|
|
Posts: 1295
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To further compliment what Bob posted, I would like to say that for me the last two days have been very rewarding. I have met and talked with two different DNR Musky Committee folks that are dedicated and want to truly improve the musky fisheries. They were great and OPEN and honest and expressed a "beyond the call of duty" desire to help and WORK TOGETHER. A great and working dialogue has been opened and options are being considered.
So, rather than to continue this wasted banter on this web site, I intend to focus my future efforts to working with those that care to do so and are sincere about improvement and working together. To a man, we had NO problems with ANY of the members of the State Musky Committee meeting in February. It was "other" factors that created the problems of that time. I believe the DNR underestimated us and we overestimated us. We've learned and they have learned. To date, the ones we have dealt with have moved beyond the past and wish to end the "war" and move forward. We concur, and to date, it is apparent that the only way to end the war with the DNR person prevelant here is to end the debate here, at least our inclusion in it. One way or another it is going to be debated face to face publicly with him, and soon. A meeting of the minds could occur before then, and a mutual public presentation could occur.
If Dave would like to sit down and have an open debate and come to a resolution of our disagreement, we are ready. A LOT has changed and MUCH new information has become available since we met with Dave earlier this year. It changes the WHOLE perspective on some thinking. We could mutually share information, and I'm confident that minds on both sides could be altered...but NOT without "direct" communication. We have a LOT to share, and have had the time necessary to "dig it out." We understand that he doesn't, but to continue to speak from a position of incomplete knowledge cannot be helpful. The "board" stuff is OVER for me.
As Bob noted, we have access to funding, but we aren't going to pour good money down a rat hole for no good reason. Convince us it is the right thing to do and we will be more than happy to help. Otherwise, we will continue to use "politics" (NOT "dirty politics" as Dave alluded to). It is after all, the American way! I intend to move forward to do anything I can to improve Wisconsin's trophy muskie fisheries.
By the way, new information gleaned today helped me to answer the question of "why" there are many lakes in the NE part of the state that have much better trophy fisheries than in the NW, but that will have to wait for another day. Doesn't seem to be appreciated here anyway.
Bye.
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoriation Project Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
Location: Munster, IN | On a personal note, I'm interested to see that you live in Munster, Indiana. I grew up in Lansing, Illinois, just across the state line from you, and I worked at a grocery store on Ridge Road in Munster as a high school student. Gotta wonder if we've ever crossed paths!
Take care, and thanks again for your support.
Dave,
I am sure we probably have crossed paths somewhere along the way.
I have lived in Munster for 21 years. I grew up in Flossmoor, IL just a little west of Lansing.
It's a small world.
Like I said before keep up the good work and remember there are a lot of good people that believe in what you are doing.
I will be up on LCO in 3weeks hoping to catch one of those 50 inch "mutated" muskies. I know they are in there, it just might take 90 hours to catch her ;).
Thanks again,
Paul
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
I am truly sorry (and frankly surprised) you feel you 'wasted your time' discussing this issue on the Research Forum of the largest muskie media source anywhere on this planet. If you don't care to post here, that's your choice, but if you believe that without your input the story will be dropped here, you are mistaken. This issue is of importance to all muskie anglers who fish in Wisconsin for Muskies. It's your choice sir, add your commentary or not, the issue will be actively discussed.
MuskieFIRST will ask for regular press/information/update releases from the WMRT and from the DNR so we may inform the folks watching this forum. If indeed those are not found to be forthcoming from either source, OutdoorsFIRST will dispatch an outdoors writer to get the story; something we are quite prepared to accomplish, and are used to as a result of our comprehensive tournament coverage across the country. We will continue to provide both sides of the issue asking for details or supporting facts wherever necessary. I strongly encourage anyone with a question about this issue to continue to post here, and I will do my level best to encourage qualified individuals to answer.
I am very aware of the international audience we have watching this issue here, and expect that a spirited, fair, open, honest, and reasonable debate will be carried on about the future DNR management of Wisconsin Muskies.
Bob, Eric, John,
I am on the road and in the middle of uploading a ton of Green Bay FLW Walleye tournament pictures and getting the updates done for day one. I think you have some great ideas, more on that later. |
|
| |
|
| Eric, you politely posed some interesting questions about experimental design. I admire your curiosity and your desire to seek answers experimentally. So I am going to share with you and our readers my reaction to your hypothetical study, so that everyone can view this through the eyes of one fishery scientist. Other biologists may have different thoughts, but here are mine:
ERIC: "... first you need to have a commitment from the DNR up front that upon completion of the study they will use the strain of fish that grew the largest as broodstock for NW WI lakes. You also need a commitment that broodstock lakes will be established with the strain that grew the largest."
DAVE: The first thing that catches my eye is a focus on only one performance characteristic -- growth rate. Other important aspects of performance are long-term survival, condition factor (relative plumpness), future reproductive success (assuming we do not want all our fisheries to remain or become stocking-dependent), and ultimate size. What happens if one group of stocked fish out-grows the others significantly after 6-7 years, but the second fastest-growing group out-survives the first by a significant margin after 10-12 years at large? What if the second fastest-growing group also exhibits better condition, and is preferred by anglers because of its relatively impressive body depth? What if the second fastest-growing group also happens to select a reproductive strategy that results in higher survival of their offspring? Does DNR still abide by some pre-project acreement to stock only the fastest-growing fish after 6-7 years of study in one lake? I don't think so.
The second thing that catches my eye with your hypothetical experiment is the lack of replication. We cannot base major changes in a statewide program on the results of one experiment on one lake. Any number of spurious factors could give rise to results on an individual body of water that would not reflect what might happen on a typical or average body of water.
ERIC: "The study: First you strip eggs and milt from Butternut fish. Then raise them to fingerling size. Take 250 of these Butternut strain fingerlings, 250 of the Bone Lake strain fingerlings, and 250 of the MS or LL strain fingerlings and fin clip or tag each strain differently so you can identify one from the other."
DAVE: To make this a really good experiment, we should also know the gender of each stocked fish; and we should stock a similar number of males and females from each group. We know that males and females will grow at significantly different rates. We cannot legitimately compare performance (especially growth rate) among these stocked groups if one is 67% males and another, by chance, is 67% females. Determining the gender of these young fish is possible, but only upon examinination of a tissue extract analyzed in a genetics laboratory. This would increase the cost dramatically (~$20 per fish). Multiply that cost by X number of lakes in a properly replicated study if you want to know the true cost of obtaining reliable results.
Just an aside here: There is no "Butternut strain" to our knowledge. There are only the fish that live in Butternut Lake. Some are probably native to the lake, but many either originated within our hatchery system or are the progeny of fish that we have stocked over the years. For all I know, Butternut Lake fish are virtually identical to LCO fish. Currently we are collecting samples for comparative microsatellite DNA analysis in order to find out.
ERIC: "Since they are all stocked into LCO, which is a lake that must be stocked to maintain a population, there is no risk of screwing up a self-sustaining population. And since there are no waters that have a natural self-sustaining population connected to LCO, you have no risk of screwing up any other waters."
DAVE: I would not endorse this experiment for LCO, because I believe there is real hope for restoring natural recruitment in that lake someday; and because I know that muskellunge in LCO still have the potential to grow very large. (I spoke with a game warden two weeks ago who personally observed 4 muskies in one bay on a warm evening earlier this spring that were over 50 inches long. A 52.5-inch fish was speared in that same bay sometime later.) But even if we were not trying to restore natural reproduction in LCO, 26 years of experience in fishery management has taught me that some anglers enjoy moving fish from lake to lake in their livewells. Fish from a non-local strain stocked into one lake may very well find their way into adjacent waters -- probably not enough to cause outbreeding depression, but possibly enough to confuse genetic stock characterization.
ERIC: "You see which one grows the largest after say 6 or 7 years. You now have your winner. You now use the winner as broodstock for stocking in NW WI."
DAVE: I think I've addressed this already, but 6-7 years is inadequate to compare all the potentially different performance characteristics of interest among these groups. I know Eric realizes that muskies often live 15-20 years, and sometimes much longer. Given that understanding, what if Group A fish are more aggressive or naive than Group B fish; and what if Group A fish are caught and accidentally killed more frequently than Group B fish during years 10-15 post-stocking? Might that not affect how many fish ultimately make it to trophy size in a high-pressure body of water? My point is, there are more performance factors to consider. It's not just about growth rate.
A final note: Minnesota DNR biologists did a nice job in the early 80s of identifying a problem with the Shoepack Lake strain of fish. And while their strain comparison was relatively short-term, they saw little enough difference between LCO and Leech Lake fish to justify bringing LCO fish into their state and risking outbreeding depression of their Leech Lake strain. They made the right decision and began stocking Leech Lake fish in most of their waters 15-20 years ago, despite some local pressure that still exists to stock Wisconsin LCO fish because the Wisconsin fish are perceived to be heavier at any given length. Minnesota now is reaping the rewards of their sound decision as the first wave of stocked Leech Lake fish are reaching their ultimate size potential. I hope they can withstand the pressure that Wisconsin lakes have sustained for decades. My hat is off to my colleagues in Minnesota. I can only hope that my bald pate does not blind them 
For our part, we need to inventory our genetic stocks in Wisconsin. It's the first thing you do when you seek to understand a system. And you must understand it before you can manage it effectively. No short-cuts, I'm afraid.
Thanks for your question, Eric. It provided an opportunity to discuss some common concerns and interests. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| Dave: first thing thanks for coming here and answering questions. Sorry but I have couple of my own.
1. Maybe this has been answered and I missed it but....How is using 15 45" plus females for egg taking different than using 15 35" females? I can understand the $$$$$ reason but genetically I can't make it work in my mind yet.
2. Has Wisconsin considered spring stocking rather than fall stocking? Iowa has gone to stocking 1 year old fish in June and the DNR is reporting greatly improved survival rates.
3. I am sure you have seen the pictures and talked with the guides in Pastika's about some the large fish they were getting last year in the Hayward area. Do you see this as a sign of things to come? Maybe it just now the NW Wisc area is reaping the rewards of the positive effects of catch and release?
Again thanks for your info and time. |
|
| |
|
| Mike, I almost skimmed past the important questions at the end of your post, but fortunately my morning coffee has opened my eyes and neural pathways, so let me tell you what I know. Your questions were:
MIKE: "Regarding Genetic Diversity, I understand that taking eggs from only one or two big fish year after year could cause problems, but what about a bigger cross section of fish including both big and small fish in many different years. Is it true that the average size fish now being used is under 34 inches? If so, is it true that this issue is being looked into? Could funding assistance from groups like Muskies Inc. help defer the costs associted with trying to get a bigger sample of eggs from big and small fish, not just the first fish into the nets, during egg taking process?"
DAVE: Mike, I personally don't know the average size of fish being used as wild broodstock at Bone Lake, but I DO know that there is a conscious effort to get a wide size range of fish, including the biggest fish available. (Beware of averages in this case, because we always get more males than females, and several smaller males could mask the size of a couple big females in the mix.) We are not terribly concerned about the sizes of fish being used as broodstock at Spooner and Woodruff, but we ARE looking into our fertilization techniques. I attended a workshop a few weeks ago where I personally heard our Statewide Fish Propagation Coordinator, Al Kaas, visiting with Dr. Brian Sloss about reviewing and revising WDNR's protocol for mixing gametes from males and females to ensure maximum genetic diversity. As I understand it, potential improvements may involve increasing the number brood fish and the number of batches we split the eggs into, and in how many males we use to fertilize the eggs in each batch. Trying to simulate the musky spawning orgy orchestrated by Mother Nature is tricky, but I think that's the propagation goal |
|
| |
|
| Dave: first thing thanks for coming here and answering questions. Sorry but I have couple of my own.
1. Maybe this has been answered and I missed it but....How is using 15 45" plus females for egg taking different than using 15 35" females? I can understand the $$$$$ reason but genetically I can't make it work in my mind yet.
2. Has Wisconsin considered spring stocking rather than fall stocking? Iowa has gone to stocking 1 year old fish in June and the DNR is reporting greatly improved survival rates.
3. I am sure you have seen the pictures and talked with the guides in Pastika's about some the large fish they were getting last year in the Hayward area. Do you see this as a sign of things to come? Maybe it just now the NW Wisc area is reaping the rewards of the positive effects of catch and release?
Again thanks for your info and time. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Larry Ramsell - 5/18/2005 4:19 PM
By the way, new information gleaned today helped me to answer the question of "why" there are many lakes in the NE part of the state that have much better trophy fisheries than in the NW, but that will have to wait for another day. Doesn't seem to be appreciated here anyway.
Bye.
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoriation Project Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Mr. Ramsell to say that this information you are alluding to wouldn't be appreciated here is absurd. I think everybody that is following this thread would like to know what you learned. To "take your ball and go home" at this point is childish. What did you talk about with the WDNR? Bob or Eric will you answer? In my opinion Muskiefirst is the best musky forum, the people on this board are very concerned about these issues.
Edited by Bytor 5/19/2005 10:35 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1295
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Bytor:
As I noted in my post under Mr. Worrall's "op ed" piece, I will gladly answer any questions. Time constraints limit my response right now, and I haven't had time to compile the data I gleaned yesterday. As soon as I do, I will post it. Please be patient. It is good stuff and will be of interest to all anglers in the eastern side of the state.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
Location: Munster, IN | Larry,
You may want to correct your link to the Restoration website.
I think it should be restoration not RESOTRATION.
EJ- That apoligy will come in time, if it is deserved and not before.
In the mean time he might consider making one to the people he has insulted or pissed off.
I don't know who pi$$ed in his Cheerios but there has been good dialog here on this site in respect to this topic.
No reason for a tantrum.
Larry,
FYI- Northerns where introduced into LCO (via Squaw Creek) due to the pressure of local businesses and some local anglers (Tavern owners) on the DNR.
Their logic was they thought too many anlgers where heading north to Canada to catch "unlimited" numbers of pike.
Back in those days the Dare Devil was the hot bait for Northern Pike. Surely you remember?
It was going to be a big boom for the local economy (Resort owners and taverns, mainly).
How many resorts are left on LCO today? How many northerns are there?Let the biologists and scientists do their job without the unnecessary added pressure that is coming from your organization.
My source of information for LCO comes from a family (mine) that has been on Lac Courte Oreilles since 1918. You are a relative new comer to the area by those standards.
Like I said before becareful what you ask for. You just might get it!
My $0.03
Paul
Edited by PFLesox 5/19/2005 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
| PFLesox,
PFLesox: Quote----"EJ- That apology will come in time, if it is deserved and not before.
In the mean time he might consider making one to the people he has insulted or pissed off."----End quote.
Below you will, find what you apparently missed and was posted by Larry earlier today on another thread here on musky first.
Larry: Quote----"I would again like to take this opportunity to apologize to ANYONE that I may have offended along the way to this point. I have the greatest of respect for our overworked and underpaid fisheries professional's, and will proceed from this point in an effort to make that clear and try and end the "war of words" that has heretofore taken place at times."----End quote.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Munster, IN | missed it EJ
glad to hear his cheerios are dry again
Edited by PFLesox 5/19/2005 1:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Eric,
Why will he need an apology? The way I see some of the people on this board are only raising questions about the WMRT's findings based on the evidence Larry has presented. I'm of the opinion that the WMRT may have some very important data but you totally lost its meaning when the organization is not willing to be held up the same standards that you guys demand of the WDNR to adhere too. This very hypocritcal on your part. Nobody owes anybody anything except to be dealt with in a respectable fashion and that is something WMRT has not been doing. So for me at least the notion that Larry, Bob, or yourself is going to be owed anything is ridiculous.
Thanks
Dave |
|
| |
|
| Folks,
I thought I'd update you on the cost issues related to stocking a different strain of fish. The issue is really more if we decide to stock two different strains ongoing. If the different strains spawn at different times, there would be additional costs in supplying the right size food for the 2nd strain during the early part of the spring. It's hard to tell exactly what the costs would be - but there are solutions to limit them. As a starting point, we feel the best solution is to get LL or GL fry direct from either the MN DNR or a commercial supplier, and simply provide those fry to the state hatchery. The costs of the fry would likely need to come from Muskie clubs, or through donations and fundraising. Up to this point it would actually be a cost reduction to the DNR because they'd have to raise less fry. Once the second strain is in the hatchery, we'd expect them to raise the same number of fingerlings so the cost for raising fry to fingerlings should be a wash. In theory this route should have no additional costs to the WDNR as long as Muskie fisherman - through clubs and fundraising - are willing to help out in obtaining fry. Many individuals have indicated they would be willing to make contributions to allow this to happen.
This scenario should be needed for 5 years as we create broodstock lakes.
Once broodstock lakes are available the WDNR should be able to to obtain spawn from various sources at the same time. For instance they take eggs from the earlier spawning fish from a lake that is further north, while they take eggs from the later spawning fish from a lake futher south. This should allow the current Muskie program to operate under something very close to it's existing cost structure.
My point is there are solutions out there, without just saying "it costs too much - so stop thinking about it."
Whenever we discuss costs, we must also include the costs of not doing this in terms of lost tourism, lodging, gas etc.
There are other solutions here, I'm sure there are better ideas. Possibly partnering with the MN DNR on the St.Croix drainage?
Another thing I'd really like to see (possibly on the Madison chain, or preferably up North on a landlocked lake like Shell Lake) is a growth study that includes Wis, LL and GL strains in the same body of water.
The tougher question to answer would be the additional costs of selective breeding........again, Muskie clubs and fisherman have indicated they are willing to support this with both money and manpower.
I'd be interested to see anyone else's thoughts on the additional costs associated with this project.
Bob
|
|
| |
|
| Chad, no need to apologize for asking a couple good questions in a civil tone. I'll do my best to answer them here in general terms:
CHAD: "1. Maybe this has been answered and I missed it but....How is using 15 45" plus females for egg taking different than using 15 35" females? I can understand the $$$$$ reason but genetically I can't make it work in my mind yet."
DAVE: "Actually, it might NOT be different. There is a chance that the offspring created by using 15, 45" females may not differ in their performance potential from the offspring created by using 15, 35" females in the same body of water. However, it would be unsound practice to use either group as the sole broodstock. What we seek is genetic DIVERSITY. We have good reason to believe that a diverse mix of large and small, young and old fish is necessary to maintain a healthy stock that is not inbred in any way. Almost by default, but increasingly by design, we seek this diversity in selecting fish to spawn.
CHAD: "2. Has Wisconsin considered spring stocking rather than fall stocking? Iowa has gone to stocking 1 year old fish in June and the DNR is reporting greatly improved survival rates."
DAVE: I don't know the extent to which Iowa does this, but with far fewer musky waters, they may be able to afford the cost of winter holdover better than Wisconsin. Because I am not a fish culture expert, I will not elaborate, but my understanding is that overwinter holdover (survival, cost to feed a maintenance ration, occupation of ponds needed for young walleye and musky production EARLY the next spring, etc.) make this an impractical option for Wisconsin's huge coolwater fish propagation program. If any Iowa DNR biologists or Wisconsin hatchery managers are reading this, please feel free to correct me or elaborate if I have oversimplified.
CHAD: "3. I am sure you have seen the pictures and talked with the guides in Pastika's about some the large fish they were getting last year in the Hayward area. Do you see this as a sign of things to come? Maybe it just now the NW Wisc area is reaping the rewards of the positive effects of catch and release?"
DAVE: This Wednesday the Sawyer County Record ran a story that included mention of 10 muskies over 50" long reported to the newspaper, with photos, in 2004. (Apparently those fish had not heard they were the product of inferior broodstock.) That's how many 50-inchers were reported to the newspaper. We have no idea how many were caught. Because we have a lot of smaller lakes in the area, big fish often go unreported for fear that a crowd will gather quickly. There are very big fish in several Hayward area lakes. Average size has been increasing over the past 20 years in response to higher minimum length limits and voluntary catch-and-release. But we are still concerned about the effects of incidental kill and unknown harvest (sport and spearing) on the survival of fish to trophy sizes. Incidentally, whenever I browsed the local paper last summer, I noticed LOTS of photos of happy anglers holding up muskies 40-49" long. The smiles on their faces did a convincing job of hiding their bitter disappointment over not catching a 50" fish.
A BIT OF PERSPECTIVE HERE: I spent all day helping Mike Persson (President of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc.) guide a couple disabled anglers as part of the annual "Fishing Has No Boundaries" event on the Chippewa Flowage. (What a GREAT event!) One of our boat partners, Jerry, caught a 24" northern pike. I'm sure his exhilarant whooping could be heard across the lake, and it took 5 minutes to wipe the smile off his face. I came home with a smile on my face too, and then I watched Joe Bucher catch a 42" musky on TV. Here's a guy who has caught more muskies than most of us will ever see in a lifetime, and yet he was just as excited as Jerry over the shock of the strike and his brief but violent confrontation with such a magnificent creature. He was genuinely excited and pleased, and he made a point of saying that it shouldn't take a 50" fish every time to get one's heart pumping. (Thanks, Joe.) Add to this excitement the calling of the loons, the sight of bald eagles and bears, the smell of birch wood smoke drifting across the water from the balsam-scented forest, and you realize things just aren't all that bad here in the North Land. Have we forgotten all this in our quest for the genetic superfish? Have a great weekend, Chad.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "The costs of the fry would likely need to come from Muskie clubs, or through donations and fundraising. Up to this point it would actually be a cost reduction to the DNR because they'd have to raise less fry. Once the second strain is in the hatchery, we'd expect them to raise the same number of fingerlings so the cost for raising fry to fingerlings should be a wash. In theory this route should have no additional costs to the WDNR as long as Muskie fisherman - through clubs and fundraising - are willing to help out in obtaining fry. Many individuals have indicated they would be willing to make contributions to allow this to happen."
I'm interested Bob, WHICH clubs have offered to provide this kind of funding? If its a concrete idea that you have figured out how to execute, then you must know names of clubs who support raising funds for this program.
The WMRT seems to speak of experts who support your views, but their names are never mentioned, funding is now spoken of, without naming the exact groups who have pledged support for your proposed actions. AND, to a large degree, the WKRP speaks of the "majority" of WI muskie anglers supporting your cause, but with the vast numbers of anglers visiting the OutdoorsFIRST websites, the response to the WMRT viewpoints is pretty much evenly divided between blind agreement and passionate fighting versus either your theories, your methods of 'research', or your methods of working with the actual professionals within the WDNR. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
'Fishing Has No Boundaries' is a GREAT program! Many of the folks I work with are active in that organization. It sounds like you had a great time. |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Bob,"Another thing I'd really like to see (possibly on the Madison chain, or preferably up North on a landlocked lake like Shell Lake) is a growth study that includes Wis, LL and GL strains in the same body of water."
I would really like to see a study like this. I have a feeling that the GL strain would win this contest. Maybe we could stock some landlocked lakes in each region of the state with the winner.
Bob,"There are other solutions here, I'm sure there are better ideas. Possibly partnering with the MN DNR on the St.Croix drainage?"
This is an excellent idea, the problem being two seperate state agencies would need to work together. It seems to me WI should do all of stocking in the St. Louis with GL strain. Our MN friends could do all of the stocking in the St. Croix with LL fish. It seems like a no brainer to stop putting two different strains into each river.
Bob,"The tougher question to answer would be the additional costs of selective breeding........again, Muskie clubs and fisherman have indicated they are willing to support this with both money and manpower."
I have no doubts that these gentlemen can pull off the financial support that would be needed. Our club in Madison just had a very successful fundraiser in April. We have committed to putting 500 LL strain fish into Lake Monona this fall. Monona was do for a stocking of 1400 muskies this fall.Other area clubs are talking about helping out, if they can come up with the money for 200 more LL fish, we would have 700 LL's and 700 WI strain being stocked this fall. Our club is doing this all on its own, next year the DNR will start raising some LL fish. I got this info from the CC MI message board. I haven't had a chance to talk to any of the players, yet. This project really fires me up. |
|
| |
|
| Dave,
I'd appreciate your help with this - Are there any documented occurrences of either inbreeding or out breeding depression within Muskellunge populations? If so can you direct us to where we might learn more.
I understand these are valid concerns across all life forms, and something that must be considered in any management program.
thanks again,
Bob
|
|
| |
|
| Here is what they are doing in Texas to make a better bass fishery. I'd love to see someting like this aimed at the lakes of either the Flambeau or Chippewa drainage. This has been going on for nearly 20 years in Texas and from what I understand fishing for big bass is better than ever there - although no world record yet.
Steve Worrall - an interview with someone in this program would be interesting. No muskie questions, just what are they doing and is it working type questions.
Would you call these fish managers reckless or progressive?
From another website:
Lorraine Fries is the Lab Manager at the A.E. Wood Hatchery in San Marcos. She says her team stays busy searching for genetic markers in bass that could indicate the quantitative traits they seek.
"We're exploring the utility of something called amplified fragment length polymorphisms. And, that probably means nothing to most people. But, these are a class of genetic markers that are frequently typed, or associated with, quantitative traits. And quantitative traits are what we're interested in looking at for the selective breeding programs."
The genetic markers they seek in bass are those which indicate the fish - and its offspring - may grow large. Therefore, size is the quantitative trait they desire.
And A.E. Wood geneticist Jamie Dixson says they study lunkers from the ShareLunker program.
"And we analyze those fish by looking their DNA, and then we analyze a standard type fish which we call a wild type largemouth bass; and we look for differences. If the difference that we see is found at a higher rate in the lunker largemouth bass, then its possible, and in many cases probable, that that genetic trait that we're looking at can be associated with a gene that allows the fish to grow to a greater size."
These fish enter a selective breeding program with the hope of making bigger bass. And bigger bass means happy anglers.
The Budweiser ShareLunker Program began November 26, 1986 when a 17.65 pound Lake Fork largemouth bass was caught by Mark Stevenson. Since then, 391 largemouth bass have been donated from 52 public reservoirs and 11 private lakes. The program, which runs from October 1-April 30 each year, is a venture among businesses, state government and anglers to preserve and enhance Texas' largemouth bass fisheries.
Through the program, anglers loan largemouth bass weighing 13 pounds or more to Texas Parks and Wildlife for spawning and research purposes. At the end of spawning season, the fish will be returned to the angler for live release, or the angler may donate it permanently to the program. Superior genetics from ShareLunker females and their offspring will be used to improve the quality of largemouth bass stocked in Texas waters. In return for their cooperation, participating anglers receive a free fiberglass replica of their catch, Budweiser ShareLunker clothing, and recognition at the awards banquet at Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center. In addition, the Texas resident catching the largest entry of the season will be awarded a lifetime fishing license
Anyone catching a 13-pound-plus largemouth bass is eligible to participate by calling (903) 670-2226 weekdays or by paging (888) 784-0600 weekends and evenings.
Special thanks to Anheuser-Busch for providing funding for the Budweiser ShareLunker Program
Budweiser ShareLunker Program Key to Record Bass Effort
ATHENS, Texas — To create a master strain of trophy bass and ultimately a new world record specimen, Texas Parks and Wildlife biologists first need a strain of master anglers. Thanks to the Budweiser ShareLunker program, which offers incentives for anglers who turn over their catches of 13-pound-plus trophy bass to TPW for research and selective breeding purposes, state officials have a way to reach that breed of fishermen.
The ShareLunker program, entering its 14th year, is an integral component of a unique fisheries management strategy to improve bass fishing and produce a new world record largemouth bass in Texas. Program officials believe the knowledge and experience gleaned from years of borrowing trophy bass from Texas anglers for hatchery production and research, combined with resources at the state-of-the-art Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center, make this attainable.
"Our goal with the ShareLunker program from the beginning has been to improve the quality of bass fishing in Texas, and I think we've moved forward," said Allen Forshage, TFFC director. "We began the Operation World Record selective breeding program with this past year's crop of ShareLunkers. We produced about 90,000 fry from ShareLunkers last spring. Some of these are in eight research ponds at the center. These will be used in our selective breeding program."
ShareLunker offspring will be strategically stocked around the state in hopes that these bass will grow to record size, said Forshage. To ensure the success of the initiative over the long haul, however, biologists need to replenish broodstocks regularly. "Most of these fish are pretty old when we get them, and we're not sure how reliable spawners they'll be or how many offspring they'll be able to produce."
Because not all trophy bass are caught during the spawn, biologists are hoping to increase the odds of getting more spawning success by extending the time frame for accepting ShareLunker entries. The season runs Oct. 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001.
"This should help us bring in more broodstock at a time of year when the bass aren't as stressed as during the spawn," offered David Campbell, TFFC hatchery manager. "Thanks to conservation-minded anglers who know how to handle big fish, the experienced TPW staff and the facilities here at the center, we're getting good survival and production and can handle a bigger load."
Forshage noted that one of the challenges for the ShareLunker program has been ensuring the health of these mammoth bass. "These big bass are in a stressful condition to begin with during normal spawning activity. That stress is compounded when you consider an angler has just caught them, and then we haul them around the state, sometimes for hours before they are stabilized again," he explained. "By holding over eight of last year's crop of ShareLunkers, we can expect predictable spawns with fish that aren't so stressed. Our biologists have become more proficient in handling these fish, as have anglers, and that's reflected in the increased survival rates of our ShareLunkers."
Since 1986, 321 bass weighing 13 pounds or more including two state record fish have been loaned or donated to the ShareLunker program. Last year's first entry did not come until Feb. 3, the latest date for a first entry in the history of the program. In surpassing the 300-entry mark, the program also had 12 different lakes contribute bass, including five lakes that gave up their first ShareLunkers, and six lake records.
Again this year, anglers will be offered the option of permanently donating their lunker catches to the program for ongoing research, display and hatchery production. In exchange, the ShareLunker program provides anglers with a fiberglass replica of their catches. This year, the ShareLunker program is offering additional incentives to participating anglers. Texas residents who donate or lend their catch to the program will receive a jacket identifying them as ShareLunker anglers, shirt and cap. Plus, five anglers who attend the annual recognition banquet at TFFC in May 2001 will have a chance to win a G-Loomis MBR model 784 fishing rod. The Texas resident angler who donates the largest bass of the year will also receive a $600 Texas Lifetime Resident Fishing License. Anyone catching a 13-pound-plus largemouth bass is eligible to participate by calling (903) 670-2226 weekdays or by paging (888) 784-0600 weekends and evenings.
The Budweiser ShareLunker program operates under the auspices of the Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas Inc. The mission of the Budweiser ShareLunker program is to involve the public in the conservation and enhancement of trophy bass fishing in Texas." For more information on the Budweiser ShareLunker program, call the ShareLunker staff at (903) 670-2226 or check the TPW ShareLunker Web page (http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/infish/hatchery/tffc/sharelunker.htm).
|
|
| |
|
| Dave you stated: "Actually, it might NOT be different. There is a chance that the offspring created by using 15, 45" females may not differ in their performance potential from the offspring created by using 15, 35" females in the same body of water. However, it would be unsound practice to use either group as the sole broodstock. What we seek is genetic DIVERSITY. We have good reason to believe that a diverse mix of large and small, young and old fish is necessary to maintain a healthy stock that is not inbred in any way. Almost by default, but increasingly by design, we seek this diversity in selecting fish to spawn.
Dave,
I'll agree that diversity is a good thing, But I'll respectively contend that by using NO LARGE FEMALES in the hatchery breeding program, we may be actually limiting the diversity just as you suggest. My understanding is that in most years there are no large muskies (greater than 46 inches) used in our egg selection in NW Wisconsin. I've not received data on every year, but this is my understanding relative to recent times. If I am off base and there are records that indicate otherwise, please let us know.
While it can be speculated that some of the small fish used for spawn taking may grow to large sizes, it is only speculation as no one knows for sure whether they will grow large or not. I would like us to use more large fish that are KNOWN to be of large size in our brood stock to ensure that we include the genetic diversity of these large fish in our breeding program. If we continue to allow to the harvest of known large fish and not include known large fish in our breeding program - we may encounter problems. Your thoughts?
Bob
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, Geeeeze, no one can ask a question in the tone you use nearly every time you post without getting blasted by....you. I read Slamr's post ten times, and don't see anywhere where he even slightly insinuated you were lying. He's making a point I'll make more clearly, since he chose partial parody:
The WMRT has continually made claims to know WAY more than they are telling us poor dopes out here ( is this because the information is SO blockbuster, we would possibly faint dead away upon reading it?), have the very strong support of scientists, have what appears by comments to be massive financial support, etc, without backing up any of those claims.
Any other NGO, PAC, activist group or any type of group making those claims would be taken to task immediately by the public, why not yours? To date, no one but the WMRT has backed up the scientific assumptions you've posted, no representative from an organized group has stepped up, and we keep hearing the 'if you just knew what WE know' comment. Slamr asked you to put up, that's all. Grow thicker skin, or get the heck out of the target zone, that's my suggestion.
About the genetics study:
Remember the study proposed by Mr. Sloss? When that study is complete, it's for all intents and purposes what you read about the bass study that you'll get. I believe there is work in Canada underway as well by highly respected scientists, I've read quite a bit about that over the last couple years. The entire idea is to identify the average fish we have now and compare them to the large mounted fish of the past, and the present, fish from other areas, etc. to identify exactly what we DO have here. Our DNR then can move forward with plans to maximize the management of muskies here in a scientifically acceptable manner. If I have that wrong, I won't for long, I'm scheduled to speak with Mr. Sloss Monday. The implications of that knowledge are HUGE!!
As far as fund raising Slamr and many MuskieFIRST members ARE stepping up ( in fact, Slamr already has raised a significant amount of money in concert with volunteers here at MuskieFIRST for Muskie stocking efforts, but you wouldn't know about that. Because as a result of your selective posting on MuskieFIRST you do not read the HUGE volumes of information elsewhere onsite), we intend to raise money for both the genetic work on the Butternut fish, and for Mr. Sloss's work. I'm betting it will not be necessary for Mr. Nueswanger to look any further that right here for the money to test those Butternut fish.
Far as your next post, I'll let Mr. Neuswanger answer that if he wishes, I already have given my opinion on that one about a dozen times.
OK, Bob, here's part of the problem. This forum is used by our community here at MuskieFIRST to discuss research issues. You folks barged in here and sought to dominate the conversation, all up with the we-know-and-you-don't-so-don't-ask-questions-We'll- let- you- know- when- you- are- informed attitude, and don't contribute a #*^@ed thing to the rest of MuskieFIRST. The way this place works is pretty simple, we actually COMMUNICATE reasonably, share information, exchange ideas respectfully like Mike Roberts, Norm Wild, Mr. Nueswanger, others were in a thread in this forum for awhile. So from this point forward, no more special priveledges for you folks, you step beyond our posting permissions or protocol, and it's gone.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bytor,
I'm excited about the projects on the Mad Town water and the Petenwell, the Fox River and Green Bay, and Winnebago. I'd direct you to the comment in the Genetics question Slamr raised. The answer there is the difinitive scientific answer to much of what were discussing here. Take my word for it, the gentleman who posted that information is extremely well qualified. Again, I thank him for his post and time.
On a side note, the walleyes in the Bay are UNBELIEVABLE!! The FLW there this weekend took a 4 day limit of 20 fish at 111.5 POUNDS to win. If the Muskies are doing as well as the walleyes, we may see a new world record out of Wisconsin yet.
We are at a mid-study cross roads of sorts, which the DNR has arrived at from about 5 years of work on the Muskie program. We NEED more genetic study, and I intend to do everything I can do to assist, it's critical to our future management programs and a good move no matter WHAT else is going on with our Muskies here or anywhere. |
|
| |
|
| From another board;
"The decision to stock Leech Lake fish in Wisconsin is easier than the decision to use sunscreen"
I am a Minnesota scientist and have been reading the posts about stocking Leech Lake fish in Wisconsin. I have been humored by many of the inane responses to the Wisconsin Musky Restoration Project. I have prepared this long post to show you that the decision to stock Leech Lake fish in Wisconsin is much easier than the decision to use sunscreen:
1. Are the fish being stocked in most Wisconsin inland lakes of mixed parentage? There is little doubt from information presented by Larry Ramsell and others on this and other websites that inland Wisconsin lakes are stocked with progeny of fish that came from four different bodies of water.
2. Is it important that the strain being used now is a mixed strain? Unknown. In dogs, a mixed strain (or mutt), may have a nicer personality than the purebred, but be unable to perform certain tasks (like retrieving) as well as a purebred. Since size is one of the major reasons people fish for them, and muskies are usually stocked to become a sportfish, stocking muskies that grow large is important. A bit about this "strain" business. Here i will draw on my genetics background. I suspect that there are big fish that have genetics that are quite similar be they living in Quebec or Minnesota. And then there are pond mutants that became isolated from the main big fish as the glaciers retreated. These pond fish had a much less diverse genetic pool and developed some strange things about them, often small size. Using genetics, we can make a tree that shows, by number of genetic changes, how far a particular individual is from the trunk of the tree, or if an individual is in another branch of the tree. (This is done by sequencing part of the DNA in the genome, the DNA in your mitochondria is identical to that of your mother, the DNA in the X chromosome identical to your father. Thus both Maternal and Paternal lineages can be followed.) The pond mutants became separated from the main tree long ago as the glaciers melted, leaving these pond mutants lots of time to separate genetically from the main tree. I will from this point forward call these fish "pond adaptees". I suspect that PCR analysis to be presented at the Fall muskie symposium will verify my theory, (anecdote: There are many lakes which are only steps away from large bodies of water that have pond adaptee fish. Calder lake and the better known Pincher lake are examples of lakes in NW Ontario that are very near my favorite big fish water (the Manitou), yet are filled with pond adaptee fish. A few steps of physical distance can be centuries of genetic distance.)
3. Is the growth rate and the penultimate size the most important thing in selection of muskies for stocking? These are related, as slow growing adaptees do not reach the ultimate size of rapid growing fish. Thus, selection for rapid growth rate will probably lead to the largest ultimate size. In theory, selection at the hatchery level should be searching for surviability, growth, resistance to disease, ability to reproduce etc. In the case of muskies that are destined to be sportfish, where size matters, selection by size trumps these other charachteristics.
4. Are the fish now being stocked in Wisconsin inland waters pond adaptees? ( please forget MI Lunge Log catch data for the moment.) The way to test the rate of if fish's growth in a particular body of water is simply to tag a fish and then recapture it and measure it; or to age a dead fish by use of the cleithrum bone. Minnesota did this in the early 1980s and showed that Leech lake fish had the fastest growth rate. . Wisconsin did this by putting Leech Lake fish in Nancy Lake and also showed Leech Lake fish to grow the fastest. Illinois has Project Green Gene. Particular fish have been recaught more than once and growth rates noted. Leech Lake strain fish in the high 40 inch range are growing more than one inch a year in small Minnesota Lakes. I have reviewed the raw data from 128 recaptured fish from inland Wisconsin lakes. These fish are growing about one inch a year when they are in the high 30 inch range, their growth is negligible when they reach 45 inches. The Minnesota DNR has a library of cleithrum from various size fish. I suspect the Wisconsin DNR has a similar library. If the Wisconsin DNR could produce cleithrum from a number of high forty inch fish that are only 10 or 12 years old, they would have a defense against the WMRA claim that the fish are slow growing. I suspect their cleithrum show the opposite, many fish in only the 35 to 40 inch range that are already 10 years old. This would explain the Wisconsin DNR rapid agreement to allow several lakes to be stocked with Leech Lake strain. (Anecdote: In the Twin Cities Muskie tournament a fish, with a massively damaged lip, has been caught in the same spot two successive years. This fish grew from 46.5 inches to 48 inches in one year. The witness in year 2 was fishing nearby and had caught the fish in year 1, It was in a tournament and measured accurately. There are many similar anecdotes showing the growth of MN high forty inch fish to be over one inch a year. Today, I helped stock 176 two and three year old muskies into White Bear lake. Average size of the two year olds was 16 to 22 inches, the three year olds 25 to 31 inches. Those Leech lake fish do grow fast!!!!!)
5 Are Wisconsin fish living in an environment with a lack of forage? Probably not. Fish of most species that grow with a lack of food tend to have large heads and comparatively small bodies. Look at the Lake trout above the Arctic Circle (where food is rare and the fish grow very slowly, but they have the genetics to grow to world-record size) vs. a Lake trout growing in a western US reservoir. Or those huge-bodied brown trout caught in Lake Michigan. Also, the harvest of muskies in Wisconsin should protect against an overpopulation that would lead to stunting. Others have noted that the Wisconsin fish have large bodies and small heads, indicating there is plenty of forage. I would call this anecdotal evidence unless actual length by girth data is given.
6 Does the harvest of fish affect the genetics of the overall population? Definitely. Many studies show that when a "minimum size limit" is imposed on any species, you are selecting for a population of fish that grow slowly so that they can reproduce the maximum number of times before they reach that minimum size limit. This is unlikely at present in Wisconsin, because the reproduction of inland fish is poor, but may be the reason the brood stock is of slow-growing genetics. (my opinion-This effect has had a devastating effect on Wisconsin walleye size.)
7. Are world-record fish "freaks"? Probably. In any large population, there are mutants that arise. I consider both basketball and football to be games where such freaks are the dominant players. (If 'fridge Perry is reading this-Yes, I consider you to be a freak) But, these freaks have the parentage to put them on the upper edge size-wise of the general population anyway. In weight lifting, a particlar mutation that turns off the gene for myostatin, creates humans with naturally tremendous physiques. In the July 30, 2004 issue of Science, (page 635) there are photographs of a seven-month old child with such a physique. In the New England Journal of Medicine, June 24, 2004 issue, a 4 year old with the same mutation and the physique of a "mini-bodybuilder" is described.
8. Should we be selecting muske populations to create larger and larger fish just to get a world record fish? Maybe. In salmonids, this has been tried unsuccessfully many times. When you select for a population that has one desireable feature like rapid growth, you usually select for other features that make the creature have poor survival in the wild. One of the beauties of the Leech Lake fish is that mother nature selected a fish that grows rapidly in the 42 to 49 degeee north latitude, and the fish has adapted to spawning in the presence of northern pike. It is not clear if the Leech Lake fish is perfect for the latitude of Kentucky. But it is important to note that the Leech Lake fish is naturally occuring, where the pond adaptees presently being stocked in Wisconsin inland waters are not natural strain, but rather, hatchery-made.
9. So what about the Spray and Johnson fish? I dont' t want to anger Larry Ramsell here, but those fish are either Fakes or Freaks, you make the call. To base a stocking strategy on these few fish, if that is what is done presently, is "anecdotal science". This is equivalent to believing that smoking is not harmful because " my aunt smoked two packs a day and lived 'til 90". Exceptions will occur, and, in fact, there may even be chemicals in LCO and the Chippewa Flowage that lead to a few of the fish spawning there to have a mutation that makes them grow extremely rapidly. See the human weight-lifter mutation example in #7 above.
10. If they could grow without fishing pressure would the fish all get huge? No. Lac Suel is an example of a relatively untouched fishery that has lots of forage and a fast growing fish, yet does not often yield fish over 60 lbs.
11. Is the selection of a strain that is most likely to have natural reproduction important? Maybe. Remember, many muskie fisheries are dependant totally on the hatchery process. The muskie is a political fish. In these years of increased economic pressure on Departments of Natural Resources, hatcheries may be closed and the fisheries dependant on them become nonexistent. Wisconsin muskie fishermen should consider the fact that the Leech Lake fish reproduce well naturally as possibly the most important reason to start stocking Leech Lake fish.
12. Has this happened before? For Wisconsinites who may be embarrassed that fish from upstart rival Minnesota should be used to rehabilitate the Wisconsin fishery; the use of genetic material from a competitor is not new. All of the wine grapes in France are from California vines which had to be re-introduced to France when disease killed the original French vines. We may humorously remind you that your state fish really came from Minnesota, but we would like all states to have beautiful muskie fisheries so we can fish in peace.
13. Where can Wisconsin get Leech Lake fish? From public and private hatcheries in many states. I would hope that Wisconsin has some ability to get Atlantic Salmon, then trade them to Minnesota, because Minnesota had the beginnings of a great Atlantic Salmon fishery, then discontinued the program before fully analyzing it. Minnesota DNR, how about a catch-and-release Atlantic Salmon lake like Hosmer Lake in Oregon?
14. Can Minnesotans effect change in the Wisconson stocking strategy? Yes. Quit buying the Wisconsin license and wait a week to start fishing. Wisconsin license is too expensive for a lousy week (or a week of lousy?) fishing anyway. Send the money to the Wisconsin DNR and put "stock Leech lake fish" in the subject line.
15. Should there be another study on muskie growth? On one of the posts it is indicated that Wisconsin is going to ask for federal money to study muskie growth. This sounds like a tactic to create or pay for jobs that already exist. If you suspect that the funds are being misused, you can use the Freedom of Information Act to see how the money is being used. I have spent thousands of my own money in the past gathering such documents, so it can be done.
---------------------------
1. Should you use sunscreen? Now this is a much harder question to answer. Remember how your mother said "go out and play in the sun" Maybe she was right. Dermatologists have created a fear of sunlight. But our bodies create Vitamin D in sunlight. I have lots of data that shows that sunlight inhibits development of many kinds of cancer and that sunscreen doesn't prevent the two worst types of skin cancer. I'll start with quotes form a presentation at the American Association for Cancer research meeting I attended in April. "There is evidence that Vitamin D insufficiency is associated with reduced incidence of bone and muscle diseases, multiple slerosis, type 1 diabets mellitis, myocardial infarction and end stage renal disease...." from the same pesentation "Use of sunscreen does not protect against melanoma or basil cell carcinoma, and reduces the production of vitamin D" I've plucked a few references off of the web to reinforce my argument that sunlight may be more helpful than harmful (see references below)
2. Should you intentionally get a sunburn? From American Association for Cancer Research,2005 meeting, Abstact number 2188. "The role of sunburn in the etiology of non-Hodgkins Lymphoma". Plant, Catherine E. et. al. The presenter had data from Scotland and showed four sunburns halved the chance you would get non-Hodgkins Lymphoma when compared with those who had never had a blistering sunburn. ( I don't make this stuff up. Enjoy the sun and have your skin inspected for melanoma often)
(I use sunscreen on those areas of the body which are exposed when in a casket-forehead, cheeks, ears, nose and neck. Sun does age the skin, and I want to be presented as a young-looking corpse.) (you would have to drink 20 glasses of milk a day to get to the Vitamin D levels they are talking about in most of these papers.)
References: (there are hundreds but I got lazy)
Note: Abstracts of these papers may be found at PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/)
1. Rajakumar K. Vitamin D, cod-liver oil, sunlight, and rickets: a historical perspective. Pediatrics. 2003;112:e132-5.
2. Frost HM, Schonau E. The "muscle-bone unit" in children and adolescents: a 2000 overview. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13:571-90.
3. Vieth R. Vitamin D Nutrition and its Potential Health Benefits for Bone, Cancer and Other Conditions. J Nutr Env Med 2001;11:275-91.
4. Grant WB. An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the United States due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation, Cancer, 2002;94:1867-75.
5. Ponsonby AL, McMichael A, van der Mei I. Ultraviolet radiation and autoimmune disease: insights from epidemiological research. Toxicology. 2002;181-1821-8.
6. Barthel HR, Scharla SH. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2003;128:440-6.
7. Calvo MS, Whiting SJ. Prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in Canada and the United States: importance to health status and efficacy of current food fortification and dietary supplement use. Nutr Rev. 2003;61:107-13.
8. Hayes CE, Nashold FE, Spach KM, Pedersen LB. The immunological functions of the vitamin D endocrine system. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2003:49:277-300.
9. Heaney RP. Long-latency deficiency disease: insights from calcium and vitamin D. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;7812-9.
10. Holick MF. Vitamin D: A millenium perspective. J Cell Biochem. 2003;88:296-307.
11. Zittermann A. Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence? Br J Nutr. 2003;89:552-72.
12. Holick MF. Vitamin D: importance in the prevention of cancers, type 1 diabetes, heart disease, and osteoporosis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Mar;79(3):362-71.
13. Grant WB, Strange RC, Garland CF. Health benefits of ultraviolet-B radiation through production of vitamin D, J Cos Dermatol, in press.
14. Chen TC, Persons KS, Lu Z, Mathieu JS, Holick MF. An evaluation of the biologic activity and vitamin D receptor binding affinity of the photoisomers of vitamin D3 and previtamin D3. J Nutr Biochem. 2000;11:267-72.
15. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 58;295-300,1965.
16. Chuck A, Todd J, Diffey B. Subliminal ultraviolet-B irradiation for the prevention of vitamin D deficiency in the elderly: a feasibility study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2001;17:168-71.
17. Lo CW, Paris PW, Clemens TL, Nolan J, Holick MF. Vitamin D absorption in healthy subjects and in patients with intestinal malabsorption syndromes. Am J Clin Nutr. 1985;42:644-9.
18. Sowers MR, Wallace RB, Hollis BW, Lemke JH. Parameters related to 25-OH-D levels in a population-based study of women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1986;43:621-8.
19. Grant WB, Garland CF. A critical review of studies on vitamin D in relation to colorectal cancer. Nutr Cancer. in press.
20. Ovesen L, Brot C, Jakobsen J. Food contents and biological activity of 25-hydroxyvitamin D: a vitamin D metabolite to be reckoned with? Ann Nutr Metab. 2003;47:107-13.
*Grant WB, Holick MF. A review of evidence supporting the role of vitamin D in reducing the risk of chronic diseases. Submitted to Am J Clin Nutr (March 9, 2004).
Greg Ide
The dock is IN
|
|
| |
|
| Good post
What's an adaptee?
Do stocked fish always mix with the resident fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Ramsell, thanks for posting that response, could you direct me as to how I might get in touch with this gentleman? I'd prefer to talk with him directly instead of you answering for him, even though you posted the information. Now that's what I'm talking about!!
I'd point out that Michael's response here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=20... conflicts with this statement in part. Mr. Idle's statement doesn't address the eastern portion of Wisconsin at all (as an example similar to his, I caught a fish season before last that was over 50" that had been caught five years earlier by another angler. This fish has a very distinct scar. The fish was 42" five years prior to my catching it). Hopefully we can get him over here on this board to discuss this issue further.
I'd ask Mr. Idle if he really thinks it's wise to suggest that Dr. Sloss's proposed work is a misuse of public funds, and would ask if he has spoken to Dr. Sloss about the work proposed or knows for whom Dr. Sloss works. I'd ask him if he is aware that Dr. Sloss will be studying genetics in any case whether it's for the Muskie genome or another critter, and if he s aware that Dr. Sloss already has undertaken substantial preparation for the proposed project without any funding.
I would agree with his comment about the 'fakes or freaks', but that's me.
I also find it interesting that he refers to the general public's responses and questions to the WMRT 'inane'; treating the general public that way might be characterized as the same. I must be fair and admit the following: I work in a field that requires experience in public releations and interpersonal communication skills, and actually have directed comments not too far from the mark of his. I did, however, direct those comments to EXACT incidences, and with an end goal in mind. I sincerly hope he's willing to do the same instead of just taking broad shots at the general public. I'll try to locate him and get an interview, asking him to clarify some of his commentary and offer his scientific credentials.
Per his reference to Wisconsin Walleyes:
Here's some walleye tournament results from Wisconsin:
MWC results:
26 1 ERIC EICHORN DAN FELBER 21.36 [5] 20.76 [5] 13.19 [5] 55.310
21 2 DENNIS CLARK KENT EIDE 8.88 [3] 17.23 [5] 24.55 [5] 50.660
4 3 DONALD OLSON MICHAEL OLSON 11.17 [5] 19.25 [5] 17.41 [5] 47.830
25 4 DEAN NATHE PAUL THOMPSON 12.25 [5] 11.56 [5] 11.32 [5] 35.130
31 5 PETE HUIBREGTSE RICK LARSON 14.35 [5] 12.61 [5] 8.11 [5] 35.070
16 6 DAVID BJORKMAN KEN BJORKMAN 11.06 [5] 12.15 [5] 11.46 [5] 34.670
42 7 MARTY BERNS JEFF LAHR 20.26 [5] 14.01 [5] 0.00 [0] 34.270
39 8 MIKE FORTIER BRUCE KOLINSKI 11.77 [5] 8.41 [5] 10.41 [5] 30.590
11 9 COREY MEINCKE DJ SIEWERT 13.56 [5] 16.90 [5] 0.00 [0] 30.460
37 10 RUSSELL GAHAGAN GEORGE GAHAGAN 13.95 [5] 10.67 [3] 5.45 [2] 30.070
FLW Walleye, Wisconsin:
JAMIE FRIEBEL 11.75 13.06 17.94 14.13 56.880
2 2 PETE HARSH 10.50 15.50 16.38 11.06 53.440
3 3 RICK OLSON 12.31 13.25 12.88 9.69 48.130
4 4 JOHN CAMPBELL 12.13 11.44 12.50 8.44 44.510
5 5 TIM REITAN 12.94 9.56 20.94 7.38 50.820
6 6 JIM MINNEMA 15.50 11.81 16.13 5.88 49.320
7 7 TIM MINNEMA 19.00 17.50 17.75 5.63 59.880
8 8 MARTY GLORVIGEN 13.56 12.50 14.00 4.81 44.870
9 9 LEROY SCHROEDER 18.88 23.94 14.63 2.25 59.700
10 10 CECIL NEWMAN 9.31 13.81 16.00 1.13 40.250
2.5 pound average, not too bad for Winnebago and the immense pressure it receives.
FLW this week:
3 1 PATRICK NEU 35.06 [5] 30.38 [5] 30.63 [5] 15.44 [5] 111.501
83 2 PAT SCHUETTE 29.81 [5] 36.38 [5] 24.06 [5] 17.50 [5] 107.751
44 3 DAN STIER 22.88 [5] 28.25 [5] 19.13 [5] 36.63 [5] 106.875
66 4 DAN PLAUTZ 25.38 [5] 16.94 [4] 32.31 [5] 24.19 [5] 98.814
122 5 TROY MORRIS 25.88 [5] 22.50 [4] 30.00 [5] 20.13 [4] 98.500
30 6 MARK KEENAN 18.19 [4] 34.63 [5] 31.00 [5] 11.00 [2] 94.813
6 7 GREG DARSOW 35.13 [5] 12.06 [4] 24.44 [5] 19.88 [4] 91.501
88 8 SCOTT ALLEN 39.88 [5] 24.75 [5] 7.69 [3] 18.69 [5] 91.001
52 9 TOM KEENAN 14.06 [3] 30.00 [5] 27.13 [5] 10.50 [4] 81.688
105 10 TOM ZOLLAR 25.31 [5] 28.94 [5] 19.50 [5] 6.50 [3] 80.251
Winner had 20 fish at 111 pounds.
10th place had a 4.458# average.
I have seen pictures of some of the 'eyes from this Spring's surveys off smaller waters, and would say there are still some VERY nice fish available to us in Wisconsin, state wide, despite the inevitable negative effects of multiple harvest modalities.
Now some Minnesoata eyes:
MWC Leech Lake Qualifier:
17 1 PAUL FOURNIER RYAN OLSON 15.99 [5] 16.52 [4] 32.510
113 2 GORDON SCHWARZ BRETT WILKENS 11.42 [4] 14.04 [4] 25.460
12 3 DAVID BJORKMAN KEN BJORKMAN 12.11 [5] 10.83 [5] 22.940
75 4 CHRIS JOHNSTON JOHN ERICKSON 10.96 [5] 10.72 [5] 21.680
67 5 DENNIS DRONTLE GREG DRONTLE 8.63 [2] 11.77 [4] 20.400
74 6 STEVE SMALL ROB HILL 6.55 [2] 12.51 [5] 19.060
46 7 TIM COURT RICK ROTHSTEIN 10.13 [2] 7.89 [3] 18.020
132 8 JACK SHRIVER BRIAN GREY 6.52 [4] 11.16 [5] 17.680
35 9 PATRICK ROONEY VIRGIL MALBRAATEN 6.94 [5] 10.56 [5] 17.500
90 10 KEVIN DAHL STEVE STACK 10.47 [5] 6.98 [3] 17.450
Not too bad, about 2.5 # average, but way fewer fish caught.
Mississippi River, MN:
44 1 COREY MEINCKE DJ SIEWERT 26.84 6.34 33.180
4 2 JIM SIEWERT TOM DIERCKS 11.12 14.53 25.650
30 3 DERRICK DE DECKER MARK DE DECKER 15.83 9.75 25.580
133 4 DONALD OLSON MICHAEL OLSON 12.64 11.60 24.240
113 5 WAYNE PROKOSCH BART HAAKE 12.90 8.64 21.540
130 6 TIM DICK THERESA DICK 12.45 8.54 20.990
89 7 CHRIS GILMAN JARRAD FLUEKIGER 11.67 8.06 19.730
140 8 DARRIN YOUNGBLUT DEAN JONES 9.19 10.29 19.480
94 9 RICK NASCAK JOE WILSON 9.49 9.97 19.460
33 10 GLENN CHENIER CAROL CHENIER 3.73 15.05 18.780
2 pound avarage
Lake of the Woods, MN, PWT qualifier:
1 1 DAN STIER 13.29 21.92 18.43 53.640
2 2 PETE HARSH 12.31 20.25 18.75 51.310
3 3 ERIC NAIG 12.49 19.49 18.93 50.910
4 4 PERRY GOOD 17.08 22.01 10.69 49.780
5 5 RICK MCLAUGHLIN 18.70 14.00 16.95 49.650
6 6 ROSS GROTHE 17.51 14.81 17.04 49.360
7 7 TERRY RYCKMAN 16.21 18.59 14.37 49.170
8 8 TODD RILEY 16.48 20.84 11.81 49.130
9 9 JIM KLICK 17.81 15.63 15.59 49.030
10 10 STEVEN HAYNES 15.92 14.42 18.33 48.670
About 3.5 pounds average
SO, what is my point? Big walleyes are alive and well in Wisconsin, and Minnesota too.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1295
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
I don't know what you mean by "Now that is what I'm talking about!!", but I merely copied Mr. Ide's post from the Musky Hunter message board and posted it here to further the discussion with another view point from a scientist/geneticist, and have/had no intention of speaking for him. He has stated there that the MH board is the only board he posts on, but I am sure he would have no problem with you questioning him there or contacting him...Larry |
|
| |
|
| Bob, I'll do my best to answer your questions. In some respects they go right to the heart of the matter, so they're worth discussing for everyone's benefit.
BOB: "Dave, I'll agree that diversity is a good thing, But I'll respectively contend that by using NO LARGE FEMALES in the hatchery breeding program, we may be actually limiting the diversity just as you suggest. My understanding is that in most years there are no large muskies (greater than 46 inches) used in our egg selection in NW Wisconsin. I've not received data on every year, but this is my understanding relative to recent times. If I am off base and there are records that indicate otherwise, please let us know."
DAVE: The confusion here seems to arise very simply from the presumption that phenotype reflects genotype -- that broodstock size at capture somehow reflects that fish's potential to attain trophy size. Granted, a fish that has achieved a length of 50" has PROVEN it can do so, whereas we must DEDUCE that potential for smaller fish. But there are ways to do that for musky populations in lakes, like Bone Lake, where ecological and perhaps even social factors have not yet allowed development of a high proportion of adult muskellunge over 50" long.
The first method involves calculation of what we call the "Von Bertellanfy growth curve" based upon back-calculated length-at-age data interpreted from annuli on bony structures, like a musky's cleithrum bone. One of the parameters of the Von Bertellanfy growth equation is called "L-Infinity" (sorry, I cannot denote the proper mathematical symbol here). In simple terms, L-Infinity often is called "ultimate length." Based upon the shape of the growth curve and survival rates from empirical data, we can mathematically project whether the members of a given stock have the potential to grow to a particular ultimate length. Tim Simonson has done this for Wisconsin muskies and sees no reason to believe, based upon this indirect method, that the fish being propagated in Wisconsin DNR's hatchery system cannot achieve trophy sizes.
The second method is much simpler. We simply analyze netting and creel survey data from lakes that are entirely dependent upon stocking, and if we see fish over 50" long, we know that potential exists. Lakes all over Wisconsin reflect this potential. These combined phenomena help to explain why Wisconsin biologists do not suspect broodstock genetics to be an important factor limiting the relative abundance of trophy-size muskellunge in this state today.
We also believe the probability is VERY small that some minor stock mixing years ago resulted in a degree of outbreeding depression that could adversely affect ultimate size potential among the fish we are propagating today. The complex mathematics behind that proposition just doesn't add up. We would like to characterize our genetic stocks as outlined in Dr. Sloss' study proposal in order to minimize uncertainty about any ill effects of past mixing. But until that work is done, there is no reason to risk creating a REAL problem by introducing an admittedly fine strain but a DIFFERENT strain from Leech Lake, which COULD cause problems if stocked repeatedly into systems where locally adapted fish reproduce naturally.
I have heard folks criticize WDNR for poor broodstock management, and also for being overly defensive about public criticism of those management techniques. The critics need to know that I had nothing to do with Wisconsin fishery management until 3 years ago when I moved here from Missouri. My new Wisconsin colleagues know (probably to their chagrin!) that I am not afraid to raise questions and concerns about past management practices. But our muskellunge propagation system is not high on my list of concerns. Our fish culturists have nothing to be defensive about. Could there be improvements? Sure. Currently our Statewide Fish Propagation Coordinator is working with Dr. Sloss and others to ensure a healthy level of genetic diversity in our hatchery system. Our heightened awareness of the need to maintain genetic diversity has come from within the realm of fishery science, and I expect that our progress toward that end will continue with our without prompting from the angling public. Of course, it would be nice to have the moral and financial support of people who care about the fish we are entrusted to conserve on their behalf.
Respectfully,
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Thanks, sir! You have the financial support of the OutdoorsFIRST organization, that much I can promise. We would like nothing more than to help fund the required research our DNR needs to continue on the path of improving our trophy muskie potential here. I'm starting tomorrow in an effort to raise the $500 needed to do the Butternut testing.
Larry,
You are showing your age, sir.
'That's what I'm talking about!' in 2005 means, 'OK, NOW we are getting somewhere!'
If he will not post here (because he only posts on Musky Hunter), I'd be happy to interview him, do you have his telephone number or email address? |
|
| |
|
| Dave, a question or two below for you if you don't mind.
DAVE: The second method is much simpler. We simply analyze netting and creel survey data from lakes that are entirely dependent upon stocking, and if we see fish over 50" long, we know that potential exists. Lakes all over Wisconsin reflect this potential. These combined phenomena help to explain why Wisconsin biologists do not suspect broodstock genetics to be an important factor limiting the relative abundance of trophy-size muskellunge in this state today.
ERIC: What lakes are entirely dependent upon stocking in NW Wisc. that reflect this potential? I personally suspect that the large 50" fish that are ocasionally coming from lakes that were not created as new muskie lakes initially through stocking, that those 50" fish are not from our hatchery but are the result of a few remaining larger strain fish that were in these lakes all along that have somehow beaten all odds and by pure luck there are still a few that show up once in a while. I suspect that these fish over 50" ocasionally coming from these lakes are not stocked fish from our hatchery. I'm not talking mid-forty inch fish here, but legitimate fish over 50". Is this possible?
Thank you.
|
|
| |
