Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Genetics |
| Message Subject: Genetics | |||
sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Lockjaw, Wow. You're right, it would be had to adjust those figures to even get them close to MN. I think, to simplify everything, we should ask...."What is the downside to reestablishing a natural resource back to where it once was?". Once the majority can agree that the answer to that question is, none, then we can figure out how to get it done. Sean | ||
| ChadG |
| ||
Posts: 440 | Been thinking (dangerous) on this a little bit. Take a look at all the big fish that the Musky Nut boys are pulling out of Big Lake. Long and towards the skinny side. Now look at the Mille Lacs and Vermillion fish., definitely a difference in the girths. This is where the genetic pre-disposition took affect. The genetic make up let the fish get long but the forage base did not put on the girth, in the case of the Big Lake fish. Supposedly the same strain of fish stocked from a Brood lake that has some large specimens in it. Now another case, the pond I fish in Iowa has a few fish in it that are 47” to 49” with sightings of a couple that may be larger. The stocking of pure muskies on this lake started 14 years ago. I would put the weights of these fish against any, inch for inch. Again last spring the Iowa DNR was stripping a couple fish over the magic 50” mark. I don’t know where Iowa got its first muskies from but I like the end result so far. Again genetics has a impact on any individuals size. We need to control what we can and genetics can be controlled if the effort is made. And you don’t have to get all scientific with it, breed the best with the best and the rest will take care of itself. I don’t think Wisconsin needs Leech Lake fish, it just needs to use the best the state has to offer and going to a dink factory for eggs ain’t gonna get r done. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Let me preface this post by stating I'm very upset and do not mean to hurt anyone's feelings. I'm trying to keep my emotions out of this, but it is a struggle. I kept trying to soften some of the statements below - but I feel we need to be very blunt on this topic. As soon as I read any statements from the DNR I see the same responses from the DNR to the same questions they are always asked - The DNR is a government organization. They have to play politics. They have to follow and support "policy". Making waves pursuing massive changes would likely kill one's career in the DNR. The data reflecting a need for change, and the possible effects of a change in Muskie Management philosophy is staggering. (The actual data provided on many of the posts above show this beyond any doubt - in my mind.) I'm getting old, I don't have 10 years to talk about this, I want change now. If we want change - we the Muskie Fisherman need to take responsibility in making it happen. The DNR is equipped to manage fisheries for everyone, they are not equipped to lobby for change in managing one particular fish to grow to larger sizes. The DNR is a tough position, by stating we can do something better, they may have to admit they were doing something wrong. By suggesting changes, they'd be suggesting more money is required to make these changes. That is not something bosses like to hear. We are discussing a political change that will happen only if we make ourselves heard. We need to rely on each other and not the DNR to make this change in philosophy happen. I want to make this clear - I have the highest respect for the DNR personnel. I think as individuals , they do everything in their power to make all of our Fisheries better. I think they do a wonderful job at managing all of our fisheries. Some of the decisions that have to be made our not within their power - I believe this is one of them. OK now my "real" post: Steve - I don't mean to say that the DNR is INTENTIONALLY misleading us. I do think data can be used to get any results you want to show, and I do believe there was a desired objective (failure) when the DNR analyzed Leech fish. I definitely believe that nothing will get done if we leave it to the DNR alone. In previous posts you talked about the "failure" of Leech fish. Failure is your word, and the DNR stated similar when you interviwed them. I'm sure there were things in the Leech fish study that did not go well, but If you call things a failure without stating data like a 54.75 inch fish in 12 years from a 700 acre lake with a mean depth of 11 feet and no forage, I'd say you are misleading us. If you fail to mention that young of the year muskies in 1993 (1.33 yoy per mile) was near the state average (1.47 yoy/mile) with only two year classes of Muskies breeding, when compared to lakes with 20 year classes of Muskies breeding, I'd say you are misleading us. If you fail to mention that Leech strain fish grew faster in Wisconsin than they do in Leech Lake, I'd say you are mis-leading us. I'm not saying that anything was "perfect" but anything less than "mixed results" is taking a leap of faith - that Biologists are not supposed to do. Why did they do this? Did they have something they wanted to (or had to) prove? Folks - we need to open the eyes of the whole Muskie fishing community to these issues and not just take blanket statements like "failure" as fact. It's funny how the DNR will say you can't tell anything from just one lake and one stocking - BUT THEN THEY DO JUST THAT. And they expect US to accept it. I'll state again that I think we can do this with Wisconsin strain muskies, by choosing the right individuals and we don't need to get into using different strains. Bottom line is - WE CANNOT LEAVE THIS TO THE DNR. I really believe they need our help in doing the right things because of the politics involved. We need to use any and all means to put enough pressure on the DNR, we need to organize as a group (Fishermen, Tackle shops, resorts, guides, etc.) and make this happen. This will be the greatest change in Muskie fishing since Catch and Release. I'm looking forward to spending more time on this once the lakes freeze. I refuse to believe that the random milking of Muskies as we started doing in the 1800's is the best way of choosing Muskies to breed. Stocking fish is the one piece of Muskie Management that we can slant towards producing more big fish, and we have not used it to our advantage. I'd say our choice of Brood fish causes as much harm as the harvest of Big fish. We need to work on both Stocking the right fish and controlling harvest of the "right" fish. The Harvest end will be difficult, while the stocing piece should be easy. We can do it better. I'll say again the DNR has done a fantastic job of creating possibly the best Muskie fishery (for numbers) in the world here in Wisconsin. We can make it a better fishery for big fish - we have to stand up and make it known that we can do this and that we want to do this. In the next couple of weeks I hope to start organizing a push on this top prior to the Conservation Congress meetings, and prior to the next round of spawn taking. You all will be invited to participate in this push. The DNR will be invited as well, we need them on our side. I believe they are on our side. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'M misleading you? I reported on ONE interview, and am working on many others. You might find a statement in another that is more detailed on the Leech fish, give this a chance. I am a realist. There is MUCH more to this issue than a bunch of us deciding we as Muskie 'activists' can manage the Muskie resource in Wisconsin in a more acceptable fashion to all involved than the geneticists and fisheries managers, political representatives, and general public. If things in Wisconsin were so easy to change that we need only to 'push' as a group with the support of the Fisheries folks, we would have about 13 lakes here in the North with a 50" size limit. We don't. Heck, even the direct threat of spread of a very serious disease didn't stop our lawmakers from over ruling the DNR ban on feeding and baiting deer. Reality is, Indeed, a bitch. Can we push an agenda if we alienate those who will have a say in the final decision? I WILL play 'devil's advocate' here to encourage positive debate, it's my 'job'. I am willing to ask for official interviews with the folks who are the decision makers, scientists, and politicians to ascertain what is possible here in Wisconsin to improve overall trophy potential, and how we might take a concept like Bob's and get at least some of the basic structure applied if it is indeed a workable idea. Keep in mind, MuskieFIRST represents a fairly large community of Muskie anglers and official requests from MuskieFIRST for an interview to one of our Madison politicians might get a few doors open that otherwise might not be. I'm not going to agree with ideas here out of hand, I'm going to investigate to the best of my ability what's fact and what's not, what's possible and what's not and post the results of the interviews and information sources. Then we know what we need to do to encourage a successful trophy management philosophy and practice in Wisconsin, which I believe is everyone's goal here. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve - you passed off the Leech study as fact without checking any research. I stand by my misleading comments 100%. I have the DNR research papers in front of me, and have also discussed it with the DNR in person. I will not discuss strains here again, as it will only be detrimental to this discussion which is (in my mind)the effects of harvest on fish and whether we can reverse this by selective breeding. Agree on not alienating the DNR. However, I'm not going to accept "we need 10 years of studying this" as an answer. I want to start this this spring. We need to work with the DNR to make this happen. More Facts: From a Wi DNR study " Effects of a 40-inch minimum size limit on Muskellunge in Wisconsin" The number of Years it takes for a female Musky to reach 40" in the 15 lakes in the study is 11.5 years. Bone lake (high poulation and limited forage) was the fastest at 9.9 years, while Lac Court Oreilles (Low population and Cisco forage) is 12.9 years. I'd make the case that none of the fish in this study have the genetic capability to reach 50 inches. If we aren't getting close to 50 inches in 10 years, we have the wrong fish. | |||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Sean, They are working on clearing my land to build on as I type. I'll be 10 minutes from you, I am on St. louis road just out of phelps. Maybe this spring we can get together and discuss this as we fish. The slot I propose would be 40 to 50 have to go back.34 to 40 is is open to harvest if someone cares to take one. We have to have some harvest to make it work well. If you don't weed out some of the smaller ones that will never get big they will just continue to produce small fish. Whats good about this is your not affecting the strain by change or intro of other starins, You're improving the quality of the fish through those allready present. Thats if your worried about the strain. Guys remember the strains of fish in wisconsin are allreadt what we would call mutts. The strain have been diluted in different ways. However I've seen some awfully big mutts in the waters of wisconsin. 9 50 inch fish a year caught in wisconsin, I doubt that!. For the last 6 years I have had reports of more then that given to me for my radio show every year. These reports come from all over the state. Its not as many as minnesota but for sure more then 9. I agree with Bob its up to us to pressure the D.N.R. for change. There are politics involved in this. Remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Let your voice be heard. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Don, I am normally up in the spring for a couple of weekends...I stay at the Big Sand Lake Club. I would love to get out on the water and discuss. Sean | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Don I agree that surely there are more than 9 50" fish caught in WI each year on average. But I also believe there were more than 119 50" fish caught in MN last year too. In fact I know there were. And there will be many more this year I would bet. WI is not the only state that has fish that do not get reported to muskies inc. In my opinion the muskies inc. data provides a fair comparison and relatively accurate assessment of the status of our musky fisheries. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, Wrong. I checked the research, and asked the question directly to the fisheries people in Madison. I didn't 'pass off' anything, sir. I saw the same figures you did, and maybe some more, no idea. I actually was under the impression the Leech fish were a strong candidate for many waters here. Fact is, the stocking they undertook in Green Bay and Winnebago are fish from Lake St. Claire, not Leech. The Madison folks were pretty clear that the Leech fish were not the strain they would choose. I'll be talking to the team leader for the state the end of this month and will ask him why as well to assist in clarifying the issue. 'Q) Some here feel if we just stocked our waters with a different and better strain we would see immediate benefits and larger fish. What do you think of that idea, perhaps using Leech Lake strain for example? A) We tried that in a few systems, and had very poor success. Our resident fish are well adapted to our State waters, but the others we tried were not and didn't do very well.' I'll ask that question with the gentleman I am interviewing this month and see if he agrees with or can clarify that general statement. The Madison contact also made a couple statements about Minnesota fisheries and the Leech Lake strain I am trying to clarify. Soon as I can, I'll post what I find out. Until then, I suggest you quit swinging at me, I want big fish in Wisconsin as badly as you. | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Steve and Bob, Guys...we really need both of you working on this together. Bob, Steve is obviuosly very well connected. Why not take advantage of this? It would be fruitless, in my opinion, to try and make a push, by yourself. Steve, Bob clearly has strong opinions, an appreciation for 'fact' and a hell of alot of energy! I, for one, would feel very good about the prospect for change, if I knew that the two of you were working together on this. Is there any chance of this happening? Sean | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure is! We already are, actually. We might have differing viewpoints on HOW to get this done, but we both want the same thing. The best way to ferret out who thinks what is a discussion like this. I'm pretty sure Bob knows I'm on the side of more large muskies in Wisconsin. I AM a realist. I've been involved in 'movements' like this and know exactly how difficult it can be forwarding an unpopular or little publicised agenda to the rest of the sportsmen in the State. Believe me, our fisheries people WANT better trophy muskie management here. If we can assist them in achieving that goal, we all win. There is, I have been trying to point out, a big difference between 'assistance' and 'demands'. Just my opinion, but it's easier to forward an agenda with a very organized and serious "How might we as a group help you achieve this goal, sirs?' than a 'Listen here, you people, we want THIS, and NOW!' JUST my opinion. I meet with the 'Team Leader' for the Muskie management in this area right after deer season. I'm very much looking forward to the conversation with him. He's an excellent reputation and is more than willing to discuss muskie management with MuskieFIRST. | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Why don't you bring Bob along with you so that he can see first hand how the process works? Also, it would give him a chance to get his questions asked, avoiding a potential, "you should have asked this...you should have said this, etc.," scenario. Just a thought. But that is more of what I meant when I said,."I, for one, would feel very good about the prospect for change, if I knew that the two of you were working together on this". Just a thought! Sean | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Steve, been there, talked to so many people till I got blue in the face. Untill we can show that the musky clubs will kick in money for a project like this or get a $5.00 musky stamp as Florida did for bass we won't get far. In Florida the $5.00 is earmarked for a certain project. We need that here. As the saying goes.............. MONEY TALKS B___S___ walks. We as anglers will have to help foot the bill to get anything done soon. And not to promote another site but some good replies to this genetic thing at musky hunter also Don Pfeiffer | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| I'd love to work with Steve on this, and feel we already are. We all need to work together on this. Steve, I don't mean to be "swinging" at you. Things look differently when you type them in. Sometimes the wording looks angry, but I just want to get across how strongly I feel about this. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but this get's my blood boiling. We've had folks going over to the DNR for years, with no change in the status quo. I'm not sure we are doing any better job of selecting fish for stocking than we were in 1900. Steve, I'd like to see some data on the great lakes strain they have used in Wisconsin. Stocking data, netting data, growth rates, lake size, survival,etc. Certainly it must be available? I have the data on the Wisonsin Leech experiment. I do not believe it is a failure. I do not believe any reasonable person can come to that conclusion. Leech fish or Great Lakes Fish - Great!!!! Big Wisconsin strain fish - Great!!!!! No more Bone Lake Fish. Bone is an awesome fishery - but not for big fish. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Folks - I posted a similar thread on the Musky Hunter website to get a broader opinion. We want EVERYONE in on this. I'm open to better ideas, but I'm still haven't seen a reason not to try selective breeding. Interesting post on the other site aboiut a MN broodlake, where they: 1. Had lots of big fish and a high size limit (48"). 2. Killed Lots of fish over 48". 3. 12 years later have few fish over 48". GENETIC EVOLUTION IN PROGRESS!!!!!! It happens in Wisconsin, Minnesota, The Atlantic Ocean and in Small tanks. It happens and cannot be ignored any longer. When do we start doing something different? What do we do to get heard? How do we organize? Post your thoughts..... I think we can do this for a couple of reasons: 1. It makes sense. 2. Muskie Anglers are more willing to contribute than any other group of anglers. 3. Muskie anglers also seem to have more interest in their own effects on the resource. 4. There is no reason not to do this. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve - I pulled the quote below from the following website. It sums up my feelings perfectly. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993731 The danger is that fisheries managers remain unaware of the initial plenty, and come to see this degraded state as normal. Because numbers remain relatively stable, they may even regard the fishery as healthy when it is in fact a mere shadow of its former self. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve - for the record the biologists below echo points that both of us have been making. They stress "breeding selectively" as a key. Below is from the following website- and from the Field and stream article "23 pound bass". Please read - the evidence is overwhelming. http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/fishing/freshwater/articl... Making the Monster “We’re operating under the premise that we can create the conditions for that record to be broken,” says fisheries director Durocher. “Here in Texas, people think big.” Indeed, Texas has been on the leading edge of the attempt to create that record, pouring resources into trophy research and management. Scientists there and in other states say research convinces them the record is going to be broken. It all has to do with population dynamics, genetics, and regulations. Fisheries managers know that super-big fish, like super-big humans, are rarities, genetic blips in the population. Call it the Shaquille O’Neal rule. Humans seldom grow taller than 6 feet, but every once in a while, one like Shaq comes along, pushing past 7 feet and putting on more than 350 pounds of muscle. His size, scientists point out, is simply a happy coincidence of nature and opportunity. “Shaq had two things going for him. He was born with the rare genetic potential to grow very large, and he was raised in an environment where he could reach that potential,” says Gary Garrett, Ph.D., who heads a program trying to produce large, hungry bass for Texas Parks and Wildlife. “Both points are very important and apply to fish as well. A bass can have the Florida gene, but if it isn’t in the right environment where it can reach its full potential, then it won’t reach that large size.” This superbass would actually be a female (males don’t attain that size) and probably be somewhere between 7 and 9 years of age but possibly as old as 20. Only a tiny fraction of any bass population lives past 5 years, but most that do typically reach their peak size and vitality between 7 and 9 years, researchers say. Fisheries experts are confident they have been providing two of these keys: Sound management of reservoirs has developed huge forage bases for those bass and provided healthy water. Their weakness, Durocher says, has been in providing the safety factor. It’s a weakness embedded in a twist of irony. Regulations allowing small fish to become large may actually have had the net impact of producing populations of smaller-growing fish. “For most of the we’ve had regulations that encouraged people to take the big fish out of the water,” says Durocher. “We have minimum sizes and slot limits, all aimed at allowing fish to grow to a large size—but then we harvest them, which means we remove fish with the genetic trait to grow large. “Over the years we were removing two desirable genetic traits from the population. We were taking out the fish that grew fast and struck aggressively. And we were leaving fish that were slower growers and less likely to strike.” Durocher and other scientists theorize that those regulations, over time, have probably damaged the potential for many lakes to produce large bass—even those stocked with Floridas. But in that bad news lies the information that convinces scientists like Durocher that the record will be produced. “We can fix those problems,” says Durocher. “We need to continue to selectively breed for the biggest fish in our hatcheries to get those genes into the population. And we need to change regulations to reduce fishing pressure overall and to allow these fast-growing fish to remain in the water.” “We can definitely manage to increase the odds,” says Durocher. “That’s why I say the record can be produced, if it’s not already out there. And if it is, we have a pretty good picture of where it might be.” | |||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| My friend and neighbor, Larry Ramsell, suggested that I view this string and possibly offer a comment or two. I was a fishery biologist (10 years), supervisor (13 years), and statewide Musky Program Advisor (~5 years while supervising) for the Missouri Dept. of Conservation. Currently I supervise fishery management for the Wisconsin DNR in the 6-county Upper Chippewa Basin (Ashland, Iron, Sawyer, Price, Rusk, and Taylor counties). My office is in Hayward, and I am thrilled to now have a hand in managing some famous musky waters like the Chippewa Flowage. It's always good to see so many people passionately committed to improving fishery conservation. I don't have all the answers, and I do not specialize in genetics; but I'll share a couple perspectives on the issue of muskellunge genetics and the role it may play in muskellunge management, based upon my contact with people who know far more than me. Clearly there are a handful of genetically identifiable strains of muskellunge that look, behave, and perform differently from one another. But the geneticists tell us that genetic diversity within this ancient taxon is quite low compared with other fish species. In other words, past attempts to identify muskellunge genes that vary in their expression from fish to fish or population to population (polymorphic gene loci) have met with little success relative to other species of fish. Something about these fish has allowed them to survive the Millennia in North America without a great deal of variation in their genetic material. What are the implications of this observation? First, without the high genetic variability found in many other species that we humans have bred in captivity for generations (dogs and hogs, for example), the expectation that we might be able to selectively breed muskellunge for large ultimate size is pretty optimistic. It would be similarly optimistic to think that we could selectively breed them for fast growth, disease resistance, high survival, high reproductive capacity, and any number of other "performance characteristics." I'm not saying it can't be done, because we don't know enough to conclude that. I'm just saying that other strategies for improving musky populations look far more promising at this point in time. Second, even if we COULD selectively breed muskellunge to promote large ultimate size, such a strategy would be focused on only one of SEVERAL performance characteristics that may be important in determining the overall quality of musky fisheries. As an example, what if our hypothetical superfish did not reproduce frequently or prolifically because all its energy was diverted into the growth of somatic tissue? Might that result in even greater dependency on stocking, even in aquatic ecosystems with good spawning habitat? What if the breeding of this hypothetical superfish also affected its vulnerability to angling? What if the superfish displayed a preference for cooler water or different modes of hunting prey than most of today's muskellunge to an extent that few anglers would ever encounter them, let alone catch them? (I actually suspect this may be a factor in the reduced vulnerability of some of the largest muskellunge in high-pressure Wisconsin lakes today.) My point is, we know so little about muskellunge genetics, that focusing on one performance character alone, even if we could, would be dangerous because we might adversely affect other aspects of performance that would decrease the overall quality of musky fishing. It is far more important that we try to maintain enough genetic variability in our hatchery brood fish to avoid decreasing the genetic diversity of stocked populations already characterized by low genetic diversity. This means we need to take eggs and milt from a substantial number of fish. They can't all be over 50 inches long. Maybe we should stop focusing our hopes on a sexy silver bullet (stocking fish with superior genetics) and start looking at what we CAN do based upon existing knowledge. One thing everyone can do is STOP fishing with single-hook live-bait rigs. A musky that swallows a sucker with a single hook, even if released after capture, may very well be a dead musky a few days later. Biologists have documented horrific abdominal abcesses caused by such wounds, and we are certain that many fish don't survive them. Will we have to legislate a restriction on single-hook live-bait rigs? I'd rather not, but for high-pressure waters where trophy muskellunge are both possible to produce and desired by a majority of stakeholders, a more protective live-bait law (favoring quick-strike rigs) may be necessary. Another thing we can do is support more research and experimental management. One of the contributors here hit the nail on the head when he said the state agencies are underfunded to perform this work. I am shocked at how few biologists are employed by the Wisconsin DNR per acre of managed water compared with Missouri where I worked for 23 years. Wisconsin biologists are some of the best in the business, but their workload is overwhelming. This year Wisconsin had its first general license fee increase in over 6 years, but it was only half what was requested and did not amount to the cost of a single 4" Rapala lure. Legislators must hear from their constituents if this is to change. Here in the Upper Chippewa Basin, we are going to try some new approaches in the near future. We have a well-known 1,006-acre musky lake near Park Falls (Butternut Lake) that currently has so many adult muskellunge (estimated 1.02 per acre) that their condition factor and growth rate has declined over the years, resulting in a low average size of only 33 inches currently. Butternut historically produced fish over 50 inches long, and can do so again if we get the density down to a more reasonable 0.2-0.3 adult per acre and protect some larger fish. The current statewide minimum length limit (34 inches) is counter-productive, protecting over-abundant and small, slow-growing fish. High natural recruitment continues to occur and contribute to the imbalance. Our proposal, to appear in a fishery management plan within the next week or two, will be to physically transfer 500 adult muskellunge (28-40 inches long) from Butternut Lake to another lake in the basin that currently has low density but excellent growth potential. After the removal, we hope to implement a 40- to 50-inch slot length limit on muskellunge at Butternut Lake -- the first such regulation in Wisconsin -- in order to ultimately achieve our objectives of 0.2-0.3 adult muskellunge per acre and 25-50% of all 20-inch and larger fish over 40 inches long. Success will hinge upon getting the funding to net, tag, and transfer the fish, and we will need angler and lake association support for the new regulation. If you live in Wisconsin, I will appreciate your support if and when this proposal reaches the spring hearings of the Conservation Congress. If you do support us, please remember that a slot length limit is not the answer everywhere, and that we're not doing it to protect the best spawners. Even the small, skinny muskies in Butternut today are producing too many young. Many lakes will still be managed best under some type of minimum length limit. Obviously we cannot afford to handle every fish community imbalance with a manual transfer of fish. We just don't have the time and personnel to do so routinely. But the Butternut Lake situation affords us a unique opportunity to learn what may be possible with a dramatic shift in density and size structure of muskellunge, and we stand to learn a lot about the receiving water (not yet selected) and the performance of transferred fish that were growing slowly when overcrowded, but are suddenly exposed to bigger water and more prey. It might even shed some light on the relative importance of genetics versus environment. Support us if you can, and stay tuned. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| Dave, Thanks for commenting I appreciate and RESPECT your opinion. The one thing we all have in common is we'd support the DNR in any way possible to better our Muskie fishery. Some of us do not support the status quo. If you want support for more research and experimental Management - JUST ASK!!!!! Ask Muskie fisherman and Muskies Inc Clubs for assistance and support. We'll find a way to make it happen, Just don't ask us to wait for 25 years while you study it, if we can do things better today. A few questions and comments: Do you feel that a 10 year old 50 inch fish will produce larger offspring(as adults) than a 10 year old 38 inch fish? My basic thought is that we protect small fish under size limits and they get to breed every year. these fish contribute to the gene pool naturally every year until they die of natural causes. Harvest of Large fish (greater than 50") is likely in the 50% range in Wisconsin. These fish do not get to reproduce as they are DEAD. If not for man these fish would live for many years producing 4-5 times as many eggs each year as their smaller counterparts. So in order to maintain genetic Diversity and allow for what would most likely occur in nature - we must breed large fish. If there is very little genetic difference between Muskies, and we cannot selectively breed for larger size, than why do we get larger faster growing Muskies by choosing a Leech fish vs. Shoepac? Or by choosing a Wisconsin River fish vs one from the tiger cat flowage? Aren't we just choosing larger fish and getting larger offspring as a result? Also I'm having a hard time believing that milking healthy 50 inch fish for eggs is going to cause any harm to the fishery. I doubt these fish are more likely to spread disease than one taken from an overpopulated and possibly stunted population (Bone Lake). Just the fact that these large fish produce more eggs than a 38 inch female of the same age has to be a good thing. Is there any evidence that Large fish are poor spawners? Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of large fish having "trouble" spawning for one particular season, but I'd suggest that there are small and average size fish that this happens to - but they don't get harvested or looked at by biologists. If large fish are poor spawners, Minnesota is on verge of a population collapse!!!!! I'd agree we need genetic diversity and that "numbers" of fish should be used from various sources. Can't we use numbers of "large" fish? How low do we need to shrink the minimum size to get enough "numbers" of Muskies. Couldn't the problem with Butternut Lake be that we've introduced a genetic variation of a Muskie that Grows slow, but reproduces well at an early age and a small size? That would be compounded by the fact that we protect those fish and Harvest the ones that grow fast? Isn't it possible that man has helped these smaller fish outcompete the large natural fish that used to prowl this lake?(Think twice before you move those fish.) And Lastly, if Muskie density & forage are the key to growth rates, why does it take 12.9 years for the average female Muskie to reach 40 inches in Lac Court Oreilles. (A low density fishery with good forage) Data taken from the study "Effects of a 40 inch Min length on Muskellunge in Wisconsin". Thanks, Bob Benson | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| Dave, Thanks for commenting I appreciate and RESPECT your opinion. The one thing we all have in common is we'd support the DNR in any way possible to better our Muskie fishery. Some of us do not support the status quo. If you want support for more research and experimental Management - JUST ASK!!!!! Ask Muskie fisherman and Muskies Inc Clubs for assistance and support. We'll find a way to make it happen, Just don't ask us to wait for 25 years while you study it, if we can do things better today. A few questions and comments: Do you feel that a 10 year old 50 inch fish will produce larger offspring(as adults) than a 10 year old 38 inch fish? My basic thought is that we protect small fish under size limits and they get to breed every year. these fish contribute to the gene pool naturally every year until they die of natural causes. Harvest of Large fish (greater than 50") is likely in the 50% range in Wisconsin. These fish do not get to reproduce as they are DEAD. If not for man these fish would live for many years producing 4-5 times as many eggs each year as their smaller counterparts. So in order to maintain genetic Diversity and allow for what would most likely occur in nature - we must breed large fish. If there is very little genetic difference between Muskies, and we cannot selectively breed for larger size, than why do we get larger faster growing Muskies by choosing a Leech fish vs. Shoepac? Or by choosing a Wisconsin River fish vs one from the tiger cat flowage? Aren't we just choosing larger fish and getting larger offspring as a result? Also I'm having a hard time believing that milking healthy 50 inch fish for eggs is going to cause any harm to the fishery. I doubt these fish are more likely to spread disease than one taken from an overpopulated and possibly stunted population (Bone Lake). Just the fact that these large fish produce more eggs than a 38 inch female of the same age has to be a good thing. Is there any evidence that Large fish are poor spawners? Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of large fish having "trouble" spawning for one particular season, but I'd suggest that there are small and average size fish that this happens to - but they don't get harvested or looked at by biologists. If large fish are poor spawners, Minnesota is on verge of a population collapse!!!!! I'd agree we need genetic diversity and that "numbers" of fish should be used from various sources. Can't we use numbers of "large" fish? How low do we need to shrink the minimum size to get enough "numbers" of Muskies. Couldn't the problem with Butternut Lake be that we've introduced a genetic variation of a Muskie that Grows slow, but reproduces well at an early age and a small size? That would be compounded by the fact that we protect those fish and Harvest the ones that grow fast? Isn't it possible that man has helped these smaller fish outcompete the large natural fish that used to prowl this lake?(Think twice before you move those fish.) And Lastly, if Muskie density & forage are the key to growth rates, why does it take 12.9 years for the average female Muskie to reach 40 inches in Lac Court Oreilles. (A low density fishery with good forage) Data taken from the study "Effects of a 40 inch Min length on Muskellunge in Wisconsin". Thanks, Bob Benson | |||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Bob, when you said “Harvest of Large fish greater than 50" is likely in the 50% range in Wisconsin”, you were pretty much right on the money according to the M.I. Data I looked through not too long ago for our part of the state. NW WI. % of fish 50” and larger harvested from Sawyer Co. & all of NW WI. Sawyer Co 48% All of N.W. Wisconsin 52% % of fish 50” and larger harvested from some of WI’s most popular trophy waters according to M.I. Data. Pewaukee 30% Lac Court Oreilles 40% Chippewa Flowage 44% Tomahawk 50% Lac Vieux Desert 50% North Twin 50% Trout 50% Holcombe 60% Namekagon 67% Round Lake (Sawyer Co.) 100% Pike Lake Chain 100% You have to wonder just how much worse the harvest rate really is if you could include everyone and not just the M.I. members who are probably the most likely people to release these 50” fish! | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | Guys I read Mr. Neuswangers commentary in another publication about slot limits. Now I read his message here at at musky hunter. I think he pretty well has backed up my reasons for slot limits being our answer to a better,healthier and more trophy abundant musky fishery. I was glad to read where he thought slot limits would be a good thing to try. I hope I've not spoken for him as I mean not to. Its certainly what I gathered from his writing. Its time we really take a good loo at the slot limit thing and get on some lakes so we can see that it will work. We need to get behind this as another proposal for a 50 inch limit will fail. The slot limit proposal would have a great chance to pass. Its time now to do something and let the d.n.r know as musky anglers we would suppor a slot limit. Don Pfeiffer | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Don - agreed. I've got one more fishing trip before this get's my full attention. LockJaw - I compiled some Interesting Data on growth rates of BIG (and one very small) Muskies in different states: (Note: these fish were taken from MuskyHunter magazine. I tried to take all fish but may have missed some. I did not manipulate this dat to prove any points.) Wisconsin Chippewa Flowage - 50.5" inches 11 years old. Pewaukee Lake - 53" 48 lb 9 oz 13 years old 51.5" 19 years old Muskie Jaws - 58" 15 years old 27.3 inches 14 years old (Female) Mud Callahan lake Minnesota 55" 50 lb muskie 14 years old. 54.5" 42 lb Musky 14 years old. Kentucky 53" 44lb 9 years old 54.5" 44lb 13 yeas old Illinois 51 inch 14 years old (Storey lake) Ontario (G-Bay) 55.5 inches 17 years old Ken Obriens 65lb Muskie (I believe 56.5 inches) was 30 years old. Another interesting fact: Largest Muskie netted in Bone Lake: 1964 - 54 inches 1995 - 46 inches and yet another interesting "fact": Leech Lake fish and Great lakes fish had the same growth rate at age 6 when stocked in inland Wisconsin lakes. This rate is considerably faster than Wis average according to Wis DNR (see MuskyHunter March 96). CONCLUSION When looking at the fish listed above, it looks like BIG fish in Wisconsin exhibit the same growth rates as those in Georgian Bay and in Minnesota lakes like Leech, Cass and Bemidji. The difference is the smaller slow growing fish like the 14 year old 27 inch female which also inhabit Wisconsin lakes and Rivers. That particular fish is protected from harvest by law in every lake in Wisconsin. It spawns every year. All of the bigger fish were harvested, and big fish continue to be harvested 50% of the time they are caught - they never spawn again. The DNR estimates that fish in Pewaukee are caught on average twice a year, which leaves little chance that any big fish can survive the year they hit 50". Many other lakes face the same situation - Quality fish are harvested and removed from the gene pool, while smaller slow growing runts are protected and even bred by the DNR. Some of you feel that it is IMPORTANT to cross breed these smaller slow growing fish (that are protected by law) with the larger fast growing fish and spread them across all the waters in our state. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS!!!!! I want this stopped immediately. Why do we not stock only the fish we want? Musky Fisherman need to stand up and be heard. I also found information stating that Bigger fish are better Breeders (including a Letter from Ramsell who witnessed Steve Albers 57" fish had thousands of viable eggs as well Ken Obriens fish having 850,000 eggs.) I understand concerns about "what if big fish are poor breeders"? What if these bigger fish produce big fish offspring and are better breeders? wouldn't this be better for the fishery? Bigger better breeding fish with more eggs.....I like it. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Some of you feel that it is IMPORTANT to cross breed these smaller slow growing fish (that are protected by law) with the larger fast growing fish and spread them across all the waters in our state. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS!!!!! I want this stopped immediately. Why do we not stock only the fish we want? Musky Fisherman need to stand up and be heard.' You will unsderstand when we're done, I hope, as all of us should when all the facts are presented. The fisheries management and biologist interviews begin next week. Bob, who is 'we'? Since when does one angler or any one minority group of anglers decide management strategies? Your comment that you 'want this stopped' is perhaps an accurate personal statement, but isn't likely to get much cooperation or attention. Let's hear out the fisheries folks from every state; I'll get the interviews and post the reports here. Listening has it's rewards, sometimes. | ||
| Muskiebum |
| ||
| The boys down south know a heck of a lot more than we do. The Bass fishing industry is incredibly more advanced than musky. Why are they only breading big fish?? They don't seem to concerned about keeping these so called important genes possesed by small fish in the gene pool. enlighten me. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Muskie Bum, I'll let the fisheries folks from across the country enlighten you. I don't read anything here about small fish genetics being protected. Why the negative tone? We're all on the same side here. | ||
| Muskiebum |
| ||
| By randomly selecting fish for breading you are doing just that, protecting the small fish genetics in the gene pool. Its not a negative tone, it is simply the truth. I'm simply asking a question. Why do fisheries biologist in the south only use large fish for breading?? If the obvious truth which emerges from my question is negative, so be it. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Are you referring to the article about the bass in the impoundments in Texas? Read more. Alot more. Look into California, Oklahoma, etc. Also, this is experimental and not yet a proven practice as I read it. Looks very promising, for sure. | ||
| MuskieBum |
| ||
Posts: 236 | Steve, I'm not refering to any one any article in general. Its something that the south is doing. What are you refering to when you say " read more"? Cool Thread.  | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Check out the article in the FEB 92 Muskie Magazine. The article is based on a presentation be two WI DNR personnel at the Woodruff hatchery who were involved with the trophy lake study in Wisconsin. It states: Previous studies have shown that: A: 7% of muskies are over 40" (that's not a lot) B: Anglers catch the fastest growing fish Probably because they feed more C: Slow growers live to spawn. Over the years this causes the fish to be smaller D: Larger spawning fish are more efficient reproducers The article also talks about GENETIC DEFECTS that do not allow fish to grow large. I know I've made some statements that sounded negative towards the DNR, but I do believe they understand what is happening out there. I believe the DNR will work with us if we make our feelings known. We need to shoot high here. We cannot ask for more 50 inch fish , we need to demand fish approaching 60 inches. We have had these in the past, we can have them again. We need to re-align Muskie Fisherman away from total C&R and towards a focus on the largest best breeding fish we can find. We need to use every tool we have available to us including Selective Breeding & Slot limits. Once we have bigger better breeding fish, we can go back to C&R as the main management tool. We need top these BS excuses about lake size and forage and even harvest. We can do this, but we need to make ourselves heard. | |||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |