|
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Here is a photo of a Mille Lacs fish. Which strain would you say this one is?
Attachments
----------------
 MK.49.1.07.jpg (75KB - 272 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The flash from the camera washed this one out pretty bad, I wouldn't even venture a guess. Nice fish, though, regardless! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Like Steve stated, the flash washes it out, but from what I can see on the tail section it appears to be spots, I would guess LL.
Troyz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 734
| One thing I wonder is how I caught a 48.25 WI strain in Mille lacs. Shouldn't all these fish be massive if they are from a long time ago. Or does this suggest that their is some natural reproduction going on, including the WI strain in Mille Lacs. I have talked to a few guides that fish there everyday and they have caught some small WI strain out there. Some were as small as 38 inches I think he was saying. Here is the pic of the WI strain. This is one for sure right????
Attachments
----------------
my 48.25 WI strain.jpg (57KB - 266 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| not from Mille Lacs, but this one's from a northwestern MN lake this summer...definitely not one of the fish stocked 20 years ago. they are out there, and they're doing their thing.
Edited by lambeau 8/24/2006 3:23 PM
Attachments
----------------
MNWI.jpg (21KB - 269 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | djs,
out of curiousity, what university is your degree from, and what is it in exactly?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | djs,
one question for you...
can you tell mewhat the results will be several generations down the line when ll and wi strain fish breed in the waters in which both will be stocked. then what will happen when those year classes breed and so on and so on. what dominant and recessive traits will appear in successive generations? what traits for disease resistance, breeding times/locational preference etc will become most pronounced over several generations? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 384
Location: Eagle River, Alaska | DJS.....although I am now just a lowly dentist my undergrad training was in zoology......I had a certain affectation for comparative anatomy. There are so many holes in your 7 foot people example it is hard to know where to begin. Let's start with the absolute basics....you cannot, I repeat, cannot compare a mammalian, warm blooded growth rate with that from a cold blooded fish. Nearly all species of fish have a capacity to keep growing if they live longer....true of most cold blooded creatures. Early, rapid growth virtually always end with a shorter lifespan also. Out here in the west for about a bazillion years the waters were stocked with a generic, mutt strain of hatchery rainbows. While they grew relatively fast their lifespan was only 2-3 years. Now many DFG have learned lessons and have gone to Eagle Lake strain rainbows.....primarily for lakes as their developed in a lacustrine enviornment grow a bit slower but live to 6 or 7 years and attain a much larger size on the average. I would say this example is much more appropriate as at least we are comparing fish to fish. Genetics do determine many things but can always be seriously mitigated by enviornmental influences......forage base and space are the biggies.
Not being from muskyland I find one thing a bit amusing in all this in that there seems to be much complaint about the size, strain, etc... about muskies and getting them spread far and wide. Which makes them an "exotic species" in many of the waters they now reside in....is that wise? We can claim they don't eat walleye, etc, etc....but to introduce musky in new waters HAS to displace other fish naturally living there. But we dismiss this unnatural influence on the whole life cycle because we love to catch the large end predator? We have destroyed nearly all of the natural fish ecosystems in the US......there are many programs, upsetting many people, now to restore genetically pure trout to there native waters and in preparing to do so, poisoning all the "exotics" introduced....like rainbows, brown trout, brook trout, lake trout, etc.. We have messed with these complex ecosystems far too long......would be nice if everything done by DNRs was based in sound science but unfortunately too often they have to bend to the cry of us (the uneducated masses) and to political expediency.
Enough pontification.....nice be in a state where only native fish reside....although some people have seen fit to destroy some fisheries by illegally moving pike into areas where they don't belong....they are unbelievably devastating to salmon fry.
Give the scientists time to figure things out....isn't going to hurt anyone to wait a few years.
Brian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Doc,
Interesting parallel with the fish out your way. It's easy to forget the Muskie was originally an introduced exotic in many of the waters I fish.
There was a similar uproar with the Florida and California strain largemouth bass, and demands that those fast growing, large growing fish be stocked in Mid Western lakes, pressure which some fisheries managers finally gave in to. Those projects all failed badly, some crashing the system's bass population altogether.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Very interesting topic. That 52.5 on the first page or however big the Tauchen/Imhoff fish is is incredible! Look at the base of the tail!
So, I'm curious. I'm putting up to photos of two fish caught the same day on Mille Lacs last year. One looks like it MIGHT be a WI strain, albeit a small one, and the other is definately much whiter/silver than the other. What do you guys think?
Attachments
----------------
resize37.JPG (73KB - 258 downloads)
resize40.JPG (85KB - 266 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Does anyone know where the WI fish came from that were put into Mill Lacs? I had heard alot of them came from Kalleps fish farm years back, and that dude has always had a knack for producing some monsters out of his ponds. They were in fact LCO fish, and back when we'd get fish from him for the river, he had what was reported to be fish in the 51-55" range living in his ponds(not sure if true or if he still does, or if this makes any difference). I know that ToddF gets muskies from Kalleps(sp?) and we raise fish given to us by the DNR, for stocking into Petenwell. It is interesting to note that we see two distinctly different looking fish in the river here, some beautifully barred fish(some with bars like the one lambeau is holding and some with separated bars), and then variations of the brown/greenies from each brood source. I love them all and do beleive there is some difference in these fish, not just in where the live in the river as we've caught and recaught both in different areas of the river. They both get big and fat, and both can tick me off regularily. We just are not seeing the 48+"ers here on the river but I(as well as local fish managers) am starting to beleive they are just not living long enough to reach their potential here. We are also not seeing any natural reproduction from these fish which is disturbing but mostly caused by the wide fluctuations in the river each spring. The walleyes top out around 27-28" too, and I don't think there is a strain issue there.
We are stocking LL fish into the river first and foremost to see if they'll reproduce, but I am hoping the quick growth will allow for a few 'long' ones into the river here for the anglers to enjoy, if in fact the Muskies will only live to a certain age here. The local biologist and I spoke on this and just wonder if it is a temperature issue, a polution issue, or what causes the fish to 'top out', as we know that the LCO fish coming from Kaleps farm are reaching max size as are some from DNR reared ponds. I am going to pursue talking to the hatchery officials up in Woodruff. I wonder if the fish up there have closer ties to the WI River basin and might reproduce a bit better than the ones from the west. I know a higher ratio of the fish in the river up north are sure reaching max size, and I'd love to have some of that here!!
Thanks for the info Paul. We fished Millacs for our first time this summer, and the big ones we encountered were no doubt WI fish too. At least the ones we saw that weekend were. That said, we got a 44" WI fish from Mill Lacs this summer and that fish was not very old no doubt as it was a female. They must be reproducing in there. COOL!! I have also gotten a ton of pics of fish to 55" that were definatley Leechers from there. I would love to track a bit more of their(WI fish in ML) history, and specifically where they came from(if it makes any difference). My eyes have been openned no doubt.
That said, say what you will about the radical group. They did help out in getting the DNR to get eggs from some of the trophy waters in NW WI. This may or may not help or be the answer, but it is a step in preserving some of the Chippewa basin big fish genes we do have. While everything 'extremists' groups say and do, we do not agree with, we need them to keep the 'middle' in check no doubt.
By the way, Lockjaw, I'd say that is a Leecher. Not sure why I'd say that other than the fact that alot of the leechers we get at night look like that in the flash. The separated spots seem to show that too, though I could be wrong. Here is a leecher whose spots really showed up to the naked eye, but were washed with the flash.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/11/2006 8:15 AM
Attachments
----------------
June 30 49.25 001.jpg (43KB - 243 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | one thing this has confirmed to me is just how enthralled and enamored we have become with this magical 50" mark. it seems as if people are no longer happy catching a 48" fish, if it isnt 50"+ it isnt "big".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I really agree with you that many of the newcomers to the sport are only thinking big, but many of us are still enamoured to just be a part of the lore of this sprt. I am proud to catch any musky, and a 4'er is as tough to crack as a 50 in my neck of the woods. I still take several float trips for Muskies each season on stretches of river that might not even contain a 45" fish let alone a 50. We would, however, love to see some of the lakes reach their full potential, and that potential is just mind boggling in Petenwell given the forage base/surface area. I think with size limit increases on applicable waters, proper shoreline management, stocking practices(or lack thereof), and release strategy, the sport will continued to be enjoyed on the level that each individual purues it at. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Steve, I have been pretty busy this summer, but thought I'd share the following in an attempt to answer the lingering questions posed in this thread:
Minnesota’s Musky Stocking Program Timeline (source -- Jerry Younk, MDNR):
1982: MDNR is pressured to stop using Shoepac Lake as a source of adult broodstock for statewide hatchery production and stocking.
1982: MDNR stocks Leech Lake fish into several new lakes (no muskies previously) for use as future sources of broodstock. These include Plantaganette, Little Wolf, Elk, Owasso (not used now), Rebecca, Pleasant, and Island (used only as a back-up).
1982-1987: MDNR stocks Wisconsin-source fish in many waters, including almost 14,000 fish in Mille Lacs from 1984 through 1987, as Leech Lake fish grow and mature in broodstock lakes. Most Wisconsin fish were purchased at Kalepp’s Fish Farm, where the broodstock were taken from DNR’s Woodruff Hatchery, the Lac du Flambeau Hatchery, and several individual lakes in north central Wisconsin where 105 years of stock mixing (from LCO and other sources) is alleged by some to have created a hatchery strain of muskellunge that is no longer capable of attaining trophy size or reproducing in the presence of northern pike.
1989: MDNR starts stocking Leech Lake strain fish exclusively throughout the State of Minnesota.
1990: Final year of evaluation of strain stocking study in Lake Waconia, Minnesota. Results confirm that Leech Lake and LCO strains are superior to Shoepac fish, but neither is superior to the other (despite amateur interpretations to the contrary).
1996-1998: MDNR biologists age and tag adult muskies in 132,500-acre Mille Lacs.
1999-2005: MDNR biologists document reports of tagged fish that are caught, harvested, or found dead in Mille Lacs.
Mille Lacs Tagging Study Results (source – Rick Bruesewitz, MDNR):
As of 2005, of the 96 reported tag returns (fish found dead, harvested, or caught and released), 60 were fish stocked during 1984-1987 (Wisconsin source only – no confusing them with Leech Lake fish).
All 13 fish over 50 inches long were Wisconsin-source fish. The biggest was a female 54.9 inches long and 16 years of age. Also, 73% of fish 45-49 inches long (when caught or found dead) were stocked during 1984-1987.
In summary, one of the best trophy musky fisheries in North America since 2000 has been supported largely by Wisconsin-source fish and is only now becoming dominated by equally fine fish of the Leech Lake strain stocked since 1989.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks for that information, Dave. I've had several sources from the Minnesota DNR verbally confirm what you posted here.
As I had said a number of times over the last couple years, I remember clearly when the stocking on Mille Lacs began, the muskies growing to low 40's and a few, VERY few anglers fishing for and catching them as they grew to 50.
Reef Hawg, I don't agree with the concept there is any 'middle' that needs be kept in check by a misinformation campaign designed to discredit and abuse the science and scientists in an attempt to force the agenda of a very small group onto the rest of us in Wisconsin. The threatened use of 'public pressure' this group came out of the gate spouting while slamming fists on tables both virtual and actual was the first clue, and I sure didn't need any more. That isn't activism, it's extremism. More harm done than good at the end of the day, and that I'm certain of. Just my opinion, but one based on careful discussion with the fisheries folks across the country, IN context and with both 'reality feet' on terra firma. To make just a tiny portion of my point, it was Dr. Sloss's recommendations that changed the egg collection process on waters in the NW of Wisconsin, the very same scientist this group and allies tried to discredit posting accusations and assertions so ridiculous as to reach the sublime.
You worked hard to actually get something done with size limits, so you know the process and what actually works and what doesn't.
It WAS the 'middle' who got things done, IMHO, like the MI clubs, 'activists' like you, Norm Wild, Mike Roberts, and others.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Does anyone think you can really identify which strain a muskie is from with any accuracy by looking at a photo?
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I think it is worth poining out that, that the WI fish form Kalepp Gish Farm, are the reult of selective breeding, something which was not done at the state hatcheries. I am interested in what Sloss's stand on selective breeding is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read the post by Dave Neuswanger again for the source of the fish that were purchased the years Wisconsin fish were stocked in Minnesota. There's lots of information here in the archive about the dangers and negatives involved with 'selective breeding', look it up. Diversity is, to put it in a nutshell, important. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I read it again..."In summary, one of the best trophy musky fisheries in North America since 2000 has been supported largely by Wisconsin-source fish and is only now becoming dominated by equally fine fish of the Leech Lake strain stocked since 1989." While this may be true I believe it to be a bit misleading in that it concludes (without actually stating it) that "It is the forage stupid!", as opposed to, "It is the fish stupid!"
Given that the WI strain Mill Lacs fish were the result of selective breeding, and thet WI strain stocked accross WI were not...I don't see how this implication can be made. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | '1982-1987: MDNR stocks Wisconsin-source fish in many waters, including almost 14,000 fish in Mille Lacs from 1984 through 1987, as Leech Lake fish grow and mature in broodstock lakes. Most Wisconsin fish were purchased at Kalepp’s Fish Farm, where the broodstock were taken from DNR’s Woodruff Hatchery, the Lac du Flambeau Hatchery, and several individual lakes in north central Wisconsin where 105 years of stock mixing (from LCO and other sources) is alleged by some to have created a hatchery strain of muskellunge that is no longer capable of attaining trophy size or reproducing in the presence of northern pike.'
What you are saying is that the fish from the farm were selectively 'different' than the genetics of the source fish which were from three sources. Explain how that would work, how many generations it would take to 'select' certain characteristics, what those characteristics would be, what would be the difference between the fish then and now, and how long those fish were IN the farm in 1982 to 1987. Then read the information in the Reaserch forum discussion of this subject from last winter, I believe.
Eventually, Mr. Neuswanger will see this and respond and perhaps some of the other fisheries folks who look in now and again will speak to selective breeding, but I'm tiring of covering old ground the WMRT pounded for two years, ground that has been covered carefully and answers already supplied.
WMRT revisited, go to those links and read. Disagree or agree with the science, it's up to you, but re-arguing the subject matter won't change reality.
You definitely off target on the selective breeding assumptions you have made. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Sorry...my use of the term 'slective breeding' may be off here. What I meant by 'selective breeding' is, selecting large females. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That, sir, is selective breeding. Bad idea, very bad idea indeed. Read up! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | bad idea yet, nobody is complaining about the big WI strain Mill Lacs fish. To the contrary I would say. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You are arguing in circles, ignoring the data and the science referred to you and you are not making any sense.
It's a bad idea to selectively breed muskies for a ton of reasons including not knowing what traits/strengths/weaknesses you are breeding in or out, especially if you are looking for NR. There's no indication that the fish from the Farm are any different than ANY broodstock from the three locations listed. Simply put, if those fish grow big under the nearly ideal conditions on Mille Lacs, literally speaking so should any broodstock from those sources. Just because a large fish was used to strip spawn, there is NO indication or guarnatee, even a slight maybe, that offspring of THAT PARTICULAR fish will grow large. Just because a smaller ( SAY...40"?), younger fish is stripped, it's no guarantee THAT fish's offspring won't be the next world record. You're looking at stock ACQUIRED from Wisconsin hatcheries that according to those you are mimicing, are mutts and can't get big no matter what, so if any of the assumptions you have made were true, how would the fish used exist in the first place???
The difficulty is not that those brood stock specific fish were 'bad' or 'good', it's the use of very few fish for breeding fish to be stocked over the long haul, diversity is important. Read the material linked. I'm trying to help you understand where your logic is seriously flawed, and your answer is to toss out some more flawed logic. First you insist the fish in Mille lacs are not proven to be Wisconsin fish, then when data was provided, you insist that they were specially bred to be superior (a ridiculous notion, sorry, but it is).
Watch as the work continues in Wisconsin, and we'll all see where it leads.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | sworrall - 10/6/2006 10:34 PM
You're looking at stock ACQUIRED from Wisconsin hatcheries that according to those you are mimicing, are mutts and can't get big no matter what, so if any of the assumptions you have made were true, how would the fish used exist in the first place???
When did Kaleps get its broodstock from the sources mentioned? I believe this could possibly make a difference in this. If the Kaleps fish do in fact grow large in Mille Lacs, are we to assume that fish from Bone Lake would do the same? If fish from Kaleps do in fact grow large in Mille Lacs, does that mean all WDNR hatchery stocked fish from WI would be expected to do the same? I still believe that Bone lake fish in particular, from the Spooner hatchery, would not grow as large as the Leech fish or as large as the Kaleps fish apparently did in Mille Lacs.
sworrall - 10/6/2006 10:34 PM
First you insist the fish in Mille lacs are not proven to be Wisconsin fish, then when data was provided, you insist that they were specially bred to be superior (a ridiculous notion, sorry, but it is).
How exactly was this done? From the info provided here it sounds like the fish in Mille Lacs were captured in 1996-1998, then aged in order to determine how old they were. Then that info was used in order to figure out when they would have been stocked. Then that info was used in order to figure out what strain each one would be based on when they would have been stocked. Then each fish from the two different strains were tagged accordingly and released back into Mille Lacs so that when they were caught at a later date they could be quickly and easily identified from one another. Do I have this right?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
Where did the Bone Lake fish come from? We've covered this to the enth. LCO fish can and do get big, I recently got another shot of a 50.5 out of that water.
The same arguments and 'evidence' applied to the insistence by a small group of folks that Bone Lake fish are genetically inferior was applied VERY strenuously to ALL Wisconsin brood stock from ALL hatcheries including the Woodruff hatchery and all sources for brood stock there during the WMRT assault on the Wisconsin DNR muskie management practices past and present, and absolutely no support for that interpretation was ever forwarded by a single credible source, so I'll go with the consensus by the scientists who make their living in the field. Again, one cannot have it both ways. I wouldn't be so insistent that we stick to fact and list conspiracy theory as it is if there was ANY scientific support for the assumptions. Maybe as study progresses there will be some indication you may be correct, then again, maybe not. Looks so far to be a very strong maybe not, but I'm keeping an open mind for certain.
Every time there is incontrovertible proof that our Wisconsin Muskies can and do grow very large if given the chance and proper environment, we get another "look over THERE!' or 'Yeah, But!'. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Steve Worrall wrote: "Eventually, Mr. Neuswanger will see this and respond and perhaps some of the other fisheries folks who look in now and again will speak to selective breeding, but I'm tiring of covering old ground the WMRT pounded for two years, ground that has been covered carefully and answers already supplied."
Steve, I appreciate your extreme patience with those who are in a persistent state of denial about the scientific realities here. I have found that most of my musky fishing friends "get it" now. But there will always be a few who are so heavily invested in the "Wisconsin DNR inferior hatchery strain" fantasy that they will never give it up. Because there are so few left to convince, I have not been very active in countering the lingering naysayers. And this may well be my last post on this subject altogether. You have been a steadfast supporter, not of any particular person or agency, but of the processes of sharing accurate information and exchanging ideas in a civil manner. For that, I feel that I owe you a couple more comments to try to lay this thing to rest -- for both of us -- so that our musky fishing fraternity can focus on the REAL issues affecting the quality of musky fishing.
Those who believe Kalepp's Fish Farm has selectively bred superior (fast-growing, large-size-attaining) muskellunge are incorrect. Kalepp's routine use of essentially one generation of large captive broodstock cannot possibly have resulted in a strain of muskies "selectively bred" for large size or any other expressed trait. Ask any geneticist. But for those who do not trust scientists, or people like me who apply science to management, here's an alternative way to arrive at a logical conclusion: If you are in northern Wisconsin, take a look around you. Do you see a high proportion of trophy (50-inch-plus) muskies (like Mille Lacs) in lots of lakes? The answer, of course, is no. And yet, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of lakes in northern Wisconsin that have been stocked with muskies from Kalepp's Fish Farm. Often when the Wisconsin DNR is unable to meet all the perceived needs for stocking, private interests like lake associations and the various chapters of Muskies, Inc. will step up to help. (For example, the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies Inc. JUST stocked several hundred very large yearling musky fingerlings into Lac Courte Oreilles.) And where do these private groups buy their fish for stocking? Various sources, to be sure, but Kalepp's Fish Farm is a major one in Wisconsin (including those just stocked into LCO). So if Kalepp's Fish Farm has only a fast-growing, large-size-attaining, selectively bred muskellunge, why don't we have Mille Lacs class musky fishing in LOTS of lakes in northern Wisconsin? Pondering that question should be an easy exercise in logic that requires no knowledge of population genetics. But I guarantee there will be those who will not acknowledge that their horse has been whipped to death. As Simon and Garfunkle wrote in their song The Boxer -- "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest..."
It is becoming difficult to disregard the mountain of evidence indicating that it is NOT so much the fish, but rather the SITUATION into which the fish are placed, that truly matters with respect to the creation of trophy musky fisheries.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks sir. I do believe this conversation has run it's possible course at this point! |
|
| |
