|
|
| Just thought some of you may be interested in a recent move by the state of Wisconsin in regards to our muskie fishery. Just wondering what everyone thought about it?
I have taken this quote from Pete Maina on thenextbite.com. It reads:
"I wonder too, is this just the year for stupidity in the state of WI, maybe? Was hoping it would tail-off in '08, but news seems to be getting worse.
We have the early catch & release (during spawn) season for muskies; we have the DNR refusing to protect the muskies on the Bay of Green Bay - in the restoration project there, while they intend to study things (many of which are being eliminated meanwhile); let's not forget Jim Hudson's 3 years for fruitless attempts, using the CC hearings "system" to protect the now nearly completely depleted pike fishery of Chequamegon Bay.
Seemingly small in comparison, possibly, but I'd heard this a while ago ... continue to find myself somewhat in a state of disbelief, but it has been publicly announced by Dave Neuswanger, who's title is "Fisheries Team Leader" for Northwestern WI:
His announcements include that Moose Lake here in Sawyer County will be used as a broodstock lake for muskies for the DNR's hatchery in Spooner. For those of you not familiar with Moose Lake, the concern here is that while the lake is very pretty, has a nice population of muskies and is a great place to go fish them - they are "very" slow-growing and don't get big. This lake is a 1 on a 1 to 10 scale of muskie growth.
The thought is for genetic diversity? Have the results of keeping the large and healthy and tossing back the weak and small taught us nothing.
Another one to toss on the common sense meter here: Your thoughts?
To me, going to what is one of the worst growth lakes in all of northern Wisconsin for muskie broodstock for our hatcheries - is similar to asking Emmett Brown at the Fishing Hall of Fame to tell you the straight skinny on muskie World Records.
But that's just my opinion.
If folks would agree this seems to be a very bad thing to do for fisheries in this part of the state, let us know here."
Pete
Some of you may or may not care for Pete... and that's fine. But, one thing is for sure, he is about the fishery and for the fishery. He has even gone as far as writing a regular column in Esox Angler Magazine called Fisheries First.
So, lets hear your thoughts on this?
Thanks all.
Lee Tauchen
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Wow, not a wisonsinite but still I couldn't agree more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 619
Location: Verona, WI | It doesn't surprise me that Pete would somehow link his disdain for the FWFHOF to all of these other issues. Seems like he sees everything in Wisconsin through that lens.
In terms of all of things he states as stupid - he's right.
Shane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: WI | Sad. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 726
Location: Eau Claire, WI | In Wisconsin, we say "Forward!"
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Fisherman tend to see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe (WMRP). To me this comes off as a rant against the WDNR.
The early season C&R has nothing to do with the WDNR. I am pretty sure that they don’t want it either. It’s not a done deal from what I understand. It will be on the CC ballot on the 14th.
I personally would like to see a 54” limit in Green Bay but I don’t see how somebody can come to the conclusion that a 50” limit is not helping to protect the resourse.
I don’t know much about Moose Lake and I have no reason to doubt Pete’s assessment of the lake. I know that the WDNR’s plan requires lakes that are self sustaining be used for the brood and that they are rotating four or five lakes to do this. I know that they are having a hard time finding lakes that meet their requirements. There is a very high possibility that the fish from Moose will grow faster and larger when they are in a different environment. I would assume that the WDNR feels that there is nothing wrong with these fish or they wouldn’t use them.
I fail to see what Emmit Brown has to do with any of this.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eau Claire,WI | Pete can seem like an elitist at times and some of his coments make me want to puke....The Moose Lake comment was dead on! I have fished it a few times.Pretty lake,I had a GREAT time,easy to fish and LOTS of 30" fish.If you have never caught a musky before,go to Moose Lake,put on a yellow bucktail with a flame blade and work the shoreline wood.10 fish days are not uncommon...
Why choose this lake,was Blaisedale already taken?How about Barber,Barker or better yet,Lake Winter!!! The DNR needs to see past the end of the day and start trying to work for your kids,(I don't have any),future outdoor thrills. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | Hmm, the Moose Lake idea does not seem like a good one to me. Like somebody else said, maybe these fish will do better in other lakes. Still, why not use fish that are KNOWN for good growth rates and trophy potentail?
curleytail |
|
| |
|
| i can't speak to Moose Lk specifically, as i've never been on it or know anything about it.
however, there is plenty of evidence that overcrowding in a lake limits the size potential of the fish in that lake (and there are a number of lakes like this in the Hayward area specifically). it would be a serious attribution error to assume that limited growth in a particular lake is entirely the result of genetics. it's worth considering whether it's a factor or a not, but there are lots and lots of variables at work in these situations, especially in the relatively smaller waters of WI.
also, before flying the "dang DNR" flag too high, let's not overlook the fact that the DNR's plan to maintain genetic diversity within their stocking program was widely lauded when it was unveiled back in 2005.
right from the start the DNR maintained that they would use the best science available to make decisions on which lakes to draw from, and that they did not see a scientific basis for avoiding the use of smaller fish; rather, they would be using fish of a variety of sizes from a variety of sources. ie., diversity is more important to the health of the overall fishery than artificially attempting to select for fast growth or trophy size. the genetic studies they've been performing helped to identify that Butternut fish were genetically different from LCO fish and therefore the DNR stopped the transfer of those fish into LCO and put them in Neshonoc instead to help create a new fishery there. the same stocking program that's selected Moose Lake this year drew fish from the Chippewa Flowage, again much to everyone's armchair quarterback pleasure.
again, i can't speak to Moose Lk specifically, but the DNR has acted in what seems to be a generally responsible way in developing and implementing this plan. let's keep in mind that this is a long-term plan with a rotation of multiple lakes to ensure genetic diversity.
here's a link to the draft plan from 2005.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/BroodStockPlan3.pdf
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 170
Location: Chicagoland | I'm pretty sure they have recently halted the early season musky fishing (during the spawn). At least it won't be going on this year. There a still is a barbless hook policy for before labor day... I am pretty sure that Pete Mania post is a little outdated. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Here is what Moose Lake muskies look like. Everything we have caught there is the same, big heads and no body. I don't think the Chippewa River is short on suckers for them to eat. Seems like a bad move on the Wisconsin DNR's part here. Not any history of large fish that I am aware of. Not that these fish can't get big somewhere else, but we don't know. In the current state of things I would think they should stay with a "known" producer. Diversity is a great thing provided the right things are selected in that diverse pool. Diversity for the sake of diversity proves nothing.
Edited by ChadG 4/3/2008 6:51 PM
Attachments
----------------
 7-3=31.jpg (40KB - 171 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20212
Location: oswego, il | I have one question and I know Dave posts on the site. Is it the intention of the DNR to monitor the fish from different broods stocked into the lakes to see which brood is the best? If that is the case I can see why this lake has been chosen as the bone lake fish have shown good growth in some lakes and maybe these will in others. If that is not the case, then I don't get the lake choice.
As far as Pete mentioning Emmet Brown, it's a backwards thinking comparison he was trying to make. |
|
| |
|
| "genetic diveristy"..... Didn't the IL DNR have the same goal when they created what is now the IL Mutt? Funny how similar this story sounds. The IL Mutt brood stock lake is a puddle that only recently showed any fish of real size. For way too many years it was the home of the 30 incher. Until recently I don't think a fish over 44" lived in that lake. Was it the lake and/or the fish? Seams like the Fox Chain, Shelbyville and Kinkaid put out their share of nice fish. Could it be better if the brood stock lake was different? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Wouldn't Moose Lake have the same strain as the Chippewa Flowage? There have been big fish in there over the years and its all connected by the Chippewa River, unless there are dams along the way. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | stinger - 4/4/2008 10:10 AM Wouldn't Moose Lake have the same strain as the Chippewa Flowage? There have been big fish in there over the years and its all connected by the Chippewa River, unless there are dams along the way. I would assume that Moose has over population issues as the Chippewa River produces big fish. I would think the genetics are just fine with these fish. |
|
| |
|
| Read the wisconsins top 50 Muskie Lakes book. During an interview with the WDNR's Frank Pratt it's mentioned that some supect there is a slow growing strain in Moose lake. |
|
| |
|
| "some suspect"...
"some"? Who are they? What is their background? Do they have any background in fisheries biology or genetic research?
There are a lot of people who suspect muskies are "eating all their walleyes", but that doesn't make it true.
Edited by Anonymous 4/4/2008 4:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
Location: Owatonna,MN | Chad,
Although I agree that Moose has it's share of dinks, if that is as big a fish you are catching out there it is time to "move away from the shore" There are much bigger fish in Moose, but most people beat shoreline and not where the bigger fish are. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| We have been on Moose 3 times, 4 -5 hrs each time. We have 6 muskies to show for our time with 38" being the largest. All have the same build, big head-skinny body. I haven't had the time to do any major exploring off shore. I am happy that there are much bigger fish out there, we use the lake as a last resort for some action now maybe we can put some more time on her. |
|
| |
|
|
So if you take the Emmit Brown comment out, what exactly is it that "can't be backed up"?
The claim is that Moose lake fish are slow growing and don't tend to get real big.
That should be pretty easy to find out unless the DNR has never done a population survey on that lake.
I see a lot of "Pete bashing" here, but nobody is coming up with anything that proves what he says isn't true.
Typical, if you can't debate the message, insult the messenger.
JS |
|
| |
|
| I see a lot of "Pete bashing" here, but nobody is coming up with anything that proves what he says isn't true.
Typical, if you can't debate the message, insult the messenger.
well, opinions are just opinions, and not something that it's possible to debate.
nobody has anything that proves it isn't true, but neither is Pete offering any evidence that what he says IS true.
it's evident (from what people report) that the fish in that lake are generally small, but that doesn't explain why, and it definitely doesn't prove there's anything at all going on with them genetically.
i agree with Pete's recent column in EA magazine that "common sense" should be our guide on certain issues (catch/release and fish handling for example), but when we're talking about genetics, it's science and the scientists who should be making the decisions, not the angling community's "common sense" consensus.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Just curious here. What size do the fish have to be for you guys to think the lake is a "good" choice? Fish over 40, 45, 50? An honest question. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| John,
Where his studies backing up his genetic claims. This was a rant on what is at best a guess on his part. Don't put words in my mouth. I was not bashing anyone. All I know and I said this before and I'll say it again . When it comes to the science and genetics of a fishery I'm going to listen to the experts and not Pete Mania. Would you go to a mechanic for bypass surgery? Maybe you would but I would not. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 4/5/2008 12:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 538
Location: WI | I spent my first 23 years in WI and would have to say that after one summer fishing in MN I seriously have to question what the "experts" in WI do in general. I have never had so much success in both size and numbers and I am experiencing fishing that as a former wisconsinite, did not realize still existed in the lower 48 states....and I have yet to fish a lake >400 acres and outside of the twin cities yet. My fiance and I always thought we'd move back once she was done w/ school, but now that has become a last resort. Go Packers though! |
|
| |
|
| I wasn't singling you out Dave.
Pete is a "polarizing" figure, and several people made reference that.
It's easy to not want to believe what somobody says if you don't like them, even if what they are saying is true.
Larry Ramsell posted a little more technical input on why Pete, himself and others feel that Moose is a poor candidate if what you're looking for is faster growing/larger size muskies.
While I wholeheartedly trust and support the MNDNR, they have made mistakes, and been corrected with the help of anglers in the past. Remember, we used to stock Shoepac muskies in MN.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Thanks, John. I think I'm going to leave this one alone from here on out. Please have a great and safe season. I hope you stick a 55.25" fish this year.
Dave |
|
| |
|
| I hired Larry Ramsell 3 - 4 years ago, even stayed at his house which is very close to Moose Lake.
Larry has fished this lake for many years and takes novice guide clients there each year who don't care about size, but want numbers and action.
At that time, Larry made a comment that his longest musky out of Moose Lake was 42 inches.
You be the judge.
|
|
| |
|
| I would be very interested in what John Myhre's opinion on the matter would be, he is a long time multi species guide and resort owner on Moose. I know he has been very successful on Moose boating a large number of tophy fish up to, or close to, 50 inches. I once contacted him to guide me for a fall trophy hunt and he reccommended Moose over the Chip at a chance at a fall fatty. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'He's one of the few people it's OK to bash on this site without getting your post yanked.'
I don't see any 'Pete' bashing, I do see disagreement as lambeau mentioned, and a clarification by the only strongly worded post here that no bash was intended.
I'll get a MuskieFIRST Radio interview next week with Dave N. to clarify if at all possible. I do know Pete's statement is focused only on a very small segment of the overall plan, and that there is indeed limited water that meets Dr. Sloss's requirements. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Mike (Lambeau), I appreciate your calm, rational response here.
I live one mile from Moose Lake. I fish it. I also fish the West Fork Chippewa River below the Moose Lake Dam. And I fish the Chippewa Flowage a few miles downstream, which undoubtedly has muskellunge that were spawned upstream and probably even some that were "entrained" (passed downstream through the dam) from Moose Lake itself.
I also work on these waters. It was my recommendation to use the Chippewa Flowage as a source of broodstock for production of muskellunge fingerlings at DNR's hatchery in Spooner in 2006. Most people supported that decision. And it was my recommendation to use Butternut Lake near Park Falls in 2007. Many anglers thought that decision was ridiculous. And it was my recommendation to use Moose Lake this spring. I see a similarly negative reaction to that decision among many who have posted to this thread.
I will be on Moose Lake personally in late April with our hatchery crews -- trying to capture, tag, and spawn adult muskellunge. We've never done it here before. As on the Chip and at Butternut, uncertainty about success in capturing enough discrete males and females to spawn according to our new genetic diversity protocols (19-26 matings of 3 dicrete males per discrete female over a period of several days) is a souce of concern to all of us involved in the operation. But site-specific catch information from the 1990s suggests it can be done. I am told by Moose Lake guides and resort owners that the fish have become significantly larger since DNR's last survey, due perhaps to the combined effect of the 40-inch minimum length limit and a high rate of voluntary catch-and-release. These are well-known people who are not inclined to say things are going well if, in fact, they are not. Instead of ridiculing or protesting our judgment, these folks will be helping us to locate good net sites and facilitating our access to the lake.
Thanks to significant help from Larry Ramsell, we obtained a large number of muskellunge fin tissue samples from Moose Lake a couple years ago for genetic analysis at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. UWSP researchers have not yet completed their analyses or reported their results. When they do, we will have some measure of the similarity or difference between muskellunge in Moose Lake and the Chippewa Flowage a few miles downstream. But for now, we have no science-based reason to speculate that muskellunge in Moose Lake have genes that would prevent them from growing as fast or getting as big as muskellunge anywhere else in northern Wisconsin. Moose Lake is darkly stained and relatively unproductive compared with many waters, which likely explains below-average growth rates of ALL fish species in that lake. But knowledgable anglers know there are a few very big (probably very old) muskies in Moose Lake. The potential for trophy size is there.
We also know that the Moose Lake muskellunge population has sustained itself naturally (zero stocking) for decades now. That is a very important criterion for selection of broodstock lakes. We also believe there are enough fish available in Moose Lake to allow us to meet the diversity requirements (19-26 matings that require 4 unique fish each). That also is a very important criterion if we hope to keep the full arsenal of genetic material present in the fish we stock so they are able to adapt to changing climatic conditions, new diseases (like VHS), and changing habitat conditions as our lakes age.
We will be taking to the water soon. The rivers are starting to open up. Lake ice is still thick, but it can't last forever. Please wish us luck as we enter the third year of a revamped muskellunge broodstock collection program in northwestern Wisconsin. We succeeded on the Chippewa Flowage in 2006 and at Butternut in 2007, but only through the extraordinary efforts of a dedicated field staff willing to overcome the uncertainties associated with trying new things in new places based upon a state-of-the-art understanding of genetic stock conservation. With help from our local partners, we will do our best to make it work again in 2008.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
