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 7 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Genetics |
| Message Subject: Genetics | |||
firstsixfeet |
| ||
| I do need to clarify that I am not trying to take shots at other posters like Bum here, just pointing out that his course of action may not result in any kind of desirable outcome. And this is a written forum, typos are normal, but repeated misspellings say something to your audience you might want to avoid. Bum may be right about every point he makes, but there is no chain of evidence or relationships that prove any of his statements. Slot limits and musky genetics and brood stock are interesting topics on which I hold some strong opinions. Research may indeed prove my opinions wrong. That will be ok by me. I do view these assumptions as NOT proved and needing research. #1 That WI has mutts. #2 That WI has polluted its breeding stock in some damaging way for the whole fishery #3 That strains of musky that grow bigger are in any way superior to the strains used to stock WI water at this time. #4 That foreign strains would neccessarily survive and prosper throughout WI waters. #5 That foreign strains would result in greater musky poundage, (I have no particular love for long skinny muskies). #6 That selecting for size of breeders will result in bigger muskies that have favorable survival traits, or that the same would not concentrate possible undesirable traits in future generations.. #7 That salt water/salmon/minnow studies translate to musky directly in a usable manner other than suggestion? #8 That stocking hybrid muskie strain crosses (Leech with WI) would be a desirable method of maximizing size in lakes that do not threaten gene pollution(and this is one of my own possible agendas) #9 That all waters can or once did grow huge musky. #10 That historically, there were all these huge fish swimming around, and this is a case often put forth by proponents of change but historically there were NEVER large numbers of the biggest fish available, not original thought from me but documented by many. Chip is certainly a case in point on the rarity of big fish. How many well documented 50 lb fish from the chip? #11 That fishing encounters over time have accurately been taken in to the mortality of potential trophy fish. Realizing the rarity of these fish in any base population and then hoping for them to survive possible multiple encounters over time and water temperature conditions it becomes tough to actually state with conviction that these fish are NOT biting the dust early, so to speak. #12 That the current boom on big fish in MN will hold out in the face of passing time. Hope it does, but may be a temporary condition right now that will not be so startling in another decade. #13 That fishing predation over the last century impacted ultimate size in any significant manner. Might have, but not proven, I would think more likely impact was that aggressive specimens were taken out of the population, an idea also not proven. Not neccessarily two traits that are connected to maximum size. It should be remembered that historically the heaviest kill of musky did not sort big ones from small ones, since at one time almost all musky that were over legal size got knocked. | |||
| MuskieBum |
| ||
Posts: 236 | Steve Do you think it would possible to set up chats with fisheries biologists. That would be cool. Edited by MuskieBum 3/4/2005 10:39 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Maybe. I can try, but we'll have a job convincing them that it's a Q&A, not a shooting match. I'll see what I can do. | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | I agree. Strong language here, and continuous one upping gets us nowhere that is for sure. Contamination...bad word choice for sure. Some mixing over years, yes. Never mentioned Lake tomahawk or any northern lake for that matter. My friend Chuck has multiple big fish encounters there per season on Tom, and I have been lucky to be a part of a few true WI knee shaking adventures out there myself. I love that lake the way it is!!! I am really looking only at waters I am familiar with and work hard to stock each year, most importantly the WI river here, the water that my friend Don Kempen began the rehabilitation process on in 1980, when stocking began(would be no muskies in some of these stretches save for Dons efforts to restock in early 80's after treatment plants were put into place on paper mill outfalls, so thanks Don if you are reading). I think it is scary how much it could possibly improve...................... The 45" size limit is the first thing that will help and I am heartwarmed that it has passed, allowing the fish there now, to attain their max size. With that I'm OUTTA HEAH. No need for the antis to come around and see us, the people most passionate about protecting our sport, and the fish in our state, arguing amongst ourselves. Edited by Reef Hawg 3/4/2005 11:33 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg, Because we are discussing this and seeking a balance point based in reality, it's a fight? I disagree. This is a process, not an event. It takes time and debate to reach consensus, and takes active involvement from those who care about the issues to begin making headway. I will ask questions because that is my job here, I will challenge because I have ALWAYS challenged the concepts surrounding our sport that are based on emotion and not supported by facts or good logic. I will do my best to assist in moving the discussion forward, and ask those dedicated to helping improve Muskie angling trophy potential to stay engaged. Too many times activists quit the 'fight' if things get sticky, or decide to act unilaterally counting on one or two 'personalities' to force a political or extreme agenda. That ALWAYS fails. In my experience when the debate heats up, and facts allowing for realistic goals are made available as a result, THAT is when progress begins. SO many times the fact that this point in any serious discussion is the toughest gives many an excuse to quit, which is EXACTLY why we fail. Facts, cooperation instead of confrontation, and a bunch of elbow grease will eventually result in a better future for Muskies everywhere. Stay with this, please sir, we need folks like you willing to work hard towards progress and assist those who work so hard to maintain a good fishery here in Wisconsin. It isn't that we disagree amongst our peers as to the goals so much as the method of reaching them. Would you not agree that reaching those goals, even if not as lofty as those one begins a crusade with, is everyone's desire? The process you see here isn't 'one upping', it's a serious debate in search for the facts. That evolution is healthy, and when held out in the open, and honest endeavor. Hang the Anti's, they are not relevant to this discussion. | ||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| Sworrall, I just re-read this entire thread as of today's date -- March 6, 2005. First, I want to thank you and others who have done your best to maintain a civil and respectful discussion backed with factual information and honest appraisals of what we know and what we do not know. As I said before, it's folks like you who keep me engaged here, along with my lifelong fascination with muskellunge. Don't worry about a few thoughtless comments discouraging me or my colleagues. We care too much to be sidelined by unfair criticism, but I won't wear a "Kick Me" sign on my back either. Hence my earlier response to MuskieBum. I know the vast majority of anglers are good folks who mean well, including him. In my view, the BAD GUYS are in western Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, and Indonesia -- not pitching bucktails over weed bars on crisp September mornings. I only wish I had more time to help the good guys understand what is known and what is not, so we could all be on the same page regarding research and management priorities. As I reviewed the thread, I noticed that you asked about Nancy Lake. It is outside my management jurisdiction, but I have inquired about it. I don't have all the specific details, but Nancy Lake previously had no muskellunge and was stocked with Leech Lake fish many years ago. They grew fast and got big in this small lake. Frequent sightings and catches of fish up to and exceeding 50 inches have been reported, but with dwindling frequency of late. We have seen little evidence of natural reproduction since their introduction, but don't know if that is because Nancy Lake is not conducive to muskellunge recruitment in general, or if it's because the Leech Lake strain is not as well adapted to the Nancy Lake environment as a local strain might have been. We just don't know. Another stocking project was undertaken on Shell Lake several years ago, where Lac Courte Oreilles strain muskies were stocked into an ecosystem that harbored only a rare musky previously. As in Nancy Lake, those LCO fish grew fast, got big (up to and exceeding 50 inches), and then were harvested pretty heavily as anglers "caught on" to the sudden availability of large fish. I think we have natural reproduction of muskellunge in Shell Lake today, but we would have to ask my colleagues in Spooner to what extent. They manage the lake. Many folks here have wondered what they can do... what WE can do... as a musky fishing community, to further advance our knowledge and begin taking advantage of advances in our understanding of fish genetics. I am pleased to report that we are standing on the threshhold of an era of enlightened management, thanks in large part to the initiative and determination of two scientists at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. Dr. Michael Bozek is Leader of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit there. Mike had the vision to hire, as his Assistant Unit Leader, Dr. Brian Sloss, who specializes in fish genetics. With Mike's encouragement and assistance in creatively patching together funding from a variety of sources, Brian has assembled the equipment and supplies needed to create Wisconsin's first full-blown Conservation Genetics Laboratory on campus. As I understand it, with some funding from organized musky anglers and others, Brian contracted with a lab in California to create a "library" so to speak, of ~50 microsatellite DNA markers -- the latest technology in genetic stock characterization. Armed with this library of reference markers, Brian is now prepared to begin analyzing the DNA of muskellunge from various stocks of interest in an attempt to define similarities and differences, and to eventually delineate those stocks. If organized musky anglers and others will fund Brian's work and take advantage of his lab's capabilities, we will know in a few short years (2-4) much of what we need to know to manage our stocks and our hatchery propagation system more effectively than ever before. We will likely be able to answer at least some of the questions regarding stock purity. We will still be a long way from knowing which genes govern individual physiological processes important to reproduction, growth and behavior. But we will at least be able identify fish of similar genetic composition so that we do not continue to inadvertently (or intentionally in the case of those who promote stocking Leech Lake strain fish in Wisconsin) mix stocks at the risk of causing outbreeding depression. Dr. Steven Covey wrote in his book, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." We are on the threshhold of understanding. Let's all work together to acquire this vital knowledge before we make more well-intentioned mistakes based upon only those things we can readily observe (i.e., lots of big muskies being reported in Minnesota currently). Let's resist the temptation to attribute causes to effects in the absence of sufficient data to draw conclusions. I have worked in Wisconsin for less than 3 years, but I can assure Wisconsin anglers that they have had some of the best fishery scientists in the country working on problems like this. And that's saying a lot for a guy who cut his professional teeth in Missouri, which arguably had the best conservation program in the country. By the way (Steve, is it?), is there any way we could encourage folks to identify themselves by name here? I think it would promote the kind of civil discussion we both endorse if folks could not hide to some extent behind a veil of anonymity. Just a thought... | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave, Yes. it's Steve. I'm delighted to see your post! I'm looking to open a dialog between us laymen and the DNR that will identify the needs of each management area defined by the DNR staff and anglers from that area, and what the sportsmen and women in those areas can do to assist you and your peers get the work done you feel will help us all reach a goal of better Muskie angling in Wisconsin. We have formed a group of dedicated anglers with that goal in mind. Some of the top sticks in the State have pledged support, and are dedicated to 'find a way' to work in support of the DNR to accomplish whatever is possible. Please feel free to call me at 715.362.1760 to talk about the work Dr. Bozek and Dr. Sloss will be undertaking, and what we might be able to do to assist. | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Dave, I wonder if anyone has researched muskie egg fertilization and possible tracts to increase female production, a method which would automatically give a jump in average size to any stocked population. With what is known about sex selection and fertilization it would seem a much less costly and probably easier road to travel than genetic evaluation and research and lake studies. If no one has done this, I am somewhat amazed. Just seems like a very promising and fruitful area for a big return on the research dollar. | |||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
| Firstsixfeet, Thank you, you made my arguement stronger for slot limits. Its been said that stacking will help create a lake with tons of mutts in it. You even say they exist. I have not said much on this anymore with hopes that Dave N, would comment here on slots here. There is not much doubt that they would certainly help. Again this does not have to be on all lakes but certainly should be established on some now, why wait and let more damage be done to the musky fishery. This is a solution that is practical and cost is what (NOT MUCH). Your thoughts on slots would be appreciated Dave,thank you. Don Pfeiffer | |||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| Don, as with almost every fish species, I think slot length limits can and should be one of many tools considered when determining how best to achieve specific objectives in musky management. Certainly, the jury is out regarding the applicability of this tool for a species that naturally exhibits low reproduction (survival to age 1) and low recruitment (survival to a size that begins to contribute to the fishery). Slot length limits generally have been used in high-recruitment situations for bass, walleye, and other fish where overabundant small fish have grown slowly and exhibited high natural mortality before achieving a desirable length. That particular problem is exacerbated by anglers harvesting the few fastest-growing fish that happen to "break out of the pack" and exceed whatever minimum length limit may be in effect at the time, if any. Slot limits work best in situations where anglers harvest a significant number of fish smaller than they might have been inclined to harvest otherwise, and when they comply with the requirement to release the fastest-growing fish that, with reduced competition for prey, break OUT of the pack and enter the protected length zone. We do have a few musky populations that I would describe as "high-recruitment" populations by musky standards, even though muskellunge reproduction and recruitment everywhere pales in comparison with recruitment of bass, walleye, and other species that are not "top predators" in the food chain. Those high-recruitment musky populations might benefit from the thinning of small fish below some protected size range, but ONLY if the stated OBJECTIVES for that water include a lower density and higher size structure than exists currently. We must allow for the possibility that anglers may actually want SOME waters to be "numbers" lakes -- perhaps where they can take a kid fishing for the first time and have a reasonable chance of encountering at least a small musky. All strategies (including regulations) must be viewed in light of the objectives (desired outcomes) we are trying to achieve for a particular body of water. There is one possible application for muskellunge slot limits, though, that does not involve the typical "high-recruitment" model. We may be able to manipulate the sex ratio of muskellunge by imposing slot length limits that increase the period of angler harvest vulnerability for males relative to females. The natural sex ratio in the wild varies considerably but seems to average about 3 males per female. In moderate- to high-density muskellunge populations, adult muskies may be the most significant predators upon their own young. Theoretically, an appropriately selected protected length range could protect most females after a brief period (2-3 years?) of "running the gauntlet" through the open-harvest lengths, while leaving male muskellunge vulnerable to harvest for 6-10 years, simply because they tend to grow so much more slowly than females. If anglers could be persuaded to actually keep a few of the smaller muskies (biased toward males), it may increase the probability of recruitment of new, young fish -- male AND female. Thus, we would be increasing what aquatic ecologists call the TURNOVER RATIO in the population. By thinning the small, old males, we might increase the chances of adding new, faster-growing females to the population. That's the theoretical construct, anyway. Now, that said, we must proceed with caution into the world of musky slot limits, because it has only been in the last couple decades that anglers have adopted the strong catch-and-release ethic that exists today. Conceivably (though not terribly likely in my opinion), opening up harvest to small muskies while protecting mid-size muskies could lead to overharvest of all fish before they ever reach the protected length range, resulting in the kind of over-fished populations we had in the 1960s and 1970s. The trick would be to generate just enough harvest of slower-growing males to keep the turnover ratio healthy and keep pumping females into the adult population. It all boils down to angler cooperation in harvesting a few fish, compliance in releasing the protected-range fish, and a wise selection of the protected length range in light of each water's capability to grow muskellunge. I'm fairly certain it would not be a good tool to use on low-density waters. And I would hesitate to try it anyplace where the angling clientele may be inclined and able to overharvest sub-slot fish. But there may be waters where this strategy would help to achieve some objectives for better size structure. I am approaching this cautiously by first considering a voluntary slot length limit for one of the lakes we manage in the Upper Chippewa Basin of Wisconsin. Butternut Lake is a 1,000-acre musky lake with good potential to produce big fish, but the density currently is VERY high (over 1 adult per acre), suppressing condition and growth rate of adult muskellunge. In a management plan soon to be released, we are proposing to physically remove and transfer half the adult musky population, leaving a still moderately high density of 0.5 adult musky per acre. Then we will try to decrease the minimum length limit from 34 to 28 inches, while "imposing" a VOLUNTARY slot limit of 40-45 inches. This seems like a logical first step to testing the waters, so to speak, on slot length limits for muskellunge. If Butternut Lake anglers will harvest some thin, slow-growing males 28-40 inches long, and if folks will COMPLY with the VOLUNTARY slot limit (40-45 inches) that will be posted at boat landings and advertised in the area, we MAY be able to shift the size structure upward to achieve our management plan objectives. It will be interesting to see if we can get all the support needed to make this happen. Good questions, guys. I saw the question about altering the sex ratio genetically, too. I am not aware of any previous attempts to do so, but it's an intriguing idea to stock mostly females (if we could create batches of sex-biased fish) in lakes where the fishery is totally dependent upon stocking. I would be reluctant to do so in lakes with natural reproduction, where we must assume there is some adaptive significance to having more males than females for purposes of successful natural reproduction. | |||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Dave, You brought up a key word…volunteer. The WI DNR never mandated ‘Catch and Release’, but over the last 10 yr or so, it has really taken hold. Unfortunately, many of us believe that too many smaller fish have indeed been released while many larger fish have not. But, nevertheless, our fisheries have certainly benefited from this practice. Yet, many feel that the WI musky fishery has really crashed in the last 5 –6 years. Catch and Release, plain and simple, is not enough to counter the other negative forces working against our fishery. Recently, I asked a Vilas County guide of 25 years, what his thoughts were on the current state of the WI musky fishery. With his name omitted, below are his thoughts…. “sean...good morning !!....i do have a few ideas on the matter of restoring our muskies....ok..first we need to change our thinking about keeping and killing these fish...only regulations will do this....trust me..ppl are not releasing the big ones!...i see it everyday....we need no kill from 40 inches and up...we need to put a ban on sucker fishing!!...we need barbless hooks only on all musky tackle!!...we need to limit tournaments...or eliminate them!!....and we need an aggressive stocking program to get the ball rolling again...i think we have done enough surveys and studies to tell us, things are not as they should be....the musky fishery has crashed in the last 5 or 6 six years....every one has loved these fish to death...so this is what i would recommend...any or all of my suggestions must be addressed or we will continue a downward trend...there is enough data available to compare earlier fish populations with today’s...these are hard pills to swallow but believe me, if we don’t address them, we will never see the big fishery we once did!!....ahhhhh...as for the 40 inch size limit on all lakes... we can remove fish if they become overly dominate by netting and put them into lakes that need more....soooo...there you have it!!!!....25 years on the water...I just say it like it is.....see ya.. followed by… sean...thanks for the reply!!...i guess im old fashioned...but i think tournaments are the wrong reason to teach kids about fishing....the musky deserves more than a prize to show it off....we need to slow down...fishing and tournaments don’t mix....that’s how i feel anyhow...we are up to our eyebrows in fast paced fishing....lets just fish for the love of it....maybe some of us don’t belong musky fisherman....maybe im the one who shouldn’t fish for them....i don’t know...haaaa ...everyone wants a picesc of the action ....just not enough pieces left to do it....see ya sean .....ps...someone once said to me...so many fisherman...we all have to accept less....maybe that’s it!!....#*^@ i don’t know.....keep up the good work though ok....take care All the above, straight from the heart of someone who has been living on a Vilas County lake, and guiding as a profession for 25 years. Folks, if we don’t take note to what is being said here, well, we are just plain ignorant. In summary, these are basically his suggestions: 1) No Kill 40” and above 2) Ban on sucker fishing 3) Barbless hooks 4) Limit or eliminate Tourneys 5) An aggressive stocking program Like he said, “these are hard pills to swallow”. Back to the key word in your post, VOLUNTEER. Without passing new laws, I believe we need to volunteer to, No Kill under 40”, we need to volunteer to not sucker fish, and to use barbless hooks. As to the Tourneys…I think that in order to hold a tourney on a body of water, a permit should be required from the DNR, and the number of permits should be extremely limited based on factors determined by them. There is plenty of good discussion taking place concerning stocking…it sounds as if the DNR is seriously reevaluating their programs. I was hesitant to share the thoughts of my Vilas County Guide friend, but I couldn’t keep his thoughts to myself. I have read them over and over again…I know in my heart, he is right. Sean Murphy | ||
| Guest |
| ||
Don Pfeiffer - 3/8/2005 3:56 PM Firstsixfeet, Thank you, you made my arguement stronger for slot limits. Its been said that stacking will help create a lake with tons of mutts in it. You even say they exist. I have not said much on this anymore with hopes that Dave N, would comment here on slots here. There is not much doubt that they would certainly help. Again this does not have to be on all lakes but certainly should be established on some now, why wait and let more damage be done to the musky fishery. This is a solution that is practical and cost is what (NOT MUCH). Your thoughts on slots would be appreciated Dave,thank you. [/Don Pfeiffer quote] Don, We have discussed your "zany" theories on slot limits previously in a couple of different forums. You need to read and comprehend my 13 points that I think are NOT proven above and needing research. I have noted that it seems the Callahan lake fish are genetically a small strain, whether or not that is true I don't know. Whether or not WI has created mutts, I don't know and state the same above. I really do not want to restart the discussion with you on slot limits, and hopefully Dave's comments might finally put to rest some of your ideas. I do not feel that you present well in a written forum and if you want to continue to pursue your personal goal of implementing slot limits on WI waters, you should find someone else to present the information and make your argument in the written forum. Anyone that gets the idea that I am in any way shape or form in favor of slot limits, please be advised I am in STRONG OPPOSITION TO SLOT LIMITS and have stated my case against them in several threads and on two different boards before this. (This seems to be a repeated tactic to try and confuse the issue though. ) I am not against limited study of the issue but feel it should be VERY limited due to the confusing message it transmits to the rest of the fishing public, including muskie fisherman that are not following discussions like this on internet chat boards, and forums. I hope this clarifies my exact position in relation to slot limits, in case Don's post has confused anyone. | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Dave N My interest in changing sex ratios springs from the known facts about fertilization which would indicate that sex ratios might actually very susceptible to artificial influence. The known facts indicate variations in life expectancy of sperm, influences of ph, and chemicals on their motility and actual fertilization, other studies suggest a temperature influence sex ratios of offspring. Also there is research showing variations in speed for the sperm. It would seem like a promising idea to study this. If sex ratio could be influenced by something as simple as a chemical, or physical filter, or perhaps timing of the actual mixing of sperm and eggs, perhaps holding sperm longer to influence the actual male to female sperm ratio? Lots of paths to study this and very possibly a cheap, and useful method to increase the ratio of female to male. I also believe that purposefully crossing strains for waters supported by stocking only, would be a viable research topic, for bigger muskies. Also couldn't the eggs be studied in small lots and then put into a blender to get a quick read on the sex ratio of the batch? No need to grow any out until there was some indication of a good path to influencing sex. It would make the research much faster and cheaper I think. When a promising path shows itself a batch could be grown out in the hatchery and lake environment to make sure there were not flaws in the process or problems with a high number of females in the environment. BTW I am curious if anyone has studied the ratio or theorized on why it might be as highly male as it is. Would this be an adaption by the species to help protect the young on the spawning ground. Anectdotal evidence would suggest that the male muskies arrive early and stay late in the spawning area, would this behaviour be a selection to keep the spawning grounds relatively free of small predators while the eggs and larvae "lifted off" so to speak? Or might the female need that many bumps to release eggs adequately?(no indication that this would be the case but I am not well versed in musky spawning behaviour, though I am sure some are). It seems doubtful that females would need multiple males for ripening phermones. Also, in wild populations, unpredated by Man, it would seem that female male ratios would be more in line than the 3-1 suggested since the females should actually act as a predator on the smaller males in the population, or would the predation be on such a minor scale as to be meaningless? | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
| larger females produce lots of eggs, but limited genetic diversity since it's from fewer sources. lots of males means lots of genetic diversity fertilizing those eggs. in nature, diversity equals survival. | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Lambeau the three things you mention are all sort of yes and no propositions. Not sure there would be any need for a 3-1 ratio from a diversity standpoint. | |||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
| Dave, Thank you for the reply. I feel you have said what I have been that it could work on some lakes. I never said all lakes as some seem to think. My question for you is this why not make the slot on butternut 40 to 50? That would only protect so many more bigger fish. I am glad your working on this and I am confident it will work. Next question is that with slow recruitment is it not that much more important to protect the bigger fish from harvest? Don Pfeiffer | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
| i assume you've got it accurate when you say 3-to-1 ratio, males to females. what's the source of that ratio? why is it that way? i think it's prudent to answer that question before trying to play with it. the idea of changing the chemical or enviromental factors during egg development to skew things towards females, in order to stock fish with bigger growth potential, is interesting and creative. has this been tried elsewhere? what were the results? a concern that i have is the issue of energy being diverted into sexual development rather than growth, the idea that early recruitment = smaller adult fish sizes. what happens in this area when the gender mix changes? do the females mature early in order to reproduce sooner and correct the imbalance? i don't know, and i'm not suggesting it happens, i'm just raising questions that i hope someone here knows the answers to...? | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Dave stated above that this would only be feasible in lakes supported primarily or entirely by stocking, which would be where I would expect it to be employed, if it was feasible. Same as muskyxmusky crosses or any other genetic or stocking strategy that might upset a successful, reproducing native strain. The native strains are part of the reason that any change in broodstock, or unusual manmade strategys, would be suspect in many waters in WI. MN had relatively few native musky waters, and most of the recent success stories are populations established by stocking, thus it didn't matter which stock the managers chose, it would not be displacing native strains. | |||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Harvest number VS acres of musky water would suggest that there is very little chance that true WI native strains even exist. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The strain we have in Oneida county waters is sound, imho. I'd have no problem seeing that stocked anywhere. The work underway to add GL muskies to the stocking programs some places and continue in others will bear interesting results. | ||
| John23 |
| ||
Posts: 46 | Has this new page entered the conversation yet? http://www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org/ John_Nesse | ||
| CPRMASAP |
| ||
Location: Menasha, WI | WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just spent about an hour on that site. Some vey interesting data. It sounds like this group(WMRP) really has there stuff together. | ||
| Muskiebum |
| ||
| Holy waaah. There it is!! Any more rebuttles? The sicketst thing about it is all the refrences from the 70's. Thats 35 years ago. Maybe it's time we do something. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sure. In any 'scientific' undertaking, careful controls are set in place to keep bias out of any conclusion reached. That didn't happen in this case. In this case, the data was compiled and published with the EXPRESSED goal of proving a point; in fact, the conclusion of the undertaking was pointed out right here in this thread before the data was published. For that reason and many others, the data, all the assumed conclusions, and the application of the data to the proposed programs needs be carefully reviewed, and not just by laymen. I will try my best to get the opinion of fisheries managers all across the country to the conclusions reached by this group. I hope, I REALLY do, that making Wisconsin's fishery the very best in the country is as easy as this group says. If it indeed is, and careful diplomacy is followed, the future is indeed brighter than I could hope. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| John: See the "Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air...." thread in the general discussion section. I don't see much reason to split the discussion between two different parts of this board. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| John23 |
| ||
Posts: 46 | Larry, I was referred to this thread by a friend, and he also told me about the WMR site. I posted because it seemed relevant here, but I didn't check elsewhere. My sincere apologies for splitting it up. Steve, I haven't spent much time looking at this thread or the WMR site so I don't have an opinion on the validity of the content. But I think you're forgetting the "hypothesis" part of the scientific method in your last post. I don't follow these discussion boards much. If anyone wants to be sure I see their response to this post, please email me at [email protected]. John_Nesse (edited to correct a typo) Edited by 12345 3/22/2005 2:40 PM | ||
| Muskiebum |
| ||
| I'm not surprised by your answer Steve. The MN Study of strains, before selecting the leech lake strain, was an incredibly pursasive study. Are you saying the MN Fisheries Biologist did not know what they were doing?? I'm a bit confused. | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| There is a good article in the latest copy of M.H. magazine detailing the MN DNR muskie stocking program that was changed in 1982 to provide anglers the trophy fish they deserve and have now today. It is credited for providing the finest trophy muskie fishery anywhere south of Canada. I recomend that everyone read this article and understand what it says. EJohnson | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bum, No. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's a heck of alot more to implementing the Restoration Group's equasion in Wisconsin than just accepting as fact the work done in Minnesota, wouldn't you agree? I was making a point, Bum and Nesse. If a hypothesis and subsequent conclusions are forwarded to a scientific community and argued publically with the expressed intent to FORCE acceptance in an effort to command immediate change in practice, it must be PATIENTLY labeled as such and PATIENTLY presented against a background of controls, accepting opposing hypothesis and scientific scrutiny and continuing respectful debate. Anyone want to argue that? I for one am darned happy that this issue is being so carefully examined. Has a tendency to bring the facts to the surface, something the Restoration group does not have reason to object to. Allow me to elaborate: from the website; 'STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Before we delve into the details of the problems with Wisconsin’s musky fisheries, we would like to say that we have attempted to work quietly and diplomatically behind the scenes with Wisconsin DNR and Governor Doyle’s Administration in an effort to allow them to do the right thing to put the Wisconsin Musky Program back on the right track. Unfortunately, they have not been cooperative. (Hmmm, wonder why??? Let's see, a few months so far. In political terms, that's seconds) And: ' Some of the more cynical members of our group predicted that the Wisconsin DNR, which is faced with huge budget cuts and the elimination of positions will not take this problem seriously, rather they will see this problem as nothing more than an opportunity to save the DNR positions that are proposed for elimination. By applying for federal grants to study this problem, the WDNR can circumvent the State budget cuts and use federal funding for a re-hashed study of musky genetics with the ulterior motive to use much of the study money to save the staff positions that would have been eliminated. We hoped that the more cynical members of our group were wrong, but it seems that their predictions may have some credibility.' (Sure to win friends at the State level) 'We have heard that the Wisconsin DNR now plans a genetic study of the differences between the strains of muskies. First of all the study they are hoping to get funding for has already been done by the Minnesota DNR. They have a copies of the genetics studies that have already been done. To spend taxpayer dollars on a studies that have already been done is, at the very least, wasteful.' OK, then EVERYTHING we need to know about muskie genetics before embarking on a totally new management strategy is now known? Can anyone name a scientific study of any kind that was forwarded, proven out, disproven, or otherwise scrutinized by additional or supplemental study? What if a couple actual scientists disagree with the restoration group, shouldn't that carry as much weight, or should those folks be dismissed out of hand?? Why should I, as an interested Wisconsin angler, totally dismiss the opinions of the opposing viewpoint without examining their position?? Am I to assume that this group is absolutely, without any queston right about every single aspect of their platform, and question NOTHING?? 'We had high hopes for the Doyle Administration to be receptive to fixing the problem with Wisconsin’s musky fisheries. With tens of thousands of musky fishermen of voting age living in Wisconsin, we expected a more positive response from top WDNR officials other than the "we are going to do what we have been doing" response we got. Some members of our group have wondered whether Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Scott Walker and Mark Green would be any more receptive to fixing the problem with Wisconsin’s musky fisheries than the Doyle Administration has been, thus far?' Isn't that a poorly veiled threat? Sounds like one to me. Doesn't anyone here recognize how small a minority Muskie anglers are when compared to the total voting public? If I was an official in the DNR at the initial meetings and read this statement, I'd dismiss this group out of hand permanently, but hey, that's me! Is that what has happened so far? You tell me. Basically, this statement, as read, in context, suggests that the folks this group met with are...what?? You tell me. Great diplomacy, guys, you will win the hearts and souls of those you are trying to influence that way, for sure. I happen to think most of what the Restoration group wants done has some serious merit. It's a shame they have chosen this route to get past what amounts to an initial stated objection. 'Unfortunately, that meeting turned out to be nothing more than the DNR dusting off the same old excuses for the declining trophy musky fishery in Wisconsin, give lip service to our concerns (Click Here to see "meeting addendum-part of the Restoration Project document elsewhere on this site) for their current stocking practices (Click Here to see "stocking practices" document elsewhere on this site), and say that they were going to "stock as usual" this year. The Restoration Team has just learned that the DNR "review" and "plan," scheduled for public consumption in "August or September" of this year, is nothing more than a "smoke screen" to continue doing "stocking business as usual," while implementing in 2006, a multi-lake "study" of different strains of muskellunge, while apparently failing to address the "broodstock" issue as alluded to by Secretary Hassett in his letter regarding the February 22nd meeting.' OK, folks. Let's hear from some people who work with the State, some folks who have a political science background, and maybe even some folks who have worked within the structure of the existing state government. What do you think of what was said by the restoration group, and what effect do you think it will have on the DNR and the Governor's office? What would your response be if you were of the opposing viewpoint? | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| See the "Stunning new findings" thread in the "general discussion" section for new information...more to come! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > Now viewing page 7 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |