|
|
Posts: 236
| Bob (BBenson) please shoot me an email so i can ask you a question
[email protected] |
|
| |
|
| Bob, it's about time that I respond to your questions. Work is so crazy at the moment that I had to wait for a quiet weekend morning, but what better thing to do than "talk muskies" on a snowy Sunday morning? 
YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS: "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 RESPONSE: I don't know. I don't think ANYBODY knows. It depends on a number of factors, like strain, the other parent, the chance manner in which genes from both parents combine during fertilization, environmental conditions for the offspring, prey availability to the offspring, and the life/learning experiences of each individual offspring. For the sake of simplicity, let's take the example of two parental fish of the same strain in the same lake. Maybe they are both large and have grown relatively fast. Maybe they are both small and have grown relatively slow. Maybe one is large and one is small (often the case with extreme sexual dimorphism in growth of muskellunge). In all cases, I would expect their offspring to exhibit a considerably wide range of potential in growth rate, ultimate size, and other performance characters, but a range that is characteristic of that strain. So, on average, the progeny of Leech Lake strain fish in Minnesota lakes are going to grow faster and get bigger than the progeny of Shoepack strain fish in Minnesota lakes, regardless of how fast their individual parents have grown or how big they were when they spawned. That much we know. Beyond that it gets HIGHLY speculative.
YOUR NEXT QUESTION WAS: "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?"
MY RESPONSE: I need to make a subtle distinction here, Bob. I did not mean to imply that there is little genetic difference between muskellunge. What I mean is that this species exhibits low genetic variability compared with other species, as exhibited by a relatively low incidence of known polymorphic gene loci. That may have important implications, but clearly there are genetic differences between strains, such as Leech Lake and Shoepack. One need not "pull their genes down" to see that. Also, I am not certain that we cannot breed for larger ultimate size. It may be possible over time, within strains, to select for individuals that grow faster and get bigger. But in doing so, we must be EXTREMELY careful not to DE-SELECT for other performance characteristics, such as physiological and behavioral traits that would allow such fish to pass their genes along to the next generation, naturally, in ecosystems to which they are adapted. If the fast-growing fish we breed do not spawn successfully, or are so aggressive that they get caught too easily or undergo high release mortality, what will we have gained? We would do well to remember the lesson of Florida largemouth bass in the lower Midwest. Some thought we could have 10-20 pound largemouths there, too, if the fishery biologists would only "wake up" and start stocking the "superior" Florida strain fish there. Experiments in Illinois and Missouri revealed, however, that Florida strain fish grew only slightly faster in the lower Midwest than their northern counterparts, and their reproductive survival was almost nil. The Florida strain bass could not be sustained outside its native range. Biologists took the Florida strain out of the environment to which it was best adapted based upon ONE performance characteristic (growth rate and ultimate size), and they tried to make it work in the lower Midwest where environmental conditions were different. It did not work. This is called tampering. Fishery biologists have learned some hard lessons about tampering. Hopefully we are not as likely to repeat such mistakes in the future.
YOUR NEXT QUESTION WAS: "Is there any evidence that Large fish are poor spawners?"
MY RESPONSE: No, although each indivivual female seems to have an optimal age for viable egg production, beyond which viability goes down. Of course, we must always remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There IS evidence that large fish are EARLY spawners. So, if the only fish spawning in a population are big, and if environmental conditions are poor early in the spring in successive years, we could have multiple year-class failures that would not have occurred if a greater variety of sizes of fish (particularly females) had spawned at different times and temperatures.
YOUR NEXT QUESTION WAS: "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?"
MY RESPONSE: We may be able to improve our broodstock selection methods somewhat. We must take a sufficient number of fish to minimize the risk of "inbreeding" of course, which means we will have to use some smaller fish that may be small only because they are young, not inferior. I think we should also strive to INCLUDE some very large fish among those being used for hatchery production. That happens sometimes, by chance, but not all the time, and that's where we might improve. Of course, that's easy for me to say. I'm not a hatchery manager trying to pull all this together in a very narrow window in time on a shoestring budget. I'm a fishery management supervisor who gets to have grand ideas, then hope we have people with the ability to actually implement them in the absence of adequate people and time
YOUR FINAL QUESTION WAS: "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.)"
MY RESPONSE: It is remotely possible that Butternut Lake muskellunge population have undergone what we call "outbreeding depression" by the introduction of genes from another strain that does not grow as fast or get as big. I will be surprised if that's the case, because such effects are unlikely to occur after only one or two ramdom stocking events; but I must admit it is a possibility, and that is why I have asked Dr. Brian Sloss to analyze the Butternut Lake fish for me this spring at his Conservation Genetics Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. Dr. Sloss will be able to tell me if these fish differ significantly from fish in other populations of the Upper Chippewa Basin. We will not transfer fish from Butternut until we have an answer to that question. You probably have a very good point regarding the regulatory protection of abundant, small, slow-growing fish at Butternut under the statewide minimum length limit of 34 inches. Most males in Butternut are "taking forever" to exceed 34 inches. Given their high density, they probably cannibalize their young and therefore decrease the probability of survival of new recruits, including females that have the potential to grow much larger than males. It's this decreased "turnover rate" that may exacerbate the poor population structure in Butternut Lake by retarding the rate at which new females enter the adult population. By removing some small fish (mostly old males) physically by fyke net, encouraging some angler harvest of remaining males, and protecting some fish (mostly females) in the 40-45 inch range, we may be able to turn things around at Butternut. This all assumes that genetics is not the significant problem that you fear.
You've raised good questions, Bob. I hope my answers will shed a little light and help us to form a group perspective that will lead to progress in musky management. --Dave |
|
| |
|
| Dave,
I appreciate your opinions, But I disagree with almost everthing you have said. Good arguments create new ideas, so hopefully we will learn from each other.
Genetics is Huge, Period!
Read previous post for more info. |
|
| |
|
| I am a fishery biologist, and for the past 2.5 years have been Wisconsin DNR's supervisor of fisheries management in the Upper Chippewa Basin. This post by Muskiebum offends me more than just about anything I've ever read. To think, imply, or bluntly state as Muskiebum has, that DNR biologists are not PASSIONATE about creating quality fishing reflects a complete misunderstanding of what motivates people in my profession, and it's just plain mean. When I was a field fishery supervisor in Missouri, our Fisheries Chief at the time, Norm Stucky, challenged us to come up with a simple, catchy slogan that reflected how we really feel about our business. I submitted the following: "QUALITY FISHING: OUR MISSION... OUR PASSION." A committee of my peers decided THAT slogan best summarized how we feel about our work. Today, in the Central Office Headquarters of the Fisheries Division of the Missouri Department of Conservation in Jefferson City, that statement hangs over the entry door in large, bold letters, to remind all who pass of our dedication and commitment. Question my tactics if you must. Question my training if you think you've had better. But DON'T question my commitment and my PASSION to create and sustain quality fishing. I think I speak for most of my colleagues who did not not go to college 4-8 years just so they could struggle along on a $30-50K annual salary. They did it... WE did it... because we love the sport of fishing and want to make it better. If you don't understand THAT, Muskiebum, your opinions on just about everything are HIGHLY suspect.
Muskiebum got one thing right, though. We are not ADDICTED to muskies. So people who care about walleyes, bass, bluegills, crappies, trout, pike, sturgeon, etc. can breathe a little sigh of relief. We care about ALL fish and the quality of fishing for ALL anglers, young and old. As long as I have a hand in managing Wisconsin fisheries, we will strive to offer a BALANCED program that makes the best use of our limited time and resources.
To Sworrall, Don Pfeiffer and others who have consistently demonstrated respect for DNR biologists' motives and knowledge in this forum, and who continue to seek to understand the truth: Please know that it's people like you who keep me going to work every morning with the energy and commitment to do good things for muskies and all the other aquatic critters in our charge. Ignorant and mean-spirited remarks like those made by Muskiebum will not deter me from my mission.... my PASSION. But I could not let them go without comment. |
|
| |
|
| Dave,
Smile and relax, I said I disagree with some of your statements, isn't that what our country is all about? I'll comment on your post when I have more time.
I LOVE THIS THREAD, RELAX AND LETS LEARN FROM EACH OTHER |
|
| |
|
| I was not replying to your message #137035 above, which was civil in tone.
I was replying to your offensive message of 11/3/04 at 7:27 p.m. (#123846). In that message, you said:
"Like I said before. The DNR does not think in the same terms as we do. This is there job, not there passion and addiction. They really don't care whether a fish is 48" or 52". Steve they were very politically correct in your first interview, as they should be. Do you actually think they would say that WI has poor genetics and isn't capaple of producing huge fish??? wake up here. Steve, I commend your reserch into this, but interview someone who's job isn't tied into his statements."
If you are going to make statements like this, you are going to be held accountable for them. It is difficult to "relax" when your motives, knowledge, judgement, and integrity are under unfair attack. I won't allow myself, my biologists, or my colleagues to be insulted like this without response. Best way to get me to relax is to maintain a civil discourse based upon mutual respect. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I have to say that I do not have the background education that the experts do, but the education I did receive in college(UWSP College of Natural Resources) taught me genetics play a big role in structure of offspring. I may be missing something here, but a 36" musky may have the ability to spawn and create offspring that will reach 50". This is really a no brainer. The possibility remains that this fish will not ever attain those sizes, and could still produce offspring that may or may not. Now, if a 50" musky spawns, isn't there a better chance that this fish has everything(including genes) going for it to produce more 50"ers? If there were more 50"ers swimming in a lake, couldn't we assume that genes from these fish would have a better chance of calling for bigger size in offspring than say, a 42"er from Squirrel lake that came from a 40"er that came from a 36 that came from a 41 that came from a 33???
That said, I also fish Butternut lake, and do not really agree that the size structure is poor simply due to overpopulation. Could it be argued the other way around? I don't really feel that the lake is overpopulated in the first place, but I am confident in our biologists findings. I feel the size structure has suffered out there over the years, but seeing 5-7 boats on an October day all dragging single hook rigged suckers could play a role in that.. I have seen as much harvest from that lake as any that I have witnessed. There are some very large fish in there, but they were far more abundant before the maases of meat draggers showed up. I was taken there as a child by a guy who was guided on the lake by a guide from NE WI. Guides from all over the state were heading to that lake in the day as some huge fish were being caught. We did well on large fish up until just a few years ago, and still see an occasional good one. I know from experience that pressure has increased tremendously out there in the last 10 years, and really from 1995-1998 it was unbeleivable the amount of musky pressure that came to that lake. Pressure is one thing, but the number of people using kill rigs out there was amazing. Those were just the people that I saw. I am sure there were/are more. If this would stop, I believe things will change. Could it be too late? Not sure, but it is hard to believe that a lake with such great size structure historically, became overpopulated overnight without human assistance........
Hopefully your research will turn up some answers. Please keep us informed as time goes on.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/4/2005 11:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
| My (muskiebum responses will be Capitalized)
YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS: "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 RESPONSE: I don't know. I don't think ANYBODY knows. It depends on a number of factors, like strain, the other parent, the chance manner in which genes from both parents combine during fertilization, environmental conditions for the offspring, prey availability to the offspring, and the life/learning experiences of each individual offspring.
I MUST DISAGREE,
COMBINING HOLOGOUS CHROMSOMES DURING MEIOSIS WITH BOTH PARENTS POSSESING SUPERIOR GROWTH ABILITY WILL PRODUCE A PHENOTYPE WHICH RESEMBLES THE CHARATERISTIC OF THE GENE(ASSUMING ALL OTHER EXTRINSIC FACTORS ARE EQUAL). IF BOTH PARENTS HAVE THE SAME GENOTYPE (BIG GENETICS) THE OFFSPRING WILL HAVE THAT, RECOMBINATION WILL NOT COME INTO PLAY IF BOTH CHROMOSOMES ARE HOMOZYGOUS.
Dave: "Also, I am not certain that we cannot breed for larger ultimate size. It may be possible over time, within strains, to select for individuals that grow faster and get bigger. But in doing so, we must be EXTREMELY careful not to DE-SELECT for other performance characteristics, such as physiological and behavioral traits that would allow such fish to pass their genes along to the next generation, naturally, in ecosystems to which they are adapted. If the fast-growing fish we breed do not spawn successfully, or are so aggressive that they get caught too easily or undergo high release mortality, what will we have gained? We would do well to remember the lesson of Florida largemouth bass in the lower Midwest. Some thought we could have 10-20 pound largemouths there, too, if the fishery biologists would only "wake up" and start stocking the "superior" Florida strain fish there. Experiments in Illinois and Missouri revealed, however, that Florida strain fish grew only slightly faster in the lower Midwest than their northern counterparts, and their reproductive survival was almost nil. The Florida strain bass could not be sustained outside its native range.:
LARGE INDIVIDUAL IN A CERTAIN STRAIN WILL HAVE THE SAME GENETIC VARIABLITY THROUGHOUT THE REST OF ITS GENOME. JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS 7' TALL DOES NOT NECCESSARILY MEAN THEY WILL BE BLOND, BLUE EYES, OR HAVE CANCER. THE FLORIDA STRAIN DOES NOT APPLY HERE, BECAUSE DIFFERANT STRAINS ARE COMPLETLEY DIFFERANT THAN VARIABILITY WITHIN THE SAME STRAIN. MY SIMPLE QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY DO FISHERIES BIOLOGIST IN THE SOUTH ONLY SELECT 15LB FEMALE BASS FOR BREADING?? ALSO THE MALO FISH (BIGGESST MUSKY EVER CAUGHT FOR THOSE WHO DONT KNOW) WAS DOCUMENTED TO HAVE 850,000 EGGS COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE FEMALE WHICH HAS 250,000. JUST AN OBERSAVTION
MY RESPONSE: It is remotely possible that Butternut Lake muskellunge population have undergone what we call "outbreeding depression" by the introduction of genes from another strain that does not grow as fast or get as big. I will be surprised if that's the case, because such effects are unlikely to occur after only one or two ramdom stocking events; but I must admit it is a possibility, and that is why I have asked Dr. Brian Sloss to analyze the Butternut Lake fish for me this spring at his Conservation Genetics Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point. Dr. Sloss will be able to tell me if these fish differ significantly from fish in other populations of the Upper Chippewa Basin. We will not transfer fish from Butternut until we have an answer to that question.
GREAT IDEA, I COMMEND THIS EFFORT. LET US KNOW HOW THE RESULTS TURN OUT. I ALSO STAND BY MY ORIGINAL STAMENT, IF I WERE A FISHERIES BIOLOGIST AND I WAS CHECKING HOOP NETS FOR CARP MILT AND EGGS I WOULD NOT CARE WHETHER THE FISH IS 22" OR 24". IF YOU ARE NOT COMPLETLETY OBSESSED WITH SOMETHING YOU WON'T TAKE THE EXTRA EFFORT TO DO IT, PERIOD. SMALLER FISH ARE EASIER TO HANDLE, IT TAKES LESS TIME TO USE WHATEVER SIZE IS IN THE NET. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ARE NOT A GOOD FISHERIES BIOLOGIST IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB. IT TAKES EXTRA EFFORT TO DUE RESERCH, AGE SAMPLES, AND USE GOOD GENETICS.
I TELL IT LIKE IT IS, IF IT OFFENDS PEOPLE I'M SORRY FOR THE TRUTH.
"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense". -churchill
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Muskiebum,
' I ALSO STAND BY MY ORIGINAL STAMENT, IF I WERE A FISHERIES BIOLOGIST AND I WAS CHECKING HOOP NETS FOR CARP MILT AND EGGS I WOULD NOT CARE WHETHER THE FISH IS 22" OR 24". IF YOU ARE NOT COMPLETLETY OBSESSED WITH SOMETHING YOU WON'T TAKE THE EXTRA EFFORT TO DO IT, PERIOD. SMALLER FISH ARE EASIER TO HANDLE, IT TAKES LESS TIME TO USE WHATEVER SIZE IS IN THE NET. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ARE NOT A GOOD FISHERIES BIOLOGIST IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB. IT TAKES EXTRA EFFORT TO DUE RESERCH, AGE SAMPLES, AND USE GOOD GENETICS.'
I strongly suggest a Dale Carnegie course.
Totally uncalled for, and the reason most folks in Dave's position avoid Message Board conversations like we are having here like the plague. I truly appreciate Dave's answers, and hope sincerly that he will continue to add to the factual base here.
To your response:
In number one you are discussing selective breeding where the genetic makeup of both parents is known (documented) and can be selected, the environment can be controlled, and the term selective breeding actually applies; am I correct? We covered this before; pretty conclusively, I thought. How would you achieve that here in Wisconsin if natural reproduction is any part of the goal? Kill every single muskie in State waters supporting natural reproduction and restock with your super strain? Please explain to me why the Muskies stocked years ago using a standard strain (stocked in Wisconsin regularly) in a small lake down the road from my house are VERY large in general, and getting bigger every day? What about the variables Dave mentioned? What about the variable you mention? '(ASSUMING ALL OTHER EXTRINSIC FACTORS ARE EQUAL)'.
I must ask, are you one of the gentlemen involved in the discussion with the WI DNR who asked for the Milwaukee Chapter's support a week ago? If so, I need to forward this conversation to the Chapter and ask if the Club really wants to support an effort that is at least partly based in negativity and alienation. Yes, I am a member. If your answer is no, then that's a relief.
Another observation:
Your comments are your opinion, not by default the 'truth'. Dale Carnegie, sir. Insult doesn't command credibility.
I believe your comment about the fisheries folks and largemouth bass in the south are reflective of an article about what amounts to an experiment that is underway, I read the same piece. Are you saying the fisheries depts. in EVERY southern state select only 15# fish for breeding and stocking in ALL waters?
Dave,
Please accept my apologies as Publisher here at MuskieFIRST for the negative tone from Muskiebum. I believe it is his passion for the sport and perhaps misguided but well intended energy that causes commentary like that, not anything actually designed to insult your hard work or that of your peers. My son works for the Woodruff DNR and reacted the same way to some of the more insensitive comments here. |
|
| |
|
| I'm not sure where I insulted anyone? I simply said that I disagreed with some opinions and I said that the average biologist does not care if a walleye is 22" or 24" or a Musky is 48" or 50" when selecting for breeding(is this an insult?)
If I were a biologist I wouldn't care to accomadate for the rare crazy catfisherman(we musky fisherman are a bit crazy) who wanted me to only selectively choose big catfish for breeding. This does not mean I'm not an excellent biologist, It simply means that I have differant motives at stake such as acomplish the job in time. Am I wrong here?
If there will be no more discussion or replys with data then there will be no learning involved.
I was hoping to have a civil exchange of ideas and opinions. This will be my last post here I covered everything I could, I never intended to insult anyone or anything. I just want to discuss factual data and tests done to learn more. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Bum,
Wish I knew who you were, so we could talk some time. Feel free to email. It is refreshing to have someone come forward with and share ideas that so many of us here agree with(beleive me, I have 3 musky dudes looking over my shoulder right now giving you the thumbs up). Though fairly well educated, I have not the knowledge or background obviously that you do. I hope our managers can, before I am an old stinky dude(as opposed to a young stinky dude) see it that way( definately not saying everything or even most things they do is wrong so please hold off on the ridicule). I've been talking to our local biologist, and he is really very supportive with many of our efforts here as a club, and does see some of the very things you talk about, though I think he cannot always tell me what he personnally feels. He manages Petenwell flowage, a system that should be putting out 50"ers like there is no tommorrow and is not. Huh, wonder why??? Too warm? No, smaller warmer lakes down south put out far more bigger fish. it is simply the fish. I raise these things in our ponds, stock them, and fish for them. I love the fact that a 45-47" fish here is built bigger than anywhere else that I fish, including Green Bay. I do not love the fact that on only one occasion in 15 years of musky fishing this water, have I seen a fish that I honestly feel was over 50. I saw 13 in MN this year on water I'd consider marginal compared to the flowage. I hang with a group of pretty good musky men. There have been 1 hookup/capture, and 2 other sightings in 7 years of fishing the flowage of legit 50's. These are Bone Lake 'mutts' we are stocking here, not native WI river fish. Wish like heck they were, but as a club that raises fish, we will take what we can get. The argument that MN fish are just peaking, no competition, not stablized yet, etc. sounds pretty good, and does hold some water for sure. I have felt the same thing about some of those lakes and I do not think that some of them will continue to pump the 50's out with the regularity they have been forever. However, Petenwell should then be pumping out 50's wide open should it not? It actually mimics the stocking levels, start dates, and fishing pressure of many of the lakes in MN. Warmer yes, but not excessive. More forage per acre than Green Bay itself, huge expanses of open water, and very little angler harvest for the most part(less angler harvest than much of the rest of the WI river where the new 45" size limit really should help). HMM. I say bring on the Miss. strain to the river here. I am sure they were here at one time.... They would be much more at home here, than what is being stocked in my opinion. Geez, WI and MN are separated by a river. A river that is as much ours as theirs, and is the name sake of one of the only strains of muskies that has not been made into heinz 57 through years of cross breeding etc. What the heck is the big deal ehh???? Get the dang things over here already!!! I feel they 'belong' in some of these waters as much as many of the waters currently stocked over there for sure.
Side note. Didn't Nancy lake pump out a 54" fish in 9 years?
Try this. Put a few Miss. strain fish into Butternut. Study that. Maybe I'll get lucky and one or two will slip into the Flambeau(another system that I love to fish, but littered with the Bone stockers. That system would have been best left alone years ago-another opinion of course-, when there were still natives residing in it. Tough to say if anything is left of the native structure there. Luckily stocking has ceased on it for the most part and things could come back on their own, but maybe the damage has already been done).
side note: Please disregard the last paragraph here. Trying to lighten things up some. I'm outta here!!!!
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/3/2005 12:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As it happenns many times, it isn't necessarily what is said, it is how. If one want facts and data one might ask for it specifically; we may just be able to get answers from the Managers watching this thread. Guys, Dave isn't the only Fisheries Biologist watching this. He WAS one of a couple kind enough to post. I haven't talked to ONE biologist yet from any area who accepts the stance that the issue of Trophy Management in Wisconsin can be simply 'fixed' by selective breeding. The issue is far more complex, and involves factors those who seem to be demanding 'simple and immediate change' continue to wave off with "I don't agree with you" even after the subject has been presented as it IS and is then opened for questions and continued conversation. When one or more of a group of working scientists who have dedicated their life work to fisheries management are good enough to answer questions here, they expect the same courtesies the rest of us would expect as the discussion progresses. Please read Dave's response and if you have questions, ask him. I hope he will find it in his heart to continue to provide some information here.
There are a few of us actively working over the next two years to gather all the information we can by working with the fisheries departments of several states to get the information Bum and Reef Hawg are seeking. The end goal is to assist the DNR in implementing the very programs the Fisheries folks WANT to see put into place in Wisconsin for Trophy Water management. We need those lines of communication open and clear, and that won't be the case if those folks feel the effort is conforntational in nature.
Reef Hawg, the motivation here is to make progress and do what we can as sportsmen to forward the concept of Trophy Muskie management in Wisconsin. I talked to my son last night about this issue, and he restated that the fisheries managers here would like nothing more than to implement a series of tasks that would lead to trophy waters here including but not limited to size limits on some waters of 50" or more. We can help them achieve those goals as sportsmen if we work carefully within the existing system. If one's motivation is to 'change the system' in an activist manner, that energy will do nothing more than potentially alienate the scientists, politicians, and the public even if successful (which is VERY unlikely), still leaving the actual functions needed for trophy management here in Wisconsin untended. I for one would rather see that energy plaecd in a venue that will ACHIEVE our goals.
Perhaps I should be a bit more blunt. I respect and admire MuskieBum's desire to see better trophy opportunities here in Wisconsin. I respect and definitely admire Reef Hawg's hard work now and in the past to achieve those same goals. I ALSO respect and admire those who are working in the Fisheries Management arena in Wisconsin. As laymen, we can read all we wish, 'study up' on the subject, but as a friend said last night as I pondered posting an answer " Just because one can read a medical Journal, one doesn't then become a doctor." All who wish to achieve the above goals should be addressing the Fisheries people as allies, not foes. Amazingly, Dave's post does exactly that; treating the questions from us 'laymen' with respect and answering them as best as is possible in a few paragraphs in the spirit of fair discussion.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| Reef,
Preach on my brethren.
9 yr old 54"? must be the forage  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Who stocked that fish in Nancy? Why was that program undertaken? Was it a 'Mississippi River' fish, a Leech lake strain, or was it Lake St. Claire? Where else were fish like that one stocked, when, and why were they selected? Are there other waters on the docket for potential stocking with that lineage? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Thanks for the reply Steve. I don't ever intend to be a foe to our managers. If one talked to our local one, he would state that he and I chat often and hae excellent repoire(sp). We do not always agree either. Do we have to? I sure hope not, and neither would he. I do feel, that if enough people feel strongly about something we should state them(he applauds our ideas and sifts through them as any manager should and has the right to). We are just airing things out here, and I would hope Dave knows I admire and respect his work, and research. I am just offering that we explore more and do continued research this issue, before simply concluding it will not work(different strain possibilities). We have alot of Muskellunge waters here in WI. I see no reason why we cannot conduct continued research on stocking strains of fish known to reach admirable sizes, while also raising size limits on waters with an already, known, good gene pool and size structure potential. I am young yet, and know things can get better for me, but I feel we can make things better for guys like my father who is in his late 50's. Now is the time.
The Nancy Lake fish were/are Mississippi strain(the same as Leech). I don't know of any more stocking of them in WI(oops, don't mean to answer for you Dave, please correct if wrong). Wish I was hearing of some more.....Dave??
The fish in Green Bay are from St. Claire, though also Riverine Muskies.
That said, the Mississippi(Leech) strain is a riverine strain. Dave, wouldn't this strain be as, or maybe more suitable for stocking into the lower WI river here, as well as the St. Croix river basin, as what is currently being stocked?
One more question. Is the 50" size limit improving things on lakes like Grindstone and LCO? I know it has been in place for several years. Interested to hear how surveys are going on those waters.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/3/2005 10:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Bum,
I have difficulty reading your several posts, without sensing the antagonism and self righteousness contained within. It seems that the further the discussion progresses the more vehement you get, and it becomes a question of you being right and the biologists being wrong. Knowing the biologist's education and background, and also knowing that they have access to a diversity of information that I am not familiar with and haven't seen, I am kinda sorta strongly leaning their way on this. I have delved into a lot of this stuff, genetic selection, natural selection, fatal genes, line breeding, environmental selection, out crossing and genetic defects quite a bit, driven by my own interest and also need to know over the years, and I think you are jumping to more than one conclusion here. Also your speculation on what they are willing or unwilling to do with their nets is rather absurd and rather myopic. The cost and efficiency of trying to get the specific large specimens you request they use for breeding stock is something that obviously doesn't occur to you. As Dave clearly stated, it is one thing to sit in an office and envision a grand scheme, and quite another to place the manpower and equipment neccessary to make it happen. Quite frankly the manpower and equipment MAY NOT EVEN EXIST for what many of us would like to see happen. That is the way it is in real life, unfortunately for all of us.
I also have a lot of difficulty respecting the intellectual capacity of ANY individual who repeatedly misspells RESEARCH, when talking about science. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | firstsixfeet,
very nice...voice your disapproval of Bum's tone and then insult his intellectual capacity over a typo! As to the cost issue...what is your point? ...."Quite frankly the manpower and equipment MAY NOT EVEN EXIST..." okay, so I guess we should just sit back at let be? Wouldn't it make more sense to formulate a plan that would improve upon the current state of WI Musky waters, and then see what the cost would be? I have to think that there are a few WI musky anglers out there that would be willing to purchase a musky stamp if they thought it would help them get back what they once had. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| I just want to discuss facts, nothing more. Sorry if my written words are misunderstood as being angry. I'm just stating facts. The only reason I'm posting is to hopefully learn more. No one knows it all. I'd love to hear someone misproove something I've said. FSF, prove me wrong, I don't want opinions. Can we not disagree on things?
Lets hear some Facts. Data. Research. This is science.
My motive is simple, repare the damage we've done over the last 100 years to most incredible organism on earth.
Like I state in all my post this thread Rocks  Smile
Edited by MuskieBum 3/3/2005 10:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
| One could make the case that Wisconsin has been selectively breeding small fish from small lakes for the past 100 years. Is that a good thing?
When comparing costs, let's also compare the costs of netting large fish for 2 weeks vs. the costs of Tens of Millions of dollars in tourism (lodging, gas, food, guides, tackle etc.) leaving to go elsewhere.
To be fair to the DNR - just a few good men face the task of managing thousands of lakes for many different species with many different user types expecting different experiences. It's a tough job, but to think things could not be done in a better way is unreasonable. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, I don't think so. That argument is exactly what was addressed in Dave's comments, at least on a general basis. It also doesn't hold water on a lake by lake example by example basis, some seem to support your premise and an equally compelling number seem to directly refute it.
Take an example of a samll lake in the Rhinelander area. VERY limited harvest, excellent stocking program, and a great population of really big fish that got big in a respectable timeframe. I got a fish that was nearly 40# there year before last, and lost another right in front of another Rhinelander Muskie League competitor on a jump this summer that was a real hog. I got a couple there near 50" in the last couple of years, and one well over. I fish it maybe 5 times a year. (Work sucks!!) Is there a problem with the genetics in that water? My opinion is no. Are the fish in that water the same fish stocked in other waters here in Oneida and Vilas? Yes, they are. So why is there a strong representative sample of trophy fish in that water, and not other waters stocked at the same time with the same strain?
One biologist I spoke to had a comment I must admit seems to make sense. If the fish gets harvested at 48" as so many do here in Wisconsin, it's likely that it wont get to 53".
FSF has several well taken points, as well.
As to his comment about the spelling issue I think he wasn't suggesting that anyone's intellectual capacity was lacking; he was suggesting that if one wishes to argue scientific applicatiion with another scientist, one needs present the argument well. |
|
| |
|
| guest - 3/3/2005 11:08 AM
One could make the case that Wisconsin has been selectively breeding small fish from small lakes for the past 100 years. Is that a good thing?
When comparing costs, let's also compare the costs of netting large fish for 2 weeks vs. the costs of Tens of Millions of dollars in tourism (lodging, gas, food, guides, tackle etc.) leaving to go elsewhere.
To be fair to the DNR - just a few good men face the task of managing thousands of lakes for many different species with many different user types expecting different experiences. It's a tough job, but to think things could not be done in a better way is unreasonable.
Guest, it is an interesting idea, and hey it might be possible, and might be arguable. Why, Bum himself referred to the "breading" program going on in the south with big bass. I wonder if that is the same as the "breading" program going on with muskies in WI(a possiblity Sworrall raises), or something else entirely, LOL?
You need to be very careful what statements you make here. What if the DNR, upon appraising their programs, felt things COULD be done in a better way, and that way would include phasing out muskie research and a bare bones stocking/hatchery program? I am not in favor of that, but I think it is an error to start assuming that the DNR has in some way screwed up the fishing, or to automatically assume that improving the size profile of WI muskys is something that is easy to do or ? even desirable.
I see reference to hoping to return to what we once had for a fishery in WI.
The fishery I ONCE HAD in the Chippewa Flowage in the 70's, was one that held a 40 inch fish rare enough that it's location would be kept a secret lest another angler get in there and catch him, hardly the case nowadays, simply a lot more 40 inch fish than the old days. The case you make for tens of millions of dollars of tourism money? Sounds good on paper, tough one to document, if you actually can, that would be the kind of thing that would turn some heads in the legislature. Hard to convince me though, since I see increasing pressure every year, everywhere I fish. The department looks at so much budget for hatchery programs, and it is very clear and documentable they can save money by being efficient when gathering eggs. They get absolutely NO return to their budget by increasing tourism due to musky fishing. However if you can prove that such a relationship exists, I AM ALMOST CERTAIN THE LEGISLATURE WOULD BE PRESSURED TO KICK IN SOME EXTRA FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE GENERALLY DEPRESSED NORTHERN ECONOMY, and the economic multipliers of such numbers, tens of millions, would surely recompense the state for the paltry investment. Ever been to a budget meeting for ANY governmental or bureaucratic organization? See how fast pie in the sky gets tabled, when compared to saving $0.02 per gallon of gas for the fleet. Point being, unless something can be documented in a clear fashion, it will not be acted upon. I would also suggest that unless a decline in musky size and some kind of definition of why comes about, don't expect a lot of action on this. Support the research going on in Butternut. Encourage more research from the universities, this is the kind of thing that can be the basis of a doctoral thesis. Encourage ANY fishery management interest, in this problem, or that we perceive a problem to exist. Don't antagonize anyone that can possibly help roll your ball in the direction you want it to go, because there aren't very many people out there capable of helping you roll your ball-and it behooves you to keep them as allies, and not to try and score points against them in public forums, or try and start your ball rolling from a stance that THEY SCREWED IT UP TO START WITH("they" probably didn't have any input on the original direction). |
|
| |
|
| BTW I am the "guest" quoting and replying to guest above, forgot to log or sign. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | fsf, I'd suggest doing the same that was asked of a few of us. Let the expert answer our questions before imposing ridicule. I'd like my post with my questions above not lost in the wolf pack predatory posts here. Lets all add something of our own, or ask a question of the experts.
The chip argument you make holds little if any water. We are not talking about an increase in 40" fish here. We don't seem to have a problem with 40" fish being present. In fact in some cases, there seems to be too many of them in that size class. I have no doubt you findings are true on 'YOUR' water. I'd be willing to bet that it has been awhile since a 50, 60lb or 70lb fish has been caught on the Chip. though hasn't it? I am sure alot of this has to do with harvest, and we will patiently wait to see what the increased size limit will do out there(though not raised enough in my opinion). If any water should be a model for success with higher limits, the Chip. should be it, should it not? We should see improvements very soon out there.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/3/2005 8:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Mr Worrall & firstsixfeet - please read the below and then expalin to us again that we are mistaiken. (FSF - I misspelled a couple of words so that you can insult me - insults are fine on this board as long as you agree with the moderators)
Another reason why it's total BUNK when somebody takes a muskie that they THINK is past it's prime spawning age:
In a scientific double whammy, researchers report that fishing pressure is causing fish to evolve to smaller sizes, just as new studies show that larger fish are critical to sustaining populations. In species such as Pacific rockfish, the big, old females not only produce exponentially more eggs than younger, smaller females, but their hearty larvae have a far greater chance of survival. Keeping these big fish in the water increases the chances of strong population numbers in the next generation which is paramount to the recovery of overfished stocks.
Representing three fisheries science sessions from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting, Steve Berkeley of UC Santa Cruz, Larry Crowder of Duke University, Andy Rosenberg of the University of New Hampshire and a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and Jeremy Jackson of Scripps Institution of Oceanography highlight the latest advances in genetics, biology, and evolutionary science that point to new strategies for maintaining fisheries.
As a former leader in the National Marine Fisheries Service, Andy Rosenberg has faced the difficult realities of implementing new fisheries policies. "Over the last ten years the management struggle has been to begin to bring massive overexploitation under control, and that struggle has had some success but rebuilding fish-stocks is another matter," says Rosenberg.
Old Fish Never Retire
Fishing disproportionately removes older fish - which are larger and more highly prized. In fact, management often seeks to shift fishing pressure to these older fish in an effort to let younger, fast growing fish reach spawning age.
Researchers have long known that older fish produce exponentially more larvae. A 50 cm Boccacio rockfish, for example, will produce nearly 200,000 larvae, while an 80 cm fish will produce ten times that - nearly 2 million. These larvae are released into harsh ocean conditions without parental care. For fish, spawning is like entering the lottery, and the older, larger fish have many more lottery tickets. "For northern cod, only one in a million make it to age three," says Jeff Hutchings of Dalhousie University. Similarly, for many species of Pacific rockfish, only a tiny fraction of mothers about one in a thousand - succeed in contributing to the next generation of fish, according to Daniel Gomez-Uchida of Oregon State University.
But scientists only recently discovered that the larvae of old fish also have better odds of survival. Berkeley started investigating this advantage after observing Pacific rockfish spawning patterns. He noticed that older females spawned early in the season. And when he looked at the next generation of fish, there were years when most of them had birthdates corresponding with these early spawning events. He wondered whether it was just the timing of release that mattered, or whether the older mothers were somehow giving their offspring a leg-up in life.
"I was astounded when I got the results," says Berkeley. "I suspected some difference, but not the overwhelming difference that we saw survival rates were nearly three times higher, and growth rates were 3.5 times faster for larvae from older mothers."
Berkeley's team discovered that older mothers produce larvae with a larger oil globule, a sack lunch packed by mom that the baby fish relies on if faced with starvation. Early spawning can also give the larvae a boost when it coincides with peaks in zooplankton. By removing the big, old fish, we lose the benefits of their fecundity and superior larvae, and we also shorten the spawning season all of which reduce the chances of a robust cohort of recruits the next year.
"Without the oldest females," says Larry Crowder of Duke University, "populations lose their best hope for the success of future generations - the resiliency that can compensate for overfishing."
"Rockfish can live to be 100 years old," says Berkeley. "People understand that you can cut down a 100 year old tree in five minutes, but that it takes 100 years to grow a new one. Old fish are the same way, they accumulate over decades, even centuries, and in a flash they're gone we can remove them much faster than they can rebuild."
Evolution in Our Lifetimes
Having fewer and smaller fish may not bother the average consumer just yet, but creates a "Darwinian debt" for future generations. Researchers say that the evolutionary effect of fishing has been a blind spot for managers overlooked, downplayed, ignored because of the complexity, or just not on the radar screen. "The truly worrisome aspect is that repairing evolutionary damage is vastly more difficult than causing it," says Ulf Dieckmann. "The debt we build up is increasing at a sky-high interest rate."
While many think of evolution as a slow, historical process, research by Jeff Hutchings (Dalhousie University), David Conover (Stony Brook University), Mikko Heino (Institute of Marine Research in Norway), Ulf Dieckmann (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria) and others shows that by taking out the big fish, we are actually driving selection for smaller fish that mature earlier. Studies show fishing pressures can significantly change the genetic composition of fish populations in as little as 20 to 50 years.
"We see it in the models, in the lab, and in the real world ? smaller fish and fewer of them," says Heino, a co-organizer of one of the AAAS fisheries sessions. "Since these changes are genetic," adds Hutchings, "they are not readily reversible we'll be stuck with them for a long time. No one wants that fishermen or conservationists."
Scientists now have evidence that the age of sexual maturation in several populations of cod has been reduced by a quarter, and for plaice (a type of flatfish) nearly a third. "These examples are probably just the tip of the iceberg," says Heino. "We've detected fisheries-induced evolution in almost every species we've studied."
"Resource managers and decision-makers need to be aware that fishing can cause genetic changes - changes to characteristics that are vitally important to the continuity of the population," says Hutchings.
Overfishing Can Reach A Point of No Return
Cod off the coast of Newfoundland - once one of the largest populations in the world has suffered a 99% decline since the 1960s. Hutchings latest work shows that the changes in size and age at maturity caused by just 30-50 years of fishing have reduced the chance of cod's recovery by 25-30%. Hutching's findings confirm the importance of keeping old fish in the sea and may explain the failure of closures to bring about a rebound in the cod population.
Researchers suspect that this evolutionary change is happening with other stocks too. "We have this belief, that we can knock down fish populations to exceedingly low levels and they can bounce back rapidly," says Hutchings. "Not to say that it can't happen. But little or no recovery appears to be the general pattern. Unfortunately, it appears to be the exception that drives policy."
Genetic and ecological studies led by Ralph Larson of San Francisco State University point to an additional problem with current management. Larson's work shows that simply keeping enough spawners in the sea isn't enough to prevent populations from crashing ? first you need the big fish, but you also need big fish throughout their geographic range. Each year only a subset of rockfish spawn successfully, and it's impossible to predict where these "winners" will be from year to year. "If we want to have more consistent levels of replenishment from year to year rather than a boom and bust cycle we have to protect spawners throughout their range," he says.
Solutions
While the scientists acknowledge that there is no quick and easy way to integrate the true complexity of fish population dynamics into management, they all point to the need to preserve large, old fish and maintain the balance of age classes in the population.
"If the new studies are widely applicable to other species, then it isn't a question of doing a better job, it is a question of doing a different job. The old management tools will not work to protect age structure or genetic diversity, or prevent local depletions we'll have to use new tools to achieve new objectives," says Berkeley.
Crowder calls for new strategies that address cumulative impacts on fish populations and protect entire segments of struggling populations. "We have to move toward true ecosystem based management," he explains. "Commercial and recreational fishing have reduced top predators to a remnant of their former abundances, but pollution and nutrients from the land also drive fish, crabs, and shrimp to suboptimal habitat, making it even harder for these populations to recover it's in fact a triple whammy."
One approach consistent with ecosystem-based management is ocean zoning. "Some areas might be totally protected, some closed seasonally, some open to commercial fishing, some only open for recreational fishing and so on," says Berkeley. "As far as protecting age structure and maintaining big old fish, I can't come up with anything better than a marine reserve-type approach where you protect a segment of the population from fishing. There may be other approaches that would work, but I think we know enough to get a good start on a network of marine reserves."
We have been ingenious enough to figure out how to overexploit a very big ocean. We must now be ingenious enough to figure out how to deal with the complexity and regain our lost resources.
OK - it's me again now. who's going to be the first to dismiss all the Biologists and the American Association for the Advancement of Science ? my guess would be FSF or sworral (as he did on the 2nd post of this very thread), but something tells me its going to be Slamr hitting me with a reprimand!!! LOL!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dismiss, no, but apply to the Muskie population in Wisconsin as this is written? I'd question a direct correlation, Bob. This article deals with commercial and recreational overfishing of an ENTIRE saltwater population and the resulting crashes in population and potential genetic effects. Are you saying that this is what is happening here in Wisconsin in EVERY single lake and river? What sort of numbers do you feel are harvested VS the entire Muskie population? What percentage of the large fish in Wisconsin on an average body of water are harvested, and is there a direct provable correlation to the percentage of big fish /total population in any given lake or river and the average size of the fish today? Are Rockfish and Cod managed in the same manner as muskies? How do you explain the lake I continually refer to, a case which you and others I have asked to explain simply ignore? Are you referring to the commercial harvest in Ontario in the early days of Muskie angling, or is that not part of your research? Was the effect of an early massive commercial harvest of Muskies on now popular Canadian waters what you intended to refer to in the posted piece? What about Native American Spearing and the effects on the population here, and how would that effect the management strategies you are suggesting?
I didn't, as you have suggested, 'dismiss all the Biologists and the American Association for the Advancement of Science'. I questioned YOUR application of the described problems and suggested solutions for a completely different specie of fish under completely different types of pressure on a completely different body of water. Are you trying to tell me this has happened to the entire Muskie population in every lake, river, and impoundment in Wisconsin? What about the lakes where the fish are STOCKED only, like Pewaukee, where a number of them in a couple year classes are turning up over 50" lately, and like several other STOCKED only lakes that support numbers, but no real size? AGAIN, why is it the little lake near me here is kicking out Pigs from the same genetic stock?
Slamr doesn't moderate this board much, I do. I objected to the direct insinuation that our DNR fisheries folks are lazy, unmotivated, and only interested in keeping their jobs. That actually angered me, too. BUT, I asked the gentleman from the DNR to forgive some of our sometimes not-too-well-thought-out-passionate rhetoric. I read the entire thread again, later explaining for those who are not well versed in debate style argument that I felt FSF was trying to make a point; if a layman wants to debate with and directly refute a working scientist in the public arena, he/she'd better do so carefully, checking the post for weak sentence structure, bad spelling, or other items that will form an opinion from those who are reading the debate including one's opponent. It's ESPECIALLY important one checks for proper presentation of argument and support of said argument with facts.
In debate and friendly disagreement it's even more important one resists the urge to over-exaggerate. That will cost you, as exaggeration costs credibility.
I also understand FSF's sense of humor; it is VERY dry. He frequently beats the pants off his opponent in debate style, presentation and addressing the facts, and that has a tendency to cause some caustic response. He has taken me down a notch or two over the years, and every single time I deserved it. So did his latest target, in my humble opinion. It's apparent MuskieBum took it all in stride, trying to clarify his position and restating his objectives in a tone that will draw far less critical commentary. Score a few points for MB.
'How to Win Friends and Influence people.' |
|
| |
|
| sometimes i find summarizing helps me to think about things.
help me out if i get some of your points wrong...
the idea has been presented that the current genetics of the majority of fish stocked in WI are depleted, favoring fish which grow faster and reproduce sooner and do not reach as great of ultimate sizes.
it is proposed that this may be a result of a combination of harvesting of trophy fish thus removing them from the reproduction pool (based on both MInc data and anecdotal evidence), and the use of undersized early spawners by fisheries workers.
there is research which supports the idea that taking the biggest fish from the population can impact the gene pool reletively quickly.
the conclusion of this is that stock should be taken from only the biggest fish, attempting to select for those features in future generations.
another perspective presents evidence that fish from the same/current stocking sources are performing differentially in different waters, achieving trophy proportions in some lakes and not in other waters. the fact that numbers of trophy fish are showing up in stocked waters is evidence of genetic variability still being present and points to environmental factors as a more significant causal factor.
the conclusion of this is that attempting to take stock from trophy-size fish is cost prohibitive and unnecessary considering the results being gained in the right environments from the current stock sources.
did i get that about right?
here are my humble thoughts:
1. the idea that removing the biggest fish from the population is a bad thing for the gene pool is obvious.
- however, where's the evidence that this is widely occurring? i think the Muskies Inc numbers quoted are suspect at best, particularly because of the timespan which they cover and the nature of self-report. many MI members don't report catches whether kept or released - especially trophies, and most anglers are not MI members. it might be the best we have, but it isn't good enough to "prove" the taking of trophy fish to the degree presented.
- the research on the ocean fisheries is compelling - and a clarion call to us to pay attention to what we're doing with the muskie resource; however, the scale is very different and although the concept is applicable i don't see the evidence that the same thing is occurring here.
- my personal belief is that most trophies are caught by skilled muskie fishermen who practice CPR. anecdotes about the walleye guy who takes home a huge fish are a) anecdotal and b) rare.
- i also am starting to be convinced that the idea of a slot limit on muskies is not heresy. protect every fish over a certain size and allow some of the aggressive underachievers to be taken? imho, not that many people harvest muskies anyway so this might be both a biologically sound and politically acceptable compromise to getting complete catch and release on the biggest fish.
2. the selection of undersized fish to provide stock source has the potential to negatively impact the gene pool by overselecting smaller fast growing early spawners.
- likewise, i think the selection of only very large older fish runs the same risk - overspecializing the population of fish and creating a risk of a genetically inferior population: suspect to disease, or unable to adapt to environmental changes.
- my personal belief is that the sources for stock should be monitored for variation. taken from multiple lakes, and taken from fish of multiple sizes. not all small easily milked fish, but not all trophies either. keeping the genetic variability robust keeps all factors present in the population and allows the fish to speciate once they are within a given body of water to match the conditions within that water. some lakes would select for fast growers, some lakes would select for trophies. but it's all got to be there in the "pool" if the state-wide variability in environments is to be allowed for.
my $.02, hopefully it came across as intended: curious and interested in discussion.
on a side note: i've had the good fortune to talk with the two major participants/debaters in this thread.
i've found Bob Benson (Bob, i'm a friend of Andy Mork) and Steve Worrall both to be generous - i lost my personal best at boatside in Bob's boat and Steve shares his house with anyone. in talking to them i found them both thoughtful and passionate and equally willing to call a spade a spade. no good guys/bad guys here - all good muskie guys who have made me a better fisherman and added to my enjoyment of the sport. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| Steve,
I never commented on your lake because I have no idea of the history of it. That is awsome that you scored a big fish, Im jealous, but 3 big fish does not conclusivley prove anything to me(maybe theres more, im not sure). Its possible to shoot a big buck on public land but for my money I'd go up to the northwoods of Canada, I think this is fairly obvious by now? A monk named Mendel figured it out growing peas many moons ago.
Does the lake have native fish?
When was it stocked, How often, how old was the fish you caught. What brood stock did they use?
Also Steve, The last article stated that killing big fish over successesive generations cause smaller fish in the gene pool. How can you say this does not apply to WI musky over the last 100 years?
Lambeu, good sumerization. One problem though. Its good to keep genetic variability, but if the fish used for fertilization already have inferior genes due to harvist in the past, then you are actually causing less variablity. Your using genes that have been unintentionally degraded. This hurts the gene pool, this hurts the entire ecosystem. Another thing that should be discussed is the importance of the "Apex Predator" for the success of the entire system. This a huge concern for those ecologist out there.
That was a very interesting last article, great info. Thanks for sharing
Edited by MuskieBum 3/3/2005 10:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MB,
Exactly, and you don't know the 'history' of hundreds of other managed Muskie waters elsewhere in the state. To speculate and postulate and then come to what amounts to a rock solid 'conclusion' on how all should be managed by reading some material on theoretical accelerated evolution in heavily overfished stocks ( commercial fishing coupled with sport fishing) in cod and rockfish popualtions is a leap. Then to suggest the Fisheries folks who work with the actual data every day are not up to speed is REALLY a leap. One hell of a leap. Do you think these folks don't talk to each other State to State? How would our DNR reach the conclusion the Great Lakes strain from Lake St. Claire is best bet for Winnebago and Bay of Green Bay instead of the other available pools?
A fisheries biologist manager comes aboard and posts an educated, scientifically backed, studied response to this current 'popular controversy', and he's dismissed out of hand by laymen who claim to have the facts as a result of reading alot. That's a bit irritating to me, and I bet alot more than a bit irritating to him. The discussion goes from selective breeding to accelerated evolution and back to selective breeding with alot of 'genitics' talk that frankly is based in the same assumtions I mention in my first paragraph here. When the difficulty and risks are mentioned, the response from some of the anglers here is , " No, you're wrong, just do this and our Muskies will be larger." I'm sorry, but I'll take the conversations with the fisheries folks to heart befrore I accept as indisputable fact the postings of an avid but overall just muskie angler who of course means well, but doesn't have the education or background to demand anything of ANY fisheries department, here or anywhere. I can read for hours, months, and days, but running a nuclear reactor will still be out of my expertise, and THAT's easier than managing muskies in the diverse waters we have in Wisconsin.
To my 'small lake':
I'm obviously not talking just 3 fish, I couldn't have contacted that many in the short time I have on that water every year if the year class that was stocked didn't have excellent growth characteristics. Point is there are many nice fish from that stocking effort, and some real hogs, too. Yes, there is limited natural reproduction there, but the big fish I have caught are clipped, and are probably stocked fish. The lake also has produced natural hybrids in the 52" 38# range, I actually had one at my shop a number of years back from this water. Rare, yes, but why there and not Thompson or the Moen's Chain? A friend of mine took a 48 out of Moen's with me a year back, and many said it was the largest they had heard of recently. I fish that water as often as my little favorite Hog Pen, and see NO fish in the 50" plus catagory. According to the theory presented by some, this situation is impossible. I'm sure you've heard my Waves On the Water Make the WInd Blow examples of deabte in fishing, look at all of this through that lens.
Yes, the article did state that killing big fish had the effect you mention. I asked several questions that were designed to actually ANSWER your question here. The article defines fisheries that were overfished to collapse. Near ALL the large fish were commercially taken on a repeated basis over several decades. Near ALL. Name a lake or river in Wisconsin where that has happened. Sure, if the average harvested fish is 48", then there wont be a bunch of fish making it to 54"where the ecosystem allows. But if the fish make it to 48 or 49", and are available for stripping and natural reproduction up to that point, then how much does the model in the article apply? You tell me.
The DNR wants to implement a 50" or more size limit on a few lakes to PROVE that the trophy potential will grow. The Public voted it down, because the activists who forced the vote through the Conservation Congress knew not enough about politics and public relations, period. We would have won that one if the time was taken to step back, inform and educate, and take out the public's fear of the unknown. Beligerent behavior won't get support anywhere. Insulting ( general statement, not directed at you personally) the DNR, Chambers of Commerce, and Guides in Wisconsin will NOT gain you support. I don't care WHO is behind the effort, if the main thrust is beligerent and confrontational, unwilling to entertain public scrutiny and debate, it will fail. Prove me wrong.
How about the fact TONS of muskies were harvested commercially on Canadian waters in the early days of Muskie angling, yet those waters produce some of the biggest muskies caught today. That makes absolutely no sense if the premise in the article and the genetics claims are correct. Then comes the claim that the genetics are ruined, but good old Pelican produces big fish every year, my little lake produces big fish, and there are more examples. If what is claimed about the genetics of the stocked fish is true, WHY are the fish in this lake doing so well? Should be impossible, right?
What about the spearing issue? Lage muskies targeted every year and many many taken, could THAT have something to do with the state of our Muskie population here in the North? Every 48 or 50 speared is one that won't get any larger. This is a reality, isn't going to change anytime soon, and cannot be simply understated or ignored, or blamed on ANYONE but our governing forefathers. Is there hope on that horizon? Yes. Glifwc does way more than most know, and someday, just maybe, we can close the gap between the Tribes and the State and Sport fishermen and resolve this problem to everyone's satisfaction. Just maybe.
Lambeau, well siad. I play 'devil's advocate' alot, and some folks just don't see that. I don't know Bob, don't know MB, don't know FSF. I have to do what EVERYONE has to reading this thread and form impressions based on what's said, and that's what I've been trying to impress on all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Lambeau. Taking fish from multiple lakes is actually the wrong thing to do, unless taking them from the lake they are stocking. Since we screwed up 100 years ago, creating mutts(or mixed) here in WI, it won't be noticed as much, but the whole point of WI not wanting to stock Mississippi fish into more waters is their fear of contaminating and already contaminated(mixed) stock really. Taking fish from multiple lakes would only admit to this already known mixing. We want to see the diversity in our lakes that is still there. if you have fished many northern WI lakes, you notice some of the subtle nuances of different fish from different bodies of water. I have photo albums full of pictures depicting the greatness that is WI muskellunge diversity over the state. When glaciation dissappeared and lakes separated, fish took on unique characteristics in their own sytems. Some of this is still evident, and my friend Chuck Schauer sat up till wee hours one night talking about different lakes, chains, how certain ones appear to be different(shapes, colorations, and patterns), and how sad it is that this is slowly becoming a thing of the past. I understand that the DNR cannot stock each water from its own brood however, and am not asking that it happen.
I feel that trying to experiment with an untarnished strain that was once known to exist in WI(Mississippi) is worth looking at. Simple as that. Again, success was had at the only lake in WI where it was tried, and wide spread success is being had right now in MN with it. Taking some of these fish and seeing what they can do in a body of water like Petenwell(which more likely had remnants of those fish, than the northern WI river drainage strain before paper mill pollution took all types out of the central WI region), would really show us all in black and white what can happen. As I stated earlier, the fish in Pete(a lake that exhibits growth of every other species to trophy size range and beyond) are just not getting up to the desired sizes, period. I am saying that on lakes that are totally dependant on stocking for their populations to exist, and ones that were created to be Muskellunge waters from waters that never had the species, what do we have to lose? Those fish are no more theirs(MN) than ours in my opinion. It is proven that they were once here!!
Steve, I totally agree with you on the Canada thing, though genetics does play a huge role there. You actually answered your own statement and agreed that keeping a strain pure is a great thing. The great thing about Ontario, especially places like LOTW, and Goon etc, is that muskies have never been stocked there, taking out any possibility of tarnishing the genetics that exist as has happened in WI through mixing over the years. I feel I have a valid argument in that certain races(I know I probably cannot use that terminology scientifically) or mini strains existed withing our muskies here in WI. They were not all the same!!!!! Just as all human races and types do not grow to be 7' tall. Some races never get to be 5' tall. certain Muskellunge will never be 50" long no matter where you put them. This is why I argue against the Bone Lake fish that are raised in NW WI. They just do not grow to the large proportions that fish from other systems do, even if put into those systems. Yes, they do grow larger in some cases than they do in Bone(Petenwell), but are still not attaining the max size, like some fish which naturally existed in other waters such as the Chip. St. Croix, WI River, Flambeau, and the list goes on. I feel a poor representative has been chosen(Bone Lake muskies) for carrying the torch to each lake on the Western half of the state.
TAKE THE POWER BACK!!!!
I feel many arguments here have been 'well said'. Though it is easier to say when we agree with that person ehh?
It is late at night. Don't scold me if my grammar is not perfect...LOL.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/4/2005 10:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Please explain the 'mutts' concept. Address the fish stocked from the Woodruff operation and explain which strain they are, where that strain originated, and how it 'varies' from Pelican Lake to Tomahawk, for example. Please also explain what happened in 1905 or in that era that you are referring to. Also, explain how taking spawn for several lakes in an area from fish of the same strain admits to already known contamination; that statement can be interpreted a couple ways. And please explain why the fish from that strain can and do get quite large in many waters here.
The Canadian example was addressing the accelerated evolution claim. I'd like to point out that the examples listed, cod and rockfish, are also not 'stocked' from any other gene pool. If indeed the posted story applies to muskies as suggested many times then I'd like an explanation why that scenario didn't happen because of the commercial harvest in Canadian waters, and how it would happen here on Lake Thompson, for example.
I'll return to another example, Mille Lacs. What strain are the barred muskies there? Paul Hartman had a two fish mid fifty inch day there last fall, and both were that strain. Where did those fish come from, what hatchery, which strain? Canada. OK, why do the barred fish vary so much from water to water there. Growth rates, average maximum size, appearance, all vary even in areas of LOTW, connected water where the fish can and do move freely about. How about the lakes that are numbers lakes there, where a 45" fish is a big specimen? What's the dynamic there? No stocking, very little pressure, almost zero harvest and small fish. Why?
Let's talk walleyes in Castle Rock and Petenwell. What about upstream, say Boom Lake and the flowage there, why are the numbers so much worse up here, and the size smaller? Genetics? Accelerated evolution?
A deer example was added earlier. Why do QDMs work in establishing a trophy buck population in areas that otherwise do not support big racks? Same genetics and same concept, just a much shorter lifespan and faster results, right?
The bottom line on the Great Lakes fish, if I might take this there, is some would like to see spotted muskies stocked in the waters here in the north, and feel that would cure all of the ills we have discussed in this thread to date. Am I correct? If I am, please explain which strain would exhibit dominance in say, Tomahawk, what the effect of any possible interbreeding might be (wouldn't that be a 'mutt'?) and what growth, reproduction, and other characteristics they might display long haul? What are the risks/benefits?
To the selective breeding idea, if the fish from Pelican are the same strain as from George, please explain why using only large fish for stripping would do anything at all? The genetics are not held individually in selected 50" females and not in their 44" younger counterparts, are they? What about the other parent, do we also select only very large males? And WHY are there big females, in the trophy catagory, present in fishable numbers in one 500 acre lake and not in another just 3 miles away, stocked from the same strain? Are we saying the genetics of a 39# fish from Lake George are better than the genetics from a 23# Moen Chain fish?
How many waters in Wisconsin had a natural population of muskies before man arrived? How many of the good muskie lakes we have now did our DNR stock from scratch? What strain was used, from what waters, and what other strains were introduced into that stocking program? |
|
| |
