|
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | Got this from a source at the WI DNR. Very interesting Info I thought I would Share.
Minnesota’s Musky Stocking Program Timeline
(Source: Jerry Younk, Minnesota DNR Research Biologist and Statewide Musky Program Leader)
1982: MDNR is pressured to stop using Shoepack fish.
1982: MDNR stocks Leech Lake fish into several new lakes (no muskies
previously) for use as future sources of broodstock. These include Plantaganette, Little Wolf, Elk, Owasso (not used now), Rebecca, Pleasant, and Island (used only as a back-up).
1982-1987: MDNR stocks Wisconsin-source fish in many waters, including Mille Lacs during 1984-1987, as Leech Lake fish grow and mature in broodstock lakes.
1989: MDNR starts stocking Leech Lake strain fish exclusively throughout the State of Minnesota.
1990: Final year of evaluation of strain stocking study in Lake Waconia, Minnesota. Results confirm that Leech Lake and LCO strains are superior to Shoepack.
1996-1998: MDNR biologists age and tag adult muskies in 132,500-acre Mille Lacs.
1999-2005: MDNR biologists document reports of tagged fish that are caught, harvested, or found dead in Mille Lacs.
Mille Lacs Musky Tagging Study Results
(Source: Rick Bruesewitz, MDNR Treaty Assessment Biologist at Mille Lacs)
Stocked Year Class Source of Stocked Muskies Number Stocked Number Tagged
by MDNR 1996-1998**
1984 Wisconsin 3,250 12
1985 “ 4,300 9
1986 “ 2,000 7
1987 “ 4,400 32
1988 Leech Lake 0 in 1988* 6
1989 “ ? 19
1990 “ ? 2
1991 “ ? 4
1992 “ ? 1
1993 “ ? 3
1994 “ ? 1
* Even though no muskies were stocked in 1988, a few yearling fish of the Leech Lake strain were stocked in 1989 that belonged to the 1988 year class.
** Includes only those tagged fish that have been reported since 1998 as caught & released, harvested, or found dead.
Interpretation and Summary
(Dave Neuswanger, Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin, Wisconsin DNR, Hayward)
Ø Of the 96 fish recaptured to date (as of 2005) in this study, 60 of them
(62.5%) were fish from Wisconsin, stocked during 1984-1987.
Ø Of the 13 tagged fish reported since 1998 that were over 50 inches long
when reported, ALL of them have been Wisconsin-source fish (Kalepps Fish Farm, which got its broodstock from north central Wisconsin lakes and
hatcheries) stocked during 1984-1987. The biggest was a female 54.9 inches long and 16 years of age.
Ø Of those 13 fish over 50 inches long, 5 (38%) had been harvested by
anglers.
Ø Of those 13 fish over 50 inches long, 2 (15%) were found dead >2 years
after being tagged.
Ø Of the 26 tagged fish reported since 1998 that were 45-50 inches long when
reported, 19 of them (73%) have been Wisconsin-source fish stocked during 1984-1987.
Ø Many Leech Lake strain muskies are now of trophy size in Mille Lacs. They
should sustain the excellent trophy fishery that began with the stocking of Wisconsin-source fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | To add to this, the TC Chapter stocked Mille Lac a few year back in the 70's. Those were fish from when we had our hatchery on Battle Lake. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Does anybody know how many Leach Lakers get stocked each year in Mille Lacs? It doesn't look like very many Wisconsin fish were stocked, when you consider the size of the lake.
Does anybody catch any small Wisconsin fish? Any evidence of reproduction?
What is the estimated musky population in Mille Lacs? |
|
| |
|
| what do you consider small? be a good question to ask Lee Monday nite...If I remember he had some WI strain fish in the 44-46 range in the boat last season.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 186
Location: West Chicago, IL | I got a 43" Wisconsin strain this fall from Mille Lacs |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Didn't everyone decide that Jonesi guided monster fish was a WI strain fish? Just like our WI strain women, we grow them large! hehehe
Seems to me that a good percentage of the big fish that were caught were WI starin, if I am reading Cory's post correctly.
But, no matter, that is one awesome fishery! I think Jason Smith may just have me talked into another trip out there. My only other time on Milly was with Treats for a morning. To be fair, it was miserable hot, and we didn't give a fair shot that day. I was looking to head home after being gone a week for work. Had fun, and Treats did catch nice Pike. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Shep I know that a lot of biggest fish that got caught this year were Wisconsin strain. I am wondering if these fish are reproducing and also wondering how many fish (LL) get stocked into the lake.
Treats? TroyZ? SJ? Anybody? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Devils advocate here, are they WI strain, that is the question, were do you look to indentify these fish? I have talked with several people about these giants, look barred, much darker that typical spots, must be WI strain fish. Or are those LL with different markings, or maybe a LL/WI mixed strain. I have asked several guys that have fished leech lake for years, and they have caught fish that are marked very similar to the "WI Giants". We know Leech has no WI strain in there. So there is something to think about, could those so called WI giants be LL? I have noticed going back threw some photo, on 2 bodies of water very differently marked fish.
As far as reproduction, arm chair biologist, 14,000 fish stock, survival rate 10%, 1400 fish swimming around maybe, have not heard of many small WI muskys under 35". If these giants are truely WI strain I hope there is some reproduction going on, but if not the LL will do okay.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| MMA meeting tommorow in Brainard I'll be there,,,I will print this entire thread out and show it to the Minn DNR reps that our there anywhere from 2-6 will be in attendence,,and I'll print what they say |
|
| |
|
| I believe I caught a low 40" (did not measure it) WI fish this year too, not 100% positive, but it had the same color and markings as Jonesi's fish and it definatly did not look like the others I have pulled from Mille Lacs.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| I e-mailed a MN biologist for Mille Lacs a year ago about the tagging study and the WI fish catches and this was his response:
“It is true that most of the big muskies caught in the last five years were Wisconsin strain. The reason is simple. The oldest Leech Lake strain fish in Mille Lacs are just now getting old enough to exceed 50 inches. A general rule of thumb is that it takes about 15 years for female muskies to reach 50 inches. Leech Lake strain fish were first stocked in Mille Lacs in 1989, so they probably started reaching 50 inches in 2004. Wisconsin strain fish were stocked from 1984 through 1987, and so have the advantage of time. However, most of the Minnesota biologists believe that the Leech lake strain muskies will be larger than the Wisconsin strain fish when they reach the same age. In other words, in the next five years we expect most of the big fish to be Leech Lake strain, partly because Wisconsin fish will be dying of old age, but also because thre will be more Leech Lake strain fish over 15 years old.
As to the tagging, the tagging was done from during spawning from 1992 to 1998. Of course, most of the mature fish were Wisconsin strain, so most of the tagged fish were Wisconsin strain. It is entirely possible that no Leech Lake fish were tagged prior to 1996, but I would have to check this. This would certainly bias the result towards Wisconsin fish, because I think any ratio would have to rely on tagged fish. However, this does not invalidate the first paragraph.
The fish were all fin clipped when they were stocked, so most of the fish could be identified to strain when tagged.”
Read into the study what you want.
Jason
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| malone - 12/8/2006 2:40 PM
However, most of the Minnesota biologists believe that the Leech lake strain muskies will be larger than the Wisconsin strain fish when they reach the same age.
So if this holds true, and all the true horses out there this year and last were WI strain, then we should be able to infer that when the LL fish reach the same age we should be seeing even larger fish being caught.
WOW!!!
If that holds true, a 60 pounder is only a matter of time on that lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Jason
I believe LL have shown that they can reach 50" in less that 10 years, Mill Lacs has been giving up tons of 50" spots, the rule of thumb of 15 years would make 2004 the first year for the class of 1989 to reaching 50", and Mill Lacs has been kicking them out for over 5 years know. In our stocking we are seeing fish 24-30, and these are 2 year old, Treats would have a better handle on what the age class and size the Twin Cities have been stocking. I think the 15 years old rule of thumb is for WI strain.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| I just want to make sure it's clear that my previous post is the exact word for word e-mail response I recieved when I asked a MNDNR biologist for Mille lacs about the tagging study and the WI strain fish being caught from Mille Lacs. It is not my opinion or take on it. Take it for what it's worth.
I agree, I always hear 10 years for LL to hit 50", but I would tend to beleive a biologist working with the lake and fish before the others I have heard it from. My guess would be that 15 years is the time it would take for the largest percentage of a year class to hit 50". Some do it faster and some do it slower.
Jason
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | BALDY - 12/8/2006 2:55 PM
malone - 12/8/2006 2:40 PM
However, most of the Minnesota biologists believe that the Leech lake strain muskies will be larger than the Wisconsin strain fish when they reach the same age.
So if this holds true, and all the true horses out there this year and last were WI strain, then we should be able to infer that when the LL fish reach the same age we should be seeing even larger fish being caught..
How does the MDNR know this????? Have studys been done to prove that LL strain will be larger??? What is meant by larger???? Is it length or weight or both??????
If that is indeed true (and only time will tell) that would be awesome!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 56
| Hey all,
This is the largest LL fish to my knowledge from Mille. Correct me if I am wrong. This was a 55"x25" spot that was caught in my boat in July of 2005! So, my question is...how big is that fish now? Perhaps 56"x 28"? How about next fall? I would sure like to find out.
Interesting too about this fish is that when it took a crap in the boat it had feathers in it! Now that is cool.
Lee Tauchen
Attachments
----------------
 55x25.5.jpg (79KB - 260 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lee,
Was that fish fin clipped anywhere? Great shot, thanks for posting it. Is it possible the reference to 'bigger at that age' was to 15 years, and the LL fish being bigger 'when they reach the same age', and Wisconsin strain slowly disappearing as old age and harvest take a toll?
Either way, Mille Lacs is going to kick out some hawgs in the future. Is there any reason to assume Mille Lacs should produce larger LL fish than Leech Lake does? Seems the forage is better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 56
| No Steve,
It was not clipped. I wonder if it was a stocker or not?
Lee |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| On saturday at the Minnesota Muskie Alliance meeting Jerry Yonk was present,,,his reply to this was that they see the same coloration of large old fish on Leech Lake too so it dosent mean that the large fish in Mille lacs are wisc strain,,TroyZ talked to him for a while maybe he has more info |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | While at the MMA meeting saturday in brainard, I did get to talk to Jerry and another gentlemen from the MDNR. They are also under the belief that not all these big fish with dark marking from Mill Lacs are not WI strain fish, that Leecher have different color phases, and that on Leech and other lakes fish have been caught that are very similary marked to some of the "WI" muskies from Mill Lacs, and these lakes are pure LL stocked fisheries. They are doing some more studies and on the fisheries and may learn more next year.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
| The "problem" with all of this is that you have examples of 55 inch Leech Lake fish as far back as 2001 (Terry Blood, etc). Just because people weren't talking about them on the internet doesn't mean they weren't getting caught. Also many of the "washed out" fish are Leech Lakers (a certain very large fish caught by one of the authors here perhaps????). There have been many, many, many 55 inch and 50 something LLers with exceptional girths since then. You also have to consider the flip side. Not all the Wi fish grow big in ML or MN for that matter. I know I'm not the only one that has caught the same Wi fish in the same spot every year (no growth).
Thanks to the MN DNR and MN anglers for strict adherence to C&R.
Why does no one ever talk about Mike Beltz' fish? Biggest fish never talked about (maybe even biggest ever?). It looks a Wi strain so you'd think it would be Sainted by now. |
|
| |
|
Location: Minnesota | can anyone see a pic of Mike Beltz fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wade,
It doesn't matter much in Mille Lacs anymore, the big girls PROVEN to be from Wisconsin strain will be fading away as they grow old and die or are harvested, unless there is some NR. Future fish there are destined to be Leech Lakers, and some undoubtedly will be very large. Some will not grow past a certain point. That's the way it is, and that isn't 'strain specific'.
The Wisconsin fish grew well, got big, and got heavy according to the MN DNR stats. Good enough. So did the Leechers, and they haven't peaked yet, I hope.
I asked before, is there any reason to assume that LL fish in Mille Lacs will outgrow their counterparts in Leech? 55" in eleven years is remarkable, to say the least, if one is inclined to take that leap.
Haven't heard about the fish you mention, but I'd like to. |
|
| |
|
| I could be wrong, but I don't think that simply noting the markings and coloration is a very accurate way of determining the strain of fish caught. I've seen lots of WI strain fish that could easily be mistaken for LL strain, and vice versa. I've also seen pics of fish caught in various Canadian lakes, IL lakes, OH lakes, NY lakes, etc., that can deceivingly look like WI strain or LL strain or whatever. Maybe you guys have much better eyes than me, I don't know, but it sure appears tough to tell in many instances.
But, I would trust the MN DNR's tagging study noted in the initial post which showed that of all 13 recaptured fish over 50" were WI strain fish, including a 16 year old that was just shy of 55".
I am sure that not all WI strain fish in Mille Lacs grew, or are growing, at exactly the same rate, and I'd also venture a guess that some of the WI strain fish are males, which by their gender differences alone, maybe not be expected to top out at 55"x29", or whatever. I'd also venture a guess that not all LL strain muskies are growing at the same rate, and there are probably a couple LL males which might not make it to be that big either. Again, just a couple guesses.
Point is that I am sure there is some amount of variability associated with each fish, much like there is variability associated amongst the individuals of all species of living creatures on the planet. So I am not sure, Wade, how relevant the non-growing WI strain musky that you keep catching over and over and over again, is to the overall picture of WI strain muskies in Mille Lacs. How big, er, small, is that fish? Sounds like it is the musky version of Danny DeVito.
Anyways, as far as genetics go, the main conclusion to be drawn from the numbers above in the timeline and tagging study is that the upper-end size potential for WI strain fish appears to be comparable to LL strain, and the "mutt factor" which has been propounded by some to be a major limiting factor to the success of WI strain fish in WI lakes does not seem to be affecting these Mille Lacs WI strain fish, as clearly good numbers of WI strain muskies have gotten to be very big.
Matt DeVos
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | It is quite possible there is a big difference between WI strain fish from Kaleps and WI strain fish from Bone Lake I'd bet. Just because some WI strain fish from Kaleps fish farm may have grown large & fast in Mille Lacs does not mean WI strain hatchery fish, and especially Bone Lake fish, would do the same and it certainly does not justify putting all WI fish into the same catagory or league as Kaleps fish or LL fish and concluding everything is fine with the growth of all WI fish being stocked from the hatcheries here. And that is the issue that continues to be ignored in all of this.
Bone Lake fish have been stocked in NW WI for decades and in many waters that should certainly be capable of consistantly producing a fair number of real hogs with 50" size limits etc...but they don't. Yes a few are caught occasionally but the number has not been increasing on the lakes with 50" size limits while big fish are being caught consistantly all over MN on lakes of all sizes and increasing in numbers nearly every year for the last 10-15 years. Why? Would Bone Lake fish grow as large in Mille Lacs under a 40" size limit as the Kaleps or LL fish apparently do? I would bet not. How about other MN lakes? I would bet not. And neither did the Schoepac strain of fish when they were stocked all over MN. Why? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2089
| A very good friend of mine,Mike Duell, was with Mike Beltz and netted the fish.It is kinda strange that nobody mentions this fish.Mike gave me a copy of the photo this Summer, but I don't have a scanner.It was a BIG brown fish, with the dimensions of 52X31.Those guys took a lot of heat about the fish.Forget the fact that there were boats all over the North end watching, many people thought the fish was fake because it was sooooo big.It was caught the Saturday following 911.A partial pic can be found in the Winter 01/02 issue of Musky Hunter. Steve |
|
| |
|
| Lockjaw,
The thing you are trying ever so hard to ignore is the fact that the Mille Lacs tagging study shows that WI strain fish grow plenty fast, and get plenty big. I know that is an inconvenient fact for those who think that WI strain fish are genetically inferior.
Where do you think Kaleps WI fish originated from? The flaw with your argument is that IF there is a big difference in the WI STRAIN of muskies at the Kaleps hatchery and the WDNR hatchery fish, as you suggest, then why is it that (according to you) ALL Wisconsin fish have slow growth? There must be a secret WI lake, with a magic strain out there, where Kaleps got there WI fish from, I guess? I'm not sure how else you can rationalize, genetically, the fact that WI strain fish get big in Mille Lacs, but apparently nowhere else in WI. Especially given the fact that Dr. Sloss' work shows that there is no "hatchery strain" of WI fish.
I think most of us can acknowlege that other factors, aside from genetics, might more realistically explain why it appears that more 50+" muskies are being caught in MN than WI.
Matt |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Lockjaw
Good point about would bone grow as fast as Kalebs fish, this weekend I heard that they are studing the genetics of the bone fish and are not getting the genetic marking that match up with their brood stock fish from LCO. Interesting? Also of the 13 fish that were WI fish over 50", how were they verified that they were WI fish, did they have fins clipped, tagged, or was it a visual? I think the genetics have a big part of the growth rate, along with forage. LL were also stock into mill lacs before 89.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Troyz,
Read the document at the beginning of this thread. The fish discussed there about are definitely Wisconsin fish according to the MNDNR. The Bone Lake sampling done to date and the genetic profile for those fish has issues to clear up before any conclusion can be set in stone, see the discussion on the Research Board for that info. Also, there is NO difference from the genetics far past to NOW from LCO despite stocking from other sources. That's part of the results from the work completed to date.
The LL fish, according to the MNDNR, were stocked beginning in 1989 other than the brood lakes. If there were some stocked in Mille Lacs before then, who stocked them, and when? Doesn't really matter, because the data in the first post of this thread closes the book on the Wisconsin fish getting big in Mille Lacs, Wisconsin fish will not be stocked there in the future, so it's an interesting segment in Minnesota Muskie management and that's about it. Lockjaw's comments are just a continuation of the same old tired rhetoric arguing nothing at all, making statements that are scientifically true and false at the same time, and spinning the discussion to make another WMRT 'it's the fish' command statement where it is not relevant or applicable. No one has a clue what Bone Lake fish would do in Mille Lacs, nor will we ever find that out. We can 'bet' all day, I'll wait for Dr. Sloss's conclusions. The Fish Farm issue has been covered carefully on the research forum, too, read up.
Lee's fish wasn't fin clipped, that's interesting. I'd like to see some of the barred Mille Lacs fish tested, but fail to see where that would be relevant to the current management plan or study here in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Muskies got big in Mille Lacs. They do elsewhere, too, but we have NO waters in Wisconsin like Mille Lacs, NOT A SINGLE WATER BODY compares no matter what Lockjaw says, not even Green Bay...apples/oranges. When Dr. Sloss has completed his work, we will have the answers.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| Steve Jonesi - 12/12/2006 8:23 AM
A very good friend of mine,Mike Duell, was with Mike Beltz and netted the fish.It is kinda strange that nobody mentions this fish.Mike gave me a copy of the photo this Summer, but I don't have a scanner.It was a BIG brown fish, with the dimensions of 52X31.Those guys took a lot of heat about the fish.Forget the fact that there were boats all over the North end watching, many people thought the fish was fake because it was sooooo big.It was caught the Saturday following 911.A partial pic can be found in the Winter 01/02 issue of Musky Hunter. Steve
I've seen it. She's a monster. Right on par with the fish that Jody caught |
|
| |
