Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 6 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Green Bay: Alarming trend... |
| Message Subject: Green Bay: Alarming trend... | |||
tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for posting Larry--it's always great to hear the history of these issues, from one of the world's foremost musky historians. You've remembered what most of us have forgotten, or never even knew! I also wanted to post a link to follow-up my last post. Here is a nice link explaining a little of Ontario's muskellunge size limit structure. Check it out: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/Mnr/csb/news/mar22nr00.html I especially like the part where they give some of the rationale behind their size limit structure. And as I have said before in this thread--they base a much more significant part of their economy on the value of their resources, in the form of tourism. So while this certainly doesn't commit us from doing the exact same thing, I tend to think that if it works for them, well then just maybe it will work for us as well. But there's more work to be done before that can start to happen, and as I write this I am waiting for a call regarding the first of many meetings sure to come on this subject. Hopefully this will take place later this afternoon, so we may begin to formalize our plan of action in this effort. Thanks again for the posts everyone. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/24/2007 2:12 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | In my continuing research, I found a couple of interesting links. The first is a St. Lawrence River Fisheries Management Survey, and the second link has the results of that survey. http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/slrosurveyl.pdf http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/slrreport.pdf Take a look at the muskellunge portion of the survey, on page 4...only one question (#16). Now look at the answers to that question on page 7 of the survey report. Pretty interesting. According to the report, almost 80% of Canadians favored the 54" size limit on the Larry, but the American participants didn't favor it by nearly as much a margin. It's the same river! So, can we assume from these results that perhaps Canadians place more value on large muskellunge--or maybe have a different perception of the *value* of large muskies? Still, the important thing to realize here is that the 54" limit *was* preferred by the majority of all participants, both US & Canadian. Boy, the things you can find on the internet... TB Edited by tcbetka 11/24/2007 1:50 PM | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| i heard that there is a meeting this weekend (Saturday?) with interested stakeholders. is that true? is it an open meeting? i'll be in Green Bay on Saturday and would like to attend if it's in the afternoon. Edited by lambeau 11/26/2007 8:49 AM | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks for asking... We have formed an entity we are calling the Green Bay Musky Coalition, and it presently consists of several local musky clubs and numerous concerned individuals from throughout the state. Although the time is still tentative, we are planning to hold a meeting on Saturday, December 29th at 1pm at the Green Bay Yacht Club, near the Bay Beach landing at the mouth of the Fox River. In addition to the various press releases we will be making prior to the event, we will make a formal announcement on all of the musky boards as the time nears, and will also post directions to the meeting site. The agenda of the meeting is still being discussed, but I will be making a short Power Point presentation at the beginning of the meeting, in order to bring everyone up to speed on where the process is. As I have alluded to in previous posts here in this thread, we have conceived a comprehensive plan to assist the DNR in protecting this fishery. This plan will be based upon both biological and sociological arguments, and all details of the plan will be discussed at the meeting, with ample time given for questions and discussion. While I do not want to go into great detail on the plan at this time, I can mention that there are provisions for both immediate and more longer-term actions; in addition to financial planning to assist in research to benefit the local fishery. Finally, last but certainly not least, this comprehensive plan will also include steps to development an educational campaign to help improve the success of C&R in the sport. Of course this would not be exclusive to the Green Bay fishery, as all anglers should benefit by these efforts. I must say that I simply cannot believe the support we have gotten to this point. I can't begin to tell you how many emails, phone calls & PMs I have gotten since this whole effort started. In addition to overwhelming local support, I have spoken to many people from around the state who all want to be included in our efforts. We are happy to accept help from everyone who has offered, although I find myself spending more & more time trying to coordinate this help! However I don't consider this a bad problem to have, and therefore hope to see and meet everyone at the meeting on December 29th. Please check back for additional updates. Once again, on behalf of the newly formed Green Bay Musky Coalition, I wish to express our gratitude to MuskieFIRST for allowing us this venue to exchange ideas. And thanks to everyone that has posted in this thread or contacted our group to express support for this critical effort. EDIT: Almost forgot--as far as I have been told this will indeed be an open meeting. Tom Betka Research Director Titletown Chapter, MI Edited by tcbetka 11/26/2007 10:12 AM | ||
| brad b |
| ||
| Tom - Just read your last couple of posts. I don't hand out compliaments easily, but you really seem as though you have a very good grasp of this. Have you talked to the DNR about data collected from tagged fish? Due to the size of the bay and the nature of these fish, I'm betting that a tagging effort is probably going to be one of the few tools for gathering data. Also, do you know if the stocked fish are marked in any way? Not sure how else you could determine if there is any nature reproduction occuring. For the most part, I'm not a fan in increasing size limits just because someone wants to catch a bigger fish. If there is some biological rationale behind it (like the 28 inch size limit on walleye in the fox river in spring), then I support such a move. However, I don't think that wanting to catch a bigger fish constitutes a biological reason to increase a size limit. In any event, please keep us all posted on what you learn. I can't promise you that I will support an increase in the size limit, but I do like learning more about the fish in our lakes and rivers. BTW, I live in Oshkosh and fished the bay for Musky yesterday. It was a cold, windy day and the bite was off. We didn't have a bump. Still a great day on the water though. I've fished the bay for musky for 4 year or so and have not harvested a fish yet. I probably never will. | |||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Hey Brad, As far as your question to stocked fish being marked...yes they are marked with a fin clip. I'm not sure if they tag all the fish they stock as well or if they just fin clip them. I caught a tagged fish this fall and recieved the info from the DNR as to when it was stocked, at what length it was stocked and its age at stocking. Tom is doing a great job taking this whole thing on. He is very passionate about what the fishery there in GB and its great to see his willingness to take on this task. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Thanks Brad & Mike, Yes, as far as I can tell from the literature, the fish were fin-clipped from the get-go. And there were also some fish with Floy tags, although I don't know how many fish were "Floy-tagged." But these are simply tags that get inserted under the skin (near the dorsal fin, usually on the left side) with a numbered portion that protrudes from the skin. You then simply read the number on the tag, and ask the DNR to look up that fish's history in their records. Incidentally, "Floy" is simply the manufacturer's name: http://www.floytag.com/ The problem with these tags of course, is that they are subject to breakage, and being lost--thus sacrificing the value of any follow-up data that might be obtained. But the concept is simple--each has a unique ID number that is simply recorded at the time of implantation. This then stays with the fish (like a SS number, almost) for the rest of it's life. Every time the fish is recaptured and measurements are taken, the data can be compared to previous information on that fish. Mike's fish was a perfect example of how this can work, and he got excellent feedback from the DNR on his fish...and they got excellent feedback on the growth of that fish since it was stocked some 11 years earlier. More recently (and I am uncertain just when this started, but probably within the past 3-4 years) the DNR has gone to a PIT device. This is a "passive integrated transponder" that is about 1/2" or so long, and no more than about 1/8" in diameter. You can see something like them here: http://www.biomark.com/RFID-tags.htm This device is quite nifty in that it gets implanted under the skin, and thus (once the site has healed) it isn't subject to being lost. If course if the fish gets injured (by a boat propeller or something) there is chance that the skin could be disrupted and the tag lost. But that probably isn't likely. But the downside of this tag is that you can to have an electronic device to interrogate the PIT; and unless you interrogate it you may never know that the fish was tagged. So you could be sacrificing data, simply because an angler wouldn't even know the fish had been tagged (because they couldn't see the device), and they don't have a scanner to interrogate the fish's dorsal fin area to discover whether or not it *had* been tagged. So the PIT tag is more for biologists than anglers, while the Floy tag can be read by anyone. But the PIT tag is more likely to be retained by the fish, mainly because nothing is hanging from the fish. I have never inserted a PIT tag, but did place several Floy tags in various species of fish (mainly trout) back in college, while working with biologists. But our biologist tells me that the PIT tags are quite simple to place and cause minimal trauma or distress to the fish. In fact as far as I can tell, the fish wouldn't hardly know anything had happened, as they are really very small. Incidentally, the fin-clipped fish really don't indicate to the DNR anything other than that is a stocked fish. In other words--if they net 20 fish in the spring, and all are 35-40" long (i.e.; probably from the year class), and 1-2 fish do NOT have a clipped fin, then the assumption is that those 1-2 fish were not stocked...and thus this can be interpreted as evidence of natural reproduction (unless someone forgot to clip the fins at the time of stocking). As they normally clip a fin on stocked fish each year, the clipping doesn't really indicate which year those fish were stocked in, as far as I can tell. And for Brad, if you PM me a contact number I will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about why we feel (biologically *and* sociologically) these fish should be protected, lol. Otherwise you are more than welcome to attend the meeting on the 29th, and I will lay it all out there as well. Thanks again for the posts guys, and thanks for the kind words. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/26/2007 2:28 PM | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Just a follow up on how the PIT tag gets implanted: For trout we made a small incision in the stomach with a scalpel. The PIT Tag is relatively small and slide into a small incision very easily. I'm not sure if it would be possible with muskies, but with trout we knocked them out with MS-222 which is a chemical in the -cain family (cocain, lidicain, novicain). A very simple procedure that is does not cause much harm to the fish. There is, as is with all tagging, a chance for mortality, but is likely minimal. The PIT tag, once read will give off a long ID number generally containting both letters and numbers. This is a similar process to that of one of those Lost Pet Recovery programs. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I know they also use a special syringe to implant the PIT devices as well. In fact, you can see them towards the bottom of the site in the link I referenced above. TB | ||
| brad b |
| ||
| Thanks for the feed back Tom and Pointer. I am no expert by any means, but I am familiar with both tags as I have been lucky enough to tag along on the DNR shock boats on the wolf river and watched them floy tag about 300 fish in a single day. I was also on the Winnebago trawler a couple of times and watched the DNR use the electric wand to check sturgeon for the implanted tags. Good luck with your study. I am looking forward to reading more about these fish. | |||
| sorenson |
| ||
Posts: 1764 Location: Ogden, Ut | Pointerpride102 - 11/26/2007 12:23 PM Just a follow up on how the PIT tag gets implanted: For trout we made a small incision in the stomach with a scalpel. The PIT Tag is relatively small and slide into a small incision very easily. I'm not sure if it would be possible with muskies, but with trout we knocked them out with MS-222 which is a chemical in the -cain family (cocain, lidicain, novicain). A very simple procedure that is does not cause much harm to the fish. There is, as is with all tagging, a chance for mortality, but is likely minimal. The PIT tag, once read will give off a long ID number generally containting both letters and numbers. This is a similar process to that of one of those Lost Pet Recovery programs. Tricaine Methanesulfonate; Finquel is a common brand name IT would work on muskies, but I'm not sure it would be all that necessary, just inject the tag like we did on Bluehead Suckers...unless you were gathering a suite of data which requires substantial handling of the fish. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, I think that would be more useful for a telemetry study, where you need to actually insert the transmitter into the fish. But for a large fish it seems like the syringe injection method would be quick & easy. TB | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| they using PIT tags for the comparative growth studies of WI strain and MN strain fish in Lake Monona on the Yahara chain in Madison. Edited by lambeau 11/26/2007 9:08 PM Attachments ----------------  pit tag.JPG (100KB - 183 downloads) | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Interesting... At the MI tournament, we were instructed to scan for the PIT tag along the dorsal fin. But here is appears as though the tech is injecting the tag into the ventral surface of the fish. I wonder how far away from the tag the scanner can be, and still read it? TB | ||
| Jomusky |
| ||
Posts: 1185 Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | I will support the Green Bay Musky Coalition. The pit tags are injected into the musky's cheek muscle if done when they are larger. Keep up the great work Tom, Jeff, and everybody else. Edited by Jomusky 11/26/2007 10:42 PM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
lambeau - 11/23/2007 8:24 AM "i think it reflects the fact that the survival of the fishery isn't at risk." With VHS in play, I think the Biologists on the St. Lawrence would have a very different opinion on this. Biologically the 54" size limit makes sense on most waters that have large growing populations, that's why most of the best canadian fisheries had a 54" limit placed on them by the biologists who run them. Green Bay is very similar to many of the Georgian Bay fisheries. It's both a biological and social issue that favors further restricting harvest on all counts. Early on in the thread there was talk of evening the price difference between skin Mounts and a replica. I'd favor a $300/Tag Muskie tag system. The tag would be valid for 5 years but is only good for one Muskie. | |||
| brad b |
| ||
| "Early on in the thread there was talk of evening the price difference between skin Mounts and a replica. I'd favor a $300/Tag Muskie tag system. The tag would be valid for 5 years but is only good for one Muskie." That has got to be about the worst idea I have heard yet. I understand the passion that most of you here feel towards these fish, but for the love of Pete, stop with all of the ridiculous suggestions. Sooner or later some idiot down in Madison will jump on board with one of these suggestions and screw up fishing for all of us. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| Biological reasons for 54” (Or C&R only)? In case anyone hasn’t noticed, it may be very difficult to continue to stock Green Bay in the future. (I believe no GL muskies –zero- were raised in the hatchery this year, although 1000 yearlings were stocked). In a very shortsighted move, the sole inland GL strain Brood lake was disbanded over the last couple of years leaving VHS infected Green Bay as the WDNR’s sole source of GL Muskies. (Shortsighted – because a 2nd/3rd/4th brood lake should have been created before disbanding the first one) At this time, the DNR is hesitant to bring Muskie eggs/fry into the hatchery unless they can be sure they are VHS free and currently there is no way to disinfect eggs from VHS infected water. The only alternative is to get eggs from other States/Provinces which is going to be very expensive if even possible. Muskie clubs will likely have to come up with even more $$$$ to keep the program running. This leaves protection of the existing fishery (especially the large POTENTIAL spawners) an absolute must. Why is it always so hard to do the right thing? Protecting the big spawners has no downside biologically. (NONE) Harvest of large fish has many downsides biologically (fewer spawners) and socially - see Boat ramp problems, and costs of stocking and raising fish. (The costs are largely supported by Muskie clubs that favor high size limits.) Education is the key. Unfortunately it’s education of the CC, NRB and DNR that is required. These are the groups where the size limit increase stalled. The education of the general public worked and the Muskies have the public support for the 54” limit as proved by last springs CC vote on the resolution. | |||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | "Early on in the thread there was talk of evening the price difference between skin Mounts and a replica. I'd favor a $300/Tag Muskie tag system. The tag would be valid for 5 years but is only good for one Muskie." Actually, I spoke with both Lax & Fittante taxidermy...they both charge essentially the *same* amount for a skin mount or a reproduction. So it would actually cost MORE for a skin mount, because you would have to factor in the cost of delivering the fish to the taxidermist! After the early research I have done on this subject, I abandoned any further discussion of this issue--for the reason I just mentioned. The taxidermists that specialize in reproductions have already taken this issue into consideration, and (by their actions) have taken the necessary steps to encourage CPR. Case closed on this issue, IMO. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/27/2007 9:56 AM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Guest - 11/27/2007 8:51 AM Biological reasons for 54” (Or C&R only)? Actually there are biological reasons for BOTH those assertions, IMO. And I will be detailing those arguments at the 12/29 meeting in Green Bay. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, it may be very difficult to continue to stock Green Bay in the future. (I believe no GL muskies –zero- were raised in the hatchery this year, although 1000 yearlings were stocked). In a very shortsighted move, the sole inland GL strain Brood lake was disbanded over the last couple of years leaving VHS infected Green Bay as the WDNR’s sole source of GL Muskies. (Shortsighted – because a 2nd/3rd/4th brood lake should have been created before disbanding the first one) At this time, the DNR is hesitant to bring Muskie eggs/fry into the hatchery unless they can be sure they are VHS free and currently there is no way to disinfect eggs from VHS infected water. The only alternative is to get eggs from other States/Provinces which is going to be very expensive if even possible. Muskie clubs will likely have to come up with even more $$$$ to keep the program running. This leaves protection of the existing fishery (especially the large POTENTIAL spawners) an absolute must. I cannot argue anything here, although I am not intimately aware of the DNR's exact stocking practices over the past few years. But I agree with you in that, if VHS has the hatchery shut down for some indefinite time period, that will likely cause a significant gap in the number of fish in those year class further down the road, unless they can acquire replacement stock from elsewhere. And I *obviously* agree with the part about protecting the large fish...lol. Why is it always so hard to do the right thing? Protecting the big spawners has no downside biologically. (NONE) Harvest of large fish has many downsides biologically (fewer spawners) and socially - see Boat ramp problems, and costs of stocking and raising fish. (The costs are largely supported by Muskie clubs that favor high size limits.) Education is the key. Unfortunately it’s education of the CC, NRB and DNR that is required. These are the groups where the size limit increase stalled. The education of the general public worked and the Muskies have the public support for the 54” limit as proved by last springs CC vote on the resolution. I agree that education is of paramount importance in this effort, and that it will be one of the goals in our comprehensive plan to support the fishery. But we are not here to antagonize the NRB, DNR or CC...but rather to assist them in this endeavor. It's not just "our" (i.e.; the anglers') fishery--it's "everyone's" fishery, and thus we believe we should all work together to preserve it. It's just that many of us feel there should be a more aggressive approach to getting this to happen. Thanks for the post! TB | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8772 | 6 pages of commentary, and I have yet to read (or I just missed it) anyone making a legitimate argument for why the 54" size limit proposal should NOT be pursued. But we're basically all on the same side here. The people who have the final say may have differing opinions, or may be persuaded to shoot this down by "the opposition" so to speak. Anybody care to take a stab and what some of the anti's might have to say?? There will be opposition. It helps to know what it might be, on what grounds, so those moving forward with this aren't caught off guard. So far the only "opposition" seems to be from two schools of thought. 1. It ain't broke 2. You just want to catch bigger muskies (no biological basis) What else is there? Bueller? | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well this is exactly what I have been trying to determine throughout the course of this thread...and thus far haven't seen or heard any viable (i.e.; objective) arguments. I will tell you what our DNR biologist(s) have told me though. The argument against the 54" size limit increase was that the fish were quite possibly "fast growers, but short livers," and thus weren't going to live much beyond 54" anyway. So taking that as the major *biological* argument against the 54" limit, I set out to find out if that's a viable argument or not. I now say it isn't, and here's part of the reason(s) why. 1) These are fish from the same genetic lineage as those in Georgian Bay and the St. Lawrence. Since those fish have been documented at nearly 60 inches, there isn't any *genetic* reason to think that the Green Bay fish couldn't reach those lengths as well. Indeed, there is a picture on the Titletown MI website of a 59" fish reportedly caught and released in Little Sturgeon Bay a couple of years ago. I have an email out to the angler at this time, but cannot yet verify the story of the catch, though I have it from a reliable source that the fish is as big as claimed. The angler was fishing smallies, and released the muskellunge. I am not even sure he's a musky fisherman. And there have been fish documented in the Fox River in excess of 54-55" (Ryan Dempsey's 56" fish caught 4/2005, to mention one). There are also multiple other stories that I have heard, regarding reputable anglers seeing fish well into the upper 50" size range. So the fish currently in the system seem to have the ability to grow well into the 55"+ range; certainly larger than 54 inches. 2) In Kevin Kapuscinksi's 2006 paper, he reported that through analysis of their data acquired over several years, that the Green Bay fish could reach lengths of around 60.34 inches (that's the upper limit of their confidence interval). They also concluded that the fish could reach weights of nearly 71 pounds (again, the upper limit of the confidence interval based upon their mathematical data). Thus they concluded that, while the fish might reach record weights, they probably wouldn't reach record *lengths*. To this I say...so what? The current world record system is based upon WEIGHT, not length. Who cares if the fish is 57, 58, 59 or 60 inches long? As long as it's girth is adequate (likely, with that forage base), it is likely capable of reaching a world-class weight. When you plug this 60.34 inch length into Kevin's equation for the length/weight relationship, you indeed get 70.9 pounds. And this agrees with his mathematical model for the age/weight relationship. Incidentally, Kevin's ultimate length projection also seems to agree with Dr. Casselman's data on the ultimate growth potential of fish in those other waters. So I believe the biological evidence is indeed there. Although there are some additional arguments to be made in support of the 54" size limit, that's about as deep as I want to get into this at the present--mostly because because I am going to go through all of it (and more) on December 29th. I am not certain what is being planned, but it might be possible to either videotape the PowerPoint presentation and upload it here, or I could simply make it available as an on-line presentation. I will work with Steve Worrall and MuskieFIRST to do it in whatever manner they deem most appropriate; if they choose to make it available. Otherwise we can upload to a private site as well. I can tell you that I have spent in excess of 60 hours working on this in the past 2 weeks, and there is no end in site. The effort is simply enormous, as there always seems to be more information just around the corner. But I keep getting additional information, which leads to *more* information, and so on. At some point, I believe it will end, but we aren't there yet. So while previous efforts to get the 54" limit passed may have left some stones unturned, I can assure those interested that the current effort will not. And don't forget--we are talking about more than just a size limit increase; so there are things in the works that I haven't even begun to discuss here. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/27/2007 2:16 PM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8772 | Not to over simplify here, but the only opposition from the DNR (presumably from the people who are paid to know about this stuff) is that "the fish might not grow much past 54"?? Soo... there MAY not be a great benefit. But what can it hurt? I wonder if this boils down to the powers that be not wanting to spend a lot of time, money, and effort to pass something that will only please a handful of muskie fishermen, which as we know are a very small percentage of the overall fishing population. Not trying to throw a wrench in your machine here, but I think its worth mentioning that in the grand scheme of money, tourism and the state of WI muskie fishing is pretty insignificant. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | esoxaddict - 11/27/2007 1:08 PM Not to over simplify here, but the only opposition from the DNR (presumably from the people who are paid to know about this stuff) is that "the fish might not grow much past 54"?? Soo... there MAY not be a great benefit. But what can it hurt? In all fairness, they had a concern regarding the enforcement issues associated with the new size limit as well. Michigan has a 50" limit on the Menominee river, and thus this might be an issue. But that's one of only two places in their entire state with a 50 inch size limit--the other is Thornapple Lake, which I am told is a broodstock lake. All other areas appear to have a 42" limit, as I read the fishing regulations on the MiDNR website. I wonder if this boils down to the powers that be not wanting to spend a lot of time, money, and effort to pass something that will only please a handful of muskie fishermen, which as we know are a very small percentage of the overall fishing population. Not trying to throw a wrench in your machine here, but I think its worth mentioning that in the grand scheme of money, tourism and the state of WI muskie fishing is pretty insignificant. I cannot speak to that. I am still trying to gather some data on the economics of musky fishing in various parts of the continent. As of yet, I haven't found any solid data, but I suspect it's much more significant than you might expect--especially in the premiere spots like LOTW, Eagle Lake, Lac Suel and Georgian Bay. If anyone has any of this type of data, I would very much appreciate it if you would consider sharing it with me. TB | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Hey Tom, I ran across this article about the economic impacts of fishing on the Winnebago system. Hopefully the link works, if not let me know. Hope it is somewhat helpful. http://www.uwex.edu/CES/CTY/WINNEBAGO/cnred/documents/Summary_4_pag... Also came across this one that, although might be too general/broad, has some info on what would happen if the number of anglers declined in WI due to deteriorating fisheries. It also has some references that might be useful. http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/publications/SELP_mercury_fishing.htm... Edited by Pointerpride102 11/27/2007 2:22 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, it was helpful. Thanks. I will forward it on to the appropriate fellow working on that issue. Thanks again Mike. TB Edited by tcbetka 11/27/2007 3:53 PM | ||
| tfootstalker |
| ||
Posts: 299 Location: Nowheresville, MN | sorenson - 11/26/2007 8:56 PM IT would work on muskies, but I'm not sure it would be all that necessary, just inject the tag like we did on Bluehead Suckers...unless you were gathering a suite of data which requires substantial handling of the fish. It works on skis. Syringe. Anterior to dorsal fin. Fish caught in nets are different animals from fish caught angling. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1290 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Put 2007 dollars to this muskellunge fishery value from a 1973 study "Muskellunge Management in Chautauqua Lake by S.B. Mooradian & W. F. Shepard: ...in 1965...the economic value of the muskellunge fishery (in 13,000 acre Chautauqua Lake, NY) was 1.8 MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY. From: NY Fish & Game Journal Vol. 20 No. 2 July 1973. Also, "old" Wisconsin studies HAS shown the HIGH percentage of TOURIST anglers that come to Wisconsin to persue muskellunge. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell www.larryramsell.com Edited by Larry Ramsell 11/27/2007 6:38 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, I am no economist, but I went to this site: http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateCPI.html ...and used the the consumer price index inflation conversion program to show find that it would be equal to about 10.8 million in 2004 dollars (most recent data available). So it appears the value would be increased by about 6-fold. Wow! TB Edited by tcbetka 11/27/2007 7:20 PM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1290 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | And that is BEFORE muskie fishing became so popular. Can't imagine what the value is currently to the town of Green Bay. Can't imagine that they want to loose it! | ||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 6 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |