|
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | A lot of people would still like to know where the eggs we are using are coming from. I looked on the Wi dnr site to get answers. Pulled up the stocking database because it is suppose to list the strain of fish used for stocking. I did not check every lake in the state but checked many of the more well known waters throughout northern Wi. For every lake I checked, and for every year the lake was stocked, in the column thats suppose to list the strain used, the word "unspecified" was there. Quite interesting I thought. Do they know? Do they not want us to know for some reason? Could it be that they have been mixing strains of fish for many years and don't want to reveal that? In the last couple years the dnr folks around my part of the state have been approached by a group of us asking if we could buy Wi strain fingerlings from the Mn muskie farm instead of raising them on our own and plant them in some of our lakes because we felt it would be more cost effective. The dnr was dead against it. Their reason was because they say that they do not want to mix strains of fish and damage the gene pool or something to that effect. I suspect that this has been happening all along anyway. Where is the proof? Does anybody know for sure where the eggs/fingerlings are coming from that are being planted in the lakes in your area? I have heard for many years that Bone Lake is being used for my part of the state. Putting Bone Lake fish in waters in the Chippewa water shed would be mixing strains in my book. Yet we were told by our local dnr fisheries manager that he would only allow planting of fish in our area that came from the chippewa water shed. They are spinning. It would be nice to get some clear answers that can be verified, proven and believed and from someone that can be trusted. Not sure thats possible. I don't like the idea of waters in my area being stocked with fingerlings that were raised from eggs stripped from fish that come from a lake that in the last 40 years, out of 2,878 fish registered to Muskies Inc., only 2 or (.069% of that toal) were 50". Now thats a sobering statistic if I ever saw one. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois |
From a source at teh WI DNR
"We currently use 2 muskellunge strains in our management program. The Great Lakes spotted strain is used on Green Bay/Lake Michigan and the Lake Winnebago system. We use "northern" strain fish throughout the rest of the state. These are wild-caught fish that are spawned and released each spring. The hatchery at Woodruff, which generally stocks waters in the northeast part of the state (and to the south), I believe collects eggs from the Rainbow Flowage, at least in recent years, but the waters vary from year to year. The hatchery at Spooner, which generally stocks waters in the northwest part of the state (and to the south), I believe most recently has been taking eggs from Bone Lake, but again, the waters vary from year to year".
|
|
| |
|
| ChadG and Lockjaw get it. Thanks guys.
I want to see not only where the eggs come from but how big the fish are when they are stripped. I cannot believe this info is not available. If not, we should request that the DNR start keeping these records.
Sworrall - you know, I agree with alot of what you say - except when you saying changing one factor won't help. There are probably THOUSANDS of variables on each lake. Changing one of these thousands of variables - Forage for instance - can have a huge impact.
What some of us are beginning to recognize is that Genes of individual fish do Matter. This is what many of these Biologist studies are showing. We can use this to right the wrongs that Man has done in the past.
I want to make this clear - I'm not saying that using eggs from a random 50 inch fish gaurantees that the offspring will be bigger than eggs taken from a random 38 incher. I'm not saying that all eggs taken from a 50 incher will grow to be 50 inches.
What I'm saying is we have a choice. We can take eggs from large fish or small fish. I believe that taking eggs from a 10 year old 50 inch fish will produce larger offspring than eggs from a 10 year old 38 inch fish.
The reason your "lake" has good fishing is that you already have big fish. These lakes will produce more big fish, you will have continual good fishing until someone harvests those big fish and releases all the 38 inchers. Nothing will have changed in regards to habitat, forage, etc. JUST The Size of the fish will have changed and you will make a new excuse.
I have lakes in NW wisconsin that have these Big fish in them too. I've noticed that the one's I fish are natural Muskie lakes, but don't have a history of muskie fishing pressure. I'm going to keep repeating this - IT's The FISH, not necessarily the strain.
As far as the DNR not being able to do it. I want to understand WHY. A Blanket statement - It's Ipossible and would be a dream job is unfair to Fisherman and Taxpayers. It is possible and it is their job if it will improve fishing.
Answer this: Why CAN'T we create a new brood stock lake using only LARGE MUSKIES?
We'll let you have the extra Bone Lake fish.
Folks - we can have bigger Muskies starting this spring - Let's make it happen.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
'The reason your "lake" has good fishing is that you already have big fish. These lakes will produce more big fish, you will have continual good fishing until someone harvests those big fish and releases all the 38 inchers. Nothing will have changed in regards to habitat, forage, etc. JUST The Size of the fish will have changed and you will make a new excuse.'
Not even close. The lake I refer to has the fish it has because of stocking efforts in a system that has all the right stuff at this point in time. That body of water has always supported a decent muskie population, but the stocking effort is what made it what it is now. You pick one statement to be critical of, and ignore the substance of the argument. Someone? Who might that be? And your premise also assumes no continuing management from the DNR, which isn't accurate, either. If the 38" females are released on that lake, creel and boom shocking data indicate they will be in the high 30's to low 40's the next year. That fish, as long as the food chain and water quality hold, will also make it to 50" or more if it is one of the few of ANY female representatives of a system's total population that will reach 50. Not every fish makes it to 50", obviously, even if the genetics are great. Nor will every offspring of that 50" fish.
Why is what you suggest impossible? Because you are promoting selective breeding, which requires an enclosed environment and destruction or removal of any specimen that would 'contaminate' the line, incredible research and a tremendous amount of time. You also are asking that only 50" plus fish are stripped, which wouldn't achieve what you seek anyway and would create a problem obtaining the spawn needed to handle the stocking efforts undertaken in this state every year. The expense would be incredible, and far outweigh the impact achieved, if any. You tell me; where would that occur, and how would enough spawn be gathered? What percentage of the total adult population of any good lake is 50 or better? How would we capture enough of these fish to accomplish the task and from where, and what good would it do anyway, from a scientific viewpoint? What about the influence of the genetics of the males involved? What you are suggesting is a lab experiment.
There ARE some lakes in Wisconsin we need to protect as 'trophy only' fisheries as an experiment to see what results we can achieve. The DNR and a group of strong willed muskie anglers tried that and the PUBLIC, those very same fishermen and taxpayers you are saying are owed your experimental management technique model, voted it down. Big time. It wasn't just resort owners and guides who voted no as posted by some ( that was unfair scapegoating, and was dead wrong), the vote was RESOUNDINGLY no. I guarantee an even more untested and scientifically unsupported technique will never fly.
That's why CPR, continuing education, expanding the warm water hatchery capacity in Wisconsin, expanding the budgets for our DNR, increasing size limits to 50" on selective waters and assisting in rearing and stocking efforts as private clubs do here make for a progressive, positive, and workable plan.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
As posted:
"We currently use 2 muskellunge strains in our management program. The Great Lakes spotted strain is used on Green Bay/Lake Michigan and the Lake Winnebago system. We use "northern" strain fish throughout the rest of the state. These are wild-caught fish that are spawned and released each spring. The hatchery at Woodruff, which generally stocks waters in the northeast part of the state (and to the south), I believe collects eggs from the Rainbow Flowage, at least in recent years, but the waters vary from year to year. The hatchery at Spooner, which generally stocks waters in the northwest part of the state (and to the south), I believe most recently has been taking eggs from Bone Lake, but again, the waters vary from year to year".
No conspiracies there.
mreiter,
Thanks. So the size limit in Minnesota is 40". Now let's try to establish the harvest over there. Anyone know the harvest data for Minnesota waters like Leech, Mille Lacs, and Cass?
Spearing is a federal issue involving treaties and civil rights defined by same and protected by a ruling from our own Supreme Court, not a state controlled issue here, so doesn't apply to the 'Wisconsin doesn't get it' theme. Obviously there is a huge impact on some waters like Pelican in Oneida County, and that impact has to be considered in the management stratgeies applied on waters heavily speared. Believe me, if the DNR could ban spearing, they would. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | I got my Muskies Inc. calander in the mail today. On one page it shows growth rates of muskies from 6 different lakes in north america. Lac Court Oreilles is one of them. This lake is advertised as, promoted as, and believed by many to be one of the premier trophy musky fisheries in Wi not to mention the world. It shows growth rates of muskies from 1 to 9 years for this lake. According to the data given it shows that a 9 year old musky from LCO will be only 36.4 inches long. This is what Wi considers a trophy lake that offers us and visitors from other states a great opportunity at a trophy fish? Boy, why would anyone ever go anywhere else?
I think many years ago LCO actually was a great trophy fishery. What happened? Bone lake fish maybe? Or are they using Tiger Cat Flowage fish now because they are easier to capture. Or Day lake fish, or Callahan fish. I think this lake has all the ingredients needed to produce trophy fish including a 50" size limit for at least 5 or 6 years now. Even the dnr says it has the right stuff to be a world class trophy musky fishery. So whats wrong? We need to be more creative and not so afraid to try new things to improve our trophy fishing. Man, even if we used LCO, supposedly one of the worlds best trophy musky lakes, to gets eggs from, a 10 year old fish from this lake is still going to be small. By the way, I am 100% in favor of the 50" size limit whether it helps or not because at least we tried something different for a change. We need to keep trying new things. |
|
| |
|
| Reading this whole thing with interest and have a few comments.
#1 Obviously a selective breeding program WOULD result in larger fish over a period of time. How long? How costly? But, if these fish were selected and larger fish genetics were isolated and cultured, yes, there would definitely be a breeding effect resulting in larger fish on the average. Fish genetic work that I have seen seems to indicate rather rapid responses to selection. You would as noted need a "clean" lake to use as a rearing pond for this bigger strain. How many of those are available? The selection and breeding would be pretty simple stuff.
The big question is, if you select for this growthier individual what exactly are you getting for your side orders? Need for forage, late maturing, more easily caught, early demise from old age, susceptibility to disease? You never really know until these large fish genetics are studied. You may be throwing out the baby(viable musky strain) with the bath water(small fish genetics). So there are potential risks for this type of program to be put in place on a large scale.
#2 The next question is, where do you go with these fish when you develop them? Until you have some clue as to what other things(fatal flaws) you might be selecting for, you probably DO NOT WANT THEM IN ANY WATERS THAT HAVE NATURAL REPRODUCTION. You do not want to risk losing a successful strain of musky already adapted to their native water. Do some research on west coast salmon strains and you will understand why you don't want to do this. However, any lake that is landlocked and has no native musky reproduction would be an excellent candidate for upgrading either through a controlled breeding program, OR uprgrading through strain selection(go with Leech lake, etc, larger growing fish).
There is no need to maintain a non native strain, non reproducing strain in any lake supported by stocking. Might as well grow the biggest musky possible in these waters. Any lake that has natural reproduction but was NOT a native lake to start with also could be considered for a strain, or genetic breeding up grade, if it were in a position that would not cause genetic pollution of the native strains that have proven successful.
#3 It would be good to know a complete history of WI stocking strains before everyone that might have some information, dies off(sorry to put it so bluntly but...). If my understanding is correct, the original stocking strains for the NW was Couderay strain fish. Of course they sat and watched over a number of years as the Couderay strain nearly went completely extinct due to northern pike pollution of the lake(had been no northerns at one time). In later years, they used fish from Chippewa flowage for eggs? Now this is where I wonder whether there is a rub or not. Didn't the shoepac strain, which never attained a large size, come from Callahan lake? Or am I confused on that? Isn't the Callahan lake strain, regardless, a bonafide runt strain? And if so, wouldn't there be genetic pollution downstream into the Chip, which for many years supplied a lot of eggs? Am I wrong on this take or is that the correct history and correct assignation of facts to Callahan muskies? If my take on the stocking history is correct there could very well be genetic problems with a large portion of the WI musky stock. This is exactly why you tread on shaky ground when you start mixing strains willy nilly as was often the way in the early days of fish management. Can anybody in the WI DNR actually state as fact which lakes still maintain a pure native strain to that body of water, that hasn't been genetically polluted by fish from other bodies of water?
#4 There are historic river populations that roamed over WI to a certain extent, with falls in some cases being the boundary for the range. I believe this was the case for northern pike in the Chippewa River at one time(since negated by inadvertent or intentional transplant depending who's story you might have heard). So some populations were isolated geographically by various features, but, the populations below these points should be a direct gradient with the Miss River strain and other river strains, if still pure. These fish should be stockable up to the point of historic population boundaries, though they will still suffer genetic pollution from above. In Ancient history this combination of isolated populations probably was a bonus for the down river population, having the isolated purer strains from upstream coming down and mingling with the more hetergenous downstream populations.
#5 We will probably never recover the strains that have been lost/polluted over time. Don't blame the DNR for that. We may be able to replace lower sporting value genetics with higher value(bigger size) if the body of water will basically be an isolated population. Breeding a bigger muskie is 100% doable, but is it really desirable, when opposed to potential disruption of genetically successful native strains? I don't think any fish managers want to lose native strains, of ANY species.
#6 Fisherman need to take a realistic view at times which goes against their druthers. I would like to have a lot of 50 inch muskies in all the waters I fish, and thats my druthers. Realistically, our state DNR has deigned musky as a put and take fishery of fairly low importance, and it is a high cost fishery per fish produced, and I am not talking about how much cash I lay out per measly inch of fish, it is costly to produce a fingerling of 9-12 inces for stocking. That is how it is for me.
In WI we have a multitude of lake and river choices that have musky in them. Many grow good numbers of quality fish from 40-47 inches, and provide excellent fishing opportunites EVEN THOUGH THE TOP END MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE to us as we would like. MN and Canada simply have bigger strains of musky. Leech lake fish ARE longer. That is a fact. They get longer in WI lakes too. But, those strains may never see many WI waters due to the genetics. We have to remember that our idea of genetics for musky is bigger is better. Mother nature does not always think that way. Sometimes smaller is better. Or Early maturation is better, or late maturation, or bigger heads, bigger eggs, different colorations, etc etc etc. are the basis on which selection is decided. We can't come into this thing and say hey, we want bigger muskies, lets change the genetic basis of the native population to get them bigger. That would be irresponsible.
#23 Cost. Cost. Value returned to a relatively small proportion of consumers, us, is high but we must remember that trophy musky fisherman are still a very small number of consumers. Walleye research may give many more consumers a return on DNR's limited funding, whether we like it or not. So this will probably remain the biggest barrier as we move into the future.
#31 WI musky fishing is still great, and if you DON'T LIKE IT, you need to go somewhere the fishing is crappy and get your perspective back. There are places that have bigger fish, and you can choose to go there, but WI is not a BAD musky place to go. If it is, please lord, throw me in that briar patch!!!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | FSF,
Thanks, sir. Excellent discussion, and very to the point. Cost, viability, end result, etc. Believe me, I'd love to have more 50" fish here at home. I'm still convinced that's possible with the 'trophy' only designated lake proposal. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | FSF
A couple of things regarding your post. In your post you said “There is no need to maintain a non native strain, non reproducing strain in any lake supported by stocking.” I agree that we should not waste money stocking non reproducing strains. The Wi DNR apparently disagrees with that because they stocked over 15,000 hybrid/tiger fingerlings in Wi. last year. This is a non reproducing strain. A waste of money in my opinion to stock a strain that has no chance what so ever of reproducing. As far as the non native strain goes. Mn went to stocking only the Leech Lake strain back in the mid eighties after doing some research. By doing this they were mixing strains because prior to that they had been stocking some of their lakes with Wi and Shoepack strains. Now they stock only the Leech strain. I would think that this would mean that they are stocking a non native strain in many of their waters. Now 20 years later look at the result. Its working and its working extremely well. Hard to deny that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | As long as we are discussing the MN strains..does anyone have an opinion on what their preference is. In my humble opinion, the next MN State Record is not coming out of Leech Lake. The Leech strain does indeed seem to grow rapidly, but in general, they also tend to be very lean. Personally, I prefer whatever strain is in Mill Lacs...it appears to me that these fish have shown the potential to turn into pigs, and they are more attractive looking fish than the spotted strain. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | This article may answer your question about Mille Lacs. It does not come right out and say they are Leech Lake strain fish but this article gives me the impression they must be.
******************
Today, muskies inhabit 107 different lakes in Minnesota,” said Ron Payer, fisheries director for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “Sixty-three of these waters are the result of a stocking program that began in the1980s, matured in the ‘90s, and now provides some of the best muskie fishing anywhere in the lower 48 states.”
Stocking has generated quality muskie fishing in many central and northern Minnesota lakes. Lake Mille Lacs, for example, is a popular muskie fishing destination because of its short driving distance from the Twin Cities and reputation for large fish. The St. Louis River estuary, Big Detroit Lake, Lake Bemidji, and Lake Vermillion in far northeastern Minnesota also have solid muskie populations that are a result of stocking.
Minnesota’s rise as a muskie fishing mecca is rooted in research. Originally, muskies were native in about 40 of the state’s lakes and river systems. These included Cass, Leech and Woman lakes and portions of the Mississippi River. Size quality deteriorated as early as the 1920s in some muskie waters and did not increase for decades. The problem, now largely resolved through voluntary catch-and-release and length-limit regulations, was that anglers kept a significant percentage of large fish. Further, the DNR could not expand muskie fishing opportunities to new waters because crews were unable to catch spawning muskies for hatchery use. Fisheries crews did discover how to trap spawning Shoepack strain muskies in the 1950s, but that fish rarely grew more than 42 inches in length.
In 1979, Robert Strand, a DNR fisheries research biologist, placed radio transmitters in 15 large muskies in Leech Lake. Fourteen survived to the following spring. He tracked these fish by plane and boat. He ultimately determined where they spawned so that they could be captured and their eggs taken to start a hatchery program. Further research would confirm that the Leech Lake strain – also known as the Mississippi River strain – was superior to other strains for stocking because it possessed the highest potential to grow large fish.
“This is a classic example of fish management coming together,” Payer said. “We have more than doubled the number of muskie fishing lakes in Minnesota because researchers identified the egg source and the superior strain to stock. Hatchery managers have risen to the challenge of producing 30,000 to 35,000 quality fingerlings per year, and regional and area staff have identified appropriate lakes to stock based on ecological criteria and working with the local angling community. As a result, the opportunity to catch a quality or trophy muskie is within a short driving distance of most anglers.”
**********************
Mn was able to do it. Why can't Wi? Cost did not stop Mn from getting the job done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | That would imply that the envirnment dictates the markings on a musky? Leech or Mississippi strain is Spotted while the fish in Mille Lacs are Barred, are they not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | The appearance of the fish definitely can change with the enviornment they are raised in. It also can change as the fish ages and grows. Catch a small fish from the chippewa flowage for example and it will show distinct markings or bars. Catch a larger fish from the same water and in most cases its markings are hard to make out or are even gone leaving the fish with a solid brownish or greenish color. Fish from Cass lake, large or small, show distinct spots. The same strain of fish from some other waters, large or small, do not. I've caught them. I have pictures that proves this. So appearance of the fish does not mean much to me as far as being a different strain or not. At least thats what I have observed. |
|
| |
|
| Shoepac Lake is a small landlocked lake in northern Mn. that the Mn. DNR thought they could use as a pure strain of Muskies to stock Mn. waters. Leech Lake was very difficult to use as the Muskies spawn offshore and are very difficult to catch in nets. The Shoepac strain ended up being a bust because the goldfish in a bigger bowl theory didn't work. Shoepacs remained small. Mn Muskie anglers fought the DNR to drop the Shoepac strain and helped fund studies to make sure Mn. used Leech Lake fish in stocking efforts. Mn. DNR listened and developed a strict policy to only stock the Leech Lake strain even though the Wis. strain had been successful in Mn. in many cases. This effort took many many years and much hard work and funds to get to the point we are now at in Mn.
I don't know if the Mn - Wis comparison is truely fair at this point. Granted the Mn. program is booming as of now, but time will tell if it continues to be successful as there are many variables that only time can show. Many boom lakes in the past have crashed after a period of time. In my mind the most encouraging factors in Mn are the low resistance to higher minimums and the CPR mentality of most Mn. Muskie anglers. (believe me, that took many many years to become the norm also.)
In my humble opinion Wi. Muskie anglers should focus (as Steve W has recommeded) on promoting higher minimums and test lakes in the state to prove to the general population that focus on a quality fishery over a 'put and take' mentality is to everyone's benefit. It will take time.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Wi. strain Muskies were stocked in Mille Lacs, Vermilion and others as the Leech Lake strain was being developed. It is now all Leech Lake fish being stocked but after the Shoepac strain was discontinued the first few year classes were Wi. and yes are the big striped ones we are seeing now. That's the way I heard it anyway.
Edited by muskiemachinery 10/21/2004 1:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Here is a link to the Mn DNR site and an article explaining much of the why and how Mn got to where its at today.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/marapr99/muskie.html
Reading it leaves me believing that the increase in large fish being caught in Mille Lacs today most likely are not Wi fish.
Here is link showing the stocking Vermilion has gotten since day one.
http://www.lakevermilion.com/muskies/htmls/stocking.html
With only 1 rather small stocking of Wi fish, again I have to believe that the large fish being caught in Vermilion today most likely are not Wi fish.
If the large fish being caught today in Mille Lacs and Vermilion actually were Wi fish, that would disprove the discoveries the Mn dnr made when doing research that showed the Leech Lake strain was best in both growth rates and succesful natural reproduction. This makes it very hard to believe they could be Wi fish. |
|
| |
|
| I have never caught or seen a barred Muskie in either Leech or Cass or surrounding waters. Only spotted ones.(Mississippi strain) Maybe others have but I haven't. By the Vermilion stocking record you produced, the (oldest) fish are Wis. If they are indeed Wis. fish it would be interesting to know where in Wis. they came from. Very nice genetics there for sure. The lake I regularly fish has been stocked since the 60's with only Wis. fish and they are all barred, as the pic of the 53 incher I previously posted on this thread shows. Have never caught or seen a spotted Muskie on this particular Wis. strain stocked lake.
SV
Edited by muskiemachinery 10/21/2004 3:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Some of these fish may be hybrid gradients from pre existing strains mixing with the introduced leech strain. This is another interesting avenue to pursue for giant fish genetics and may be more viable for stocked lakes than any other path. I don't think there has ever been a crossing F1 study on mixing strains but it might be a very promising field for giant fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | M.M.
All I can say is that I have pictures of larger fish I have caught from both Mn lakes with only the Leech Lake strain and Wi lakes with Wi strain fish and believe me, in a lot of cases you can not tell the difference. It seems to depend on where they were caught. I have shown many pictures to friends and they can not tell the difference either. When they are smaller you can tell, but the bigger they are the more they look the same, depending on where caught. After re-reading one of my previous posts I mistakenly gave the impression that you could not tell the difference when they are both small and large. I previuosly said "Fish from Cass lake, large or small, show distinct spots. The same strain of fish from some other waters, large or small, do not." After re-reading this I realize I mistakenly included smaller fish. I have been able to clearly see the spots in the smaller fish. But not the larger ones. Hope that makes sense. Regardless of what fish they are, the Wi dnr needs to step up like the Mn dnr did and try to find new ways to improve the situation here. Experiment a little. Higher size limits is not the only option out there. |
|
| |
|
| To continue this color thing, I have to agree that dark water fish from whatever strain are hard to distinguish. Definitely an envirormental thing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
The DNR has done the same here in Wisconsin. There are Great Lakes strain muskies swiming in the waters in which they should do very well right here in Wisconsin, right now. Ask Shep! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Yes I am aware of the great lakes strain being used in some waters in Wi. I think thats great. Its definitely good to see. But its pretty small in comparison to what Mn is doing. Hopefully its just the begining of more good things to come. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | http://www.vilas.org/03mmak.htm
26 Muskies no longer in Vilas County lakes. |
|
| |
|
| Sworrall
I don't believe that there would be much more cost involved in breeding Large Muskies than Breeding small fish.
The cost factor is at the hatcheries in personnel and feeding costs. The only difference is in netting the fish.
If we are not currently getting any large fish in nets - WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
Please answer this question: Are we catching large fish in our DNR nets today?
If we are netting large fish, there is NO additional cost to selective breeding.
If we are not, we WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
Continuing on, I do believe for a short time ther e will be slightly more costs to pursue large fish. I Know almost every Muskie Inc. club in the state would contribute to this effort both in time and money. I'd start writing check today.
Why do answer none of my questions? I do try to answer yours.
I ask you again: Which muskie will produce larger offspring - a 10 year old 38 inch female or a 10 year old 50 inch female? Please answer.
|
|
| |
|
| If we do "selective breeding as I'm suggesting, we will not affect the strains. We will take only large fish from NW Wisconsin in lake that are stocked out of the Spooner hatchery. Then we create a new Brood stock lake. We then use that lake as the source to stock all of NW Wisconsin - as we are doing today. By doing this we are really doing nothing diffrent other than isolating BIG FISH GENES and encouraging BIG FISH reproduction.
If this works and we get more BIG FISH, these fish should also be better breeders whose offspring are bigger and better survivors. If this follows through, we should need less stocking over time. With less stocking we can focus our $$$$ on habitat and potentially even stocking Forage fish, in lakes with poor forage. |
|
| |
|
| Sworral - we agree on the fact that not every Muskie grows to 50 inches. We also agree that good management can create good muskie fisheries - and we do that here in Wisconsin. I think the Wisconsin DNR has done a superb job in creating one of the greatest Muskie Fisheries anywhere. The amount of muskie lakes and rivers that are accessible from my house is incredible. ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE. I believe the options for fishing Muskies are better than Ontario. I can fish deep clear lakes , shallow green lakes, rivers , flowages, etc. I can do this from a 20 foot Ranger or from a canoe. I thank the DNR for this.
Where we differ is that I think with a few minor tweaks (Based on the study by BIOLOGISTS at the beginning of this post) we can make a huge difference in the size of the fis. I think it can make a big difference in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kentucky and anywhere the DNR stocks fish. My take on it is that you think no changes can help. So much for having an open Mind.
You seem to suggest that the size of Muskies is only related to it's environment. This is not the case. I believe the Wisconsin DNR put Tiger Cat Flowage Muskies into LCO to study growth rates. Fish taken from the smaller (I'm assuming smaller since I never caught one over 30 inches there) Tiger cat flowage females grew slower than the LCO fish. If any one can locate that study - please post it. (Yes - the DNR put Tiger Cat strain Muskies in LCO) They also put LCO fish in the Tiger Cat, which resulted in a good crop of larger fish at one point - even one 50 inch fish that I am aware of (On the Tiger Cat a 50 is beyond belief). The Minnesota study on Muskies also concluded that Fish from Leech Lake Females grow bigger than LCO fish and that LCO fish grow bigger than Shoepac. This also shows that THE FISH determine growth rates more so than the environment. At the same time I do believe the environment has "some" effect on growth rates. For this reason I'd suggest a brood stock lake should be a good environment for big fish as sworral suggests.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | FYI
From the horse's mouth....."The main sources for the musky we raise in Woodruff are from Big and Little Arbor Vitae (Vilas Co) and squirrel Lake (Oneida Co.)"
|
|
| |
|
| Is it possible to get the fish Size used for the Eggs and Milt from those lakes? I'm not sure that it'd prove anything, but I'd like to know.
Also - see attached website for more Scientific evidence of genetic evolution related to Large fish being kept and small fish being released. This happens in ANY environment.
http://archive.showmenews.com/2002/Jul/20020705News011.asp |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Bob,
I will try and find out about the egg size.
You may want to check out "Tournament Fishing and sub 40" Muskies" post under General Discussions. |
|
| |
|
| http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5621/895?maxtoshow=&...
ltext=silverside&searchid=1098809490684_9778&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0
More info above. |
|
| |
|
| After reading the studies posted above I believe:
1. For over 100 years we have harvested the largest fish possible. The last 25 years we have Focused harvest on the Largest Muskies, while releasing the smallest. Similar to the Study.
2. I believe we have focused the egg & milt collection on the smaller Muskies rather than Larger fish. I believe we have used small nets on small lakes to catch small fish. (There are exceptions - I acknowlege this.)
Based on the above I feel we MUST now focus on Catching and breeding the largest Male and Female Muskies we can find in the state. We MUST create a brood stock Lake or Lakes to make efficient use of these breeders, and within these lakes we should use fin clips and MAXIMUM size limits to further enhance the genetic selection of large fish in these waters.
We need to start this in spring of 2005. Spread the word. |
|
| |
