Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> slot limits |
| Message Subject: slot limits | |||
Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | If you are in favor of them being tried out on some lakes your help is needed. There is a strong a case for it to be tried on some lakes. What we need is to show support for this as musky anglers and musky clubs. Pm me or e-mail me for the address to write to. Guys this is important. Slots can help improve the musky fishing in wisconsin. We need you all to get behind this with your support........... Pfeiff..................email is [email protected] | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | The following is a quote from Dave N. on the proposed situation. I disagree with the idea that slot limits are a desirable thing in terms of musky regs in WI. ..."I am not driving the agenda for the waters where slot limits are under consideration by my staff. Local anglers with a strong stake in those fisheries are telling us during 4-hour planning sessions what they want in the way of species, numbers, and sizes. We are hearing there IS SIGNIFICANT VALUE in some of these "numbers" fisheries. Nobody is telling us they want to see density reduced on such waters from 1.5 per acre to 0.2 per acre so that average size caught can increase from 28 inches (and nothing over 40) to 38 inches (and some up to 50). That would be too great a sacrifice of numbers for size. But they ARE telling us that catching one fish after another under 30 inches long, day in and day out, is not meeting their expectations. They want somewhat fewer and somewhat larger muskies in their idealized "numbers" fishery. Now, high numbers of very small fish might meet the expectations of a few folks, including firstsixfeet; and he certainly is entitled to his preferences on such waters. I just hope that he will understand that I must listen to the preferences and desires of the MAJORITY, and then plan our management strategies in response to that majority interest provided we are not "fighting Mother Nature" by trying to create unrealistic fish community structures. I think my professional biologists are in the best position to judge the latter. Please keep in mind, too, that it's not all about muskies (a dangerous thing to say here, I realize!). Our management must consider other species and angler interests as well. In some cases, there are SO many small, hungry, slow-growing muskellunge that we may be seeing adverse effects on other, more important, species in the fish community. The same thing can happen when ANY species is over-protected and becomes over-populated. A case in point is largemouth bass, which we have protected to the point where they may be adversely affecting both walleye AND musky recruitment in some waters. Bottom line is that we are trying to be responsive to the majority interest and are looking at the big picture with respect to what is possible and desirable. Will appreciate everyone giving that approach a chance to work. Thanks guys." Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward My personal feelings are slots are ill advised at best as a musky management tool for three basic reasons. #1 There are already various size limits available and in use for harvest of musky and that those lakes with large and vital populations of fish already have lower size limits in place for thinning numbers. These lakes also are invariably good action lakes and result in higher than normal musky/angler interactions. Some of these lakes offer numbers of fish in the 30-40 inch size range. My feeling is that these lakes are NOT problems to be solved or corrected, they are just nice parts of the overall resource. #2 Probably my biggest objection to the whole idea is that slot limits, by themselves, will result in a kind of "REVERSE EDUCATION" for fisherman in terms of size limits and musky harvest overall, an education that I and many others as members of Muskies INC. have struggled to put forth for many years. The intrinsic message of slot limits is that muskies are overpopulated and need to be killed to thin out this overpopulation. That might be fine if all fisherman in WI were highly educated, and/or motivated to learn about the resource, however historically, that has not been the case. I have stated before that I believe this type of information is damaging to the resource over all and gives a big boost to groups such as "No More Muskies". #3 I fear unintended consequences from this type of management much more than the science behind it. I would consider it a loss to the resource if these numbers lakes had their populations changed in any big way. I would consider it extremely damaging to the resource if the message goes out to the general public that somehow they will be helping the resource by harvesting more muskies, because the public is notorious for holding onto the information they want to hear, or "parts" of the bigger message. As to Dave's being directed by local anglers, I can understand that, and certainly can't claim to be one. I can't even claim to have fished any "numbers waters" for the last 8-10 years, but I had before that, and the experience was fun, and rather eye opening,after fishing the heavy pressure years on the Chip. But these lakes are a statewide resource, and in terms of tourism, they are an interstate resource. I think new regulations on this type of action water should be really thought out before ever being emplaced. IMO, this is a case where "IF IT AINT BROKE, DON'T BREAK IT", applies perfectly . BTW Daves PM can easily be found on this site and any feeling like I do can send him a pm to express those views, also I am sure the address listed above will reach Dave at his desk if you want to drop him a note, at least until Hayward hits the 100.000 population mark, and is full full full of DNR offices. Edited by firstsixfeet 8/31/2007 12:35 AM | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| What is the limiting factor on muskie growth in these lakes? Is the forage not there? Are these a wierd strain, like Shoepack that won't get big regardless of what the population size is? Slots, by there very nature, are intended for species that have high density numbers, and reproduce very well. That is not typical of apex predators, which is the muskie. In MN, they took the exact opposite approach to managing northern populations that had lots of small fish. They don't allow killing of anything over 24" long, to allow fish to grow to trophy size. It worked very, very well. That is what begs the question, why are these fish small? Are they killed berfore they get big, or is it something else limiting there growth. I have to agree with First Six Feet's logic on his opposition to this idea. John | |||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Slots are not only for lakes with high density,they have just been put to use yet on other lakes . The lakes we are talking about here at this time are lakes with good numbers. amd a 28 inch size limit. Why would anyone be against anything that would increase size limits somewhat on those lakes. Pfeiff | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Don Pfeiffer - 8/31/2007 6:22 AM Slots are not only for lakes with high density,they have just been put to use yet on other lakes . The lakes we are talking about here at this time are lakes with good numbers. amd a 28 inch size limit. Why would anyone be against anything that would increase size limits somewhat on those lakes. Pfeiff WHY would anyone want to INCREASE the size limits on those lakes??? The fish barely grow through the limit now. When local angling pressure asking for change is brought in as an argument to support what I consider a step in the wrong direction for musky management, the fact is glossed over that these same local anglers have trophy musky waters easily availabe in the area, they also have numbers lakes and trophy lakes for walleye, and the same for largemouth and smallmouth bass. This is true for any of the "numbers" systems in WI. The situation in northern WI is unlike anywhere else in that there is so many different aspects of the fishing resource available in a small area. It isn't like KY where you have 3.5 musky lakes in the whole state. It seems like this management plan is an attempt to bring population dynamics of other systems into place where they currently don't exist. I have to ask the question as to whether or not this is square peg, round hole theorem, and whether the end result has truly been looked at from other than a few anglers and a fishery science perspective? It is obvious that in any lake a few local fisherman might have their own special desires for their pet lake. I can understand that. It is also clear that this will be an interesting set of data to a fisheries scientist, and somewhat novel since it is being attempted with muskies. But you have to look at the other side of the ledger. Changing population dynamics in these waters will not fulfill an unmet need in the fishery. As I have pointed out, the fishery is diverse in these areas. I have listed the negatives already. So what are the real positives in this kind of management move? A little groundbreaking musky research, and local anglers having to find another excuse for not catching fish? I mean, really? | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| What is the proposed slot? Why would there be any advantage to a slot over a higher minimum size limit to protect fish from being killed before they get to 40"? JS | |||
| Jono |
| ||
| How 'bout this? If you want to thin the herd slightly, then invert the limit. can't kill anything over 28". under, then fine do it if you want to. If they can make it to 28 then they might ptoentially be the "slightly larger" whatever locals are asking for. Personally, I'd say invert and make it maybe 32" or 34". culling out the bottom end makes room in the biomass for the top and with a low rate of harvest...you won't be punishing the lake. | |||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | jono slots will take out some of the smaller fish and leave the bigger ones. Thats the whole plan behind slots. Its the d.n.r that chose what lakes to try slots on and not me. I would rather see some some other lakes incorperated into the plan to make it a good test. Why these lakes, you'd have to ask dave n or the d.n.r. I'm just happy they are talking about it and recognize it as a valuable tool in musky management. Pfeiff | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | firstsixfeet I'll say it here. you belong on last comic standing. Pfeiff | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | It has come to my attention that they are going to try and get this issue on the spring hearing agenda. THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT TO OPEN THIS POTENTIAL PANDORA'S BOX NEED TO ACT NOW TO TRY AND PUT A LID ON THIS THING, BEFORE IT GETS STARTED. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING CAN BE DONE, DOESN'T MEAN IT IS NECCESSARILY A GOOD THING TO DO!!! IT ISN'T THE SCIENCE THAT WORRIES ME AS MUCH AS IT IS THE COLLATERAL EFFECTS. ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS, WILL THIS PATH FILL AN UNMET NEED IN THE WI MUSKY RESOURCE? WILL THE ENCOURAGED KILL IMPLICIT TO MAKING THIS TYPE OF MANAGEMENT EFFORT WORK BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE RANK AND FILE FISHERMAN IN WI? WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SEE THESE ACTION LAKES DISAPPEAR AND BECOME MEDIOCRE LAKES WITH MEDIOCRE SIZE FISH IN THE FUTURE, OR POSSIBLY BECOME LAKES WITH A POPULATION THAT IS RARE IF THINGS DON'T WORK THE WAY PLANNED? ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO TRYING TO COUNTER EDUCATE FISHERMAN INTENT ON KILLING EVERY LEGAL MUSKY THEY CATCH WHEN THEY TELL YOU THEY ARE "HELPING THE RESOURCE, THERE ARE TOO MANY MUSKIES!"?? IS THERE AN ACTUAL NEED TO DO THIS??? My answer to each of these is NO! What is YOUR ANSWER??? | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | john skarie - 8/31/2007 8:14 AM What is the proposed slot? Why would there be any advantage to a slot over a higher minimum size limit to protect fish from being killed before they get to 40"? JS John, the proposed slot for the NINE current 28" minimum length limit waters in Ashland and Sawyer counties is to protect all muskies between 34 and 40 inches long, allowing fish smaller than 34 inches and larger than 40 inches to be harvested (1 daily). If such a regulation passed, we would encourage some voluntary harvest of overabundant, mostly male muskies 24-30 inches long so that remaining fish can grow faster and more young females can survive to adulthood. Once the necessary "thinning" occurred (assuming we can even talk anyone into keeping small muskies), we would suggest voluntarily releasing even legal, sub-slot fish until our surveys indicate once again that some thinning would be helpful. I do believe we will have to promote such harvest, or it won't happen. (I have much experience with largemouth bass slot limits to support that belief.) I wrote this proposal myself, with input from my staff of biologists in the Upper Chippewa Basin who manage all these waters. To answer John's second question: Virtually no fish are making it to 40 inches, and very few are making it to even 30 inches in many of these 28-inch minimum length limit lakes. (Difficult to believe, but we have the data.) A higher minimum length limit would be counter-productive in these waters, because it would continue to protect exceedingly high numbers of old, slow-growing males, such that few fish would ever live to exceed 34 inches whether they are released or not. The problem in most of these waters is high density and incredibly slow growth. I doubt that genetics is a big factor, and I know we are not experiencing over-harvest of larger fish in these waters. I want to protect the occasional rare fish that makes it to 34-40 inches because it's almost certainly a female, and because having more fish in the population that size may act to control the excessive reproductive survival of young muskies (via cannibalism). But if we don't harvest some of the overabundant males that virtually stop growing in these lakes before they reach 30 inches long, the probability of survival of young females will continue to be low; and the cycle of stunting will continue. I am concerned that the statewide Musky Committee (comprised of DNR biologists and some private citizens) has reacted to this proposal by simply recommending that we eliminate the length limit altogether on the lakes that currently have 28" minimum length limits. It will be up to DNR's Fisheries Management Board to decide in October whether to put my proposal on the Wisconsin Conservation Congress 2008 spring hearing questionnaire (34-40 inch protected slot) or the amended proposal of the statewide Musky Committee (no length limit at all). I think the latter option sends the wrong message and is not conducive to establishing balance in these 9 fish populations. But everyone has an opinion, and I'm sure all will be heard. A few questions for those who oppose this concept: Why are muskies different than bass, walleye, and pike -- all species for whom slot limits have been applied effectively in order to achieve fishery management objectives? Are you aware that similar concerns (massive overharvest of sub-slot fish, etc.) were raised about all those species when slot limits were first employed? Do you realize that slot limits have generally helped, not hurt, those fisheries when used under appropriate circumstances (high natural reproduction, excessive density, extremely slow growth and poor size structure)? Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | John, the proposed slot for the NINE current 28" minimum length limit waters in Ashland and Sawyer counties is to protect all muskies between 34 and 40 inches long, allowing fish smaller than 34 inches and larger than 40 inches to be harvested (1 daily). Dave N I would like to know the specific waters you are planning to try and implement these regulations If such a regulation passed, we would encourage some voluntary harvest of overabundant, mostly male muskies 24-30 inches long so that remaining fish can grow faster and more young females can survive to adulthood. Once the necessary "thinning" occurred (assuming we can even talk anyone into keeping small muskies), we would suggest voluntarily releasing even legal, sub-slot fish until our surveys indicate once again that some thinning would be helpful. I do believe we will have to promote such harvest, or it won't happen Dave N This is certainly a big worry of mine, the wrong message to put out after all these years. The problem in most of these waters is high density and incredibly slow growth. I doubt that genetics is a big factor, and I know we are not experiencing over-harvest of larger fish in these waters. DaveN I would feel much better if you knew rather than "doubted" genetics to be a factor. I would hate to go down this road and see this message disseminated and find out, heck, these fish don't get bigger than that anyway. This will cause even more distress among the genetics group, and turn on the kill switch for no good reason. These are all dark water fisheries I am guessing? Are you sure it isn't just the dark water and the quality of prey available. and that we might be trading small muskies for medium skinny muskies in the future, even with this project? 34-40 inches because it's almost certainly a female, and because having more fish in the population that size may act to control the excessive reproductive survival of young muskies (via cannibalism). But if we don't harvest some of the overabundant males that virtually stop growing in these lakes before they reach 30 inches long, the probability of survival of young females will continue to be low; and the cycle of stunting will continue. Dave N Once this harvest starts, there will be no way to discriminate between males and females. They will be killed proportionally, and actually the more aggressive and faster growing females may be represented in a higher proportion in their year class than the males. conducive to establishing balance in these 9 fish populations. But everyone has an opinion, and I'm sure all will be heard. Dave N I have pointed out that these populations are balanced at this time and have had some outcry that this is not true, however, this population is balanced in that it is in equilibrium. Unusual to have high numbers of the apex predator that is usually rare in most waters, but conditions have led to this particular population distribution and it has been stable for some time. What exactly will happen if large numbers of the apex predators are removed? Unfortunately, this will be the crucible for that experiment and if things really go into the blender it could be a real mess and change the character of these lakes entirely, and unfortunately, it might NOT be for the best for any species. The new balance and equilibrium that will be achieved is totally up in the air, imo, and Dave N cannot really say for sure what the new endpoint will be in these waters. As for musky being a predator onto themselves, how does he know that the kill of eating size fish(doubt that anglers will take them much under 18" regardless), will not allow a couple of huge year classes to evolve beneath the fish already controlling them as predators now? Does that solve any situation or does it prolong and create an even worse case scenario? After all we are talking max reproduction here, what if the decrease in upper level predators unleashes a "bluegill" effect? Why are muskies different than bass, walleye, and pike -- all species for whom slot limits have been applied effectively in order to achieve fishery management objectives? DaveN Well clearly musky are the apex predator in these waters, and in most cases suffer massive fry predation from many other species, and remain vulnerable due to body shape up until their second year, and even in their second year to northern pike. Musky do not have the reproductive capabilities of ANY of the fish mentioned above. Are you aware that similar concerns (massive overharvest of sub-slot fish, etc.) were raised about all those species when slot limits were first employed? DaveN I am fully aware of that Dave, but do not consider the goals for these fisheries(to be more like nearbye waters in their size structure) to be worth the risk of massively changing the fisheries themselves, and possibly getting out a large dose of disinformation that may work against the musky resource in a large way, not just in WI, but in other states as well Do you realize that slot limits have generally helped, not hurt, those fisheries when used under appropriate circumstances (high natural reproduction, excessive density, extremely slow growth and poor size structure)? Dave N I think here you are taking a rather narrow vision of the musky resource. I think this is one of the basic errors involved in this scheme. Is anybody taking a large view of the WI resource? Is there a rule that a high density, lower size structure, action lake should be tampered with, possibly eliminated, or really screwed up to try and emulate 600 other waters in the state that produce larger fish already and are easily reached in every area where these high population lakes exist? Locally, the property owners on lake X-8 inches might like to see their lake changed, but what about the first time musky fisherman, the burned out musky fisherman who haven't seen a musky in 3 days of any size, the kids, the old guys etc. who do value and enjoy this fishery? Why not look for the value and uniqueness of these waters rather than approaching them as a problem to be solved. I think the whole resource in WI is so great, and that these small fish waters fit in excellently, and fulfill a need themselves, that they should be re-examined before putting this plan into effect and maybe looked at as waters that are somewhat different than the norm, but very good at what they are. Here is a question for Dave. Where is the tipping point in these populations where the muskies crash, another predator explodes and suppresses muskie numbers in a big way? If this happens and the predator doing it is largemouth bass, how would you put the lid back on the test tube? Edited by firstsixfeet 9/2/2007 9:20 PM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | DAVE N (EARLIER POST): John (Skarie), the proposed slot for the NINE current 28" minimum length limit waters in Ashland and Sawyer counties is to protect all muskies between 34 and 40 inches long, allowing fish smaller than 34 inches and larger than 40 inches to be harvested (1 daily). FIRSTSIXFEET: I would like to know the specific waters you are planning to try and implement these regulations. DAVE N (THIS POST): All lakes currently managed for muskellunge under the category of “consumptive opportunity” with a 28-inch minimum length limit. These include Owl Lake in Iron County; Day Lake, East Twin Lake, Potter Lake, Spillerberg Lake, and the Spider/Moquah chain of lakes in Ashland County; and Black Lake, Mud/Callahan lakes, and the Tiger Cat chain of lakes in Sawyer County. DAVE N (EARLIER POST): If such a regulation passed, we would encourage some voluntary harvest of overabundant, mostly male muskies 24-30 inches long so that remaining fish can grow faster and more young females can survive to adulthood. Once the necessary "thinning" occurred (assuming we can even talk anyone into keeping small muskies), we would suggest voluntarily releasing even legal, sub-slot fish until our surveys indicate once again that some thinning would be helpful. I do believe we will have to promote such harvest, or it won't happen Dave N FIRSTSIXFEET: This is certainly a big worry of mine, the wrong message to put out after all these years. DAVE N (THIS POST): That is exactly what some bass anglers thought when slot limits were first applied to manage largemouth bass populations in the late 1970s. Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, the sport fishing industry and state natural resource agencies oversold "catch-and-release" as the only sensible management strategy for largemouth bass. But as usual, one size does not fit all. Eventually most bass anglers came to realize that it was OK, even desirable, to harvest certain sizes of largemouth bass in some situations. You pay people like me to know what strategy to use, and when; just like you pay your auto mechanic or doctor to know what part to use (alternator or artificial hip joint) and when to install it (before the car or body become dysfunctional). DAVE N (EARLIER POST): The problem in most of these waters is high density and incredibly slow growth. I doubt that genetics is a big factor, and I know we are not experiencing over-harvest of larger fish in these waters. FIRSTSIXFEET: I would feel much better if you knew rather than "doubted" genetics to be a factor. I would hate to go down this road and see this message disseminated and find out, heck, these fish don't get bigger than that anyway. DAVE N (THIS POST): The old saying, "Never say never" seems applicable here. Let's just say there is precious little evidence at this time for a genetic basis for slow growth rate of muskellunge in these waters. Mud-Callahan Lake drains into the Chippewa Flowage. The Tiger Cat Flowage drains into Round Lake. Muskellunge still get huge in those receiving waters. And in fact, we capture a occasional fish in the mid-40-inch range in the slow-growth waters also (a 44-inch female was captured in DNR fyke nets in Mud-Callahan in spring of 2006); so it is difficult to believe these fish are GENETICALLY programmed to grow so slowly that hardly any live to exceed a length of even 30 inches, especially when they are surrounded by lakes with far fewer but far bigger fish. FIRSTSIXFEET: These are all dark water fisheries I am guessing? Are you sure it isn't just the dark water and the quality of prey available. and that we might be trading small muskies for medium skinny muskies in the future, even with this project? DAVE N: Several are dark-water fisheries, but some are not. The Tiger Cat Chain is crystal clear, and Spillerberg is not darkly tannin-stained. There are several reasons for slow musky growth in these waters, including low productivity in some; but over-population (densities as high or higher than one adult musky per acre) is the predominant cause of slow musky growth. DAVE N (EARLIER POST ANSWERING WHY WE SHOULD PROTECT FISH 34-40 INCHES LONG IN THESE 9 WATERS): 34-40 inches because it's almost certainly a female, and because having more fish in the population that size may act to control the excessive reproductive survival of young muskies (via cannibalism). But if we don't harvest some of the overabundant males that virtually stop growing in these lakes before they reach 30 inches long, the probability of survival of young females will continue to be low; and the cycle of stunting will continue. FIRSTSIXFEET: Once this harvest starts, there will be no way to discriminate between males and females. They will be killed proportionally, and actually the more aggressive and faster growing females may be represented in a higher proportion in their year class than the males. DAVE N: Actually, our proposal includes a provision to help anglers distinguish between males and females by posting a sign at the boat ramps with a good photo of the two sexes taken by Dr. Bernard Lebeau and shared with me by Larry Ramsell. The special sign would suggest that all females be released voluntarily, regardless of size. Conscientious anglers like you, Firstsixfeet, will cooperate, as will most musky anglers I know. But even if females are killed in proportion to their abundance, MORE females should recruit to adult size because more MUSKIES should recruit to adult size with reduced adult density and cannibalism. One of the biggest problems in these lakes, currently, is low turnover rate. Males get to the high 20-inch-range, virtually cease growing, and then live for a LONG time, cannibalizing their young. Under a 28-inch minimum length limit, we release these fish, thinking we're doing good. We're not. DAVE N (EARLIER POST): ...conducive to establishing balance in these 9 fish populations. But everyone has an opinion, and I'm sure all will be heard. FIRSTSIXFEET: I have pointed out that these populations are balanced at this time and have had some outcry that this is not true, however, this population is balanced in that it is in equilibrium. Unusual to have high numbers of the apex predator that is usually rare in most waters, but conditions have led to this particular population distribution and it has been stable for some time. DAVE N: In other words, these populations have been out of balance for a long time. The people I trained under invented the concept of balance for both warmwater and coolwater fish populations (Dr. Richard O. Anderson and Dr. A. Stephen Weithman). I can share those publications with anyone interested. FIRSTSIXFEET: What exactly will happen if large numbers of the apex predators are removed? DAVE N: The first thing that will happen is that the survivors will grow faster and get bigger -- more prey per predator. The second thing that will happen is that more young muskellunge, including females, will survive to adulthood. If we protect 34-40 inch fish (almost all females in these lakes) instead of fish under 28 inches (lots of OLD males), we will create a healthier balance that is good for musky fishing and good for the rest of the fish community. FIRSTSIXFEET: Unfortunately, this will be the crucible for that experiment and if things really go into the blender it could be a real mess and change the character of these lakes entirely, and unfortunately, it might NOT be for the best for any species. The new balance and equilibrium that will be achieved is totally up in the air, imo, and Dave N cannot really say for sure what the new endpoint will be in these waters. DAVE N: In my opinion, the worst thing that could happen is that we do nothing, continuing to accept a condition of extreme imbalance and poor musky size structure simply because we fear change. Day Lake in Ashland County (625 acres) is the poster child for the need for slot limits for muskellunge. In spring of 2006 we captured 224 muskellunge and estimated their density to be 1.6 adults per acre. Only 7% were over 30 inches long, and none were over 38 inches long. We can do better. Harvesting some small fish is the only way. My only concern is that we may not be able to generate ENOUGH harvest to effect real change. We seek to create and maintain adult densities at approximately 0.5 to 0.7 per acre (still moderately high and consistent with a "numbers fishery" goal) with 5 to 10 percent of the adult population over 38 inches long. FIRSTSIXFEET: As for musky being a predator onto themselves, how does he know that the kill of eating size fish(doubt that anglers will take them much under 18" regardless), will not allow a couple of huge year classes to evolve beneath the fish already controlling them as predators now? Does that solve any situation or does it prolong and create an even worse case scenario? After all we are talking max reproduction here, what if the decrease in upper level predators unleashes a "bluegill" effect? DAVE N: That's one reason why we need to PROTECT fish that are not protected now -- fish 34 to 40 inches long. We may very well have the same BIOMASS of muskellunge in a restructured population, but with that biomass occurring in fewer, larger fish. I hope folks realize that we DO think about these things before we make recommendations... DAVE N (EARLIER POST): Do you realize that slot limits have generally helped, not hurt, those fisheries when used under appropriate circumstances (high natural reproduction, excessive density, extremely slow growth and poor size structure)? FIRSTSIXFEET: I think here you are taking a rather narrow vision of the musky resource. I think this is one of the basic errors involved in this scheme. Is anybody taking a large view of the WI resource? DAVE N: The "large view" currently exists in Wisconsin's statewide Muskellunge Plan, which was developed before I moved from Missouri to Wisconsin. It calls for "consumptive opportunity" as one of the musky fishery categories, and it considers the 28-inch length limit to be the regulation category that provides that opportunity. I personally don't believe we need to consume muskies for the sake of consuming them; but I do believe we need selective harvest to create better fishing in some waters. FIRSTSIXFEET: Is there a rule that a high density, lower size structure, action lake should be tampered with, possibly eliminated, or really screwed up to try and emulate 600 other waters in the state that produce larger fish already and are easily reached in every area where these high population lakes exist? DAVE N: We are not trying to make these 9 waters like all other musky waters. Once again, our objective for these waters is to create and maintain adult densities at approximately 0.5 to 0.7 per acre (still moderately high and consistent with a "numbers fishery" goal) with 5 to 10 percent of the adult population over 38 inches long. We are not even close to meeting those objectives at this time. Contrast our "numbers" fishery objective with our objectives for the Chippewa Flowage, in which we seek an adult density of 0.3 to 0.4 per acre with 30 to 40 percent over 42 inches long and 3 to 5 percent over 50 inches long. There is a big difference in these objectives in response to both ecosystem capability and angler preference. We do seek to create a variety of opportunity that is linked to the potential of each body of water. FIRSTSIXFEET: Locally, the property owners on lake X might like to see their lake changed, but what about the first-time musky fisherman, the burned out musky fisherman who haven't seen a musky in 3 days of any size, the kids, the old guys etc. who do value and enjoy this fishery? Why not look for the value and uniqueness of these waters rather than approaching them as a problem to be solved. I think the whole resource in WI is so great, and that these small fish waters fit in excellently, and fulfill a need themselves, that they should be re-examined before putting this plan into effect and maybe looked at as waters that are somewhat different than the norm, but very good at what they are. DAVE N: We are on the same page here, Firstsixfeet. We, including local anglers and property owners, still value the "numbers" fisheries for the VERY reasons you mentioned. I just don't think you realize how badly out of balance these musky populations have become under the 28-inch minimum length limit, and how badly they fail to meet the size-related expectations of even those who DO value the "numbers" fisheries. FIRSTSIXFEET: Here is a question for Dave. Where is the tipping point in these populations where the muskies crash, another predator explodes and suppresses muskie numbers in a big way? If this happens and the predator doing it is largemouth bass, how would you put the lid back on the test tube? DAVE N: The tipping point is somewhere significantly below the 0.5 to 0.7 adult fish per acre that we hope to maintain with the 34- to 40-inch protected slot limit. Obviously this is a complicated issue. I think Firstsixfeet has his heart in the right place and truly cares about maintaining a diversity of opportunity in Wisconsin's muskellunge fishery. He or anyone else desiring more information on this subject is encouraged to contact me at [email protected]. I will be happy to e-mail you a copy of our slot limit regulation proposal in its entirety. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 9/4/2007 7:08 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Incredible exchange of information; thank you gentlemen! | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Thank you Dave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we just need people to write to the D.N.R. and offer support for this and to attend the spring hearings and vote for it. I belive any angler after reading the last post by Dave has certainly had the questions answerd. Support slots guys. As Ive said befor we need to open our minds to new management tools and slots can be a good one. Pfeiff Edited by Don Pfeiffer 9/3/2007 7:16 PM | ||
| hitchcos |
| ||
Posts: 31 Location: Syracuse, New York | Slot limits always create passionate and interesting debates. In many cases, it's a clash between science and emotion. As a scientist with a moderate environmental background, I always prefer well researched slot limits to a minimum size limit. However, as a musky fisherman that loves the sport and values the resource, I hate the idea of harvesting even a single fish. Ideally, all size limits need to be well researched and specific to a single body of water. However this makes enforcement of such ordinances very difficult. Hopefully, despite the difficulties, that is where we are headed. | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20211 Location: oswego, il | I agree largely with FirstSixFeet. I do not have a problem with the desire for making bigger fish. We are only talking about 9 lakes here. I am going to assume there is not any stocking being done on these 9 lakes. They are action lakes. I know people who target them specifically because they want to catch a bunch of muskies. I am no biologist but I would think it would take a major reduction of fish to increase the average size to somethig you may all consider desireable. For any lakes that are stocked and a slot considered, why not cut back or curtail the stocking and use those fish someplace else? Do not get me wrong. I like the idea of improvement and the discussion of ideas, even this one. I am just not sure it is the right step. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | ToddM asked: "For any lakes that are stocked and a slot considered, why not cut back or curtail the stocking and use those fish someplace else?" DAVE: Todd, we don't stock any of the 9 waters where the 34-40" protected slot limit was proposed. For almost two decades now, the high density of muskellunge in those waters has been the result of natural reproduction and excessive natural recruitment. If we could achieve our objectives by reducing stocking, I would agree that we should do that first. The non-stocked status of these waters was mentioned in the "alternatives analysis" section of our internal proposal, which you have not had the opportunity to read. You had good managerial instincts to think of the simplest possible solution first. All this may be a moot point, though. I have been told that the statewide Muskellunge Team (comprised of a mixture of DNR employees and musky anglers) rejected our proposal to replace the 28" length limit category with a 34-40" protected slot category. Their recommendation was to remove the length limit altogether on these waters. That was unacceptable to me and my biologists in the Upper Chippewa Basin. We have recommended to the Fisheries Management Board (who will ultimately make the decision what to place on the WCC spring hearing questionnaire) that they either approve our slot limit proposal or drop the idea altogether for 2008. In our opinion, removing all harvest restrictions is a step backward that is inconsistent with our management plan objectives for these waters. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 10/5/2007 1:20 PM | ||
| Whoolligan |
| ||
Posts: 457 | My only concern, and this may be entirely unfounded, is that you are eventually going to lose year classes of fish, are you not? At some point the incoming fish are going to be cannibalized, caught and killed or otherwise removed from the fishery. Thereby allowing growth through lesser density, but also reducing the population of adult (read reproductive fish) and eventually you are going to stall out. Now, the way I see it, or at least am reading it through here and other sources, is that on bodies of water(maybe one or two similar to those which are being so passionately spoken about) that slot limits are in effect, there is greater recruitment of fish into that slot of protection, thereby ensuring the reproduction of the fishery, and the chance that it will continue to be self sufficient. What I don't, however, understand is the number of year classes that a particular body of water will sustain itself without having a particularly strong incoming year class. I am sure that it will change based on the body of water, but is there a specific thought process on this, and relation to a slot? Lastly, if you look at a body of water such as Merritt Reservoir in NE, its got some reproduction, but it is far more reliant on stocking. The neat thing about it in this situation is that you can sort of peg where you are at as far as growth, and the ability of a fishery to sustain itself without stocking, and the same time, without losing the balance of incoming year classes of fish. I wish I had it bookmarked, but it was a really interesting discussion that was had by a couple people (one a biologist, and some that were more than educated enough to speak on the situation). What it took into account, were the mortality rates, the average growth rates of fish, all that jazz.... Interesting discussion(the above postings) one which really is pertinent to the health of a fishery. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8775 | Whoolligan - 10/10/2007 1:31 PM My only concern, and this may be entirely unfounded, is that you are eventually going to lose year classes of fish, are you not? At some point the incoming fish are going to be cannibalized, caught and killed or otherwise removed from the fishery. Thereby allowing growth through lesser density, but also reducing the population of adult (read reproductive fish) and eventually you are going to stall out. ..." If you think about it, that's a lot like what happens in self sustaining populations. Survival of any year class depends on a number of factors that vary from season to season. A particularly cold winter may kill off a lot of fish, or an unusually successful pike spawn may cause more predation than normal for example. Some years it may be the opposite. Early weed growth may provide cover for hatchlings, or maybe something happens in the local bird populations where muskie predation drops significantly. Over a period of many generations you have certain sizes of fish that are most abundant and certain sizes that are least abundant, and every year a different amount of successful recruitment takes place. You may have a few great years followed by a few really bad years, or a sting of bad years all in a row. Ultimately there is a balance in the ecosystem. By "meddling" in that (through delayed mortality, harvest, and yes even stocking) we have created ecosystems that are seriously out of whack, as illustrated above in Dave's response about the number of small males. I see slot limits as an effective way to help restore the balance. | ||
| Whoolligan |
| ||
Posts: 457 | Kinda what I was getting at in a roundabout way. Posted while writing a paper for Medical ethics. Far less interesting than muskies/slot limits. I should have started it off this way, "My only concern on a fishery that is already stunted, without introducing a slot limit..." | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | WHOOLIGAN: My only concern, and this may be entirely unfounded, is that you are eventually going to lose year classes of fish, are you not? At some point the incoming fish are going to be cannibalized, caught and killed or otherwise removed from the fishery. Thereby allowing growth through lesser density, but also reducing the population of adult (read reproductive fish) and eventually you are going to stall out. DAVE: Actually, it is quite unlikely that we would lose muskellunge year classes in such lakes under such circumstances. We might even gain some. If we are successful in promoting a meaningful level of harvest of small adult fish (24-34 inches) under a protected slot of 34-40 inches, cannibalism will be reduced and turnover rate (replacement of harvested adults by new recruits) will increase. (The advantage here is that SOME of those new recruits will be females that have the potential to get much larger than the old, stockpiled males.) The fallacy still promoted by a few fishery biologists and many outdoor writers is that you need lots of big spawners to keep the young ones coming. Not so. It doesn't take many adult fish to create enough young to overpopulate a lake. What regulates density most of the time is what happens after the eggs hatch. It's mostly about "who's eating whom" from that point onward. On lakes where we have contemplated slot limits, the habitat and other fish community characteristics lend themselves well to natural reproduction of muskellunge. It's the last thing we're worried about endangering by promoting some harvest of sub-slot fish. I hope that puts our proposal into clearer perspective. Excellent question. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Dave, I am hoping you can elaborate on why the Musky Management Committee supported no minimum vs, the protected slot. If I understand the protected slot as you proposed correctly: There would be no minimum but then fish that make it to 34 inches are protected until they reach 40 and then fish over 40 can be harvested. What possible reason did the Musky Management Committee have for not wanting to protect the fish that reach 34 to 40. They must have had some reason, for the life of me I can’t figure out what it would be if the goal of their proposed no minimum is to reduce the number of stunted fish. Other than just a complete aversion to slot limits. I know a couple people on that committee, I will see if I can get them to respond also. Thanks for keeping us in the loop. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | MIKE ROBERTS: If I understand the protected slot as you proposed correctly: There would be no minimum but then fish that make it to 34 inches are protected until they reach 40 and then fish over 40 can be harvested. DAVE: You understand correctly, Mike. MIKE: What possible reason did the Musky Management Committee have for not wanting to protect the fish that reach 34 to 40? DAVE: I'd like to know that myself. I have received no written explanation. The grapevine suggests it has something to do with excessive regulatory complexity and a feeling among some committee members that most of these lakes won't grow any fish that will reach the protected slot, so why bother. I don't buy either argument, but that's all I've heard so far. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I was forwarded a copy of the draft 08-08-2007 Muskellunge Committee Meeting minutes the following is what was said in the minutes regarding this issue: “No Minimum length limit, 34” to 40” protected slot/Nine Waters NW WI – Quite the discussion! The committee clearly recommended replacement of the 28” minimum category with the “no minimum” length limit, but there was disagreement about inclusion of the slot, particularly for the 3 larger waters. In general, the committee felt that the “no minimum” was the best choice to replace the 28” minimum. Six of the nine waters proposed are less than 154 acres, and most felt that we should not actively manage those waters for muskellunge; enacting a protected slot may imply otherwise or create unrealistic expectations. However, for the 3 larger waters, most with a long history of having musky fisheries, there was some disagreement. I felt those 3 waters are well suited for the protected slot because occasionally larger fish are captured there (2 of the 3 larger waters had RSD-38 values of > 0%). Ideally, the no minimum is designed to reduce densities and increase growth – the three larger waters have the greatest chance of achieving this goal. There was complete agreement that the smaller waters have little chance of meeting this expectation. However, the recommendation of the committee was to replace the 28” minimum with a “no minimum” category, thus moving all 9 waters to “no minimum”.” For those not familiar with the lakes as I wasn’t I did a little research on size and class, it is as follows: Ashland County; Day Lake – Not listed on WDNR Musky Lake listing. East Twin Lake – 62 acres, Class C, Cat 0 Potter Lake – 29 acres, Class C, Cat 1 Spillerburg Lake – 75 acres, Class B, Cat 1 Sawyer County; Black Lake – 129 acres, Class A2, Cat 1 Chief River, North Fork – Not Listed on WDNR Musky Lake listing. Mud Lake – 480 acres, Class A2, Cat 1 Callahan Lake – 106 acres, Class A2, Cat 1 Tiger Cat Chain – 247, 1365 & 299 acres, Class A2, Cat 1 I think that’s the list of lakes this issue is regarding. If I missed one or added an extra one please forgive me. Personaly I don’t like the excuse used in the minutes notes. 4 of those bodies of waters are classified as A2 maybe they lumped Mud & Callahan as one in which case those are probably the 3 lakes discussed, but eitherway what is the down side to adding the protected slot, on any of those lakes. It could mean a chance at a better quality experience on any of the above mentioned lake. I think even FirstSixFeet would agree that protecting those 34 to 40 inchers is better than a no minimum. What a pure no minimum says to me is they are just giving up on those lakes and they might as well just remove the muskies all together. If that’s the case why not just move the size limit back to the state wide minimum and leave the lake alone, then it truly isn’t being managed. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Whoolligan |
| ||
Posts: 457 | Hey Dave, thanks for the reply. If you see my second post above, it will better give a direction as to the thought process I was undergoing at the time. I would imagine, to a degree, managing any sort of predatory species in a body of water is going to be the same. I had the good fortune to come to know a biologist well, and helped to set up a fishing pond here in NE. At first, we had a traditional warm water mix of largemouth, bluegills and channel cats, sort of standard faire. That's all well and good, here's the rub, we now have walleyes, smallmouth, and have all but eliminated the largemouth from the equation. We can't reasonably say that the walleyes are spawning, but we have caught fish well under the size class of what would be stocked on a semi-annual basis. Anyhow, where I am going with this is that through the years, we had to add some sort of favorable forage to the system, or we were going to end up with a flatline, and miss out on any sort of reproductive fish in terms of the smallies. There are two reasons behind it, and that's part of what I was basing my previous response on. One, there were so many large predators in the system, that they were eating things so fast, that there was no balance whatsoever. Entire year classes of forage were being eradicated through general mortality, and from predation. There was a consistent two to three years, as well, that we would see fingerlings, but the next year, they were all but non-existant. Two, we weren't keeping any of the fish in that middle range at all, which would have helped to eliminate the density of predators. In the end we just didn't continue to see the numbers of fish, we weren't catching the size of fish, and we weren't tracking growth of the fish that we had tagged. Granted this is on a smaller, much smaller scale, than that of what we are talking in the slot limits. But the fishery had become stunted, fish weren't growing because there was little or nothing for them to eat, and there was a loss of year class fish, it was noticeable. As I see it, and as the biologist saw it, there were three things that were causing a problem in this situation, some of which would be deemed as classic problems in a stunted fishery: lack of forage, overall density, and specifically the density of predatory species. ( I would also like to note that at the time we were undergoing this transformation, the LmB were no longer an issue, as they had almost been completely removed through various methods.) Now, if I understand the process correctly, let us say, for a second, we converted this fishery to a 1200acre body of water that was undergoing the same sort of problems. We would benefit from the slot on the basis of there are fewer mouths to feed (assuming those fish are being kept) as well, we would regain a sort of balance on the predator prey issue. There would no longer be a chance of losing several year classes in succession. In turn that would cause a number of those fish to make it to adult size and reproductive status. Now, with all that said, I hope my position is more clear on the state of slot limits. I am sure tha managing a fishery for top end predators, be it trophy management or otherwise, is going to contain some fragments of what we had experienced. At least it won't be altogether different. Edited by Whoolligan 10/14/2007 12:33 PM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Hey Whooligan.... you're welcome! Sounds like you've had an interesting personal experience with your Nebraska farm pond. I had a 2-acre pond of my own when I still lived in Missouri. It sure is fun to "play" with these artificial ecosystems, especially when you can create them, habitat and all, from the ground up. I also had the opportunity to survey and provide management recommendations to literally hundreds of private impoundment owners when I was a fishery biologist for the Missouri Department of Conservation. (That was a routine service of ours.) I saw all kinds of interesting situations. And even though small private impoundments are different than the major public waters I oversee here in Wisconsin, there were useful principles to be learned by working on so many smaller, simpler systems. I'd be interested to know what your biologist friend thinks of our slot limit approach to managing muskies, given our stakeholder-influenced objectives and the current status of the fish communities in question. Thanks again for sharing your interesting situation. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | If the objective is to remove some of the many smaller males on lakes why would you protect fish between 34 and 40 inches? These are the small males. I feel that a true slot should have a minimum of 32 or 34 and the protected slot should be between 40 and 50. Then you do protect the bigger females and open harvest to smaller fish. I feel this would produce more trophy fish. One has to have that as the goal. By protecting the smaller slot I cannot see how that objective is met. To me it would seem that it would lead to more stacking and thats what we want to avoid. Pfeiff | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | something else to remember is that by putting a slot limit on lake now does not mean it will be that way forever. Its a management tool to make the muskie population a more healthy one. I cannot see where this would cause any damgae to the population as far as eliminating year classes. Its just a management control tool that has seen its time to be used. In fact its way past time that its used. Pfeiff | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Don, I think on the above mentioned lakes even getting the fish to the mid 30” mark is the problem. That is why they proposed a 34 to 40 inch slot. In these specific cases they are protecting the females because most of the males don’t grow over 30” out there. Dave can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is the case out there. That is why specific lake management is so important, even if it is makes the regs. more complicated and costs more. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 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 |