Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Stunning new findings by the Musky Restoration Project Team |
| Message Subject: Stunning new findings by the Musky Restoration Project Team | |||
Bob |
| ||
| Steve, with regards to Walleye on Leech lake, the folks in that area have told me there is a huge problem with Cormorants eating walleyes on Leech Lake. I'm not sure why this wouldn't also affect Muskies. Bob | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Nasty danged birds, and at one time an endangered critter. Studies were done, scientists assigned to rebuilding the populations, and now we have a Pest that begs control. Back to what HunterMD had to say, in part. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve, we agree again, More food equals bigger healthier muskies of any strain. Any chance you can build a page that posts links to these different studies people are requesting? Would save your members a lot of time. Bob | |||
| Musky_Slayer |
| ||
Posts: 280 Location: Pewaukee WI | Good Job guys, Keep up the good work. Don't let someone saying that you are not qualified discourage you. The facts are the Facts!!! Period Keep Diggin diggin diggin. No one else has, And I really appreciate all you've done. Please Keep Posting the Links to Different studies | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No need to build a page for the links, thay can be hotlinked right from a post here in this thread. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Can't post them all here, plus they get lost over time.... disappointed Bob | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lost? MuskieFIRST isn't a pagefile that can be lost, it's an interactive database backed up every single day. Nothing here will get lost. you can post 150 links right here, if you want.We have a search function that will pinpoint any item you need. This thread is on the research board, and as a result threads don't move off the front page very quickly. I can pin this to the top, if that makes you happier. Post all the links you wish. If you want, you can start another thread pinned to the top with nothing in it but links and what they are for. | ||
| Fish-n-Freak |
| ||
Posts: 259 Location: Alexandria, MN | More on the Leech Lake Walleye issue. Yes, they have a HUGE problem right now. Not a good year class in the last 7 years, between poor springs and the Cormorants, the last 7 year classes are very low. The birds are eating fish up to 15"+ and the number of birds is going up every year. The problem is they are protected by the feds and they nest and roost on Indian Property. The DNR has spent the last few years doing the studies to prove to the feds that the birds are a problem and they have worked out issues with the tribe. 2005 will start the reduction of the flock and with the adding of a slot to protect the adults, there should be more baby Walleye in the future. I'm not sure what this has to do with a Muskie genetics discussion but the question was asked. On the skinny Cass fish? I will have to do some digging to see if there are documented studies on this. I would agree that in the past Cass had some skinny fish, but not today. I don't know how or why, but over the past 5 years I have started to see girth on fish from Cass, Minnetonka, Forest and other lakes across MN that used to have skinny fish? I will look further into this, because I have been wanting to figure this out for myself. Once I have the answer, I will post it. Thanks, Steve Sedesky | ||
| Grass |
| ||
Posts: 620 Location: Seymour, WI | I sent an email to DNR secretary Scott Hassett today asking him to consider stocking Mississippi river Strain muskies in all of the Mississippi river and WI river drainage lakes. Grass, | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Bob, I think it would be a good idea to create a links page on your web site with links to all the relevant studies, reports and websites. I feel it would also be a better place for the contacts, rather than the FAQ page. Call it Links and Contacts or something like that. Also sign all your posts with your name and the website address and everyone should be able to find everything they need to get up to speed as best they can. I’ll tell you I have spent a couple hours each night reading what I can find and it can make the head spin. A couple of months ago I started a post asking for the biggest problems facing the Wisconsin Musky Fishery, and which are the easiest to fix. There was many issues listed, but after all the reading I have done I really think the Genetics could be the easiest solution to one of many problems. It doesn’t mean harvest won’t still be a major concern, but fixing the harvest problems is more political because of the hearing process. Before the 1982 Post study the Mn and Wi fisheries parrelled each other as far as musky output and size. They had a lot fewer lakes so Mn wasn’t talked about much. Mn biologist took a complex problem and tried a simple fix. They said musky fishermen want big fish lets stock the strain we have that grows the biggest. Now the whole musky world is talking about those few Mn musky waters. Here is the question we musky fisherman need to answer do we want fat 45 inchers with a few 47-49 inch fish and rare 50+ inch fish or do we want more skinner 45 inchers with more 50+ inch fish. The MR strain has a higher percentage of fish that grow 50+ and they do it faster. Do we at least agree on that. Here’s my theory: Harvest would be less of a problem with fish that have a better chance of growing big, because more fish would have that potential. . You have the same release percentage with a larger percentage of fish that can grow bigger you should end up with more big fish, correct? Also because they grow faster there is less of a chance that the fish is caught and kept before it reaches that 50” mark Hope that make some sense. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, I've been reading that stuff since the early 80's as soon as it became available from the DNRs in print. Read the entire managing Muskies book as soon as it was printed, and re-read it sometimes just for kicks. Read Chapman and Hall, Behavior of Teliost Fishes is a great read, and similar to lots of other work out there easily obtained if you have 20 bucks, and if if you're a nut like I am. My next book ordered is Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Chioce, dynamics, and uncertainty. OK, I'm alittle weird. I also talk alot. Have since the 80's, to fisheries folks, biologists, and scientists from folks like Jerry Bucholtz to fisheries folks all across the country. I can tell you this: Many I speak with caution that much we are discussing is not as simple as presented. Those who advise caution and careful FORWARD movement (like a stocking of GL muskies in Petenwell and the Mad Town chain, plus a few other systems) are very familiar with the dynamics of the 80's Minnesota application and STILL advise care be exercised. There are dynamics involved with the Minnesota exercise that will play out in the future, too. Heck, I'm just a layman, but even I can see what they mean. We are entering a new era in Muskie management in Wisconsin. It isn't going to be as a result of anything done here on this board and it will require the cooperation of the sportsmen and the DNR in a way never experienced before. We are about to see some very tough times here in Wisconsin with our DNR budget, and if change needs to be made, that is a great place to start. There IS planning and execution in place and ready to rock, plus a couple fisheries already stocked and protected. Several area's fisheries folks are cooperating with the State and local entities to undertake a selection of waters into which it is intended to introduce more GL muskies. Those folks can read, too. A very important genetics study that has already defined genetic Marker at the Mitochondrial level is in process, and the results of that study will have no less an impact on knowing for sure what we are dealing with than any work done anywhere to date. Theedz has a few great points. He is very familiar with the inner workings of the State, and made a few excellent points about who we are and what we can expect as a result. Reality can sometimes be disappointing, but it's still reality. I have said repeatedly that I respect this group's dedication and hard work. I, as a plain old muskie angler from Wisconsin, have no problems with the efforts to distribute information, nor with a healthy debate generated by that information. I don't think any one else does either. Bottom line? We will see change, and see it this year in many areas. Some of that change quite frankly scares me, but it's happening for better or worse. No matter what is said,I learned a very long time ago that nothing is ever as easy, nor as hard, as it is presented by the extreme on both sides of the issue. Now this is all my opinion, and I'm not a bit interested in a systematic psychological analysis of my particular take on this by the restoration group. What I AM interested in is more data, more ideas about how to implement good ideas, and more forward movement toward a brighter future for Wisconsin muskie anglers. Whether it's the fish, or it's the fish and a few other things, we have a very rough road ahead because of tight funding. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I agree with much of what you are saying Steve. I heard today there was an article on the front page of the Vilas County News Review last week. The following is what I could find, it’t not the complete article but what I read I liked. http://www.vilascountynewsreview.com/default.html?-database=eagleri... I cut and pasted the article because in the past I have found these disappear pretty fast from the web site. It is only part of the article. Anglers claim DNR damaged muskie genetics By Kurt Krueger News-Review Editor The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may have unintentionally damaged the size structure of the state's muskie population by using small-fish strains in hatchery operations the past century, a new report alleges. The result has been a downturn in catch totals for trophy muskies 50 inches and larger, the report states, now causing “tremendous economic impacts for the tourism industry” as more anglers head to Minnesota and Canada. A team of Muskies Inc. members who took a closer look at 105 years of DNR muskie management have concluded that the mixing of fast-growing and slow-growing strains has caused a major decline in the number of trophy fish. Additionally, the report says state fisheries personnel have gathered muskellunge eggs mostly from fish with an average length of just 331/2 inches, instead of taking them from longer fish that had proven large-growth potential. Mike Staggs, director of the DNR's Bureau of Fisheries, said he welcomes the push to study muskie genetics but isn't convinced that there is “one simple answer to such a complicated issue.” Staggs said Muskies Inc. did a lot of research and has the department enthused about improving muskie brood-stock management. “We've been interested in this topic for a long time, but haven't been able to muster the time and resources to tackle it,” said Staggs. “Now, we're going to take a comprehensive look at it, starting with genetic research this spring and summer.” However, Staggs said the Mississippi River strain of muskie used in Minnesota and parts of Wisconsin “are not all that much better a fish.” He said quite often getting better growth means giving up other traits, such as good survival. He said the department has been without a genetics expert for years, since they lost their last specialist to a job switch and never filled the position. Now, he said a geneticist at the UW-Stevens Point will do the work. “I'm not convinced that just a change in fish strains would put 50-inch muskies all over the state. A lot of people in the scientific community think the same way. It's not that simple.” said Staggs. However, he said the state's muskie committee has targeted spring 2006 for the start of improvements in brood-stock management, based on what the geneticist finds this year. “Whatever improvements are made in the way we choose fish for taking eggs and milt, it will take 10 years to determine if it helped,” he said. TO READ THE REST OF THIS STORY, SUBSCRIBE TO THE VILAS COUNTY NEWS-REVIEW. 3/22/2005 It is good to know the DNR is taking this information seriously and that they do have a plan, I think 2006 is reasonable considering how government works. There is stuff in this article that I am sure the Project team doesn’t like but consider this was on the front page of the major Vilas County paper I am sure people who are dependant on tourism took note of it. It would be interesting to see the actual DNR plan, Steve do you have access to this information? Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | I echo Mike's thought's on finding out what the DNR is planning. Steve? Anybody? Steve the DNR appears to have told you they plan on putting the Great Lakes strain in Madison, Petenwell and other waters. What are the other waters? I would think the first place to put the GL muskies should be the St. Louis river, a great lakes tributary. Why are they choosing the GL strain for Petenwell? Wouldn't it make more sense to put the Mississippi strain into this system? Troy | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7039 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Steve is on vacation for the next week and a half. | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | I have been in talks with our local fisheries biologist(Scot Ironside) regarding Petenwell and the MS strain fish(no talks of GL strain as far as I know). He and I have discussed a plan for fish marking(fin clipping, implants, etc) for future age data gathering, and he has presented it to his supervisors. I will post details of all dfecisions once they are given to me. Scot has asked that we all be patient and not inundate him with emails and calls on the matter for the time being. The DNR is fully aware of public opinions and cases built on many fronts regarding the future of WI Musky management. Local biologists and fisheries personnal want to fully investigate all scenarios before taking steps in any direction, and I very much respect their doing so. They are doing so as we speak and not waiting. I am pleased that the DNR is looking into further experimental stocking of said MS fish into certain waters, and also am releived with their caution in moving forward. They deserve our respect and patience at this point, as they have heard our points, opinions, having talked to biologists and laymen alike, as well as reading alot of documentation supporting several methods of management improvement from many parties. As a representative of a club that raises and stocks the muskies into local waters, I am excited about the future possibilities an already approved higher size limit will offer, in addition to possible improvements in the fishery itself with introduction of a potentially more suitable, possibly one day self sustaining strain of fish. That said, we could use a few volunteers to help put up signs on some of the stretches of river from below Dubay, down through and including Castle Rock, regarding the new 45" size limit. I talked to Scot Ironside about getting signs at the main boat landings, and told him we would put signs up but that the DNR would have to supply them for us. If anyone is interested in getting a few signs for your area, that you'd be willing to put at an access point that the DNR or I may miss, please contact me and I'll try to get you a few signs. This should eliminate any confusion amongst local anglers as the size limit changes this spring. Also, if you'd like information about joining the Consolidated Musky Club, I can get you an application. Cost is $5.00 per year to be a member, and we meet twice during the season and have two planned outings, with one in Minoqua area, and one on the WI River anywhere you choose to fish. Fishing is on the honor system, with door prizes and trophies awarded for each outing. Membership fees help with feeding the muskies we raise, and also go to scholarships, and local improvement ideas, such as habitat, boat landings, and rearing pond equipment. Thanks, Jason D. Schillinger (715) 424-0513 [email protected] Edited by Reef Hawg 3/31/2005 5:09 PM | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Folks, Progress is great news. I'd really like to see the DNR come forward with a plan and let the anglers and clubs help out. Right now I know that anglers and clubs across the state are scrambling on individual plans to get fish and start projects. It'd make things much easier if the DNR was coordinating these efforts and using the combined resources to make the right decisions both for the fisheries and for the finances of individual clubs. Everyone will be better off if we are working together and making our dollars go further. As it looks right now - it won't cost the DNR a thing, and they would surely get some badly needed PR out of it. I took a look today and found out that in 1982 the same year the Post genetic study was done, Minnesota was already creating Brood lakes for both MS strain and Wisconsin strain fish. That way no matter what the later studies showed, their program would be off and running. I feel the DNR and Muskie clubs need to work on establishing brood lakes for the diffferent strains so that we can become self-sufficient. At the same time if a Mississippi strain will be used, we should have an ongoing relationship with the MN DNR. One thing I want to clarify - some people characterize the WMRP as desiring radical change, sometimes stating we want to stock every lake in Wisconsin with Leech strain this spring. This is simply not the case - read the documentation on our website. We want to move forward with caution but we want to do all the right things immediately. Stocking Fish from Bone lake into every drainage in the state this year is not being careful or cautious - It's just plain wrong. We need to take some basic steps - the DNR will desire a drainage based plan as it's the only way to contain fish without mixing. The first basic step will to be to establish Mississippi strain as the strain of choice in the St. Croix River Basin - as it is the only Muskie strain native in the st.Croix river. Same thing with the Great Lakes basin and it's drainage waters on the North and East sides of the state. The Wisconsin, Flambeau and Chippewa Basins are where we need to be most careful. Stocking more fish from the typical brood lakes even this year does not make a lot of sense, my hope is the DNR is heading to the Chippewa flowage on the Chippewa basin in search of brood stock. Over on the East side of the state, maybe Howie Meyer can take the DNR to some of his favorite Muskie haunts looking for those big spawners. The amazing thing I see and hear is the desire of people and clubs to make a difference. It'll be interesting to see how the growth of those big Wisconsin fish stack up against Great Lakes and Leech fish. Sounds like these tests may start this fall in the lower sections of the Chippewa and Wisconsin river drainages - I applaud all the hard work being done by the Muskie clubs in these areas to make this a reality. Hopefully soon the DNR will announce that they are stepping up to help out and minimize the clubs costs - I'll be the first to stand up and applaud them if they do. It cannot and must not end with a few test lakes however. I know for a fact that many of the local Biologists are already working with the clubs. Hopefully the DNR in Madison will remove the last remaining barriers to getting this launched. If selective breeding works on the Chippewa & Wisconsin river drainages, I see the Wisconsin musky fishery shaping up with 50 lb Muskies of Leech, Great Lakes and Wisconsin strain fish available to anglers but in different drainages. No other state or province in North America will be able to match this. Wisconsin will return to it's rightful place as the leader in Muskie Fisheries. The important thing is that no area of the state should be left out in the fantastic muskie fisheries that will be created - I'm hoping we stick together and not fracture off into small groups after our favorite lake get's stocked. I'm still disturbed a bit by the lack of announced plan by the DNR. Not just a "study" currently funded by local clubs, but a progressive management plan that will start yielding results by the end of this decade. I fear that just launching a "10 year study" will leave the actual results 20 years away. This was one of things that led to our nasty gram to the DNR a month ago. Why can't the Muskie fisherman of this state be involved in the plan? I'm also a bit disappointed that survival is going to a main part of the study, we have plenty of fish these days - survival is managed more by C&R these days than egg, fry and fingerling survival - I'd like to see us focus on growth first. We may find that one strain needs to be overwintered to survive best. Looking at past studies we already know that Mud/Callahan strain survives the best. (RR 172)Not sure we need to go there. There is so much we can start doing this spring, why not get a head start by working towards objectives this year? Maybe I'll be suprised and the DNR will announce this forward looking management plan soon, there is nothing I'd like better than to have the WMRP fade out of the picture, but until we see a plan that satisfies all areas of the state, we will stick it out. There's also so much still to do after we get the strains and brood stock established. All the other factors the WMRP supposedly dismisses. Forage, size limits, densities yes we need to be looking at these too......Funny that the most important one is also the simplest to fix and the only one we can actually control - IT'S THE FISH! Finally - It's interesting Steve mentioned the mtDNA study - did you know that a mtDNA study has already been done on Muskies and Walleye in Minnesota and Wisconsin? Steve - keep reading and looking even the WMRP team hasn't found it all - yet!!!! The full stunning report on this is coming soon at www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org some will like it, others will hate it. We are not a completely politically correct group - and we aren't trying to be one. We are working towards a common goal - something we will all be proud of. Bob Benson | |||
| MuskieFIRST |
| ||
Posts: 507 | http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/article.asp?aid=849 | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I especially like the latst paragraph... "The Department is initiating a new effort to fully evaluate its hatchery broodstock program. This effort will scientifically address the broodstock strain trophy potential issue brought up in the report, and do so in a way that comprehensively incorporates all the other factors discussed above. It will also allow the Department to update its broodstock handling procedures and stocking policies to assure that the latest science is used. The Wisconsin muskellunge team, comprised of department and university fisheries biologists and representatives from the Conservation Congress and muskellunge fishing groups, will develop a comprehensive brood stock management plan for muskellunge that will be completed and implemented as part of the 2006 stocking year hatchery production cycle. The Department is also encouraging musky clubs who want to privately stock other strains to do so in 2005 in waters where the strain used is unlikely to harm native fish. Clubs interested in this option should contact their local DNR fisheries manager to obtain a list of candidate waters and information on how to obtain a stocking permit."" ...after all that has been said against 'non'native' strains, musky clubs can obtain permits to stock whatever they want? What in the heck is going on here? Also,..." to assure that the latest science is used" Could they be a bit more specific, please. What exactly is "the latest science"? Heck...I just hope something gets. Seems a bit unfair to bash the WMRP Team. THey are the ones who got this ball rolling. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest, The 'ball' was rolling already under the direction of the team the DNR described. The paragraph you read describes a potential cooperative effort that a couple MI chapters have already bugun in cooperation with the area biologist handling the waters they wish to stock. It will not be 'willy nilly', and stocking will require approval and permitting. I know of one system that might recieive a 50/50 Wisconsin/GL strain stocking. I know o another where the area biologist has rejected any stocking from outside sources. The key sentense is; 'The Department is also encouraging musky clubs who want to privately stock other strains to do so in 2005 in waters where the strain used is unlikely to harm native fish.' There wasn't a single 'bash' of the Restoration group. Most of the commentary about non native strains has come from the Restoration group. The Wisconsin DNR is using native strains in the waters they manage. The 'latest science' they intend to use is in the literature, has been discussed here in several theads, and is covered to a degree in the release from the DNR. That is the core of the dabate here. This release isn't 'new news', it is simply an overview of the programs in place and planned for '06. | ||
| Pal |
| ||
Posts: 665 Location: Twin Cities, MN | I have a couple of questions. "Scientific investigations clearly show that WI musky populations have the genetic potential to reach trophy size " How come they do not ? What is the missing piece of the puzzle ? If forage base, pressure, regulations, and density all contribute to how big they grow, what needs to change for them to attain tropy size ? Any why has it not been done yet. "MN has a history of having higher muskellunge minimum size limits. WI waters can and do produce trophy fish but our smaller inland lakes will never produce the numbers that much larger lakes in MN or the great lakes will produce" Does this quote mean we just live with what we have ? Is what we have the best it can be. If so, why did so many large fish historically come from WI, how come we could compete in the past? Or does it just seem like we were competing. The above quote speaks volumes for why the best known and least known fisherman head to MN versus WI as a first choice of trophy fishing. The trend has been going on for some time. What is is going to take to reverse this, or can't it be done. Thanks for any input. Pal | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe the rsponse from the DNR DOES address what they intend to do to increase the number of trophy fish here. IMHO, that includes increased size limits, decreased stocking in some waters, management of waters like Winnebago and Bay of Green Bay, etc. Here are relevant statements from the DNR document, in context, as printed: 'All of Wisconsin's Class A1 (trophy) musky waters combined roughly equal the surface area of Leech Lake (112,000 acres), and the number of 50" fish reported from these two sources are comparable.' 'For example, in 2004 there were more 50" and larger muskies reported in the Vilas county Musky Marathon (17) than were reported in the Muskies Inc. log for the entire state of Wisconsin. And there were no muskies ever reported from Nancy Lake (Washburn County) which was cited by the report as the prime example of the success of the Minnesota Leech Lake "strain." In fact, there has never been a 50" musky reported from Washburn County. Clearly, anglers are very reluctant to report catches of 50" muskies, particularly from small lakes' Add Mille Lacs to the total acreage, and you will have more than TWICE the available Class A acreage in Wisconsin. Now add Minnetonka. And Cass. 'Dedicated musky anglers do release large numbers of fish, but many are still harvested (a 2001 UW survey showed an annual harvest of 37,000) and many others die of handling mortality. Our creel surveys often project total catches that exceed the estimated abundance of muskellunge, showing that fish are often caught more than once a year.' 'The Department has several efforts currently underway to improve its muskellunge management programs. Recent studies have shown that overstocking a lake can result in high populations that grow slowly - presumably because of insufficient food. Also, stocking into lakes that have adequate natural reproduction may not increase the population and may actually depress the number of natural fish. The Department is entering year 5 of a major long-term evaluation of stocking rates. Stocking rates have been systematically adjusted on 118 waters statewide depending on the level of existing natural reproduction, and follow up fish surveys are being conducted. Initial results confirm the recent studies and subsequent changes in stocking practices will be made over the next 5-10 years as the results are finalized.' | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Note: This is not a direct reply to the DNR letter of thursday although parts apply. That direct response will follow later today: "Omission" or "Mis-Information" OR "Dis-Information?": Disclaimer: This is NOT intended to be anything more than some statements and hard facts regarding information being put forth by the WDNR and certain fisheries biologist's, both WDNR and non-WDNR employed. If "mis-information" or "incomplete" information is being proffered, it should be corrected. If "omission" or "dis-information" is being disseminated, quite simply, it is wrong and should be stopped. I am making no accusations, just stating the facts. First: The DNR's person charged with responding to email inquiry's, is either under-informed, putting forth partial information, omitting information or... When an Outdoor Writer recently wrote to the DNR in part: "My complaint originated because of information...which I am enclosing here ('The WDNR is stocking lakes and streams in every muskellunge river drainage in the state with muskies raised at the Tommy Thompson State Fish Hatchery in Spooner, with known mixed, slow growing strain muskies with limited ultimate growth potential, from a single lake, Bone Lake in Polk County,...). Please respond as to its truthfulness, and if it IS true, WHY are you stocking small fish? It would seem that muskie fishermen would not want to continue to fish Wisconsin waters if there isn't much of a chance to catch a trophy." Part of DNR Reply that is of concern: "Bone lake fish originated from Lac Courte Oreilles, and when first introduced, had better growth than fish in LCO. Now, because they are at a density of 1/acre, some people are concerned that they don't have the genetic potential to grow large, but they are ignoring the other factors that affect growth and size-structure." My comments after the following: Related directly to the above: On Monday April 4th, 2005, a fisheries biologist spoke to a Muskie club. After his talk, he was asked some pointed questions. Once he realized that the questions related to information gleaned from the Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project, he immediately became very defensive. He claimed that because those asking weren't "trained" fisheries biologist's, they didn't know what they were talking about. He claimed that he wasn't "buying" the fact that the Bone Lake brood stock were anything except "pure LCO (Lac Court Oreilles) strain." He moved on in a huff. When again questioned by another, he went thru the same spiel. However, when this "questioner" told him that he was indeed educated in fisheries biology, he again moved on in a huff, refusing to acknowledge that he could be mistaken. My comments: First of all folks, we didn't just pull this stuff out of thin air. When we wrote our synopsis, we provided all reference's that pertained, over 275 of them, including the very important Bone Lake and Lac Court Oreilles information. I would think first of all, that WDNR employees working with muskies or disseminating information about muskies to the press, as well as students training in fisheries biology and/or doing a research project that is Wisconsin muskie related, would be "required" to read ALL past work done by WDNR Research Scientist's. Were this the case, more accurate information would be the result unless omission is intentional. We know that the above WDNR person has read our synopsis, but he either hasn't read the reference material; has forgotten what he read, or... First of all, even though Bone Lake has one fish per acre, it apparently isn't too many, as it is again on the stocking schedule for 2500 fish in 2005. Also, although a study there showed a decline in average weight at length in Bone Lake, the fish were still "heavier" than the statewide average for weight at length. The mixed stock now being used for hatchery propagation from Bone Lake has almost no natural reproduction where ever stocked, with rare exception. Why does the WDNR continue to use them? Following I will state the FACTS, and this time I will use the exact quotes from some of the scientific reference material that we used, proving that neither Lac Court Oreilles nor Bone Lake has a "pure" stock of fish. LCO was "mixed" when it was the sole western Wisconsin brood stock lake, and Bone Lake subsequently too was "mixed" when it was created. After LCO's "mixed" stock was transferred to Bone Lake, both lakes were yet again "mixed" in 1956, when known small growing strain muskies from Big Spider Lake were used in the hatchery operation. In addition, in 2000, both lakes were stocked from fish from the Woodruff hatchery further mixing stocks, and among different river drainage’s at that! While I am not a fisheries scientist, nor a fisheries biologist, I am a trained hatchery technician, past Research Chairman for Muskie's, Inc., Research Editor for Musky Hunter magazine since the second issue, have raised thousands of dollars for muskie research and contributed as well in many other ways, and have worked shoulder to shoulder with research scientists and biologists during an entire field season. I am no stranger to research. Having said the above, I found, as I believe you will, that the language quoted below is not scientific mumbo-jumbo, but rather plain "Kings English" easily interpreted by anyone that can read. Being a "trained scientist or biologist" is not required. The "facts" speak for themselves. See if you don't agree: From: Johnson, L., S. Nehls, Editor. 1971. Growth of known-age muskellunge in Wisconsin and validation of age and growth determination methods. Technical bulletin Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Number 49, Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1971. 24 pgs.: "AGE-LENGTH. Essentially, the known-age muskellunge in the three lakes were derived from Lac Court Oreilles brood fish. Even muskellunge spawned from Bone Lake in later years were from this strain, because the initial introductions had been from Lac Court Oreilles. THE SINGLE EXCEPTION occurred in 1956 when most of the fingerling’s stocked were derived from a SLOW GROWING population of muskellunge from Big Spider Lake...The 1956 year class of muskellunge fingerling’s stocked in Lac Court Oreilles grew slower than all other year classes...The fact that Big Spider Lake muskellunge stocked in Lac Court Oreilles, a lake with adequate forage, still exhibited slow growth, indicates that some unknown hereditary factor may be inhibiting the growth of Big Spider Lake muskellunge." NOTE: Big Spider Lake is an allopatric muskellunge lake containing no pike. Johnson, L.D. (WI DNR Research Scientist). 1971. 4th Annual Interstate Muskellunge Workshop, Trees for Tomorrow Camp, Eagle River, Wisconsin, September 13-15, 1971. pg. 16: "In Lac Court Oreilles we have information on the survival of a number of stocked year classes. The highest survival ever obtained was a 1956 year class which may have been somewhat of a different strain of muskellunge. This particular variety of muskies was very slow growing and did not obtain legal 30-inch length until they were seven to eight years old. Some of them did not even become legal after 11 years. .." Johnson, L.D. (WI DNR Research Scientist). Documented in 1976 and presented at a special Muskie's, Inc. Board Meeting with Minnesota DNR Fisheries Chief, Chuck Burrows on February 12, 1977. Pers. comm. with Larry Ramsell on growth: "We have fish in Lac Court Oreilles today from the 1956 stocking (of Big Spider Lake strain muskellunge) that are 19 years old and are 35 inches long maximum. Although limited growth is attained, these fish are our longest lived fish. These Spider Lake fish were also stocked in Bone Lake (Polk, County) in 1956 and have exhibited slow growth there also." Asked about a 31 pound 50 inch muskie caught in Big Spider Lake on 6/24/71', bearing tag number 4794, he commented; "This fish was from a stocking of Lac Court Oreilles fish in Big Spider Lake. This fish had slower growth in Big Spider than it would have had in Lac Court Oreilles, but was still able to attain trophy size due to the fact it was from the strain of fish that (used to) inhabit Lac Court Oreilles." Additional quotes from scientific research: Johnson, L.D. (WI DNR Research Scientist). 1977. Pers. comm. with Larry Ramsell regarding natural recruitment. "Of the 26 or so lakes that I work with directly, there is almost zero natural recruitment; even in the natural muskie lakes...I consider stocking necessary even in most natural muskie lakes; even then stocking survival is poor." January 18, 1977. NOTE: This begs the question of why hasn't different brood stock been tried to obtain natural reproduction as happened with Mississippi River strain muskies in Nancy Lake? 50 years of using brood stock that does not reproduce is beyond reason. Margenau, T.L., J.B. Petchenik. 2004. Social Aspects of Muskellunge Management in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 82-93. 2004: From abstract: "...Muskellunge anglers considered a trophy muskellunge to be at least 40 in long, with a preferred length of 50 in or longer..." Simonson, Tim. 2005. Jan. 21 email to Larry Ramsell: "...The old Conservation Department (founded in about 1933) did not hire any fisheries biologist until about 1940's, so what happened prior is somewhat of a mystery. As I understand it, the old Fish Commissioners distributed fry by rail car to citizens, who stocked fish where they saw fit..." NOTE: To tie into the above, is a quote from a letter written by John H. Klingbeil, Supervisor Fish Production WDNR, Nov. 8, 1977 to Dr. Wm. H. Pivar: "...Included also, is a photocopy of the old fish car which was utilized for distributing fish throughout the state for many years. Apparently it was acquired in 1893 and the picture was taken from the Commissioner's report of that year..." and ..."All the musky stocking done from 1874-1914 was with fry..." Verkuiln, D. Muskie magazine Feb. 1992. Trophy Lake Study; a presentation by Duke Andrews and Steve Avelallamant WDNR: ..."There is an effort by the DNR to use spawn from bigger or faster growing fish lakes. Genetic defects or genes in some lakes in the western part of the state only allow the fish to grow to 32 inches..." Wisconsin DNR. Hatchery 2005 quota sheets: Spooner hatchery (Chippewa River drainage) 5 lakes to be stocked in the Wisconsin River drainage. Woodruff hatchery (Wisconsin River drainage) 11 lakes to be stocked in the Chippewa River drainage AND 6 lakes to be stocked with "UNSPECIFIED STRAIN" in the Great Lakes drainage! NOTE: The Woodruff hatchery will also raise 15,112 Great Lakes strain muskellunge to be stocked in 2 lakes and 2 rivers in the Lake Michigan drainage. NOTE: THE PUBLICATION MENTIONED IN THE FOLLOWING INCORRECTLY STATED THAT MUSKIE'S INC. "OFFICIALS" WERE HEADING THE WISCONSIN MUSKELLUNGE RESTORATION TEAM. THIS IS "NOT" TRUE! MUSKIE'S INC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WMRP DIRECTLY AND SUCH DISCLAIMER IS ON OUR WEBSITE. WE DO HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM WISCONSIN MI CHAPTERS, BUT THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED. More: In a recent outdoor publication, a WDNR biologist was quoted, and made several statements that were interesting, indicating that it was unlikely he had read our complete synopsis, or only responded to parts he had a problem with. In so doing he put words in our mouth and attacked things he said we suggested, but failed to address that the DNR was doing the very things he criticized...every year! A quote: "...in our more than 100-year history of fish management, we do know that the worst thing you can do is try to select for size and growth rates. If you target size and growth rates, you are immediately suspect from a genetic standpoint. If we really do have different strains, and that has not yet been determined, if you take a strain from one watershed to another in trying to improve that stock, you won't do it. That will lead to a decline in that stock's ability to sustain itself. That is biologically and ecologically unsound." Let us look at these statements: He has made our case for us. In our WMRP document we suggested that "egg selection" be made to "assure" large native strains were being used for egg taking for hatchery production from trophy lakes with mixed stocks. This should not be "suspect", but rather good genetic "farming" to assure use of large strain vs. small strain genetics. It didn't end there, as we also suggested developing a new brood stock lake assuring future egg sources of native large strain fish. His statement that it "has not yet been determined" that there are different strains, takes us back once again to the review above of WDNR Research Scientist's findings to the contrary. We need only to refer to the above research quotations to prove his statement incorrect. One again must ask, why does the WDNR want "more" studies, when it is very evident that they are unfamiliar with those already done or refuses to use them? We realize that fisheries scientist's must "study" to survive, but at what cost? To continually duplicate or slightly alter existing studies and never acting on results is simply wrong. And what about the "decline in that stock's ability to sustain itself." After 50 years of virtually NO natural reproduction from current hatchery stock in northwestern Wisconsin, one would think that it should be realized that what has been "created" by the DNR isn't able to sustain itself, and something must be done! It is not rocket science folks!! As for his comments about taking strains from one watershed to another not being a good thing, we must again ask WHY does the WDNR continually do this very thing on an annual basis? He states; " if you take a strain from one watershed to another in trying to improve that stock, you won't do it. That will lead to a decline in that stock's ability to sustain itself. That is biologically and ecologically unsound." We agree and have requested that the WDNR discontinue such practice. The stocking quota sheets for 2004 and prior indicate that they did do what they profess to be incorrect, and the stocking quota sheets for 2005 indicate that they will not change this practice! Another quote: This "biologist" also said that; "he thinks Wisconsin's big muskies are learning to avoid pressure" and that we "singled out Lac Court Oreilles in Sawyer County as one lake that contains only small muskies." He further stated that; "last year he handled one 56- and one 58-inch fish from Lac Court Oreilles during a survey. They were both in the same net. The big fish are out there; anglers just aren't catching them." Wow!: Interesting quantum leap. First of all, we did NOT say LCO was one lake that contained only small muskies. However, the Upper Chippewa Basin Cooperative Musky Angler Fish Size Report; DNR angler survey from LCO for 2004 certainly could be interpreted for that to be the case, as it took 76.3 hours to catch a 32.3 inch average muskie! Just over a year ago, I wrote about a 67 inch muskie that had been netted in LCO by the DNR in the early 50's. We have always maintained that there IS a "remnant" population of BIG fish left in LCO. That is why we suggested "selective egg taking" there! This biologist, whose memory is slightly errant as it was more like three years ago that he sampled those fish and the sizes have varied with subsequent telling’s, who admitted in January of this year that he did not see a 50 inch Wisconsin muskie in his first 30 years on the job, would now have us make the "quantum leap" that just because he "finally" got a couple of big fish in his net, that all of the lakes are FULL of BIG muskies, but us angler's just can't catch them because "pressure" has made them "learn" to "avoid" us! Ya, right. What excuse will they come up with next? Meanwhile, more and more anglers bypass Wisconsin for Minnesota and Canada for trophy muskies that ARE there and ARE being caught on a regular basis! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell, Proud Member Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/10/2005 1:06 PM | ||
| Observation |
| ||
| I have read your last post about ten times now. With all due respect your tone, most of the comments and the obvious trying to be inflammatory is shameful. To me, the information quoted in your post is fragmented, incomplete, and misleading. You attack several unknown DNR people and refer to them in an insulting way. That isn't debate, that's rude. Stick to what you can find as fact, stay to a clear debate of the facts as you see them, and leave all the attacks out, and people like me will be more likely to listen to your information. This was by far the worst post I've seen from your group anywhere. | |||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Hi While I don't like unregistared posts I've got to agree with this one. Larry its time for you to let someone else do the talking for the WMRP. Your constant degrading of the folks at the DNR office is going to kill any chance we may have at voiceing the organizations views. Thanks Dave | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Let me start by saying that my "passion" for the WMRP has at times reached a frustration level that has caused me to perhaps go a bit overboard. For that I apologize to the DNR, Muskie's, Inc. and all musky anglers that love to fish muskies in Wisconsin. In my defense, I must state that most making comments have not been in all of the meetings and exchanges that have taken place, and therefore cannot know all of the reasons for what has transpired. My goal has merely been the betterment of Wisconsin's muskellunge fisheries, even though any changes made will not affect me in the future at my age. I have been involved because I believe it is the right thing to do for the future musky anglers that fish in Wisconsin. Having said this, I will continue to be involved and give my input, which is based on over 50 years of pursuing our beloved "beast" the MUSKY, and a thorough knowledge of the history of our sport and the management thereof via an intensive study of the scientific and popular angling literature as it pertains to the muskellunge. Following is a partial response of mine to the "official" DNR letter of April 7: The "Core" Problem: According to the official word from the WDNR on April 7, 2005; "The Department is initiating a new effort to fully evaluate its hatchery brood stock program. This effort will scientifically address the brood stock strain trophy potential issue brought up in the (WMRP) report, and do so in a way that comprehensively incorporates all the factors discussed...It will allow the Department to update its brood stock handling procedures and stocking policies to assure that the latest science is used. the Wisconsin Muskellunge Team (State Musky Committee), comprised of department and university fisheries biologists and representatives from the Conservation Congress and muskellunge fishing groups, will develop a comprehensive brood stock management plan for muskellunge that will be completed and implemented as part of the 2006 stocking year hatchery production cycle." Earlier in that same official statement the following was said; "Most importantly, the (WMRP) report erroneously concludes that Wisconsin is stocking an 'inferior strain' of muskellunge. Unfortunately the authors have incorrectly interpreted existing scientific data and relied on an evolutionary theory that has been debunked by virtually all agency and university researchers. The truth is that Wisconsin uses only wild fish for brood stock in its hatchery program, and all of these fish are native to the river drainage’s in Wisconsin." Yes, it is "unfortunate" that the "Department" not the WMRP that has totally mis-interpreted what was contained in the WMRP documents. It is "their" (DNR's) incorrect assessment of that, as well as their refusal to accept current peer reviewed and published science that is the "core problem" and a "mind-set" that will doom the proposed revision of the State hatchery brood stock program before it begins unless that thinking is modified. First of all, in that latter statement, what the "Department" is referring to as having been "debunked" is a "two musky species" theory. NOWHERE in the WMRP documents did we ever expound the theory of two-species. We fully understand that geneticist’s are currently in agreement that the muskellunge is of a single species. That was not, and is not the issue or the "Core Problem." What has NOT been debunked, and is fully backed up in the scientific literature, and more importantly, THE WAY ALL MAJOR MUSKY STATES AND PROVINCES, "EXCEPT WISCONSIN", MANAGE'S THEIR MUSKIES, is indeed related to an "evolutionary theory" SUPPORTED, not "debunked" by science. If the "Department" and the "Wisconsin Muskellunge Team" (State Musky Committee) continues to refuse to acknowledge these facts, there will be no hope of success in future brood stock management in Wisconsin. Central to the WMRP theme has been the resounding success of the Minnesota muskellunge management program. Their success goes right to the "core" of this issue. When then Minnesota Research Scientist Bob Strand led the Minnesota program to fame and glory (and a HUGE piece of the Wisconsin muskie Tourism pie), he did so based on some of the above noted "science" and so indicated in a letter in October of 1982, to then Wisconsin DNR Research Scientist David A. Hanson as follows: "I have reviewed the final report on electrophoretic analysis of muskellunge from Wisconsin and Minnesota waters. In my opinion the objective of this study was met and I am pleased with the results. I realize that all of our questions were not answered and that in terms of growth biology, genetic differences observed at this time do not clearly indicate a genetic basis for a slow growth rate in certain muskellunge populations. I do feel that progress has been made and through additional work more of our questions will be answered. The following comments pertain only to the two Minnesota strains which were analyzed in the study, the Shoepac and Mississippi (Leech) strains. In Minnesota, muskellunge propagation has utilized the Shoepac strain because that was the only egg source available until recently. After many years of management with that strain, it became apparent that the introduced Shoepac populations were not attaining the size expected of muskies. This observation was supported by a summary of the statewide sportfishing catch for an eleven year period which emphasized the lack of large fish from the Shoepac populations. Additional evaluation of the Shoepac populations indicated the problem was not slow growth, but rather one of maximum size attained. Growth of Shoepac fish is normal up to maturity, and approximated growth of natural populations up to maturity. This raised the question of whether the observed size difference was due to genetics or habitat. In view of the diversity exhibited in lakes supporting Shoepac populations, and on comparisons of these lakes with lakes supporting the natural populations, habitat did not seem to be a plausible explanation. This resulted in a decision to pursue a genetic evaluation of the two strains of muskellunge in Minnesota. The electrophoretic analysis completed by Dr. Post has shown that the Shoepac and Mississippi (Leech) strains of muskellunge in Minnesota are genetically TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS. That finding, in addition to previous data compiled, has led to a decision by Minnesota DNR to switch over completely to the Mississippi (Leech) strain in its management efforts. Sincerely, Bob Strand, Research Biologist" The results of the above noted change by Minnesota is well know and heralded through out the muskie range. They changed their hatchery stocking program because of "the fish." Wisconsin, since 1982, from that same study, has refused to make the same acknowledgments with regard to the Wisconsin muskie strains, and the results are obvious. Yes, the "Department's" statement; "Wisconsin uses only wild fish for brood stock in its hatchery program, and all of these fish are native to the river drainage’s in Wisconsin." is true and has never been disputed by the WMRP Team. It is the "mixing" of the various large and small growing "strains" in Wisconsin that IS the ISSUE, and their use in the State's hatchery system. Until this is recognized and acknowledged, the rhetoric currently being put forth will result in little change or success in the production of trophy muskies in the State of Wisconsin...period. The DNR would have us "wait" another 10 years after changes are implemented in 2006, to find out if any of these proposed changes will bear fruit. Minnesota made the correct change IMMEDIATELY, and the results have been amazing. Wisconsin "can" do the same, but it will first take a change in "mind-set." Wisconsin Tourism and muskie anglers cannot afford the wrong decisions! There is a fairly large body of additional science that goes further along the lines of "two different animals" and all are noted at the end of the WMRP "Addendum" on our web site: www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org under the banner "What is the WRMP". Of particular importance in this theme is the scientifically proven difference in reproductive strategies. Several papers go into "multiple spawning," a trait of the large strains of muskellunge throughout North America. Additional scientific papers delve into various "strains" and their ability, or lack thereof, to grow to large sizes, and other scientific papers get into the ability of the larger riverine (sympatric) strains to co-exist with pike and some get into the devastation created when pike invade or are introduced into lacustrine (allopatric) muskellunge populations. Fascinating reading all, and all very important and central to our work. Many of these scientific research papers were done by Wisconsin fisheries scientists and have not been acted upon. We sincerely hope that the people charged with the responsibility of managing Wisconsin's Muskellunge fisheries put aside their pride, read or re-read the existing science, and do the right things. I mean no disrespect to the hard working folks of the DNR, but until change is embraced, Wisconsin musky anglers and Tourism will continue to be affected. Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| from the heading of "What is the WMRP?" on the WMRP website: Robert Benson, 1st Wisconsin Chapter, Muskie's, Inc. Larry Ramsell, Past President and Past Research Chairman, Muskie's, Inc. International and Research Editor, Musky Hunter Magazine Eric Johnson, Board of Director's, 1st Wisconsin Chapter, Muskie's, Inc. from L.Ramsell post: NOTE: THE PUBLICATION MENTIONED IN THE FOLLOWING INCORRECTLY STATED THAT MUSKIE'S INC. "OFFICIALS" WERE HEADING THE WISCONSIN MUSKELLUNGE RESTORATION TEAM. THIS IS "NOT" TRUE! MUSKIE'S INC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WMRP DIRECTLY AND SUCH DISCLAIMER IS ON OUR WEBSITE. WE DO HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM WISCONSIN MI CHAPTERS, BUT THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED. one might see how it's an easy thing to confuse. especially when the disclaimer is so difficult to locate on the WMRP website... why the surprise that the group is seen as being lead by Muskies Inc. officials, when that's exactly what is published on your own website? you list yourselves as Muskies Inc. officials!!! the WMRP might not be an effort of Muskies Inc. itself, but you using MI titles to build legitimacy. again, an example of how professional image management might be helpful. | |||
| Pal |
| ||
Posts: 665 Location: Twin Cities, MN | If anyone remembers, it pretty much took an Executive Order from the President of the United States, just to change a few lakes to have minimum size limits a couple years ago. I cannot imagine the frustration you must endure to get the WI DNR to review how stocking is being done, let alone what type of fish to stock. Remember, that few people like to admit problems or mistakes at your job. I commend Larry and those others willing to stand up and say something, take the heat, and have everyone one else micro-manage how it should be done, as if some miracle is going to occur overnight and the WI DNR is going to make changes. How much longer do those of us who fish in WI, want the status quo from our fishery ? Are we content with our fishery ? Why not make changes to improve it and make it even better. The status quo has not done much for us over the last 20 years. I myself am concerned how the WI fishery will be when my two daughters are fishing with me in a few years. Pal | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I am going to go back to the comments about Mn lake vs Wi lakes and the constant reference to the difference in size. Steve quotes the WDNR letter: 'All of Wisconsin's Class A1 (trophy) musky waters combined roughly equal the surface area of Leech Lake (112,000 acres), and the number of 50" fish reported from these two sources are comparable.' Then adds “Add Mille Lacs to the total acreage, and you will have more than TWICE the available Class A acreage in Wisconsin. Now add Minnetonka. And Cass.” The above is all true, but why didn’t those natural musky lakes consistently outproduce Wisconsin’s smaller musky waters back though the beginning of time. Considering also they have consistently seen less pressure. The big fish should have always been there and always been easier to catch. I will admit Leech, Mil Lacs and Vermillion are extremely large lakes. But lets remove them from the equation. How about: Minnetonka metro lake at 14,000 acres. Cass Lake at 15,500 acres. Lake Miltona at 5,800 acres. Lake Bemidji at 6,420 acres. Pelican at 3,990 acres Plantagent at 2,530 acres. White Beer Lake 2,400 acres. I believe also a metro Lake If you where after a trophy fish which would you fish the above lakes or one of the following Wisconsin Trophy waters. Chippewa Flowage 15,300 acres Turtle-Flambeau 13,500 acres Lake Wissota 6,300 acres Lac Courte Oreilles 5,039 acres (50” limit since 92 +/-) Lac Vieux Desert 4,300 acres. (40” Limit) Trout Lake 3,816 acres Pelican 3,585 acres Twin North&South 3,400 acres. Lake Tomahawk 3,392 acres Lake Namekagon 3,227 acres (50” limit since 92 +/-) Grindstone Lake 3,111 acres (50” limit since 92 +/-) Round Lake 3,054 acres All the above Wisconsin waters are considered trophy waters or have a history as being trophy waters. Why did these lakes out produce (for trophy fish) the limited Mn waters (including the big waters of Mill Lax and Leech) until the mid 80s and now they can’t hold a stick to the smaller Mn waters. Some of these Wi waters even have trophy limits and they still can’t compete. On the lakes listed I don’t think you can say the Mn waters receive far less pressure. I will concede that there are far more active Muskies Inc, members in Mn, so they will report more fish but to me that isn’t the deciding factor. By reading the musky rags and watching the big fish reported on the internet there is more than enough anecdotal evidence for me to believe that if I want a trophy fish I am better off going to Mn even if I choose to fish a smaller lake. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Pal, You are railing against the Conservation Congress when you speak of the failed size limit proposal. That was the democratically chosen directive of the public who showed up to vote, not the DNR. Also, read the release by the DNR, change is already underway and has been for nearly 5 years. It may not be what some folks are asking for, but it is at least here in Oneida what the fisheries folks feel will help our trophy potential dramatically. Mike, You list many of the 'jewels' of Minnesota which are undeniably at their peak production of big fish at this moment in time. You listed some waters the same basic size, but DRAMATICALLY different in attributes, pressure, and 'age' of the muskie fishery ( attributes that go hand in hand, IMHO). Will anyone deny that the program that created many of the fisheries in MN is fairly new, and that the fisheries matured recently after the CPR ethic was already strong? That the fisheries are just recently being 'discovered' by a continually growing and increasingly mobile muskie angling community? I ask again, what will happen when this water is exploited as ours here in Oneida County has been for over 100 years(if MN chooses to not protect those fish), and what would be the effect of the intense spearing we have on our waters on those lakes similar in size to Pelican? I watched the potential for a trophy in my favorite fishery decline as trophy hunting/harvest pressure increased and spearing became a yearly reality. I was as guilty as anyone, but didn't know any better at the time. It's the fish? Well, IMHO not in this case, the fish as far as trophy potential growth in Pelican are just fine. Pelican used to hand me an average of ten over 48" per year before the harvest pressure and spearing, and I caught 50's there with reasonable expectation. I think she's coming back from a bad time with a yearly increasing average, but not as fast as she would without the spring annual harvest of large fish and with a 48 or 50" minimum. Some would have you believe that the fishery has declined because of stocking the wrong fish, but the fish stocked there are fish that are wild, native to the watershed, and grow up as big girls if left to do so just fine. I have fished Canada for 30 years, not looking for a 50" fish because I can catch that class fish here. Remember, I was fishing Pelican when there was ONE 'full time' guide out there, me. There was a couple guys from Summit Lake, and a few from Antigo that were known as the 'Suick guys'. Then came the guys from Rockford and Chicago, then the anglers from Green Bay and the valley. Then the traveling anglers from all over came and HWY G was packed every weekend; many took home their 48" or better trophy. I was in Canada looking for a 50 POUNDER, a creature that isn't very common anywhere. I will probably fish Mille Lacs if the fish continue to get even bigger there, but in my very humble opinion that too shall pass unless they are protected. Again, I am guilty as anyone. I've seen this happen, not just once, either. What's the HOT destination now? Sabaskong, Wabigoon, Sioux Narrows, Lac Suel? No, the hot destination is now the NW Angle. And Mille Lacs. More guides, more pressure, more mortality. Can a fishery of that size with the protected size limits there decline as a result? Minaki is a popular destination, and for awhile was THE PLACE like was Wabigoon, Eagle, LOTW Whiefish Bay, Sabaskong, etc. I fished Minaki when the road was dirt and gravel, and don't think it was a whole lot better then than it is now for TOP END (a really big fish there is in the high 30# class to MAYBE 40#), but certainly was for numbers of fish in the 4' class. That will change, as the minimum size limit was changed, but darned few if any 50# fish will be caught there. Many lakes and rivers in Canada were under what the Ministry felt was trophy hunting mentality 'over harvest'. What did they do to stop that? They applied a 54" minimum size limit to the lakes they felt have trophy potential. They were also worried about the overharvest of big Pike. They put a slot in place, and dropped the bag limit. Big Pike are now becoming more abundant. The pressure on those HUGE waters is SO MUCH LESS than it is on a 2000 acre lake in Oneida County, it's difficult to describe. I can't help but continue to point out that the issues here are far more complicated than just stocking a 'different fish'. That, in my opinion, indeed might be part of the key we seek on some waters, but not on all or necessarily most. Just some ramblings. | ||
| Pal |
| ||
Posts: 665 Location: Twin Cities, MN | Hi Steve, You are correct, I suppose I am railing against the Conversation Congress, but this is the same body that for some reason took up the issue of shooting cats this year (and no I am not a cat lover), so I am having problems putting much faith in their decisions over the last couple years, especially related to muskie fishing issues. Why decsions/issues so important as this obviously is, are left up to a referendum of people who show up once a year, and not the DNR frustrates me. The public decides size limits, but only on certain lakes with DNR approval, and the DNR decides where and what to stock. I remain confused why some decisions are put to a vote and others are not. Why does this occur in WI ? Or have I just been living in the neighboring state to the West too long ? I will say it was nice to see the Chippewa river higher limit go through. If I am missing something about how this works, please educate me. Pal Edited by Pal 4/12/2005 12:14 PM | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |