question of whether Butternut and LCO were similar or different. But the bottom line is this: We cannot yet assume that we understand the genetic stock structure of Bone Lake muskellunge, or where Bone Lake fits with respect to other musky lakes in northern Wisconsin.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 10/31/2006 6:28 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Other questions:
1. We talk of genetic diversity and the impact it has had in the stocking practices. However, when dealing with LCO and its low adult population (same could be said of Round Lake), could we run the risk of not having enough diversity among the adult population that does reproduce? At what level do things get critical from a genetic standpoint on a lake that size. If I recall, I think we were dealing with adult #'s of around 200-250, and if only a subset of that is successfully reproducing, seems like a small %.
2. The Butternut to LCO transfer was cancelled because of significant genetic differences. When making future selections of brood stock lakes and lakes that receive hatchery fish, to what level of genetic similarity or diference will be acceptable to make stocking decisions (probably will be answered later in the study). If we run into a situation where little genetic similarities are found among musky stocks, will the genetic zone theory still hold or will brood source be chosen based on other criteria (i.e. natural recruiting, larger growth, etc.).
3. It seems like we are dealing with a limited number of genetic markers, but can a secondary result of the study possibly identify similiarities among larger specimens? And larger specimens that were caught years ago... a historical similarity. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Very interesting stuff! Thank you very much Dave for helping getting the info out to us. And thank you again for sticking your neck out and answering our questions.
Is Dr. Sloss’s study fully funded all the way to the end? Is there any risk funding will be shifted to something else?
This is something US musky fishermen need to pay very close attention to as the work being done here will affect musky fishermen for generations to come. Also it is very possible that as a result of this work more work will be needed. We need to stay on top of it and make sure it gets funded.
Again thank you.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| Steve, I understand I'm ahead of the curve on this one, because at this point that is all we can do! And after reading Dave's amendment, I agree we probably didn't get a 100% accurate genetic profile on Bone, but I think it would add even another twist if it differed significantly from the results of the brood sampling.
Definitely grateful we have some information to talk to, but in a study of this magnitude (both in dollars and potential impact), a yearly progress report seems to be a given. And when I went back and reread the study plan, Dr. Sloss did include a caveat that he would report the progress of the study on annual basis, if requested by the DNR. So I will definitely look forward to the next report next Fall/Winter... hopefully with even more data (I'm sure) to share.
I agree that we need to let the scientists complete their study and let them come to their conclusions indepently, from both sides. However, I see no harm in us discussing results before the study is complete and raising questions (as I'm sure they are doing in the lab). Again, I'm not trying to make any conclusions on what has been done so far, just bringing up some different questions (that I'm sure the white coats have already raised and will surely add value to the end product).
I guess what might be the silver lining in this is native musky populations may have some type of resistance to incorporating the stocked Bone Lake strain. Whether this is due to an incapability of the Bone Lake fish to adapt and survive to their new lake or their lack of success to reproduce with native strains, I think this is a good thing. Because at this point we DON'T know what we have (genetically) in Bone lake, they have not had success in sustaining natural recruiting populations and shown an overall lack of trophy producing potential.
If after we are able to unlock the Wisconsin DNA "code" and can identify those populations that have sustained natural recruitment AND trophy potential (i.e. big fish in the nets verified!), we may have a chance to wipe the Bone lake slate clean get the job done right.
I'm with Corey though, I can't wait until the Chip results are published. Dave & Co. were able to net some large fish and it would be interesting to see how that population pans out. And although I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the current LCO genetics is the same as Cal's fish.... until we crack the case open at the Moccassin, take a fin clip and test it... the lake has produced some monsters in the past and the potential is there.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| MIKE ROBERTS ASKED: Is Dr. Sloss’s study fully funded all the way to the end? Is there any risk funding will be shifted to something else?
DAVE: Mike, to my knowledge, this study is funded at least through 2007 (end of first graduate student's work) and is extremely likely to be continued through 2009 (end of second graduate student's work and end of study). I don't call the shots, but it is very difficult for me to imagine that funding for this project would get redirected to anything else. Thanks much for your interest and support for some of the most important research to be conducted on muskellunge to date.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 201
Location: Stevens Point | In response to the Mile Lacs question, a fair number of fish were sampled from there including both large MN and WI strain fish. So the data on these should be interesting to see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I read the report. Understand a fair amount of what is reported, and I have to admit, the findings have me scratching my head.
Anybody else?
I have to say that this is at least as interesting as the landlocked salmon strains forming 3 divergent populations in 12 generations.
As always, thanks to Dave N for bringing us something to gnaw on...! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yup, has me wondering too. LCO and Butternut are easier to understand because those were already there, but Bone is an enigma. If the Bone Lake fish have no measurable effect on the LCO genetics when stocked there, are FROM LCO originally, do not reproduce in Bone to any significant degree, how would that population diverge? I'm lost...
I guess that's why there are scientists!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| sworrall - 11/1/2006 7:47 AM
Yup, has me wondering too. LCO and Butternut are easier to understand because those were already there, but Bone is an enigma. If the Bone Lake fish have no measurable effect on the LCO genetics when stocked there, are FROM LCO originally, do not reproduce in Bone to any significant degree, how would that population diverge? I'm lost...
I guess that's why there are scientists!
Hey guys, don't think that we scientists aren't scratching our heads, too. You just never know what you're going to find when you start turning over rocks to see what lies beneath.
But regarding Bone Lake, Steve, please review the Oct 31 amendment to my Oct 30 post where I try to explain that the Bone Lake fish tested were only young-of-year fish produced by the Bone Lake adults used as broodstock in 2004. To make an apples-to-apples comparison of the Bone Lake musky population with LCO, Butternut, and others, we need to analyze a sample of 30-50 adults from Bone Lake. The only thing we can half-way conclude at this point in time is that the various stockings of fingerlings from Bone Lake (which in 2004 didn't match the adult population in LCO) apparently have not altered the genetic stock structure of the adult population in LCO. That leads us to wonder if natural reproduction and recruitment may be more of a factor in LCO than previously believed based upon our limited sampling methods. I hope that clarifies where we are, at least a little!
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
| Could the key statement in this discussion be the following?
"Stocks are not simply significantly different populations, but represent a combination of unique populations that share enough genetic similarity to be managed as a genetic unit."
It will be interesting to find out as we analyze more waters, what the averge number of "unique populations" represent a "genetic unit".
Agreed that the Bone findings are an interesting development, but I don't know if we should spend a significant amount of time studying a lake that more than likely will never be used in the rota. I'm more interested in seeing results from lakes such as Grindstone, LCO, Chip & Namekagon, as well as fish from Mille Lacs and Leech.
Dave, I know you mentioned reducing pike to help out recruitment (and I'm willing to pull my share out next season), but is there anything that might be on the table with regards to improving Musky Bay? I know the court decision was a setback, but are there any other options to help improve the habitat?
thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| MuskyMonk asked: "Dave, I know you mentioned reducing pike to help out recruitment (and I'm willing to pull my share out next season), but is there anything that might be on the table with regards to improving Musky Bay? I know the court decision was a setback, but are there any other options to help improve the habitat?"
DAVE: The recent court decision is being appealed, so we should wait to see the result of that action. If the appeal is rejected, there may be options for funding habitat restoration with EPA money; but it would be a major effort requiring many cooperating partners to compete effectively for such a large pot of money. Let's see where the appeal goes first.
In the meantime, the LCO Fishery Management Plan identifies preservation of wild shorelands and shoreline "tree drops" as strategies likely to improve the chances of survival for young muskellunge. We (Courte Oreilles Lake Association, Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc., DNR and others) could get going on those strategies this winter. We also hope to start physically removing some overabundant northern pike from Musky Bay early next spring.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
Edited by Dave N 11/1/2006 11:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Dave,
Has Dr. Sloss been asked or has he discussed the likelyhood of the Bone lake fish being inbread? It seems all the concern is about outbreeding depresion in the future when it is very realistic inbreeding depresion has occured with the Bone lake fish. Based on the small number of fish used to create Bone lake and the egg collecting parctices that were used for the last several years it sounds similar to your trout example. Bone lake would have just been a larger pond for the "hatchery strain" (lack of better term). This could help explain the poor survival and representaion of Bone lake fish in LCO. A larger sample of adult fish from Bone lake would help rather than just the 2004 class.
The divergence could also be explained simply by any species that produces houndreds of thousands of eggs for each reproductive cycle has the potential to evolve quickly.
Thanks,
Jason |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| JASON MALONE asked a very good question, as follows:
"Has Dr. Sloss been asked or has he discussed the likelyhood of the Bone lake fish being inbread? It seems all the concern is about outbreeding depresion in the future when it is very realistic inbreeding depresion has occured with the Bone lake fish. Based on the small number of fish used to create Bone lake and the egg collecting parctices that were used for the last several years it sounds similar to your trout example. Bone lake would have just been a larger pond for the "hatchery strain" (lack of better term). This could help explain the poor survival and representaion of Bone lake fish in LCO. A larger sample of adult fish from Bone lake would help rather than just the 2004 class."
DAVE: Whenever we actually analyze a representative sample of the adult musky population in Bone Lake, it should be possible to run tests that would indicate whether some degree of inbreeding has occurred. There should be technical indicators of any loss of genetic diversity. So I guess we'll have to wait for that analysis to be performed. But even then, we won't know if inbreeding DEPRESSION has occurred, because that would imply that we have been able to demonstrate a link between loss of genetic diversity and reduced performance in growth rate, reproduction, disease resistance, or some other important performance characteristic. That would take considerable time. And we already have some reason to believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the ability of Bone Lake muskellunge offspring to grow fast and survive to reach trophy size. (See all the previous discussion on this Research Forum about 939-acre Rice Lake.) Anyway, the prospect of lost genetic diversity and inbreeding is certainly of interest to fishery managers and geneticists, so it will be examined. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks, Dave, that is what I hoped would be brought out. Saw a real nice 8 tonight, but no buck tag; already filled! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I am curious about Rice Lake, WI., since it continues to be used as a 'benchmark of stocking success". Are big fish being caught or netted in Rice (documented)? If so, how big? Is there natural reproduction in Rice?
Thnaks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I was able to answer my own question, as to natural reproduction...there isn't any.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/musky/2002%20Rice%20Lake%20Mus... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Acquired by performing a search on the term 'Rice Lake' searching the Research Forum, all posts:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=24...
Good reading, and answers your questions, I hope.
A new survey will be completed this spring and next. Are you attempting to point something out about the lack of NR there? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 757
| I've been fishing on Rice Lake for the last several years. My largest fish so far has been a very healthy, large girth 46 incher that I took back in September. Last October, I raised 2 that I know were larger on a Manta. Not to bad for a shallow, weedy, 939 acre lake. From what I know of the lake's history, it was drawn down in the early eighties, most of the fishery removed, then re-stocked in the mid-eighties. Muskies were first stocked there in 1987 with I believe LCO fish. I've read and heard that several fish over 50inches have been taken. I do believe the information as I have seen large fish as well. The lake has an abundance of small northern pike, some large bass, and panfish. White suckers are the primary forage along with panfish and the small northerns. Why are muskies doing well in the lake, I can't answer that. The fact that muskies are at the top of the food chain, in systems where they are first introduced, maybe growth rates are above average. The dnr should have the information. Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Thanks for the link, I just went through most of it including the article. I was begining to see why Rice is noted so much, given that it had no muskies prior to stocking...until I read 'Locals' post suggesting that there were muskies in Rice prior to the WDNR stocking. Quoting Dave N, "Thanks for the additional info, Local. I was aware of a very low population prior to draining the lake down to a shallow pool, but I assumed that large fish disappeared at that time and that the Bone Lake/LCO muskies stocked in 1987 are the ones showing up as 50-inchers now. It would be interesting to get an accurate date on drawdown and refilling, if you can find it. We may need to rethink this. Thanks again."
Any additional info here? |
|
| |
