|
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Cory,
The premise of the WMRP is not that Leech Strain Muskies were indeed the native WI strain. Their premise is that Leech Strain muskies would indeed grow considerably faster, reach larger size and potentially reproduce far better than the mixed strain muskies that we are left with. A few things to consider:
1) 50 pound great lake (spotted) strain muskies have been caught in Green Bay. These fish have been stocked by the WDNR. (If the WDNR were to net WI River fish, would you reccomend that they then discontinue stocking Leech/Great Lake strain even though they are seeing 50 pound fish?)
2) The 'Lake Nancy' project which stocked Leech Lake Strain muskies in a northern WI lake grew bigger muskies than whatever strain was present in the lake, with better natural reproduction to boot.
3) The largest musky ever documented in Vilas County, was out of North Twin Lake and was a spotty! There is no record of WDNR stocking of spotties in North Twin.
Yes the WDNR could attempt to net giant WI River muskies and stock from their eggs. Would this be better than stocking Leech/Great Lake strain? Yes, in that we would end up with big fish genetics that have a good chanceof being 'native', but, No, in that this process is simply not nearly as feasible (cost,, man hours, etc) as simply inceasing the number of lakes stocked with Leech/Great Lake strain. In addition, if the WDNR takes the WI River netting path, get ready for years of nothing getting done. This netting process will only give them execuses...$, man houres, etc....why nothing is happening. Why not do both? Net WI river fish AND increase spotted stocking?
Sean
|
|
| |
|
| Cory:
The DNR in its "Muskellunge Management Update" October 2004, as well as scientists and geneticitists in other many other research papers, all know that our "original" stocks of muskellunge in the Mississippi River drainages (Chippewa River, Flambeau River, Wisconsin River, etc.) came from the Mississippi River. Yes, evolution over thousands of years evolved some different strains, including the very important differences at the center of this project, those that spawn and grow small and those that spawn twice and grow large. A most recent and very large genetic published in 1997, found exactly what we have been contending; the current genetic stocks in Wisconsin waters is what man (DNR) has "created" over the past 130 years of stocking activity. There are NO known proven "pure" stocks of muskellunge left in Wisconsin, and the few remaing "reminants" from the larger strains are nearly extinct. The is no need for yet another study to confirm what has already been done. That the DNR is using pure strain Great Lakes fish for the Green Bay Restoration program shows that they know what is right there, why not the rest of the state?
No, the "Leechers," as you put it, are not themselves the "native strain" that was in Northern Wisconsin, but it IS the ONLY "PURE-NATIVE" MISSISSIPPI RIVER STRAIN OF MUSKIES LEFT ON THE PLANT from the ancesteral stocks of long ago!!
Having said that, the first two options we considered with regard to obtaining eggs for the hatchery and developing new brood stock lakes, was to do extensive netting, taking eggs and milt from only large captured muskies, to at least be fairly sure that the "gene pool" is there from the larger growing Wisconsin fish, thereby giving the DNR the opportunity to return to propagating the best of the best. These options were discounted.
Wouldn't the Chippewa Flowage, Lac Court Oreilles or Grindstone lakes in the western side of the state and some sections of the Wisconsin River, the Lac Du Flambeau chain or some others of the lakes in the eastern part of the state formerly known to produce large, trophy class muskies, be a great place to do such selective egg taking? We thought so.
Cory, the DNR has been doing "what they think is right" for well over 100 years...but it hasn't been unfortunately. As we have pointed out over and over, we are pointing no fingers at the hard working, dedicated DNR personel of the past that did what they had to do at the time with the knowledge that they had available. While it saved our musky fisheries from near total collapse, unfortunately it also has affected our trophy waters and our native stocks of large growing muskies. It can, as Minnesota has done, be "fixed."
Please keep in mind, that the current folks in the state at the top are up for re-election in the next year and a half. Will this administration do what is right...now, or will it fall to the following administrations?
To hinder the process, would be to support "business as usual." To ask for change is what is necessary to return to the top musky destination in the US, and make our STATE FISH proud! We feel it is clear how muskie anglers should "funnel our efforts."
Musky regards,
Larry Ramsell
WMRP Team
|
|
| |
|
|
2) The 'Lake Nancy' project which stocked Leech Lake Strain muskies in a northern WI lake grew bigger muskies than whatever strain was present in the lake, with better natural reproduction to boot.
this is NOT an attack, just for clarification purposes: that statement is categorically untrue.
please be careful what you put out there as "facts"!!! the internet is a powerful medium that quickly spreads half-truths. if you're going to make strong statements, please be sure to get your information from the original sources yourself rather than assuming that what you read on the internet is accurate.
Nancy Lake did NOT have muskies present prior to being stocked with Leech strain. it was a lake overrun with stunted northern pike, and the project meant to study if Leech strain muskies would successfully reproduce (since they do so in deeper water than Wisconsin fish) in the presence of northern pike. they managed to do so in 4 of 6 years, pretty good results when compared to Wisconsin fish more broadly.
the stated purpose and conclusion form the project was to "assess survival, growth, and natural reproduction...Muskellunge performance in Nancy Lake was difficult to assess because no muskellunge were present prior to it's introduction. Hence, there was no evidence to suggest that Leech Lake muskellunge would perform better than Wisconsin muskellunge in Wisconsin waters." (from RR175)
the conclusion quoted above is technically true; however, the absence of proof is not proof of absence.
to my way of thinking, they should stock some Wisconsin muskellunge into Nancy Lake at the same rate (3 times, every 3 years) they stocked Leech Lake strain and do some comparative analysis of growth and reproduction relative to the Leech fish results. do that with 10 more study lakes at the same time and THAT would tell us something.
it's an obvious next step if we're interested in "proving" the issue by scientifically sound research models conducted in Wisconsin waters. (although i'll give a nod to the position of some who assert that this research was already in done in Minnesota in waters that are significantly similar.) |
|
| |
|
| Sean:
Just a point of clarification. Prior to Leech Lake muskies being stocked in Nancy Lake, there were no muskies present, just a large population of stunted pike. We felt one of the most amazing results of that "experiement" was natural reproduction despite low muskie densities and potential pike predation. In nearly every non-native lake that Bone Lake progeny has been stocked into, there has been no natural reproduction.
Since this lack of natural reproduction is the case too with Lac Court Oreilles, the original Spooner hatchery brood stock lake, and the lake that was used to "create" the Bone Lake broodstock, we wonder if the "mixing" that took place in LCO since "at least" 1933 (documented, and likely back into the 1800's), and the total use of the known small growing strain of muskies from Big Spider Lake for the entire hatchery year class in 1956, and stocked into both brood stock lakes, as well as all of the lakes stocked from the Spooner hatchery that year, has had the singular or combined effect of rendering that stock basically sterile, thereby creating a situation of "put and take" fisheries where ever they are used! It certainly makes one question the continued use of the Spooner hatchery brood stock for any lake.
The use of the "Oehmcke strain" (DNR terminology) of muskies being used in the Woodruff hatchery, too is troublesome. The 1982 genetic study sponsored by the Wisconsin DNR, Minnesota DNR and Muskie's, Inc., and done by Post et al., UW Stevens Point, found that the primary brood stock lake muskies for that hatchery, from Squirrel Lake and lakes developed from Squirrel Lake stock, are genetically the same as the Shoepac strain of muskies that Minnesota had been using in their hatchery system for over 30 years. During those years that Minnesota and Wisconsin were both using these small strain muskies for stocking, the sizes of fish caught were very similar. Since Minnesota changed to the larger growing Mississippi River strain, the results have been fantastic! Check out the catch stats and graphs on the WMRP web page: www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org to get a very clear picture of what I am saying. It is incontrovertable, despite the limitations of available catch data in both states. These stats are derived from the largest muskie catch data base in existence.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
WMRP Team |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Lambeau,
I stand corrected, thank you. As you correctly stated there were no muskies present in Nancy Lake.
I think that your statement..." although i'll give a nod to the position of some who assert that this research was already done in Minnesota in waters that are significantly similar", really makes a great point. The research has been done and the results are in...50 pound spotties are being caught in MN that are app 12 yrs of age.
Sean |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Larry,
Thanks for the clarification on Nancy Lake, as well as the additional information and evidnece of documented growth rates, Leech VS Bone Lake/LCO/Oehmcke, etc...
I really believe that your research is finally giving the people of WI a choice. We can stay the course and watch our musky fishery continue to crash, with documantation showing that we have 20 yr old fish swimming in our waters that will never reach 40"s, or we can mirror what MN has done, and see 30 pound fish within 6 yrs and 50 pound fish within 12 yrs.
Giant muskies used to be a WI natural resource. Lets get it back!
Sean Murphy
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
I respect your work, and have always admired your involvement in many muskie projects over the years, so believe me, this is not a personal issue. If I hear that one more time, you'll make me have to drive over there and buy you a couple cups of coffee!! I have the same passion as you, the same ideals and the same goals. Perhaps I just see a different and in my opinion far more productive path available. You freely admit your tactics to date have not acquired even the least hoped for results. You admonish others for continuing behavior that doesn't acquire results, so it would seem logical to apply that concept to the presentation of your group's platform.
I will ask for moderate behavior where I see extreme or radical behavior possibly hinder the best chance ever for us to acquire improvement in our trophy Muskie management strategies State wide. No matter who the 'messenger'is, if he or she is confrontational, the message will be lost or flat out ignored. If you are certain presenting the described platform is right, how can you possibly condone presenting it in a way that has proven to fail here in Wisconsin? Such was the more carefully worded basis of my last post. I do understand the passion, I share it.
A question. Please pick an Oneida County Muskie lake (Perhaps Pelican? Maybe the Moen Chain?), and give us the plan on what should be done. I read the Mississippi basin and Great Lakes suggested actions on your website, and agree with some and disagree with some of the premises.
Larry, I guess my background has me looking at the same ideas, facts and potential goals a bit differently than your group might, but with the same end game in mind. As I said, a process, not an event.
Now...
Some specific questions.
I and a friend have captured two fish recently from a lake stocked with the fish from the Woodruff hatchery. Both were fin clipped and by the markings, stocked fish. One was about 40# and about 52" in August, the other about 35# and 51" or so in July and two years earlier, definitely NOT the same fish. I have seen numerous others in that class in this lake, when considered for it's size of approximately 500 acres. I believe that I am catching fish there from the 1987, 1989, 1991,1996 and later stockings, and have seen fish there well into the mid 50" class. I know of one old hybrid harvested that was 37# and 53" from that water. I really don't think I want ANYTHING done with that water right now. The lake has natural reproduction, and sustains a fair population of Muskies as a result. What's RIGHT here that's creating these fish? I have been told, and tend to believe, it's lack of harvest of those fish when they reach 48".
Conversely, what is WRONG with other similar types and sizes of water here stocked with the same fish at the same time, producing fish into the 48" and 30# class a few years back from same year or similar year stockings, but few if any now?
What about Pelican Lake? I have fished that very hard since the very early 70's and see the population of fish in and above the 50" class growing, not declining despite intense spearing pressure. Yes, red rusty infestation and other factors made the water harder to fish, and feel I am fishing a mix of stocked and natural fish, due to the markings. Over the years, I have caught and released about a dozen there over 50". In my VERY humble opinion, the fishing there is better now, by a long shot, than it was in 1973. The 'native' strain there seem to reach trophy size at about 13 or so based on scale samples, and are VERY well proportioned, which is a trait of that strain. The stocked fish seem to do a bit better. As I understand it, the strain from Woodruff exhibits excellent length to girth ratio characteristics, in other words, FAT fish. Let's assume that water is a target for stocking spotted muskies. What happens when those fish are stocked? The concern for 'poisoning' the fish elsewhere has to, by logical progression, apply to EVERY single body of water with muskies swimming in them today, right? Would not the very same crossbreeding concerns exist? Does this mean we have to kill off the populations here, and restock with the Great Lakes Strain?
Here's the data on Pelican:
Fish_Stocking_Report_County
Fish_Stocking_Report_by_Species
WDNR_BIOLOGY_WDB_PUBLIC.PUBLIC_STOCKING_SUMMARIES3 - Fish_Stocking_Report_County
Parameters
STOCKED_CNTY_NAME Parameter 1 ONEIDA
Data
COUNTY
ONEIDA
WATERBODY NAME
ALDRIDGE LALLEQUASH SPRINGSBASS LBEAR LBEARSKIN CRBEARSKIN LBERGMAN CRBIG CARR LBIG CARR LAKEBIG FORK LBIG LBIG ST GERMAIN LBIG STONE LBIRCH LBIRD LBOLGER LBOOM LBOOTH CRBOOTH LBOX LBROWN CRBUCKSKIN CRBUCKSKIN LBURROWS LCAMP FIFTEEN SPRINGSCAMP SIX CRCARROL LCHAIN LCLEAR LCRESCENT LCROOKED LCUNARD LDAM LDEER LDIAMOND LDOROTHY LE HORSEHEAD LECHO LEMMA LFALL CRFLANNERY LFOURMILE LFOURTH LFRANKLIN LGEORGE LGILMORE LGOODYEAR LGUDEGAST CRHANCOCK LHASBROOK LHAWK LHEMLOCK LHODSTRADT LHORSEHEAD LINDIAN LISLAND LJENNIE WEBBER LJULIA LKATHAN LKATHERINE LKAUBASHINE CRKAWAGUESAGA LL AIDENNL CREEKL JULIAL NOKOMISL THOMPSONLANGLEY CRLITTLE BASS LLITTLE BEARSKIN LLITTLE FORK LLITTLE SOMO RLITTLE TOMAHAWK LLONE STONE LLONG LLOWER KAUBASHINE LMADELINE LMANSON LMAPLE LMARGARET LMARION LMCCORMICK LMEDICINE LMERCER CRMERCER LMID LMILDRED LMINOCQUA LMINOCQUA THOROUGHFAREMOEN LMOSQUITO LMUSKELLUNGE LMUSKIE LN NOKOMIS LN TWO LNOISY CROELHAFEN CRONEIDA LOSCAR-JENNY LPELICAN LPERCH LPICKEREL LPIER LPLANTING GROUND LRAINBOW FLRANGE LINE LRHINELANDER FLRICE R FLROCKY RUN SPRINGSROUND LS TWO LSAND LSCOTT CRSEVENMILE LSEVENTEEN CRSHISHEBOGAMA LSHIVERING SANDS CRSKUNK LSPIDER LSPIRIT LSQUASH LSQUASH LAKESQUAW CRSQUAW LSQUIRREL LSTARKS CRSTARKS FLSTARKS SPRINGSTELLA LSTONE LSUGAR CAMP CRSUNDAY LSUNSET LSURESHOT LSWAMP CRSWEENEY LTHIRD LTHUNDER CRTHUNDER LTOM DOYLE LTOMAHAWK LTOMAHAWK THOROUGHFARETOWNLINE LTURTLE LTWO SISTERS LUN CRUN DITCHUN LUN SPRINGVENUS LVIRGIN LW HORSEHEAD LWHITEFISH LWILDWOOD LWILLOW FLWILLOW LWILLOW R
LEGAL DESC AND LOCAL NAME
T35N R10E S11 -
REPORT CREATED
MAR 21, 2005 - 08:09 PM
YEAR
SPECIES
STRAIN
AGE CLASS
AVG LENGTH (INCHES)
NUMBER FISH STOCKED
1 1972 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 3.0 21,600
2 1972 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 5.0 25,000
3 1974 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 7.0 2,250
4 1974 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 600
5 1975 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 3.0 20,000
6 1976 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,395
7 1976 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 3.0 20,000
8 1977 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,369
9 1980 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 8.0 2,500
10 1981 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.0 890
11 1982 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 1,600
12 1982 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.0 900
13 1984 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,032
14 1984 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 154
15 1984 WALLEYE UNSPECIFIED FRY 1.0 3,000,000
16 1985 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.0 2,500
17 1986 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,176
18 1988 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,500
19 1988 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 1,000
20 1989 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 210
21 1989 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,000
22 1991 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 10.0 1,750
23 1992 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,500
24 1993 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.4 2,500
25 1996 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 10.8 2,500
26 1996 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FRY .5 100,000
27 1998 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 12.0 1,250
28 1998 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 12.7 1,250
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Worrall:
Thank you for the compliment.
While I don't believe that we "...freely admit your (our) tactics to date have not acquired even the least hoped for results...," you have made your points and they have been taken. While there is a lot more to the instance that ruffled a few feathers than you are aware of, there is no point in belaboring it further, so we shall move forward.
You state: "A question. Please pick an Oneida County Muskie lake (Perhaps Pelican? Maybe the Moen Chain?), and give us the plan on what should be done. I read the Mississippi basin and Great Lakes suggested actions on your website, and agree with some and disagree with some of the premises."
Rather than being a question, it is a lake specific issue that would take a bit of time to research and define. I will however, touch on the "drainage" issues in a moment, but first a couple of questions for you regarding Pelican.
I see from the stocking data you have provided that stocking was discontinued there in 1998. I have been told that the Pelican Lake Association, with your involvement, got the DNR to discontinue the stocking. Is this information accurate? If so, could you please explain the reason?
The "drainage" in Wisconsin are a fascinating study. There are several locations throughout the muskie range where you can stand in one drainage and practically throw a rock to another. Interesting too are the two swamp locations that feed to distinctly different drainage, one going south and the other north!
When we discuss drainage with regard to our Project proposal's, we must look at a couple of factors. First, since man's intervention and damming of the northern drainage, is there still the possibility of muskies stocked in drainage waters that have the potential to escape and move downstream? A good example of this type of movement is a muskie that was tagged in Big MacKenzie Lake in western Wisconsin. This fish navigated some very small streams, and over time made its way all the way to the St. Croix River, where it was recaptured! Another consideration must be what egress would be available in the case of a 100 year flood, such as what happened in the Mississippi River in recent memory when entire towns were flooded.
On to your "Now...Some specific questions." Your scenario below provides the barest minimum of information, so a few questions will arise and a few suppositions will have to be made for any answer:
"I and a friend have captured two fish recently from a lake stocked with the fish from the Woodruff hatchery. Both were fin clipped and by the markings, stocked fish. One was about 40# and about 52" in August, the other about 35# and 51" or so in July and two years earlier, definitely NOT the same fish. I have seen numerous others in that class in this lake, when considered for it's size of approximately 500 acres. I believe that I am catching fish there from the 1987, 1989, 1991,1996 and later stockings, and have seen fish there well into the mid 50" class. I know of one old hybrid harvested that was 37# and 53" from that water. I really don't think I want ANYTHING done with that water right now. The lake has natural reproduction, and sustains a fair population of Muskies as a result. What's RIGHT here that's creating these fish? I have been told, and tend to believe, it's lack of harvest of those fish when they reach 48"."
First, was a check made to see that the fish stocked in Lake X were fin clipped? Only in special circumstances do they spend the time and manpower to fin clip stocked fish. You state that the two nice fish mentioned were "NOT" the same fish. On what basis do you make this claim? Were the fish tagged as well? "Seeing" numerous others in that lake, as you state, is merely anecdotal, as there would be no way that you could tell if you were indeed seeing multiple fish or the same fish or few fish often.
You state, and I have no reason to dispute, that you have seen fish there "well into the mid 50" class." What you have not said, is whether or not this is a native muskie lake, whether it is a seepage or drainage lake, nor what drainage if a drainage lake. Since Lake X is obviously maintained by stocking, whether native or not, it falls into the "must stock to maintain" category.
To answer what I believe to be the heart of your question without waiting for additional information from you, I will proceed from both native and non-native standpoints and assume it to be a drainage lake:
"IF" Lake X is a native drainage muskie lake, and since pike are obviously present (based upon your "hybrid" comment), I submit that even though it has been determined that this lake must be stocked to maintain a viable fishery, there is a very distinct possibility that there is a remnant stock of native-large strain muskellunge still at large in Lake X. Enough to self-maintain a small population of large fish, such as still the case in Lac Court Oreilles near Hayward. What may not be being realized in these two examples is, that the continued overstocking with mostly small strain hatchery fish is bringing both lakes closer and closer to the brink of extinction of the large stain muskies there!
"IF" Lake X is a non-native muskie lake, and has been "created" by hatchery stocking, the first question I would want answered is "when" was it created? This too could have a great bearing on what fish stocks/strains are present. There was a least one occurrence during the '60's when the eggs taken for the Woodruff hatchery were from large strain fish in one of the "former" brood fish lakes. That year, the average size of the females stripped for eggs was 44.5 inches vs. the "normal" average of 33.5 inches! With the known history of reproductive success of the large strain muskies in non-native lakes, it is conceivable that if some of that stocking years fish got into Lake X, "it" could be basically the same as a remnant native large strain stock and account for your occasional giant from there.
While based on the limited information given the above examples must be considered hypothetical, that are based on solid information. Now on to your next question:
"Conversely, what is WRONG with other similar types and sizes of water here stocked with the same fish at the same time, producing fish into the 48" and 30# class a few years back from same year or similar year stockings, but few if any now?"
Here again, you ask a question with the barest of details. One could come up with many valid reasons for the scenario you pose, but all are but educated guesses at this point. The foremost thought that comes to mind for your scenario would be that these "similar" waters may not have "always" been stocked with the same fish at the same time, and they may have missed the large strain stocking and/or they weren't native muskie lakes and Lake X is. That is about as far afield as I care to go with no information to pull from. On to Pelican Lake:
Continuing: "What about Pelican Lake? I have fished that very hard since the very early 70's and see the population of fish in and above the 50" class growing, not declining despite intense spearing pressure. Yes, red rusty infestation and other factors made the water harder to fish, and feel I am fishing a mix of stocked and natural fish, due to the markings."
While anecdotal, I respect your ability to discern stocked fish from fish natural or native to Pelican. I too, can make the same determination on one of my favorite lakes, even though a biologist was hard put to understand how I (we) could/can do that since he "couldn't." It is merely a matter of time on the water and knowing your fish. As for the population of big fish growing despite spearing, one could make a couple of quick conclusion hypothesis. First is catch and release. This must be factored in. Second could be the discontinuation of stocking of small strain fish from the Woodruff hatchery system, allowing the remnant native-large strain to again begin to dominate. Since Pelican is a Mississippi River drainage lake (via the Wisconsin River), it is very easy to conclude that the native strain of muskies in Pelican Lake are indeed the Mississippi River strain.
Continuing: "Over the years, I have caught and released about a dozen there over 50". In my VERY humble opinion, the fishing there is better now, by a long shot, than it was in 1973. The 'native' strain there seem to reach trophy size at about 13 or so based on scale samples, and are VERY well proportioned, which is a trait of that strain."
Based on your limited data information, I would say that the "native strain" in Pelican has about the average growth rate for Mississippi River strain muskies:
Continuing: "The stocked fish seem to do a bit better. As I understand it, the strain from Woodruff exhibits excellent length to girth ratio characteristics, in other words, FAT fish."
Define "a bit better." While the Woodruff fish may exhibit "excellent length to girth ratio characteristics" that does not necessarily equate to "better" fish. Quite the contrary may be the case. Again, since I am working with very limited information, I will have to make a few assumptions. Both the large and small strains of muskies show good growth at small sizes. It is at the point of earlier maturation of the small strains that things change. The small strains begin putting on girth as their reproductive mechanism's kicks into gear. The larger stains continue length growth without putting on girth until mature and reproductive mechanism kick in. One big mistake that happens when length/girth comparisons are made at the same length dimensions, is that this type of measurement does not take AGE into consideration. In every study we could find that had information for length and girth at the SAME AGE, the Mississippi River strain muskies out performed (were larger than) every other strain!
Continuing: "Let's assume that water (Pelican) is a target for stocking spotted muskies. What happens when those fish are stocked?"
First, since Pelican is a Mississippi River drainage lake, we will figure by "spotted muskies" you mean Mississippi River strain spots vs. the spots of the Great Lakes strain. Most importantly to anglers, is that they will grow FAST, and will get big over a short time span; approximately 46" average for males and 53 to 54 inches for females. More importantly, since they are basically a native fish for that lake, they should adapt quite well, including natural reproduction.
Continuing: "The concern for 'poisoning' the fish elsewhere has to, by logical progression, apply to EVERY single body of water with muskies swimming in them today, right?"
EXACTLY, and the MAJOR points we have been trying to make in our Restoration documents! By using the "native" Mississippi River strain of muskies, any emigree's down into the Wisconsin River and eventually the Mississippi River, will be right a home and no threat to the native populations in any waters along the way. While I don't agree that the term "poisoning" is the proper word to use, "mixing" of the large and small growing strains defiantly is. In this case, no problem. And yes, this consideration should and must be given to "EVERY single body of water with muskies swimming in them today," at least those waters that are drainage waters. Landlocked seepage lakes are another matter completely.
Continuing: "Would not the very same crossbreeding concerns exist?"
YES. If a lake contains a "native population" of small stain (allopatric) muskellunge AND has never been stocked and doesn't now have pike, but must be maintained by stocking, it should recieve only small strain stocking...ideally from eggs taken from that very lake and returned there to take maximum advantage of the "evolved" genetics there. Unfortunately, few or none of these situations exist. Usually these types of lakes must be maintained by stocking due to an invasion by pike, either introduced by man or due to some other unknown factor. Conversely, if a drainage lake is a lake that "originally" had the large growing stain as the native fish, it is irresponsible to overstock or continue to overstock them with the small hatchery strains. Again, this is the Major focus of our Project proposals.
Continuing: "Does this mean we have to kill off the populations here, and restock with the Great Lakes Strain?"
By "here" I'll assume we are again talking about Pelican. There is no reason to "kill off" the population there, and NO, restocking with the "Great Lakes Strain" would NOT be the proper strain to use, rather, as indicated above, the Mississippi River strain should be used IF any further stocking is to be done there. Ir-regardless of the past stocking practices using small stain fish, IF stocking were deemed necessary there, the Mississippi River strain will survive and once again become dominant, as has been the case in the native Mississippi River strain lakes in Minnesota.
As we have noted, this is an extremely complicated "puzzle." It is only by reviewing and understanding the 130 history of propagation and stocking in Wisconsin that this "puzzle" can be put together, and the "picture" that it paints can began to be understood.
I trust that this treatise answers most of your questions and concerns.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
| After breakfast and coffee, I came to the realization that while we have been discussing "strains" throughout, we haven't really defined what the strain differences basically are and why they are important. Allow me to elucidate:
We have had little discussion on the great importance and distinction between the large and small growing strains of muskellunge. There is a very important difference between them. In the State Musky Committee meeting, after I had put up a slide showing the ovaries of a large strain-multiple spawner, one of the geneticist's present, stated that the "multiple spawning" trait of the large growing "sympatric" (co-exists naturally with pike) strain of muskellunge is an "evolutionary novelty." We agree. It is this "novelty" that is SO important in the large strains reproductive strategy of producing up to 850,000 eggs (documented), requiring larger body growth. This "novelty" by the way, exists in EVERY POPULATION OF NATURAL, SYMPATRIC MUSKELLUNGE STOCK IN NORTH AMERICA!
Part of this larger muskellunge strains reproductive strategy also includes spawning in deeper water in their native environment, as well as spawning at higher water temperatures, allowing co-existence with pike.
The smaller, "pike-like" strains of allopatric muskellunge (evolved and exist(ed) in water absent of pike) have a reproductive strategy that is much closer to that of a pike; single spawning, inshore, and at colder water temperatures. It is these traits that get it into trouble when pike are introduced into their environment. Many studies have documented how muskies loose out when pike are introduced into allopatric muskie lakes. A good example is Pine Lake, Wisconsin. When pike invaded that body of water after a dam broke, pike have become the vastly dominant predator species there and muskies are nearly wiped out.
It is these factors that have management ramifications as to which is the best strain to stock in waters that must be stocked to maintain a viable fishery or create new and/or better opportunities. Obviously, any muskie lake, native or otherwise, that gets/needs stocking, would best be served with the large growing strain of muskellunge that is able to co-exist with pike if pike are present, whether natural or introduced. Non-native muskie lakes without pike would still be best served with the larger growing strain, as it can provide a proven trophy potential fishery that the anglers want and that will also benefit tourism. A win/win situation!
I hope this clairfies the "strain" differences.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
| wow. THANK YOU to Mr. Worrall and Mr. Ramsell.
this is the kind of professional question/answer discourse that you just can't find anywhere else. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'First, since Pelican is a Mississippi River drainage lake, we will figure by "spotted muskies" you mean Mississippi River strain spots vs. the spots of the Great Lakes strain. Most importantly to anglers, is that they will grow FAST, and will get big over a short time span; approximately 46" average for males and 53 to 54 inches for females. More importantly, since they are basically a native fish for that lake, they should adapt quite well, including natural reproduction.
Continuing: "The concern for 'poisoning' the fish elsewhere has to, by logical progression, apply to EVERY single body of water with muskies swimming in them today, right?"'
My point is that Pelican has been stocked for many years, heavily, and by both the DNR and many Muskie clubs. The strain that was stocked since 1972 has been primarily from Woodruff, I believe. There seems to be a healthy population of big fish, and in fact the lake is doing better IMHO than it was in 1973. Are the big fish there 53" n the average? No. So now we want to introduce Mississippi strain to a lake that has reasonable natural reproduction and has been stocked with fish from the Woodruff hatchery for over 30 years. The premise that Mississippi strain will easily adapt without problem because they are basically native makes some sense, but what about the large population of muskies already there, and cross breeding concerns? Will not the fish now there interact, crossbreed, compete?
The Lake X example is, by design to this conversation, another Mississippi Watershed Drainage lake. Interestingly, I have fished this water very hard for over 30 years, and until the stocking I mentioned, a Muskie over 45" was an absolute HOG. Now there is a good population of good fish, and the year classes correspond with the stocking done.
How do I know the fish were not the same one? The smaller of the two had several distinct scars, which the larger did not have, including a jaw deformity from a previous capture. How am I sure I am seeing more than one or two true trophies there? Because I have seen several in one day, different locations on the lake, within a 2 hour window. Is it possible this lake was stocked in the 60's? I don't have that answer yet, but will. What I do know is the year classes stocked there are doing very, very well. Would this lake be a candidate for the Mississippi strain? Maybe, but I'd hate to see that happen. The fish in that water are heavy, and exhibit excellent growth throughout their lifespan.
The other lake mentioned is NOT a drainage lake and was, to my knowledge, a lake where the current muskie population was established by stocking, again by design to this conversation. Stocking there continues. The year classes stocked in the very early (1972) time frame produced some very big fish there; I saw several harvested in the mid 80's there that were 52 to 54". As angling pressure increased, the number of large fish decreased. This lake is heavily speared including Winter spearing, and angling pressure is way heavier than on Lake X. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Excellent discussion and very informative.
I have some follow up relating to Steve’s questions hopefully Larry can offer an opinion.
Still using Pelican as an example if Mississippi Strain where stocked there would they inter breed with the small strain if the small strain spawns more like pike and the Miss. Strain spawns in deeper warmer water. Wouldn’t any genetic mixing only occur between already common fish which should be a plus.
Also I thought it was stated earlier that the small strain being used as brood stock for Woodruff was basically a sterile breed, if so how is the natural reproduction occurring on Pelican and in Steve’s Lake X explained. It can’t all be from remnant natural fish, can it?
Steve I think I have heard you say, you believe that the largest fish you are seeing in pelican are remnant naturals. If this is the case wouldn’t a stocking practice that used genetically similar fish as brood stock be a good thing. I believe the same thing is happening in the Wisconsin River, you can obviously tell the natural fish compared to the stocked fish.
Rather than being totally radical, could brood stock be developed from Wisconsin River fish as opposed to Mississippi fish. I believe they could be genetically similar, but it would be much easier to convince the local people that the big fish in Pelican Lake, The Moen Chain, The Three Lakes Chain, Lac Vieux Desert, and the Eagle River Chain (Yes big fish are caught here every once and a while, they usually look like river fish), all have common ancestry with Wisconsin River fish. The truly big fish from all the above fisheries usually look very similar.
One more question, are Mississippi Strain musky harder to capture for milking than the fish currently being used? Deeper, later, spawners I could see this being a concern of the WDNR, though it shouldn’t be from a management perspective.
And to answer one of Larry’s questions, from what I have heard through my dad who lives on Pelican is that stocking was halted because the lake association petitioned the DNR to do so because they felt there was enough musky eating all the perch and walleye as it was. I don’t know if Steve was involved or not with other more scientific reasons, the above is the word around the lake.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Just to add to the discussion the attached pics are from the Wisconsin river.
These fish where caught a couple day apart in November from the same type of structure. At the time the different marking on the two fish where puzzling. I have since come the conclusion that one fish was a stocked fish the other was most likely natural. The “Bronze Back” is the common color of fish over 45" from the Wisconsin River this fish was right at 45, the other was 41. Both where dinning fine on the plentiful forage in the River.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Attachments
----------------
 MR 1999-11-09 45b.JPG (27KB - 293 downloads)
MR 1999-11-13 41b.JPG (30KB - 289 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | WOW....must say this has been an interesting threat as Mike pointed out.
Steve, thanks for some thought provoking comments. Larry, thanks for the very informative posts.
For the record I am NOT against WHAT your group is striving for by any means. I understand the brick walls you have run into and the frustrations that have build over time. Keep up the good work of getting people involved to bring WI to the level it should be. Sometimes working with the goverment requires one to have the patiences of the Pope!! Lets just hope (again I am being the optimist) that the Pope won't be needed to get to a happy conclusion!
But like I have stated before, it is not going to happen unless we get the right people on both sides of the fence working together to come to a good plan to move us forward.
Cory
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Thank you for posting the info about the different strains Mr Ramsell.
Can you expand on this a little more? How many strains of muskies are there? Which ones are double spawners and which ones are not? What is the max growth rate/potential of each of the different strains? What strains do we have in WI today?
Thanks,
Grass, |
|
| |
|
| lambeau: Your welcome.
Mr. Worrall:
You state: "My point is that Pelican has been stocked for many years, heavily, and by both the DNR and many Muskie clubs. The strain that was stocked since 1972 has been primarily from Woodruff, I believe. There seems to be a healthy population of big fish, and in fact the lake is doing better IMHO than it was in 1973. Are the big fish there 53" n the average? No."
My reply: Please keep one thought in mind that may further help to explain why some big fish are/may coming from the Woodruff hatchery. The term "Oehmcke strain" was coined at Woodruff by DNR staff. That term is used, because as Art Oehmcke recently said, they are so mixed up that there is no way to know what they are. He stated after reading our Project document that if we can figure out a way to "sort it out, more power to us."!! They used then, occasionally, eggs from large strain muskies. Like the more commonly used small strains, especially after he learned that the small Squirrel Lake strain ("small" unknown to him at that time) provided the best eggs from a standpoint of egg and fry survival, and switched to them almost exclusively. The problem is/was, that the "mixing" that took place resulted in BOTH strains getting stocked EVERYWHERE, including brood stock lakes, and some of the remnants likely still survive. During especially fast warming springs in these small lakes, spawning of the two strains can overlap, just as with pike and muskie, and large strain eggs can get into the hatchery system. 10-12 years later, up pops a big fish from a lake not known to have big fish.
You state: "So now we want to introduce Mississippi strain to a lake that has reasonable natural reproduction and has been stocked with fish from the Woodruff hatchery for over 30 years. The premise that Mississippi strain will easily adapt without problem because they are basically native makes some sense, but what about the large population of muskies already there, and cross breeding concerns? Will not the fish now there interact, crossbreed, compete?
My reply: First of all, if stocking has been deemed no longer necessary there, this discussion is moot. Nothing should be stocked, including Mississippi River strain. Applying your question to a similar lake that does need/get stocking, my reply would be a definite yes, stock Mississippi River strain. If there are large strain fish in there already, and they truly are the larger strain, and not an upper end or hybrid mix of the two strains, they will likely spawn at the same time and should cause no problems, as BOTH those there by stocking as well as the MR strain will not have lake evolved genetics to be concerned with. All muskies compete, but if your meaning was will the MR strain out compete the current stocked fish, that is impossible to know. In Minnesota, when the MR strain was stock "over" the small strain that had been used for over 30 years, the MR strain did dominate, as was desired. I think what you would find in our hypothetical situation, is that if the fish already there weren't large strain fish, the MR strain fish would take over, again, as desired (remember, at the SAME AGE, Mississippi River strain fish are heavier at length than the two Wisconsin "hatchery strains.").
You state: "The Lake X example is, by design to this conversation, another Mississippi Watershed Drainage lake. Interestingly, I have fished this water very hard for over 30 years, and until the stocking I mentioned, a Muskie over 45" was an absolute HOG. Now there is a good population of good fish, and the year classes correspond with the stocking done."
My reply: Do the year classes really correspond with the "stocking done" or is it really the affect of natural reproduction as a result of a previous "lucky" stocking of large strain fish?
Your statement: "How do I know the fish were not the same one? The smaller of the two had several distinct scars, which the larger did not have, including a jaw deformity from a previous capture. How am I sure I am seeing more than one or two true trophies there? Because I have seen several in one day, different locations on the lake, within a 2 hour window. Is it possible this lake was stocked in the 60's? I don't have that answer yet, but will. What I do know is the year classes stocked there are doing very, very well. Would this lake be a candidate for the Mississippi strain? Maybe, but I'd hate to see that happen. The fish in that water are heavy, and exhibit excellent growth throughout their lifespan."
My reply: Again, anecdotal information and unprovable. As for whether or not the lake was stocked in the 60's will be interesting information, but my discussion above gives a plausible explanation for your phenomena as with regards to later stockings.
Your statement: "The other lake mentioned is NOT a drainage lake and was, to my knowledge, a lake where the current muskie population was established by stocking, again by design to this conversation. Stocking there continues. The year classes stocked in the very early (1972) time frame produced some very big fish there; I saw several harvested in the mid 80's there that were 52 to 54". As angling pressure increased, the number of large fish decreased. This lake is heavily speared including Winter spearing, and angling pressure is way heavier than on Lake X."
This Lake "Y" exactly parallels those non-native lakes in the western part of the state being stocked with Bone Lake fish with regard to reproduction and minimal growth. Spearing has to be factored in, but without the numbers an assessment cannot be made as to its impact. The "former" large fish that used to be harvested there in the mid 80's, again falls into that "lucky" stocking possibility, when some large strain fish got stocked there. Obviously they are now nearly extinct in that lake. On to Mike's questions:
MRoberts
Posted 3/22/2005 10:43 AM (#139971 - in reply to #139471)
Subject: RE: Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air....
Excellent discussion and very informative.
I have some follow up relating to Steve's questions hopefully Larry can offer an opinion.
Mike asks: "Still using Pelican as an example if Mississippi Strain where stocked there would they inter breed with the small strain if the small strain spawns more like pike and the Miss. Strain spawns in deeper warmer water. Wouldn't any genetic mixing only occur between already common fish which should be a plus."
Mike, if I read your question correctly, it would be highly unlikely that the MR strain would inter breed with the small strain fish there (if any), except in rare cases, their favored thermal spawning regimes would not overlap. This again, has not been a problem in Minnesota. Once stocked, the MR strain becomes dominant and does just fine.
Mike continues: "Also I thought it was stated earlier that the small strain being used as brood stock for Woodruff was basically a sterile breed, if so how is the natural reproduction occurring on Pelican and in Steve's Lake X explained. It can't all be from remnant natural fish, can it?"
My reply: Here we must be careful not to confuse our facts and subsequently spread incorrect information. Your "sterile breed" apparently is derived from my earlier post when I said that nearly all of the non-native lakes stocked with BONE LAKE fish from the SPOONER hatchery, have no natural reproduction. I cannot speak to the lakes stocked from the Woodruff hatchery, but it is likely that if a lake is "created" and perpetual stocking "must" take place, that natural reproduction is absent or insufficient. Pelican is a native or natural muskie lake that has "always" had muskies. Obviously the majority are large strain and natural reproduction is sufficient, a common thread among lakes stocked with MR strain fish, including Nancy Lake in Wisconsin! So to answer your question, YES, it can be from the native large strain fish still present in Pelican Lake, in, a considerable more quantity than "remnant" status.
You state and ask: "Rather than being totally radical, could brood stock be developed from Wisconsin River fish as opposed to Mississippi fish. I believe they could be genetically similar, but it would be much easier to convince the local people that the big fish in Pelican Lake, The Moen Chain, The Three Lakes Chain, Lac Vieux Desert, and the Eagle River Chain (Yes big fish are caught here every once and a while, they usually look like river fish), all have common ancestry with Wisconsin River fish. The truly big fish from all the above fisheries usually look very similar."
My reply: Unequivocally YES! And again, as I have mentioned previously, this was the first two options we presented in our Restoration document as presented at the State Musky Committee meeting in February. It was dismissed. "Hometown Pride" is a natural thing, and obviously we would rather see Wisconsin overtake Minnesota in the production of trophy fish by using Wisconsin fish, but if that won't or cannot happen for whatever reason, should we be content to sit idly by and purpurate more small muskies and waving to happy anglers as they drive THRU Wisconsin on their way to Minnesota, while our Tourism continues to suffer? I certainly hope not!
Your last: "One more question, are Mississippi Strain musky harder to capture for milking than the fish currently being used? Deeper, later, spawners I could see this being a concern of the WDNR, though it shouldn't be from a management perspective."
My reply: One of the main reasons it took Minnesota so long to make the switch from Shoepac small strain muskies to the Leech Lake large strain muskies is that very reason. They couldn't catch them. Once Bob Strand figured out where they were spawning, the 'ol ball game was over, and as they say, "the rest is history!" They can be caught, maybe not in a few days of egg taking as is the current practice, but do we want our DNR to manage for bucks or fish?? The "quick in, quick out" is merely a cost saving thing, and not in the best interest of getting the best eggs for hatchery production. Our sister state spends a month taking eggs to assure that they get the "best of the best." To do otherwise is "penny wise and pound foolish."
Another thoughtful exchange, thank you.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
earlier it was proposed that a contributing factor to the loss of vigorous genetics in various strains of WI fish came about because of high harvest rates of trophy-sized fish. i believe the WMRP cites Muskies Inc. data to support this.
if WI began large-scale stocking of Leech strain fish, and they grew bigger faster as you propose (and as they've demonstrated themselves to do in MN and Nancy Lake), what would the impact be of higher trophy harvest rates in WI than found in MN? would this simply accelerate the maladaptive process of promoting reproduction by smaller/early reproducing fish in WI and return us to this same point in 20 years?
can a stocking project such as this be effective over the long-term without concurrent changes to regulations or voluntary harvest practices?
thanks! |
|
| |
|
| Its one thing if Minnesota is producing bigger fish than Wisconsin, but how will people react if Illinois moves ahead of Wisconsin as well?
According to this article: http://www.illinoisgameandfish.com/il_aa071603a/ they are having sucess. I believe they are stocking Leech Lake strain. |
|
| |
|
| From "Grass:" "Thank you for posting the info about the different strains Mr Ramsell.
Can you expand on this a little more? How many strains of muskies are there?
My reply: Your welcome. I'll do the best I can, but it can get a little complicated. As with "species", when it comes to "strains" there are scientists that are considered "lumpers" and some that are considered "splitters" (their terms, not mine). There is no defined number of "strains." The late Dr. E.J. Crossman, considered by most to have been the foremost esocid researcher in the world, often lamented to me about the vast amount of mixing of muskellunge stocks all over the north American muskie range. He often said that man has so mixed things up that it is impossible to know what is what. Wisconsin has been in the forefront in that department. Minnesota was very fortunate to have available to them the ONLY remaining pure-native stock of Mississippi River strain muskies left on the planet, and based on science, completely changed their stocking program to use them. We strongly feel that Wisconsin should do likewise in all Mississippi River drainage waters that require stocking. Since there are very few lakes left in muskiedom that haven't been tampered with, to give a number of different strains would be impossible. While the geneticists look to genetic conservation, which is fine if a stock hasn't been diluted by 130 years of stocking practices, in all practicality, it cannot be done in a broad scope. Current defined genetic areas (1997 published study) merely encompass what has been "created." While stocks that evolve in isolation do develop genetic adaptations to their respective water bodies, and are considered best if managed individually, in practicality, due to cost, this cannot be accomplished. If it were done, hatchery costs would be astronomical, as eggs would have to be taken from a system, isolated in the hatchery, reared and stocked back into that same system and no where else. Our proposal of using a known, pure, large growing strain of Mississippi River strain muskies (all waters in Wisconsin in the Mississippi River drainage, scientists agree, arrived from the Mississippi River with the melt back of the last glacier), is sound. I didn't exactly answer your question, but I hope you get the idea.
Your next question: "Which ones are double spawners and which ones are not?"
My reply: The "riverine" muskellunge, those sympatric stocks that have historically co-existed with pike, are the multiple spawners. It is an "evolutionary novelty" as one geneticist put it, that allowed this co-existence. Those lakes that historically did not have pike in them, are the allopatric strains that evolved "pike like." These spawn a single time.
Your next question: "What is the max growth rate/potential of each of the different strains?"
According to one scientist that I worked with indicated to me that the small strains have an "average" maximum potential of around 30 to 33 pounds, with an occasional "out of the norm" possibility of about 40 pounds max. The large strains are the ones with maximum growth potential, and the ones where we look for world class fish to come from. Even in the large strains, the "normal" maximum is around 55 pounds, with the rare individual exceeding 60 pounds.
Your last question: "What strains do we have in WI today?"
We have both, albeit the large strains being on the verge of extinction. This is due in part to past management practices and angler harvest of the "best of the best," even in this day of high percentage catch and release. It is these larger strains that we hope to save and enhance via our proposals.
From lambeau: "earlier it was proposed that a contributing factor to the loss of vigorous genetics in various strains of WI fish came about because of high harvest rates of trophy-sized fish. I believe the WMRP cites Muskies Inc. data to support this."
My reply: This too is an very important factor. With the continued harvest of the "top end" fish in any system, often due to high size limits, we can create "downsizing" in a population. Ideally, to preserve these genetic giants we would have "maximum" size limits rather than "minimum" size limits, but this idea would never "sell."
Your next: "if WI began large-scale stocking of Leech strain fish, and they grew bigger faster as you propose (and as they've demonstrated themselves to do in MN and Nancy Lake), what would the impact be of higher trophy harvest rates in WI than found in MN?
My reply: I'll break this down into two parts. Obviously, as noted above, this would have more of an impact in Wisconsin than Minnesota. However, when a strain of fish is used where ALL of them have the "potential" to attain the larger sizes vs. the "odd" giant that now occurs, this impact would be lessened, and immediate replacement of harvested fish would take place, assuring continuation of trophy fish production.
Your next: "would this simply accelerate the maladaptive process of promoting reproduction by smaller/early reproducing fish in WI and return us to this same point in 20 years?
I don't believe so, IF the stocking management program was designed around the known, pure, large strains. In waters that MUST be stocked to maintain a viable fishery, continuous introduction of more "replacements" should keep pace. Once in place, then would be the time to consider higher size limits to protect these fish while they are attaining their maximum growth potential. Size limits are merely a "management tool" to limit harvest.
Your last: "can a stocking project such as this be effective over the long-term without concurrent changes to regulations or voluntary harvest practices? thanks!"
My reply: Absolutely! Obviously, as is the case now, size limit re-assessment considerations will need to be made based on the potential of the fishery. In the case of the western Wisconsin brood lake, Bone Lake, the current 40 inch size limit is merely protecting the small strain fish there FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIFE, while any remaining remnant large strain fish are continually being harvested. In Lac Court Oreilles, the 50 inch size limit there is nearly assuring no harvest, without solving the problems of no viable reproduction and continued hatchery stocking of small strain fish that too cannot attain harvest able size. We have serious concerns regarding a planned transfer of 500 adult fish from Butternut Lake of the Chippewa River drainage into LCO. Since that stock, a riverine, large strain historically, has been "mixed" with the small strain fish from Minocqua Lake in the Wisconsin River drainage, we feel that this transfer will include fish from that mix and further confound the already distressed LCO fishery. Proposed genetic testing can not solve the problem without doing a genetic test on every fish to be transferred, an impossible task.
From Guest: "Its one thing if Minnesota is producing bigger fish than Wisconsin, but how will people react if Illinois moves ahead of Wisconsin as well?"
Interesting question, and a point we have made as a contributing factor for the continued decline in Tourism in Wisconsin. When I was first involved in getting muskies in Illinois, we had trouble finding lakes to put them in. Now they are everywhere! And they are getting BIG. My home lake, a 135 acres drainage "pond", badly polluted by golf course and farm fertilizer run off, has been putting out Leech Lake strain fish up to 53 inches, as recently as again last year!
Your comment: "According to this article: http://www.illinoisgameandfish.com/il_aa071603a/ they are having success. I believe they are stocking Leech Lake strain."
My reply: I haven't yet had time to read that reference, but Illinois has fish from all over the US, including Leech Lake strain. A current long term study under Project Green Gene, has been designed to determine which stocks best fit the thermal regimes in Illinois to provide the best options for Illinois hatchery production, and return on investment.
Fun and important stuff. I hope I have fully answered your questions.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Mike, I like the photos you posted and would really love to believe that telling the difference between stocked fish and the 'WI River' strain is that simple. See, it just plain is not. I grew up on, and fish the WI River nearly every day of the open water season. I was lucky enough to be involved with the initial stocking program down here in Central WI in the early 80's which rehabilitated the river from having absolutely no muskies, to having a fishable population today. See, the Musky is an indicator species, and fortunately, with the Clean Water act of 1972, the river was cleaned up in WI and that indicator species was shown to be able to survive again.
Now, since the stocking began here in Petenwell flowage, we have gotten fish from Bone Lake(Spooner hatchery). We have also gotten some fish from different fish hatcheries, and we also raise fish here in town in our ponds. On any given season, I observe muskies that exhibit the same differentiation in patterns as the ones shown in your photos. Are these WI river strain fish? Gosh no...well most likely not.
I also enjoy spending alot of time on the WI river from Eagle river all the way down to Merril and below. In fact, fishing the WI river is a real passion of mine. It never ceases to amaze me, the different colorations, bar patterns, clear phases, and builds of the fish I am lucky enough to bring to my boat, though difficult as they are to catch in this system most of the time. One thing that occured to me years ago explaining much of this diversity, is the multitude of direct influences in each stretch of the river, from different lake systems. The Rainbow Flowage alone has a dozen or so small feeders, and large ones alike which lead directly to stocked lakes above. Ever check out the St. Germain Creek/River? The flow on that creek as well as Gilmore creek, is amazing at times. Many muskies make it into the river from these systems each and every season. Check out the Pelican river down in Rhinelander. That stream has a fishable population in and of itself, and the fish we see there sometimes look like ones we catch in Boom, sometimes look like the ones caught in Pelican Lake, and sometimes even look like the fish that I believe could have been a native WI River fish(neither of which were shown in your picture), which had shorter snouts, a lightly spotted body(we call them the pizza Muskies of the WI), and stubbier tails. They are very beefy for length, and are a joy to come in contact with on occasion. I have seen a couple of them in the Rhinlander stretch, a few in the stretch above the Eagle chain, and a few pictures of fish like these from archives in my uncles photo album(his family used to float the WI dating back to the 30's).
The fact is, sadly, there is really not enough of a true WI River strain left(if any) to try and brood from. If one were to try to take milt from fish in the WI River say in the Rainbow flowage, one is taking milt from the Eagle river chain, three lakes chain, St. Germain(and its associated watershed), Pike Lake, Gilmore Lake(and its associated watrershed), sugar camp chain, and the list goes on. Sadly these systems are what caused the strain native in the WI River to go by the wayside in the first place and brings me to my next point.
We are very lucky to have muskies down here in the Petenwell Flowage of the WI River. We have the largest inland Musky Lake with a fishable population at 23,000 acres, that contains more forage per acre than Green Bay itself. This is why the people around here are very puzzled as to the fact that the Muskies in the 50" range and up are not showing up. Not showing up in DNR surveys, not showing up in landing nets of some very astute musky anglers, and never showing up at a taxidermist or bait shop. Yes, we have some of the healthiest looking 44-47" Muskies on the planet, but they are simply topping out in that range, and our biologist concurs with this observation. And before I get a ton of hate mail, yes there have been one or two documented 49" and 50"ers(I was lucky enough to handle the prior) in the river here. Anomolies abound everywhere.
That said, it is quite obvious that the Petenwell Flowage is much closer to the Mississippi river than it is to the Eagle river chain, Gilmore Lake, or Squirrel Lake. It is a known fact that Mississippi River fish inhabited lower reaches of the WI River system at one time, and some claim to have seen them near the confluence in recent years. It would make my friends, local biologists, local clubs, and anglers very happy, if we were able to start raising the fish in our ponds, that belong in this system. They would have a chance to naturally reproduce where the current strain is known not to due to drastic water river fluctuations in the spring. The Miss. strain could in turn save our club alot of money in the future, which we could use to stock other waters in need.
I'll attatch a couple pictures of fish from stretches of the WI River that were void of fish before rehabilitative stocking. Notice the difference in markings. Which strain is which? Again, all of the fish have been stocked. Though nice fish do exist in the stocked populations, they are simply not reaching desired growth as expected. We have taken several scale smaples of fish over the years, and many fish in the 45-47" range vary from young to very old. The fish are attaining size quickly showing great forage, and room to grow, but are simply topping out before attaining max growth expected.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/22/2005 10:13 PM
Attachments
----------------
45 2000.jpg (105KB - 377 downloads)
46 2000.jpg (93KB - 350 downloads)
monicas462003.jpg (43KB - 325 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Everyone. Great discussion, questions, comments, concerns, answers by all. I think Larry deserves a lot of credit for taking the tremendous amount of time out of his personal life to come on this board and answer and address all the legitimate questions and concerns about this restoration project. It takes a great deal of time to sit a computer and type away answering questions 1 –2 – 3 at a time on a message board or two just as it did for Bob and Larry researching, studying, learning and piecing together a 100+ year history/puzzle of the WI muskie stocking practices and fishery.
I focused on the stats, mostly derived from the M.I. members only database of muskellunge catches. I am a very firm believer in these stats and what they can help us to understand and confirm about the situation we have today. Like it or not, it is by far, the largest source of actual muskellunge catch data to be found anywhere. This in itself earns a great deal of respect from myself and many others. There is no other source of muskellunge catch data that can provide a better overall view of the situation. The dnr has no problem using the M.I. catch data in their reports. Because of this we felt it must be a very good source of information if the dnr is using it, therefore we did too.
But I do think it would be best if everyone were to focus more on the findings that Larry and Bob have shared with us which includes information from a large number of WI and MN DNR research reports. It also includes reports from the MNR in Canada as well as other biologists. These findings reveal the real story here and the heart of the problem that must be addressed starting today. Not tomorrow, or next year. I think some of you are just starting to see how extensively the restoration project team has researched this matter and how well prepared it is to answer and address the legitimate questions and concerns some of you have. If you haven’t seen the information yet you can find it at:
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
It can answer a lot of your questions and save a lot of time.
One last thing. There is a very informative article detailing the MN Muskie stocking program that has created the finest trophy musky fishery found anywhere south of Canada. Its in the latest publication of M.H. magazine. I strongly urge everyone to read it and understand what it is saying.
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
| Earlier it was said that Wisconsin strain fish shouldnt be stocked in any water that gets into the Great Lakes because the interbreeding between that strain and the Mississippi strain threatens the trophy fish. Then this is said:
'Mike, if I read your question correctly, it would be highly unlikely that the MR strain would inter breed with the small strain fish there (if any), except in rare cases, their favored thermal spawning regimes would not overlap. This again, has not been a problem in Minnesota. Once stocked, the MR strain becomes dominant and does just fine.'
Which is right? Isn't there stocked fish in the St. louis River?
Another sentense says the the Big fish in Wisconsin are nearly extinct. Mr. Worral has listed an example of what seems to be large but stocked fish.Your explanation was that the 'big fish' strain was stocked there a long time ago. Mr. Worral said that a long time ago, there were very few big fish there in Lake X, but after the stocking program started, the big fish showed up in several year classes. If they were not there before, and the big fish showed up say 12 years after stocking, wouldnt that be the stocked fish? How else would they get in there? If they are from the same hatchery, and stocked the same year, and the big fish are present in good numbers in a lake with very little pressure and really good CPR (X), but not so much in a lake with LOTS of pressure and lots of harvest (Y), couldnt that show the affects of harvesting the big fish at 48" before they can get to 53"?
Mr. Worral, is that what you were getting to?
MRoberts,
I see the same thing on the river. I saw one very pretty barred 54" fish there a few years ago, and another that was clear and ugly just a couple years back. All I know is the Wisconsin River isn't producing 54" fish as often as I'd like to see, and I want to partly blame the kill rate there of fish around 48". Ask the taxidermists. Do you think alot are harvested there? It worries me, that's for sure.
Thanks to everyone for this post. Its a very good discussion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Larry, sworrell, and others keep up this thread. It has open my eyes (what little they see now) and I'm sure many others that never thought of posting. And it has been interesting and informative.
But Larry I also wanted to say that when I wrote that word "poison" only because I couldn't think of a better one that fit at that time. That is why I put it in " ". I also tried to explain to sworrell what I tried to remember from the meeting in Madison. I guess I didn't do that well either. Please let me tell you (& others) that I was not trying to mislead anybody and I didn't know if you would come back to this site to keep the discussion going.
Thanks
Gerard
|
|
| |
|
| An interesting little piece of information.
In the 1970's and after struggling for years, Bob Strand of the MN DNR had to finally put his biological knowledge aside and asked if he could just simply go fishing for muskies on Leech Lake to finally discover the secret of the Mississippi Strain of muskie and its spawning habits. Yes I said fishing. The same thing all of us love to do. This was the turning point in MN which eventually led to MN's huge success story of trophy muskie management.
As you can see, it does not always take science or a degree to reveal the answers. He had to resort to just good ol common sense to figure these fish out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Gerard,
No worries, sir. I wouldn't EVER question what your motives are, you're one of most staunch allies Muskie angling has ever had.
As some may already know (but perhaps not  ) I play 'devil's advocate' here quite a bit to encourage fair, open, and thoughtful conversation. I appreciate everyone's willingness to participate. To address a couple points:
Sven,
Yup.
other issues:
'My reply: Again, anecdotal information and unprovable. As for whether or not the lake was stocked in the 60's will be interesting information, but my discussion above gives a plausible explanation for your phenomena as with regards to later stockings.'
Is it not also plausible that the fish I am discussing in that lake are indeed stocked fish? If they were the result of spawning why were fish over 45" nearly non existent ( and for that matter, muskies were actually pretty rare in that lake) before the stocking program began there? Anecdotal, yes, but my experience none the less. The other lake was stocked at the same time, with the same strain, and has been to date. The fish there are still 48" at about 11 or 12 years or so from what I understand, but few are showing up over 50" and an older year class.
What I'm trying to get at isn't necessarliy opposed to the Restoration group's summary claims. It's part and parcel to ANY effort to improve Wisconsin's Trophy Muskie management program. I am saying this:
If given a chance, and environmental conditions are favorable, Muskies from the Wisconsin hatcheries can and DO get large and heavy. Not, obviously, as large as the GL strain or other spotted Muskies ( that's why I fish on Wabigoon on vacation!) but very large and respectable none the less. 52" and 35# to 40# class is fine by me. I've seen fish like that come from Boom on the WI River, several of the Vilas county lakes, a few from the Mississippi Watershed waters here in Oneida County every year, and even a few from Pelican now and again. Unfortunately, WAY too many of the fish capable of reaching true and absolute trophy catagory are harvested before they can. The DNR here identified several waters in the state that warranted protection of the larger fish, and suggested, with some rather boisterous help, that a 50" limit be imposed there. It wasn't.
If the spots are planted in waters here, I worry that without new regulations to protect the trophy fish here too many will be bonked (or speared, that reality has to be considered. Not admonished, this is a reality that is here to stay, just considered) at 45" or 48". We tried to get regulations passed, and for the most part, were only partly successful. I submit that it was that effort and DEFEAT that really kick started the movement to 'do something' about our trophy Muskie fishery here in Wisconsin. I also submit that MANY of the fisheries folks were very disappointed after that Spring, and would agree that a measured response to that defeat, careful planning and educational efforts coupled with a STRONG and a well planned and executed PR campaign are in order to begin down the road to realizing the goals expressed here. I think, if I am allowed to RANT, that he entire structure of the DNR needs to be changed so the DNR runs the DNR, and the State and public fund that effort well enough so those good folks can get the job done.
Look at it this way, we couldn't even get a lousy FEW lakes protected with the total SUPPORT of the DNR at almost NO cost and a DEFINITE and almost GUARANTEED benefit. What in blazes makes anyone think that a few loud demands will change the mindset of a largely uncaring and by the way, non muskie angling public, therefore paving the way for major changes in the management strategies for trophy Muskies? The DNR is running on a shoestring. That's sad. Cutbacks, budget shortfalls, and even worse.....We are darned lucky we have the dedicated professionals here working for us in what amounts to a very uncertain career environment.
Way more to this than simple 'change'.
OK, I've now made many of the points I was attempting to lead up to. Aldo Leopold's legacy aside, this state's Conservation Congress advisory style of public influence on DNR fish and game management in my opinion has stymied many of the DNR's best and brightest ideas for fish and game management in Wisconsin. LOOK at the CWD/Deer Baiting story as an example. Wow. We have many of the very best scientists working in the fisheries management field in the country here in Wisconsin. I would prefer to leave management to those qualified to manage. Unfortunately, it's not done that way here, IMHO.
Sorry for the rant....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One more thing. As I understand things, muskie stocking on Pelican was halted by the Lake Association because some felt that there are too many muskies in Pelican already, and the panfish are suffering as a result. I had absolutely nothing to do with that effort. |
|
| |
|
| Reef Hawg and EJohnson, great posts. It should be noted here, that Muskie's, Inc. as an organization, has nothing to do with the Restoration Project. MANY MI members however and state MI Chapters DO "support the basis" of the Project. And now on to address the latest posts:
From Sven: "Earlier it was said that Wisconsin strain fish shouldn't be stocked in any water that gets into the Great Lakes because the interbreeding between that strain and the Mississippi strain threatens the trophy fish."
My reply: Sven, the concern has NOT been "interbreeding" in totem (can happen under the right circumstances), rather the possibility and the dangers posed of diluting the native stocks, or worse, as was the case in Minnesota (and the results did show up in genetic studies where native Mississippi River strain lakes had become basically Shoepac genetics due to continued "overstocking."). If self-sustaining populations get started in these non-native environments, they can become a factor and eventually the dominant strain. This must be prevented and is just plain good genetic preservation of native stocks that were once pure. Like Leech Lake, the Great Lakes strain is an almost pure entity, why risk messing it up? This realization has been made and stock mixing discontinued in Ontario, Quebec and New York from many years back. They learned, as science caught up with management, that these practices were simply wrong and stopped doing it. Why is/has Wisconsin been doing it as recently as the fall of 2004? This question begs an answer, and even though the DNR folks at the State Musky Committee meeting agreed that it should "be looked into," there has been no response that is has or would be, rather it was "stated" that stocking would continue as before. Simply unacceptable.
Sven continues: "Then this is said: 'Mike, if I read your question correctly, it would be highly unlikely that the MR strain would inter breed with the small strain fish there (if any), except in rare cases, their favored thermal spawning regimes would not overlap. This again, has not been a problem in Minnesota. Once stocked, the MR strain becomes dominant and does just fine.' Which is right? Isn't there stocked fish in the St. louis River?
My reply: The problem is, that there are times when the spawning "thermal regimes" DO overlap, and was so noted in the Minnesota study. If this "mixing" potential exists at all, why do it? To clarify, the MR strain has become dominant (again in native waters) because ALL stockings since the conversion has been with the MR strain fish, helping them to overcome the errors of the past. And yes, there are stocked fish in the St. Louis River, of Wisconsin strain fish, done by both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Minnesota did it at time prior to the availability of the Leech Lake strain and no longer stock WI strain fish there. The Minnesota stocking of the MR strain muskies into the St. Louis River, too is not the "proper" thing to do, but the MR strain does have the same reproductive strategy and growth as the Great Lakes strain and presents far less risk than does the Wisconsin "mixes." Wisconsin, as noted, still stocks St. Louis Bay (part of Lake Superior) with mixed Wisconsin strain fish. It is wrong. This WAS agreed to by the DNR. Nothing has changed! At least not publically.
Sven continues: "Another sentence says the Big fish in Wisconsin are nearly extinct. Mr. Worrall has listed an example of what seems to be large but stocked fish. Your explanation was that the 'big fish' strain was stocked there a long time ago. Mr. Worrall said that a long time ago, there were very few big fish there in Lake X, but after the stocking program started, the big fish showed up in several year classes. If they were not there before, and the big fish showed up say 12 years after stocking, wouldn't that be the stocked fish? How else would they get in there? If they are from the same hatchery, and stocked the same year, and the big fish are present in good numbers in a lake with very little pressure and really good CPR (X), but not so much in a lake with LOTS of pressure and lots of harvest (Y), couldn't that show the affects of harvesting the big fish at 48" before they can get to 53"?
My reply: Your comments fail to take in to account that there may have been remnant large strain fish extant in Lake X, albeit not in sufficient quantity to self-sustain. Hatchery introductions "could" have contained some large strain fish and/or hatchery "mixed" intermediates that produced the increase noted by Mr. Worrall. Problem is we just don't and cannot know. What we do know is that if a "Pure" stock is used, there is NO QUESTION that they will ALL have the potential to attain trophy sizes, while producing numbers of fish in all size ranges along the way.
From ROBERTS: "I see the same thing on the river. I saw one very pretty barred 54" fish there a few years ago, and another that was clear and ugly just a couple years back. All I know is the Wisconsin River isn't producing 54" fish as often as I'd like to see, and I want to partly blame the kill rate there of fish around 48". Ask the taxidermists. Do you think alot are harvested there? It worries me, that's for sure."
My reply: As previously noted, harvest in Wisconsin, even in these days of high percentage of catch and release, is indeed a factor, but it isn't the sole reason for the lack of bigger fish. Quite simply, it is the FISH. If the stocked fish do not have the genetic potential to attain the preferred larger size, and are topping out at the harvested sizes, protecting them with higher size limits will NOT increase the numbers of larger fish in any system.
From Muskie! nut: "Larry, sworrel, and others keep up this thread. It has open my eyes (what little they see now) and I'm sure many others that never thought of posting. And it has been interesting and informative. But Larry I also wanted to say that when I wrote that word "poison" only because I couldn't think of a better one that fit at that time. That is why I put it in " ". I also tried to explain to sorrel what I tried to remember from the meeting in Madison. I guess I didn't do that well either. Please let me tell you (& others) that I was not trying to mislead anybody and I didn't know if you would come back to this site to keep the discussion going."
My reply: Gerard I echo what Mr. Worrall said, and we know you are a staunch advocate for muskies. I took no offense to your "poisoning" comment, just thought it an unfortunate choice of words. At least you participate in the discussion, AND identify yourself. I applaud you!
From EJohnson: "An interesting little piece of information.
In the 1970's and after struggling for years, Bob Strand of the MN DNR had to finally put his biological knowledge aside and asked if he could just simply go fishing for muskies on Leech Lake to finally discover the secret of the Mississippi Strain of Muskie and its spawning habits. Yes I said fishing. The same thing all of us love to do. This was the turning point in MN which eventually led to MN's huge success story of trophy Muskie management.
As you can see, it does not always take science or a degree to reveal the answers. He had to resort to just good ol common sense to figure these fish out.
My reply: One glaring thing that "jumped out" at me when I was re-reviewing dozens of "scientific studies:" Hypotheses is and has been highly used in making "conclusions." When a scientific "peer reviewed" paper uses terminology's such as; "suggests;" "believed," "indicates," "probably," etc., etc. it is a true indication that while findings made were science based, they really didn't know and admitted as much. Properly conducted science IS the basis of most of muskellunge management, but it is not "perfect science." Management decision are sincerely made on the best science available (most of the time). If that science was "built" on previous work (most studies are) and THAT work was incomplete or worse yet, wrong....well, I think you get the idea. Unfortunately funding just isn't available to do a complete and thorough job. Consider too, that almost all of the studies done in the past on muskellunge have been done on the small strain populations, and as such are just not applicable to the large strain fish.
From sworrall: "Gerard, No worries, sir. I wouldn't EVER question what your motives are, you're one of most staunch allies Muskie angling has ever had.
As some may already know (but perhaps not ) I play 'devil's advocate' here quite a bit to encourage fair, open, and thoughtful conversation. I appreciate everyone's willingness to participate."
My reply: And I think this is a GOOD thing! From my perspective, it opens new avenues of discussion on points and topics not previously covered. As I have noted on many occasions, this is a "giant puzzle." It is extremely complex. These discussions help to put that puzzle together in a manner that most readers can understand. We welcome it.
Mr. Worrall continues: "To address a couple points: other issues:
'My reply (to a previous Worrall question): Again, anecdotal information and unprovable. As for whether or not the lake was stocked in the 60's will be interesting information, but my discussion above gives a plausible explanation for your phenomena as with regards to later stockings.'
Mr. Worrall's reply: "Is it not also plausible that the fish I am discussing in that lake are indeed stocked fish? If they were the result of spawning why were fish over 45" nearly non existent ( and for that matter, muskies were actually pretty rare in that lake) before the stocking program began there? Anecdotal, yes, but my experience none the less. The other lake was stocked at the same time, with the same strain, and has been to date. The fish there are still 48" at about 11 or 12 years or so from what I understand, but few are showing up over 50" and an older year class."
Ramsell reply: Yes, as I mentioned above in my response to Sven, it is indeed possible that and probable that stocked fish is what you were discussing. We have been over the ground of the possible "why's" previously. I was not discounting your "experience," even though anecdotal. My point was simply that we do not know for sure what all of the factors were/are in that situation. Your comment: "The fish there are still 48" at about 11 or 12 years or so from what I understand, but few are showing up over 50" and an older year class." would indicate to me at least, that those stocked fish have topped out in length, as would be expected.
Worrall continues: "What I'm trying to get at isn't necessarily opposed to the Restoration group's summary claims. It's part and parcel to ANY effort to improve Wisconsin's Trophy Muskie management program. I am saying this:
If given a chance, and environmental conditions are favorable, Muskies from the Wisconsin hatcheries can and DO get large and heavy. Not, obviously, as large as the GL strain or other spotted Muskies ( that's why I fish on Wabigoon on vacation!) but very large and respectable none the less. 52" and 35# to 40# class is fine by me. I've seen fish like that come from Boom on the WI River, several of the Vilas county lakes, a few from the Mississippi Watershed waters here in Oneida County every year, and even a few from Pelican now and again. Unfortunately, WAY too many of the fish capable of reaching true and absolute trophy category are harvested before they can. The DNR here identified several waters in the state that warranted protection of the larger fish, and suggested, with some rather boisterous help, that a 50" limit be imposed there. It wasn't."
My reply: One the one hand your say it "is fine by me," and that you are satisfied with what has been produced, and on the other hand you state that you go to Canada to find BIGGER fish. Isn't that the whole point? WHY should the anglers of Wisconsin, and those who "used" to fish Wisconsin, have to now bypass Wisconsin? Wisconsin "used" to be the "go to destination" for the nations Muskie anglers. The schools and the tourism industry were built because of that! We CAN have it again. To paraphrase an old saying; "Build it AGAIN, and they will come!"
Mr Worrall continues: "If the spots are planted in waters here, I worry that without new regulations to protect the trophy fish here too many will be bonked (or speared, that reality has to be considered. Not admonished, this is a reality that is here to stay, just considered) at 45" or 48". We tried to get regulations passed, and for the most part, were only partly successful. I submit that it was that effort and DEFEAT that really kick started the movement to 'do something' about our trophy Muskie fishery here in Wisconsin. I also submit that MANY of the fisheries folks were very disappointed after that Spring, and would agree that a measured response to that defeat, careful planning and educational efforts coupled with a STRONG and a well planned and executed PR campaign are in order to begin down the road to realizing the goals expressed here. I think, if I am allowed to RANT, that he entire structure of the DNR needs to be changed so the DNR runs the DNR, and the State and public fund that effort well enough so those good folks can get the job done.
Look at it this way, we couldn't even get a lousy FEW lakes protected with the total SUPPORT of the DNR at almost NO cost and a DEFINITE and almost GUARANTEED benefit. What in blazes makes anyone think that a few loud demands will change the mind set of a largely uncaring and by the way, non Muskie angling public, therefore paving the way for major changes in the management strategies for trophy Muskies? The DNR is running on a shoestring. That's sad. Cutbacks, budget shortfalls, and even worse.....We are darned lucky we have the dedicated professionals here working for us in what amounts to a very uncertain career environment."
My reply: Your "RANT" aside, you make some very good points. Let me take from that and ask a question based on all of your noted shortcomings for the DNR's ability. Does not the DNR "SHUT DOWN" the Sturgeon spearing when they feel the stocks are in danger? They don't go to the Conservation Congress or get new laws passed, they just DO IT! They DO have management powers when they choose to use them! If they truly want to Restore Wisconsin's native Muskie fisheries, they have the wherewithal to do what is necessary. The responsibility lies directly with them to save our trophy Muskie fisheries. We have merely identified we strongly believe to be a serious problem that CAN be corrected NOW. There is no need for more studies while our remaining stocks of remnant large strain muskies further decline. Current stocking practices simply compound the problem. The "fix" can be simple and cheap...merely changing the eggs used in the hatcheries is all that is needed...period!
Mr. Worrall continues: "Way more to this than simple 'change'.
OK, I've now made many of the points I was attempting to lead up to. Aldo Leopold's legacy aside, this state's Conservation Congress advisory style of public influence on DNR fish and game management in my opinion has stymied many of the DNR's best and brightest ideas for fish and game management in Wisconsin. LOOK at the CWD/Deer Baiting story as an example. Wow. We have many of the very best scientists working in the fisheries management field in the country here in Wisconsin. I would prefer to leave management to those qualified to manage. Unfortunately, it's not done that way here, IMHO."
My reply: Many may agree with you and many will not. We have "trusted" the DNR to do the right thing in our hatchery system for 105 years. As we have learned, even though un-intentional, they have not, at least for production and preservation of our trophy Muskie fisheries. It can be corrected, and we believe it is the current administrations duty to do so. I believe I covered your other points.
This post has gotten long, so I will start another with some additional thoughts for consideration.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
|
|
| |
|
| We like the fact that everyone seems to agree that there are some larger native fish out there that seem to have survived the overstocking of small strains. It has even been said that the "native fish" are larger - but the stocked fish "perform better" (short and fat). What one needs to understand is that a short fat 40 or 42 incher for instance, that will never grow larger because it may be 18 years old, IS NOT "PERFORMING BETTER!" This has been very adequately explained in an 1992 study of Wisconsin and Minnesota fish strains.
We've even been able to separate the spawning, allowing some native fish to survive all of man's meddling (DNR and fishermen). It is apparent that more and more folks are understanding the riverine vs. lacustrine (river vs. lake) fish thing. Some acknowledgment too, has been forthcoming that the Leech fish may be more like the true "native fish" than the stocked fish.
Here is where the genetics come in. We know almost nothing truly about the truly important Muskie genetics - including what the dominant traits are; what controls reproductive strategy and growth. It has been admitted that even if another genetic study is done-minimum 2-4 years, these most important factors will still not be known.
There is still a risk in selective breeding, without the assurance of knowing whether or not the brood fish are pure or mixed. It has never been proven with muskies to our knowledge. We should try it - but should we put all our eggs in an unproven basket? We say no. Should we wait another 10 or 20 years for the geneticists to try and find out? Again we say no. Please consider folks, scientists MUST "study" to survive. It is a self-perpetuating thing, and to date over the past 50 years, hasn't yielded many helpful results for Wisconsin's Muskie fisheries, and those that have, have been, for the most part, ignored!
While some of our remnant fish may be mostly riverine, it's very hard to believe they are "pure". Are we better off breeding even 7/8 riverine muskies that may have the smaller strain genes that could possibly be dominant, or should we revert to a known pure strain of riverine fish from Leech lake? That is the tough question. Collectively we see no way that stocking a pure Riverine strain anywhere is a "problem". This is where the drainage's make sense - using the large Riverine fish within their drainage's makes sense, but I'd have to say that even within the Chippewa and Wisconsin drainage's, we need to compare Leech strain vs. the native Riverine fish. That way we can study how selective breeding works. The St. Croix and Great lakes drainage's - It's a "no brainer" - do the right thing immediately no need to test that.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
| The Conservation Congress process WI has to go through limits what can and will be done to help the situation here. We know that the higher protective size limits have very little chance of getting past this point. There are a lot of different things that to some degree each one can have some effect on the ability to produce trophy fish. A lot of these things have been beaten to death over the years on boards like this one. Size limits, spearing, lake size etc.... nearly all of which we simply have no control over and won't anytime soon if ever unfortunately. One thing we can have control of and I believe is the very first step needed and also the single most important part of the formula to produce desireable numbers of trophy muskies in WI, is the fish we use for stocking. Thats part of the beauty of this project. It can be done without going through the conservation congress process. It concerns me that it took a few anglers of WI rather than the dnr to come up with this rather simple approach to manage the entire state of WI for trophy muskies when the proof has been right next door in MN for about 25 years now and also in scattered areas elsewhere. I have to wonder why our dnr has not made a serious attempt if any to learn from whats happened in MN with thier muskie management program after this long. And now today there is the green bay project that further supports the fact that its the fish you stock that matters most when it comes to ultimate size. The single most important ingredient to produce trophy fish is the fish itself. After that, all the other factors such as protective size limits could help even more. Although I have to point out that in MN there is a statewide 40" minimum size limit with the exception of the brood stock lakes which are 48" and one that is C&R only and the trophy muskies are showing up everywhere. MN does not need protective size limits to produce a large number of trophy fisheries although it could possibly make things even better there. What they are doing is stocking a strain of fish that ALL are capable of growing to the larger trophy sizes desired by anglers. Thats why they decided to stock this strain over the Shoepac strain and WI strains! It works and has been proven to best produce the trophy fish that the anglers desired. The other benefit of the Miss strain is that it can and has helped to offset the cost and need to stock waters because of the reproductive habits and its ability to succesfully naturally reproduce especially in waters with northern pike. I would think this fact too would encourage the WI dnr to want to pursue this option with the budget cuts going on. Its a good "business" decision that could help offset the budget cuts which will have an impact on muskie management. Common sense would tell me that even if the harvest rate of larger muskies in WI were to remain constant and we change to stocking fish that are ALL capable of growing to the larger trophy sizes, there will be more trophy fish to catch for everyone than we have today. Right now only the very few remaining larger growing strain/strains (what ever they are) of muskies in WI are being harvested and the smaller strains live on forever and we continue to stock these smaller strains eventhough they don't grow to large sizes and have very little success in maintaining themselves through natural reproduction. This is crazy and a complete waste of (our) the tax payers money. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One point we will contiue to disagree on;
Some of the waters in Wisconsin truly do have very large fish. As I said, not dozens in the 53" class, but I feel that is due to more factors than just genetics and had quite a bit to do with angling harvest, environment, and many other factors that EVERY study I have read take into account. I fear that this entire issue is being oversimplified, which can create confusion.
I am certain the fish I speak of in a lake I am familiar with here ARE the stocked fish. In one case, I firmly believe I tracked a couple back through boomshock surveys. My point was, and still is, that YES, Leech Lake fish are known to grow larger then the Wisconsin strain in studies and in some applications. More on that later, I have to hit the road and don't have time to cut and paste much of the relevant data here. THE STRAINS WE HAVE HERE NOW can and do get to trophy size in a reasonable timeframe or THERE WOUDN'T BE THE NUMBER OF 50" FISH TERE ARE in the waters where they are allowed to get to that size. There are many guides and top sticks out there who have figured those fish out, and the 50" to 53" fish caught by them testifies that we have some good genetic potential here. If these fish were ALL anomolies, IMHO there would be even fewer big fish than there are. As pressure increases on the Great Lakes fish and Mississippi strain in Minnesota and harvest of the big fish increases as a result, we MAY see a comparable situation of slow decline develop over time if those fish are not protected. Several of the Restoration group folks strongly forwarded that concept for quite a while here on MuskieFIRST this winter, so it must have relevance, one might assume. I would like to see a 54" limit on Green Bay, for example.
In waters deemed acceptable by the DNR, I believe there WILL be spots stocked. Isn't that the original premise of this thread? I for one LIKE those big, ugly, 52 to 54" bronze fish we have here as well as the spots I pursue on Wabigoon and over in Green Bay. If the trophy waters here were protected better, perhaps the trip to the Goon would not be as attractive. I would like to see spots planted where they are deemed to have a great chance of doing very well, and would like the trophy waters we have protected by a 50" limit.
By the way, what strain are the Mille Lacs 'barred' fish (not the spots, those I have figured out), and where were they acquired? Just curious.
We are talking laudable but perhaps a bit elitist ideals when we DEMAND of a governmental agency that what we have immediately be changed to what a few folks want(Muskie anglers are, after all, a microcosm of American society, with most unwilling or unable to battle over the issues for change) in the timeframe demanded, without due consideration to the structure already in place or allowing for the folks in charge of that structure to begin what I am certain will be careful, well executed implementation of comparable ideas. In other words, this just plain isn't as simple a process as some want whether it's 'the best thing to do' or not. Some want this to be an event. If this is to be implemented as Cory's contact described, it will be a process. OK, that isn't good enough for some and frustation and anger result. I want universal Wisconsin health care, too. Reality is what it is!!! Alienate many of the folks you need to work with, and a fair number of the non muskie angling public as a result of the fallout, and you have, in my very humble opinion, a very strong possible recipe for failure for this group. Work WITH the system, accept that initial failures are part and parcel of any attempt at a minority driven major paradigm shift, cooperate with and gain support from those management folks in the system who agree with the principles of the proposal, if not the demands. Or not, I guess.
I think I've belabored that enough. |
|
| |
