|
|
|
It's quite obvious to me that some people just don't GET IT!
Minnesota didn't waste alot of time with studies and red tape,they figured it out and fixed it Quickly! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Wow- Now that the problems/percieved problems have been well posted in this forum and others. Why don't we let the WDNR biologist's do their job's? Everyone seems to forget that's exactly what Minnisota did, i.e., the muskie anglers expressed a desire for trophy fish, the MDNR biologist's looked at the problem and came up with a solution from a fisheries biology management perspective. The people of Minnestota let the biologists make the decisions!
Sure we know MN Leech Lake fish get big, however, I don't think it's right to dump them in every muskie lake /river in WI. Norm said it very well- thanks Norm. As for me I'm tired of seeing the WMRT trying to slam something up the WDNR's behind.
We cannot/should not ask the present day WDNR staff to accept full responsibility for the mistakes off the past. Should they care about what happened in the last 130 Years- sure. But that is background research to figure out why we are at the point we are at with our present day fisheries. I see the WMRT folks have done a very good job of finding some of the past error's. However, I liken this to a cancer patient dictating his own treatment to his doctor. "I know that smoking a pack a day gave me cancer. Now I want a prescription for these drugs" What's your doctor's response?
I also see positive signs that the present day WDNR staff recognize both our desire for trophy fishing oportunities and that there may be some very easy solutions to specific past problems. However, if I were a WI DNR fisheries biologist given the current climate/awareness of the issues, I would proceed with extreme caution. Why, because if I make a mistake, the holy'r-than-thou non-scientist's out here will try to crucify me.
So-Let's stop whipping on the folks at the WDNR.
To all of your relief- I've decided to stop posting on this subject and to proactively work with the local WDNR biologist and the WI Rapids Muskie club to help improve the local fisheries here on the WI River and surrounding area. I think you would be smart if you did the same for your own local fisheries.
Have fun!
Al
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Eric, I would not take offense to your tone if I was the one being asked the questions. To be honest with you, I don't think many in the DNR take offense to your questions either. I feel that many people have this fear that the hammer of God will come down if we question anything that is or or is of the DNR. Hawg wash. Though proffessionals in their fields, they still invite the likes of you and I to approve of the job they do, bring forth rule change ideas, and vote for change. But, there will always be some that feel it is a sin to question any policy brought forth by state agency, and you need not even address them here. I feel you guys have improved your tone in the past months, and are doing a good service to all Musky fishermen in WI, whether we agree with your base objective or not. Please contintue, for without your efforts thus far, we wouldn't have gotten the commitment from the DNR to get to work immediately on this situation. There is no doubt that the steps being taken right now would have been initiated, without a little prodding from a group like yours, no matter how radical it may be.
That said, I want to say how greatful I am to have a local biologist with the positive ideals and non stop work ethic to go along with it. I have gained a great working relationship with our biologist, and thankfully have the go ahead to take part in the study here on Petenwell. Scot likes to hear from us, and invites questions and change for better. He is very respected locally in the private sector, and by his peers as well. He also puts me in my place quite often, but asks that I continue to bring forth ideas, and invites the same from others, as long as proper research and planning adhere. Scot realizes that an opinion on management does not need to be predicated by a biology degree to hold water, hence his respect and approval for resolutions on higher size limits written by local groups like ours. Likewise, many of our local and state biologists read these pages and do not take offense to questions being asked by certain groups, and quite often invite these difficult questions.
I am not saying that I agree with everything that the restoration group proposes, but I am thankful for their commitment in getting answers to some pressing questions that many in the WI Musky community have had for some time. Though the tone is a bit overly pressing at times, it is this tone that is getting notice, and results as we speak. Questioning policy of our state agencies is a right each of us have. Before condemning the tone of the restoration group(in this particular thread), look through an issue or two of the Wisconsin Outdoor News, and peruse the editorial letters from other high profile special interest groups accross Wisconsin, addressing the DNR's policy, rules, and changes which the group does not agree with.
Finally, it would be of interest to those(like myself) still interested in making changes for higher size limits in WI to start lobbying the DNR for rule change questions to appear on ballot forms at spring hearings consistantly without you or I having to introduce a local resolution. The DNR has the power/obligation to at least help us get the ball rolling that far, and eliminate a few years in the process. It may take some tone raising, but lets hope for more than one Muskellunge size limit change(as was seen this spring) on the ballots next spring and the support from the DNR to go along with it. With the DNR stating they want to improve the Muskellunge size structure in WI in other means than a widespread introduction of another strain, why not begin with an effort to protect the fish we have in the trophy waters of our state to go along with their genetic studies. Couldn't a private indvidual introduce a resolution, which would allow local fisheries biologists to raise and lower size limits per their own recomendation and professional biology background? Thanks to Aldo Leopold, the citizen in WI has a voice as to the direction our resource management is headed. This can be good, but in many cases is a hinderance, as local managers are not allowed to manage as they should be. It couldn't hurt to give our local managers more free reign in their own jurisdictions, could it?
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/24/2005 9:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'But, there will always be some that feel it is a sin to question any policy brought forth by state agency, and you need not even address them here.'
Don't lump me in with THAT group and if you are, you'd be mistaken, for certain. I DO think it's fine to ask questions to individuals in the DNR, that happens all the time on MuskieFIRST. However, absolutely NO desired end results will ever be justified by unreasonable means here. Spade a spade, the line was crossed, and the usual response by the moderators here is immediate deletion. That didn't happen in this case because we felt the debate was too important.
OK, spade a spade again. I think that the folks from the WMRT, especially Bob amd EJ, are well motivated, passionate folks, who are legitimately concerned about the muskie fishery here. Here's where I fell off the track of support, and was compelled to call out instances of this PR tactic:
If one has an issue one wants rammed into action right or wrong and the 'opposing party' is not showing signs of doing what is demanded, the first thing one must do as an activist if there is not clear, actionable support for one's demands by the public is to degrade and diminish the opposing party's image, or otherwise alienate the public from the opposing party's statements and actions. In other words, create the image that the opposing party is the 'enemy', inflaming public anger and perhaps gaining the best kind of support folks acting in this manner can look for: LOUD and directed negativism. Innuendo, suggestion, and barely unsaid accusation is the weapon, and the internet a tremendously powerful delivery tool. That's not debate, that's not research, and that's not reasonable action, it's political activism, and can be called absolutely nothing more or less. If the instances of this have been a coincedence, then the coincedence was well orchestrated.
Read the posts by Dave on the genetics thread, this is a very highly respected biologist who was involved in direct management of Missouri's muskie program. He's worked in Wisconsin for several years, and exhibits a clear and refreshing understanding of the overall 'big picture'. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Read the responses to his posts, and his responses.
Mr. Sloss is a respected scientist, and the attempt by one poster to diminish his work and attack his motives is nothing more than political negative spin which I found to be almost beyond the pale.
Yes, this topic is being discussed by the fisheries folks all across the muskie range, and the reaction has been measured, to say the least.
I have been involved in seeking change with the DNR several times over the years (proposed law to ban certain sonars, controlled drift with a trolling motor, trolling laws in the north, the muzzle loader season for deer, etc), and have found that the best interests of the public and the folks working on both sides of any issue is served by mutual respect as a constant no matter the subject matter or perceived situation. I've been on the phone and in the offices asking questions, getting cooperation and reasonable answers, too. I agree, the people at the DNR don't mind questions and comments, in fact, as Reef Hawg said, questions and comments are welcomed.
The difference between an editorial page commentary in a newspaper or news magazine placed in the editorial section and blasting away here on the main message board is pretty dramatic, and I too feel most everyone is moving toward center as a result of the fallout. I sure hope so!!
Editorials are published as personal opinion, not the opinion of the media or anyone else; personal. I addressed this in another post on the 'questions' thread. The problem with this lengthy presentation right from the start since this last summer has been the attempt to associate one side of the debate as one representing the public interest 'for us all' and the other as 'against us all'.
I spoke with Frank Friday afternoon about the muskies and muskie management in the Fox Chain, (the biologist working with the release crews at the PWT in Antioch, IL this week). He's truly excited about working with the muskie fishery there, as has been every single biologist I've talked to in seven states now. Interesting stuff, the walleye anglers found the little muskies they haven't been able to pin down, in pretty good numbers, and in places no one thought to look. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | No Steve, I was not referring to you at all. I was referring in general to those on this particular thread that feel the questions posted were so abrasive as to alienate the DNR. Some of them may be rhetorical, but most are really great questions, that I feel will help the DNR as they study to get answers no matter their stance on the Miss. strain dilema. That is all I am saying. I was also referring to those that felt Erics post was of a sour tone, which I just reread and do not feel was out of place. I think he hit the nail on the head witout slamming. I agree that certain aspects of the Groups arguments in other threads, as well as those opposed, need taming, hence my abstenance from posting on other threads. I was referring to this thread only. I have said before that I appreciate you even allowing this debate to take place, considering its often caustic nature. You, as owner of the site, would not have to.
How about my last paragraph? Couldn't we use the C.C. as a venue to raise a question, allowing our managers more latitude?
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/24/2005 9:08 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg,
As you are aware, the last time a 50" size limit proposal was proposed and run through the Conservation Congress, it was supported by many of the fishery managers for waters in their management unit. There was an effort by a group of anglers wanting badly to see this implemented which was laudable, but the public voted it down. Here in Rhinelander, there was organized opposition from folks I know have the area's interest in mind. They won.
I was speaking with Dave Neuswanger last week about this issue, which is of great interest to me. Read this, and let me know what you think:
Wisconsin has managed much of our hunting and fishing resources for a very long time with what I'll call public 'fire control' methodology. Lakes are managed for what the DNR thinks the public wants, serving the best perceived public interest in the process. Of course, managing for what seems to be majority desire at the time causes some pretty interesting public debates, because what the public seems to want is usually dictated by the Conservation Congress meetings, lake associations, and other folks speaking out at the proper times and places. An example of this would be the heavy stocking of Perch by the Lake Association in Pelican, right on top of a couple unbelievably strong year classes, essentially creating a possible problem or at the least performing an action that wasn't necessary or in the best interest of the overall fishery, but that's what the Lake Association wanted, so that's what the Lake Association did. The reason for that stocking was the fishing for perch was tough for a couple years.
Dave said it well in our conversation, so I'll try to paraphrase some of the ideas we discussed. Let's take this in context with the WMRT efforts of late.
Dave says he'd like to see more goal oriented management. Fisheries management is always a delayed impact action, because of the delayed effect of stocking or deciding to not stock.
Let's take your example of the Petenwell. What ARE the long term goals for management on that water from the public who use it regularly, who live on or near that water, and who are fishing there? Is it to create a muskie fishery that allows good fishing for muskies in reasonable numbers and a reasonable chance at a trophy so as to draw muskie anglers there, or is it to manage for the opprtunity for a true monster and lower density, drawing the trophy hunters, is there resistance to any muskie stocking from the majority, minority, or any percentage of the above mentioned anglers and residents, what will be the impact of either of thsoe management strategies, and how will those strategies effect the management of the other species in that water, and public opinion as a result? Also, what will the various public factions out there THINK the effects will be, causing a possible fire control scenario a couple Springs later at a CC meeting?
Are the muskie anglers in the minority there? What are the OVERALL goals, long term, for that water? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? What do the people want there in a decade? Are the walleye anglers looking for management that will dovetail with what the panfish anglers want and what the Muskie anglers and the pike anglers and the ice fishermen want? Walleye stocking in big numbers effects bass, pike and muskie populations, heavy pressure on crappies effects the bluegill populations, etc. It's a cause/effect relationship that is constantly looking into a crystal ball trying to guess what the folks here in Wisconsin want.
Written surveys don't work well, because they don't get returned, and the questions can confuse or redirect. The Conservation Congress is more or less an exercise for the activist oriented sportsmen and women, and the meetings are largely ignored by the general angling public. If less that a few percent show up to voice opinions, and then mostly over a single issue or two that might not even be fishing oriented, what wll be the results when those same folks, say cat lovers/haters vote on a muskie stamp they know absolutey nothing about?
Reef Hawg, I feel your last paragraph hits close to the bulls eye. One very effective way for what you suggest to begin to become reality would be complete public and State support, in concert and full understanding of the future effects, for long term goal oriented management programs LIKE the raising of size limits and introduction of Mississippi strain muskies there.
If the fisheries manager for this district had a clear, unwavering goal oriented publically supported OVERALL plan for the individual waters in the management area and was therefore more able to execute long term management strategies, your last sentence would be more of a reality.
That would be cool.
Just my Sunday opinion.
 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Sounds like the Lake association on Pelican wasted a bit of money. I have never been a fan of lake associations working on their own, in attempts at ‘fixing’ out of emotion, or outcry from property owners, or local fishermen. Far too often, I’ve seen a local lake association have a negative impact on a fishery that they thought they had the knowledge to manage. Often the Lake associations do a great service though, when working hand in hand with local fish managers, who can direct their efforts and $ to the proper cause.
Sworral: ‘What ARE the long term goals for management on that water from the public who use it regularly, who live on or near that water, and who are fishing there? Is it to create a muskie fishery that allows good fishing for muskies in reasonable numbers and a reasonable chance at a trophy so as to draw muskie anglers there, or is it to manage for the opprtunity for a true monster and lower density, drawing the trophy hunters’
Our club began stocking Petenwell flowage back in the early 1980’s. We typically stock around 300 fish per year into the 23,000 acre flowage. A local tournament also stocks the flowage, as well as some fingerlings, and fry from the DNR on a varying years based on availability. Without the numbers in front of me, I would estimate high and say the water gets 3,500 fingerlings, or 1 fish per 7 acres(.15 fish per acre) per year on average over the past 10 years(far fewer fish than what would be needed to create a destination coveted by Musky anglers). Please don't quote me on those numbers, as I am surely off by a margin. The goal of our club, as well as the DNR’s from the start has been to create a Musky population in fishable numbers, with hopes of a chance at a trophy. The population has not really responded as much as we wished, with marginal fishing opportunities at any given time of the season, save for the hot summer months when a few more fish are caught in certain areas where they are concentrated, making some think the population is in better shape than it rweally is. A good example of the health of the population is looking at records of the Petenwell challenge tournament, where 3-8 legal Muskies are caught for 60 contestant boats fishing 2 a two day event. The trophy opportunity has been less than stellar in Pete as well, where a shot at a 50”er has proven nearly impossible. There have been a couple undocumented reports of fish at or over the 50” mark, and none ever sampled in DNR studies. What we as resident anglers have seen, is a fast growing stocky fish(showing optimal forage opportunity), reaching 45-47”, then disappearing. This is perplexing for sure, with known forage levels of rough fish, and other species at a rate at or above even the great lakes themselves. There is also absolutely no known natural reproduction of Muskies in Petenwell(though we definately see them going through the motions). Much of this is due to constant fluctuations in water levels during the spring months. I feel that Petenwell could be both of the fishing opportunity types you mention above. There is no reason why a flowage of this size, with its forage base, could not support a very fishable population, as well as a good chance at a trophy. Work needs to be done, in order to do so. With state stocking cap. Levels where they are in regards to stocking, and limited funds coming from our club and local tournaments(we don’t make enough money to adequetly stock the flowage holding 2 brat frys and a boat raffle each year…LOL), we don’t see the flowage improving in numbers or size at our current pace. It has been at a near static low population level for the past decade, and catch rates of most Musky anglers show that it is still as tough to catch a musky from Pete as it was in 1995(last summer seemed even tougher…LOL).
That is why we(local anglers interviewed, along with our local fisheries experts) are so excited about the prospects of trying the Mississippi Strain in both Petenwell and Castle Rock(a similarily sparse populated system). One of the reasons that we are so excited about the study, is the prospect of the M.S. fish having a chance to reproduce in the flowage, taking some of the burden off of our club and the DNR in completely sustaining the fishery there on a put and take basis through stocking. A riverine strain known to spawn at later dates, and in deeper water, could prove(hopefully) to overcome the hurdle of the reservoir effect(lowering and raising levels due to spring flows and winter drawdowns). This, coupled with the prospect of a strain known to grow to trophy sizes, as opposed to the currently stocked Bone Lake fish that we raise in our ponds, is exciting for all involved. We would also like to raise some of the M.S. fish in ponds side by side with other ponds with Bone fish(fish that we are stocking in other local river stretches) to see which strain shows better survival in our rearing situation. This would only be possible if we are able to get fish from MN this year to raise for stocking in fall 2005.
Not to sound selfish, I would love to see the flowages start to produce fish in a size range encouraging locals to keep their boats in our home county on weekends, so we don’t have to travel long distances for an expected sighting or hookup with said fish. The results probably won’t be known for about a decade(first we have to get the fish to even stock), but it is the hope that drives us.
Sworral: ‘ how will those strategies effect the management of the other species in that water, and public opinion as a result? Also, what will the various public factions out there THINK the effects will be, causing a possible fire control scenario a couple Springs later at a CC meeting?’
Right now, I don’t see any change in how other species are managed in the near term, or long term. The walleye population is probably at its’ highest(fish per acre) that it has ever been on the flowage, though this is due to a severe downshift in size structure over the past couple decades. This has been due to angler harvest, and hopefully slot limits in place will help this situation.
Sworral: ‘Are the muskie anglers in the minority there?’
Definitely. The walleye and general multi species anglers outnumber the Musky anglers by quite a large margin.
Sworral: ‘What are the OVERALL goals, long term, for that water? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? What do the people want there in a decade?’
Again, I am just one person, and cannot answer for our fisheries managers or other anglers. I would like to see an upturn in size structure in the flowage, which the increased size limits going into effect should give us over time. This size limit increase has been well received by locals, indicating a general attitude inviting protection of the species, giving better opportunities for fish of all sizes. I hope people here realize that higher size limits will give everyone a better chance at catching ‘a’ Musky, not just a trophy. Hopefully some of the other locals will chime in on this topic(Handyman, Musky Maniac, T. Forcier, Erik Hanson Lambeau, etc) and give their opinions to the above questions.
Our local biologist made the decision to conduct this study, per his professional opinion of there being a potentially positive outcome. The main thing to remember is, stocking Muskies that are known to have the potential to grow big will be done in the near future in addition to the fish we get from the WI hatchery in Spooner(we will continue to raise them as well), that are also some healthy quick growing critters. That encourages me.
Sworral:'If the fisheries manager for this district had a clear, unwavering goal oriented publically supported OVERALL plan for the individual waters in the management area and was therefore more able to execute long term management strategies, your last sentence would be more of a reality.'
I agree. However, public approval has been the thorn in the DNR's side on many fishery issues. In my opinion, a local biologist should be given more latitude in decision making than currently available. Should public support be of concern? Of course. However, the public in general just does not have access to population, size structure, and overall management modeling at their fingertips as the local manager does on any given day. These guys should be allowed to manage. Right now, they are not. If the managers in the northern counties had their way, and did not have to answer to a public vote(where special interests often prevail as you stated), many of the size limits that we push for today would already be in place. Public input is good, though should not be the deciding factor as to how our resources are managed. Well trained, highly accredited biologists are hired to do so, and should. example: Our local biologist would like to see a 40" size limit on Pike on certain local waters in need of protection. He wanted me to bring it up as a resolution along with the Musky size limit a couple years ago. I chose not to. Too much work for me in addition to the Musky res. I do feel though, that it is something that he should be able to immediately impose without you or I telling him he can or cannot, knowing how strongly he feels for it as a professional biologist. He has conducted the Pike studies, and has the data to prove his theories.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/24/2005 4:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Reef Hawg,
Thanks, sir, that's what I was trying to get to. Much of our management philosophies are directed to what the people seem to want in the here and now and dictated by those people to an extent because of our CC system and the influence and additional micro management by Lake Associations. Long term expressed goal management would be, in the future, a great path to try treading upon in this old fart's opinion.
Also, there is VERY much said in your first paragraph. |
|
| |
|
| Reef Hawg - Great posts. Every bit of it.
For the folks who like to question the tone of the WMRT - we want desperately to work with the DNR. Do they want to work with us?
One question above asked how many meetings the WMRT had with the DNR. We had two sitdown meetings with folks from Madison, one in Madison and one in the state capitol, and one in Stevens point. Beyond that we have had several other sitdowns with area biologists and at the hatchery.
When we met with the DNR, we offered fiinancial and public backing of making some changes. We had plenty of "honey". We were essentially told "thanks - but we are the biologists, you don't understand how complex it is". That is what created "the tone." It takes two sides to work together on this. Some say you catch more bees with honey, others say the squeaky wheel get's the grease. We've tried it both ways - what did we get? More Bone Lake fish for everyone in 2005!!!!! Some say we need to wait, - We've been waiting since 1982. That's the year Minnesota and Wisconsin's DNR got the first genetic study. Minnesota moved immediately, while we start another study in 2006.
I'm very excited about the Petenwel project, but I still want to see some evidence of the DNR providing real support for change statewide. Ten year studies on a few lakes means I will see no real change in NW Wisconsin until 25 years from now.
Steve, you keep talking about all your efforts, and I applaud and appreciate those efforts more people should get involved as you do. Maybe I should ask more questions before I say this but - I don't think your efforts have done one bit of good in bringing change. If anything they have just caused more problems in encouraging the DNR to take things slow. Your position on the WMRP "tone" has simply hindered progress (IMHO) but yes you are entitled to your position, and I do respect your interest, knowledge and tenacity.
Until this past winter I have supported the DNR on nearly everything they have ever done. You'll find me squarely in support of them again as soon as they start doing things differently. They don't have to stock Mississippi strain muskies in every lake in the state.
But not stocking any Miss strain this year and not creating a single brood lake this year in which to start future management programs is offensive to me because it sets the whole program back one year. One year may not be important to the WDNR, but it is important to the fisherman and businesses of this state. One brood lake would have been progress, that's not much to ask. Muskie clubs would buy the eggs, and raise the fish. It would have cost the WDNR nothing. If there is some blockbuster genetic discovery that Mr. Sloss finds, we simply would not have stocked again.
Is doing nothing working together?
Folks - how we've been trying to bring change the last 20 years has simply not worked - it's just not been successful. We need to have new ideas and we need everyone involved. It's a great point about having only one 50 inch size limit proposal per year. Maybe we need to have 711 separate 50 inch proposals,(one for each lake) every year. Keeping the CC going to 5am will wear down the people who don't support it.
We can't keep doing nothing if we want change.
For all of the critics out there who can do it better - GO DO IT!
Bob Benson
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Steve, you keep talking about all your efforts, and I applaud and appreciate those efforts more people should get involved as you do. Maybe I should ask more questions before I say this but - I don't think your efforts have done one bit of good in bringing change. If anything they have just caused more problems in encouraging the DNR to take things slow. Your position on the WMRP "tone" has simply hindered progress (IMHO) but yes you are entitled to your position, and I do respect your interest, knowledge and tenacity.'
I could say the same about the WMRT. And the question remains, is the WMRT correct, or not? I could DEMAND publically, in a huge nasty published statement that before ANYTHING changes, that whether the WMRT IS correct in their assumptions is setteled in a solid, scientifically provable manner, by SCIENTISTS; not a couple well intentioned anglers. I didn't, not to you, or to the Scientists. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I do, however, have lots of questions. That might be pesky, but that's the way it is.
I am reasonably sure the DNR doesn't currently feel inspired to immediately change the Wisconsin management program based on anything the WMRT has come up with, at least not on the face of things. The 'good science' requirement remains. Several highly respected scientists from across the muskie range have read this and other threads across the WWW, and called this entire affair 'bar room biology' or it's equivelant.
Tell me Bob, why should anyone ( DNR, the public, anyone...) respond to anything your group has to say any more than what any other interested party might believe? Just because? Is Larry Ramsell more qualified to postulate about the science than I, Mike Roberts, or anyone else? NO. I submit he is not. I am sure that those who actually HAVE dedicated their entire working lives to the study and aplication of fisheries biology might feel the same way. I for one would not want a layman, no matter how well intentioned or well read he or she might be, developing new treatments and medications for disease, managing the deer herds in Wisconsin, or managing the Muskie program in Wisconsin, either. That remains the responsibility, not to be taken lightly, of the biologists and scientists in place now.
I can read muskie research, experiments, and other papers and documents too, and have since the 70's, everything I can. I have a couple years biology under my belt, enough to just make me dangerous, so I ask the experts from all over North America who have DEGREES when I come across a question, and read as much source literature as I can find. I am aware of the complexities of the situation, and one strong difference between WMRT and I is I'm willing to accept the answers from area fisheries folks and the Madison DNR at face value given the situation and the position and statements of qualified folks across the Muskie range, and WMRT prefers to offer an opinion that there is some grand conspiracy under way because many of those same folks disagree with the WMRT platform AS PRESENTED TO DATE. Perhaps one might look at that, and move forward from one's actual position, not a desired position in which one wishes to be.
If you are asking me or anyone else to stop questioning because someone in the DNR will somehow take questions as a reason to stonewall (that makes absolutely no sense), perish the thought. If you are asking me or anyone else to stop speaking to scientists and biologists from across North America because you think it will discourage action to get the facts properly presented, perish that thought as well.
The WMRT didn't get their desired cooperation from the scientists, and you wish to place at least partial blame at my door? Sheesh.
MuskieFIRST has voluntarily provided a forum and pinned the subject matter to the very top of that forum so the debate can be presented by all and for all our user base. This forum will provide opinions from all sides of the issue, or it would cease to be debate.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I was talking to my Dad about these issues the other night and the Indian spearing issue came up, as we where discussing this I had a thought.
One thing about the Mississippi River Musky that is different than the other strain is that it spawns in deeper water. If I remember correctly it’s in 3 to 5 meters that’s about 9 to 16 feet, one extra benefit of the spawning nature of the MR musky would be, it would be nearly impossible to spear these fish while they are spawning.
Now I would guess they could still be winter speared, and speared if they followed baitfish up shallow during the walleye spawn, but would the deep water spawning nature of the MR musky protect it from the spring spear? If that is the case it should be easier to limit harvest of these big girls.
Any comments on this.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| MRoberts
I ponted this out at one time in the last few months on one of the threads on one of the message boards as well. It does make sense. However, if the lake does not have the right type of lake bottom in deeper water that these fish prefer to use when spawning, they can and have used the more "traditional" spawning locations. This was pointed out to us by the MDNR. In some of thier brood lakes they need to put nets out in the "traditional" spawning locations to capture the big females during spawning because some of these lakes do not have the right bottom make up in the deeper water that they would normally prefer to use. The biggest advantage of these fish spawning in the deeper water is that it increases the chances of survival in lakes with a pike population. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJ,
Do you think any of the flowages or lakes in western Wisconsin have the right kind of bottom composition in the deeper water? That would be an added benefit, since a fair amount of the harvest isn't actually targeting muskies in the Spring, they just show themselves and are harvested as a result. 6' would be a tough depth to see anything in some lakes, but not in all. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I am sure that there are some waters with the type of bottm composition in deeper water they prefer. What bodies of waters those are I am not sure of. But yes, it would be much harder to spear a fish you can't see or that is too deep. Makes sense to me.
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | What is the proper bottom composition?
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
| Steve (Worrall), you continue to serve your fishing friends and Wisconsin's musky fishery as a poser of legitimate questions and a respectful voice of reason in this debate. Because I respect your approach, I feel obliged to respond to YOU and to those who will give you their ear. Lately, I have been busy trying to find a way to implement several worthwhile fishery management projects proposed by my biologists for next fiscal year (7/1/05 - 6/30/06) but not approved due to insufficient funds. So I have not had time to follow the message boards or address questions about the muskellunge genetics issue. Until this week, most other DNR fish folks in northern Wisconsin have been working overtime in the field to assess walleye and muskellunge population density and size structure throughout the Ceded Territory. Last night I browsed this and other threads, and I saw frustration expressed by WMRT members and supporters over the low level of WDNR response to their repeated questions and demands. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but there are three reasons for my relative silence of late.
First, I have many other responsibilities. I serve ALL people who fish in my 6-county Upper Chippewa Basin in northern Wisconsin. A statewide survey was conducted a couple years ago by a UW-Stevens Point graduate student working under Dr. Michael Hansen. When Wisconsin anglers were asked what species they would pursue if they could fish for only one species or a group of similar species, 31% said panfish (bluegill, crappie, and perch combined), 26% said walleye, 16% said bass (smallmouth and largemouth combined), 12% said trout (all species combined), and approximately 5% said muskellunge. Panfishing enthusiasts do not have an organized voice, yet they clearly are the most numerous and probably the most under-served relative to their numbers. Just look at where we have been spending our time the last 4-6 weeks -- assessing walleye and muskellunge populations. In my opinion, we have a largely untapped potential to create and sustain outstanding panfishing throughout northern Wisconsin. I believe this would do more to satisfy our stakeholders and aid a struggling tourism industry than anything else we could do. But we are not going to make progress serving panfish anglers and the businesses who depend upon them if we spend all our public outreach time responding to the information needs and action demands of one relatively small, persistent group of musky anglers.
Maybe this "squeaky wheel" tactic works in some places with some people. Not with me. I'm looking at those survey results and realizing who is paying most of my salary. I plan to maintain a balanced fishery management program where muskellunge probably get a bit more than 5% of my attention, simply because I am stationed in the heart of musky country and I have a personal interest in muskellunge that is steeped in family tradition. (My grandfather fished for muskies near Eagle River until two weeks before he died of lung cancer.) But I would be less than professional to allow such personal bias to override my sense of responsibility toward the majority of people I serve. So to answer Eric Johnson's question in this thread regarding who the DNR serves: It's you, Eric, and 19 other anglers who are NOT particularly passionate about trophy musky fishing. In fact, some of them don't like our muskies at all, and I spend some of my time trying to convince those folks that muskies have a valuable role in our ecosystems and can be legitimate components of our recreational fisheries. Please keep that in mind when you wonder why your public servants in the DNR do not maintain a frequent dialogue on issues important only to trophy musky hunters. We are not able to do it for anyone else, either. I wish we had more people and time to do it, but we don't.
If Wisconsin anglers want to help with the workforce issue, they might consider talking to our legislators about sponsoring a statewide referendum to establish an earmarked sales tax like Missouri’s 1/8 of 1% conservation sales tax. Since 1976, that source of revenue has produced 60% of the operating funds for my former agency -- the Missouri Department of Conservation. The Missouri State Legislature cannot touch that money, so many of them resent it. But they cannot override the will of the people of Missouri who passed the initiative by a majority vote. If we had such a significant and stable source of conservation funding in Wisconsin, we could do a lot more for everyone here, including keeping our fishing friends better informed. And everyone who benefits from the fruits of our efforts would be paying for it, not just license-buying hunters and anglers. The bottom line always is, you get what you pay for.
Second, fishery professionals are like everyone else. We prefer to interact and work with people who treat us with respect. Anyone who has heard or read some of the negative comments made by WMRT members and supporters knows that DNR biologists, supervisors, and program leaders have not been extended that basic courtesy on a consistent basis. Many contributors to this thread have made that observation independently, and I appreciate their sentiment. Folks, as student many years ago, I took courses in biology, chemistry, and statistics that prepared me for the position I hold today. My colleagues did the same. We are trained to develop and critique experiments from a biological and statistical standpoint, and to evaluate the probability that study conclusions are valid. Because of this training, professional biologists interpret data and reports through a different filter than avid anglers who have not shared our training. If this sounds pompous and arrogant to some, I humbly apologize. Please know that even I feel woefully inadequate to address some of the genetic questions being posed in this debate. But I know enough to ask good questions of experts in the field of genetics, and I am able to develop reasonable opinions based upon their counsel. As Confucious said, “To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know… THAT is true knowledge.” What I perceive from WMRT members and their strong supporters is an almost complete disregard for what we do NOT know. Despite their diligent and even useful assembly of historical information, they frequently misinterpret and place undue faith in select studies that do not begin to answer all the important questions, and they fail to acknowledge the risks associated with acting upon faulty assumptions and hasty conclusions. Even more distressing is their apparent disinterest in learning what we have now, genetically, so that we can determine where to go from here.
Friends, please do not ask me to elaborate on the faulty assumptions, misinterpretations, and hasty conclusions of the WMRT. I have neither the time nor the expertise to deliver an online course in fish population genetics, and I certainly do not have time to engage in what would surely be an unproductive online debate.
Back to my response… Imagine if I were to direct my doctor which of several possible procedures to use for my heart bypass surgery, because I had been reading the Journal of the American Medical Association lately. Or imagine if I were to tell my lawyer who to select for my jury, because I had been reading the Harvard Law Review lately. How would those professionals respond? With incredulity? With resentment? Would they keep working for me? I think it wiser that I tell my doctor I want to live, and my lawyer that I want to live freely, and then trust them to make it happen.
All we are asking is a similar level of respect. In exchange, we are more than willing to solicit the realistic dreams of our stakeholders and incorporate them into our fishery management goals and objectives. You want more trophy musky fishing opportunity in some waters? Great! If enough stakeholders support such a goal on a water-specific basis, and it is compatible with ecosystem capabilities and other objectives for that water, we will try our best to make it happen. But please don't tell us HOW to go about it.
To those in this thread who have advocated reform in the rule-making process, BLESS you. Please let your opinions be heard by your Conservation Congress representatives and your legislators. We could do a LOT more for muskies and other fisheries if we did not have a two-year process involving a statewide vote of largely uninformed people in order to implement simple harvest regulation changes on individual waters. Let's put public input where it belongs, into the development of goals and objectives for individual waters, not into dictating strategies to achieve objectives that do not exist. Hold me and your other DNR servants accountable for soliciting and incorporating that input in a sincere manner, but then support efforts to remove the obstructions that prevent us from acting in an efficient, timely manner.
The third reason I have been relatively silent on this issue lately is that the WMRT chose quickly to take this issue to the office of the Secretary of the Wisconsin DNR. The WMRT wanted action NOW, and they were prepared to wield any perceived influence to make it happen against the better judgment of seasoned fishery professionals. Call it enthusiasm. Call it dedication. Call it mean-spirited expediency or dirty politics. However you view it, and whatever you call it, it did not work.
WDNR is not going to make the giant leap necessary to conclude at this time that our muskellunge broodstock sources are compromised. But we are proposing to inventory our genetic stocks and examine our hatchery propagation and stocking systems based upon our growing understanding of muskellunge genetics. We can learn a lot in just two years and be fully prepared to make changes, if necessary, in four. But “more study” clearly is not acceptable to Mr. Ramsell, who has told me numerous times while sitting in my office that “It’s the fish, stupid.” (In fairness, I don’t think he was calling me stupid, personally, but I still resent the implication that some of my colleagues might be viewed that way.)
Failing to exert his will at the highest levels, Mr. Ramsell is now working locally, not with the DNR, but against us. While we have been busy surveying walleye and muskellunge populations, he has been busy persuading the Hayward Visitor’s and Convention Bureau to sign a letter demanding that DNR cease stocking muskellunge in all lakes in Sawyer County, and that we not proceed with a planned transfer of several hundred muskies from Butternut Lake (1 adult musky per acre) to Lac Courte Oreilles (<0.2 adult per acre) next year, even under the condition that those fish pass health screening and genetic compatibility tests. He has convinced his fellow Hayward Lakes Chapter members of Muskies, Inc. to withdraw their offer of financial support for genetic testing, despite the fact that our plans to better understand and to improve the musky fishery at Lac Courte Oreilles are in direct response to the vocal concerns of many of those members. I will be visiting with all those good folks to explain another side of the story in the near future. In the meantime, is it any wonder that we are not eagerly addressing the continual barrage of WMRT questions and demands?
Fortunately, there are many good folks to work with both inside and outside the Muskies, Inc. organization. We’ll get through this folks. Steve, thanks for the forum and the opportunity to explain why DNR folks (me, anyway) are not responding frequently to these questions and challenges. Due to time constraints, this will be my last posting for awhile, but I’ll peek in now and then to keep my finger on the pulse. Take care.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1295
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | A brief "other side of the story."
First let me state that I do have a GREAT respect for Dave Neuswanger's knowledge and dedication, and know for a fact that his plate is filled to the ceiling. Those things have never been questioned. I'm glad I'm not in his shoes! Two things I do have a problem with Dave is, first he is fairly new to Wisconsin, and due to his tremendous work load and learning curve, quite simply did not and does not have the time to catch up with over 100 years of Wisconsin Muskellunge management. He has told me that "we" need to trust them (DNR) to do what is right. In most cases I truly agree. In this case I do not. The UNINTENTIONAL errors over that 100 years has, to NO ONE'S fault directly in the DNR, has created a situation that needs work. While I frustratingly understand their desire not to "plunge ahead" based on what we have learned blindly, we also see no reason to continue to do business as usual.
I have not been working "against Dave & Co." in a mean spirited way. I have been speaking to those groups that have had a sincere concern, especially in the tourism arena, AT THEIR INVITATION! They obviously haven't liked what they have learned about our tremendous loss of tourism dollars conservatively estimated at well over a half-million dollars last year alone, with only continued and additional loss in the immediate future because of what is happening in Minnesota. That isn't "peanuts" to the business folks here who rely heavily on tourism for their income, including myself. That these folks "get it" and would like something done about it and are by nature political animals, that is the way they react. Simple fact.
I thought Dave's response in total, his anger with me notwithstanding, was well stated. I still have the right to disagree with some of his statements and comments, but will not delve into them here as it would be meaningless without his participation. When the opportunity presents itself, I am sure Dave and I will be discussing this in the foreseeable future, even though I am aware that he isn't too keen on giving me anymore of his time. But we are neighbors, so we'll see.
On a much more positive note, I am pleased to say that Tim Simonson, DNR Point Man in all of this and Co-Chair of the State Musky Committee contacted me today saying that he would like to work with us folks (WMRT) as much as possible, and that our energy and enthusiasm is outstanding. In addition, he allowed that the more we can understand each other the better, and that it is unproductive for all involved to keep going back and forth on these issues. He related that he would like us to find some common ground we can work together on and agree to disagree on the other issues.
I told him that his comments were very much appreciated and is exactly what we have wanted from the start, and feel that we have a lot to contribute. We are confident in our knowledge of the information, and we would welcome the opportunity to work on the issues we disagree on. Facts can be persuasive, and we freely admit that we can change positions when based on fact. We would hope that the reverse can also be true. While we don't have Mr. Neuswanger's "filter," we do know that some "facts" that have been ignored to date won't change with filtering.
I indicated again to Mr. Simonson that we have maintained from the very start that we weren't pointing the finger at ANYONE within the DNR for inadvertent happenings of the past. We do however expect the current regime of "decision makers" to act upon things learned that are factual and investigate those they are unsure of. Movement is being made in those directions in some respects and not in others. I told Tim we were very appreciative of his offer of working together toward a better understanding on both sides of the issues and were eager to begin anew. We are working on plans to share a musky boat in the very near future to begin that process, and we sincerely hope that similar feelings will be forthcoming from the other members of the State Musky Committee and all other DNR personal, including my friend Dave.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave,
Thanks for the post, and the stats on the number of Muskie anglers by percentage. Perspective is an important tool in understanding any issue. I also appreciate the mention of the need to develop goal oriented public input, that subject's a pet peeve of mine.
I will somehow control my almost violent urge to answer the post following, probably by simply turning off my computer.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I really liked what I read in Dave’s post and I believe Larry’s posts, does show PROGRESS.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Anchorage | To anyone associated with the WMRT. Can your proposed plan be implemented under the DNR's current budget. If not, have any ballpark figures been given as to how much money and time will be required to completely overhaul the states muskie program and start stocking Leech strain fish? Right now, and for the forseeable future, Wisconsin doesn't have and won't have much disposable income. And even if the budget does balance out, the DNR is always last in line for cash handouts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Great posts Dave AND Larry. Please keep us informed as to current progress. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, I noticed a similarity between a post from you about our small lake/big fish and those mentioned by Steve S. Interestingly, there are even parallels between the big hybrid opportunities in Minnesota metro and here in Vilas, witnessed by Tony Grant's success on Kentuck and a couple other waters.
Lets ask a question. Why do stocked fish, or for that matter naturally occuring fish, in one lake grow to trophy size, and fewer or none grow to that size in another? For discussion sake, lets compare two systems that access the Pelican. One is gated, the other probably not well enough to prevent movement of muskies from the river to the lake or the other way around. Both are dark water, both are relatively shallow. Stocking in one ended in 1989, with 400 fish from Woodruff. The other was stocked every few years up to 2002.
I have caught and released two Moens fish that were 48 in the last three seasons, and have not seen a 50. I bet they are there, they certainly were, but not in numbers, I wager. There is natural reproduction there, I catch little muskies. The stocking in the 70's and 80's was considerable. I have spoken to many other anglers there, and darn few report ANY 48" fish at all, so I was lucky. What's up with that? I think it's harvest, pressure, and angler related release mortality, but that is just a guess.
George is putting out some really nice fish. There are several year classes of mid 40" to lower 50" fish there, I have caught reasonable numbers from each class the last few years. There is also a representative number of smaller to low 40" class fish, also represented by stocking data. Before stocking, this was a pretty poor muskie lake, with poor numbers and few nice fish. There were a few hybrids there, though, and there still are. The biggest I know of was 53" and 36#.
So why in one lake are there big, most certainly stocked fish, and in the other, very few at all? And both waters draining into the same system just a couple miles apart, very similar lake types, etc?
Now let's look at Thompson. Another similar lake, a stones throw from George. A pretty nice lake. There are big fish there, but not in numbers, and very few fish we would consider trophy class. As far as I can tell, the same stocking in general, all the way back to the record on hand. Muskie stocking there was halted in 1984. A 48" fish is big, and 50" very rare.
Three lakes, three levels of stocking from limited to a BUNCH, and three levels of big fish success. Why is it that some small lakes kick out big fish and some do not?
And what's up with Spider, a great action lake. My son caught a 46 there last year, and another good one in that class the year before, match fishing, in fact. That's a HUGE fish in Spider.
Big water, let's look at that. In Oneida County, a big lake is 3600, Pelican, for example. This is a lake that has had what I consider intensive management for 30 years. I started fishing it hard two years after the early stocking record. It was affectionally known as the Dead Sea. I DID catch big fish there, an average of one a year in my boat 49 to over 50 and a couple over 45". That was guiding part time, but at least every weekend. Then came the stocking, and I watched those fish grow, catching multiple year classes and tagging a fair number with wire tags, and for a couple years, MI tags. By 1984, my clients and I were catching a dozen a year in the 48" class, and averaged 1 in the 49 to 50" class. In 1984, I had an 11 day period with two over 50" ( one caught by a client) and 7 over 45". One weekend in 2003 I had 5 over 40". None over 50, but what a weekend, and all those fish looked like they were poured out of a mold, obviously from the same year class. They were all brightly barred fish, which is a mark of the stocked fish in Pelican. In 2003 I fished Pelican less than 20 days.
Off hand, I know of two over 50 from Pelican last year, I'm sure there were more.
So why do the muskies in Pelican get big, even the stocked fish?
BUT! Why are they not 58"? Well, they never were from what I can find, at least not any that I can prove out. The longest fish I can find that was for certain from Pelican is 54.5. There is rumor of one in the mid to upper 50's that was speared, but that as I said before was an Enterprise fish according to Garner Ball who was there when the fish was speared way back before I was fishing. So I would not say that many fish here in my local waters have ever reached 56" or more, at least if they did, they were not caught much.
How about the Wisconsin River here in the area and the Boom flowage? I know of plenty of fish from 48" to 55", but not many over that. Sabota's 40# fish and my Pelican 40# and 39# the same years (and nearly the same days) back in the late 70's were considered to be true pigs and raised quite a stir, so was there ever numbers of 57 or 58" fish swimming in Boom Lake? Stocking there was undertaken in the early 90's, and those fish are now coming to age in the 48" class and corresponding year classes by my experience. Keep in mind, out of 400 stocked in ONE YEAR one might only expect 140 or so alive, and at 6 years less than half that and at ten dramatically less, so stocking 400 a year for a few years will not result in fish swimming up the line in the intense desire to be netted and removed from the crowded conditions. The flowage has been improving, IMHO, in numbers and overall quality due to CPR and perhaps stocking, and the big fish are still there. But why not 50# fish? Why not 55# fish? IMHO, those are VERY rare fish here. Only a very few have ever been caught in this watershed, all the way north and south, east and west over the course of history, yet there was one in the Vilas County Muskie Marathon released last year:
Pete Olson
Boulder Junction, WI
09/21/04
55 ½"
Manitowish Lake on a Top Raider (Bucher) Bait
Greg Bohn caught a 56" not too awful long ago, and that was one heck of a big fish for here.
So, since we are not eligible for Leech Lake fish here in Vilas and Oneida, Lincoln and Langlade, Marathon and surrounding counties because that strain has never been native here, what does this all mean? Are we to be content with our fish hitting 40# to 45# and that's it? Well, that was good enough for most for the last 100 years, and fish in that class were killed, and I mean fast, up until recent years. If we want more trophy opportunity IMHO we need to pass the 50" limit on trophy waters. Soon.
Another thing to remember, much of the past in muskie history was lore, story, and subject to a severe exaggeration factor when big Muskies were the subject. One cannot apply that to New York, Michigan, and Ontario as a historical fact but insist that never happened in Wisconsin. It did. Is that a horrible thing? No, it was the way it was, and things change.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I wont disagree that stocked fish can and do grow big. And I will state again that I think we are in a better situation in this part of the state than in the West. I think the reason is that the hatchery over here has not been taking eggs from one single source for the last 20+ years.
I have a theory on George (I can’t believe we are discussing this here, but I think it is important, I hope I don’t get beat up)
In 1987 there was 2700 fish stocked into 400 acre Lake George, is it possible that these big fish that are showing up are a result of a very large year class of stocked fish.
What I was planning to do once things settled down and I thought I could get some info from the hatchery is request the data on the fish the eggs were taken from in 1987. It would be interesting to see if there where any eggs taken from a big girl that year.
Is this data that is available? If so you may have an in to get it.
I won’t completely discount the genetics issue because I believe with all the stocking they do, every once and awhile they do strip eggs from a cow. It would stand to reason those fish have a better chance of growing into cows themselves. Plus they get one cow and they need less eggs from small girls. If big fish are available in the stripping process big fish can be stocked.
As I have said numerous times I don’t think our lakes are completely polluted with small growing fish.
I don’t know if you buy the 2 strain theory, at this point I do. I also think it is possible that our big fish may be this larger growing strain and they just look a little different and maybe don’t reach the 50# class as often, or maybe there is just less of them overall as pointed out by Jlong. I would be happy with more 40 and 45 pounders.
But, lets say it’s not a two strain issue, but larger fish do take longer to ripen their eggs. I would be worried about stripping practices that mainly target small fish in colder water. These are the kinds of things that really should be looked into. And I don’t think this type of stuff would really cost any more.
The crews pulling the nets doing research work continually pull 50”+ fish out of many different lakes. But they aren’t the crew stripping eggs. Maybe the two crews should talk and try to get a few large fish from different lakes into the Gene Pool.
Lots of different rambling here, and I need to get some sleep to get rid of this cold so I can be fishing at Midnight tomorrow night.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, at this point I don't buy any theory that there are two 'strains' here in this area. I haven't seen any real evidence that it's necessary to strip a big fish that's 17 years old to get the same growth attributes, etc. from a 'strain' of muskies. A 41" female or a 35" female that has the same genes as a 49" female (same lake, same time, same hatchery, same brood stock, etc) should pass on pretty much the same potential to get to trophy class given the same male, everything else equal, and given that it's not all that easy to get only really big fish, probably not all that practical. That's my next telephone conversation with the fisheries folks, I guess, to get their opinion.
Far as I can find out so far, the fish in '87 were Woodruff and taken from the same lakes they are taken from today, but I'll keep checking to confirm. I mentioned that there are several year classes doing VERY well, so it's not just the '87 stocking, IMHO. I talked to a couple of the area DNR folks to see if they do this early, cold water, little fish stripping thing. According to what I've found out, it isn't that way at all. Every single year, the fish stripped are diverse, not just small, not just large, but a combination. They are stripped when they are spawning or very very ready to spawn, and viable females are stripped.
Good luck on the water tomorrow!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | One more post, then I think I will leave this issue alone at least for the weekend.
I agree that IF a 35” fish is stripped there MIGHT be the big fish genes consistent with its parents IF its parents had big fish potential.
However there is NO DOUBT that eggs from a 50+ inch fish HAVE the potential to grow to that same size, not guarantied, but potential.
When big humans breed there is a better chance that there offspring will be big, again not guarantied. If you want a big dog, your best bet is to breed two big dogs, and so on and so on. I don’t see why it would be any different for fish.
All I am saying is that IF there is a POTENTIAL genetics issue and things can be done at relatively no increase in cost. Then why not do it or look into doing it. There are lakes in the area that they could net big fish from almost every year. Because when they sample them now for research they get big fish almost every time.
From the evidence I see natural selection favors big fish. Why, because look at egg production. Big fish can produce as much as 8 times the number of eggs, (from the DNR numbers of 22,000 to 180,000eggs per adult fish). I don’t know how many fish are stripped to get the eggs the DNR uses at the hatchery, but I think this should be taken into consideration if a natural stocking gene pool is the goal. Eggs should not be taken from only small fish. If that 33.5” average number is correct for eggs taken for the Spooner hatchery that really seems like it needs to be addressed.
Don’t you think an average size should be more in the lower to mid 40s with specimens both small and big? To me that just makes more sense. If cost makes doing this an issue then this is were we should try and raise some private funds or help share the work.
Along with this we need to continue working on higher size limits.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think we are confusing young/smaller and old/larger with young/smaller MEANS small genetics and OLD/larger MEANS large genetics. If the genetics are there, a younger fish will still be carrying them. That is a point that has been made by the fisheries folks a few times, but it always gets lost in the 'Big Spider' debate. A prize mare, for example, when she is 3 has the same genetics as when she is 9. Just a point! |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | If Tim Simonson is really offerring to work with the WMRT, he is a bigger man than most.
Mr. Simonson has my utmost respect. I hope this is a sign that everybody can start working together on these issues.
Good luck to all going out tommorrow morning for the southern Wisconsin opener. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I know that Caleps fish farm has had some fish in the 50-54" range for their brooders over the years in their ponds. Couldn't the DNR do something similar?
Olsons big fish wasn't caught out of Manitowish Lake, though it was from a lake associated with the chain. Wasn't Bohns from Plum?
Good points Bytor.
Edited by Reef Hawg 5/6/2005 2:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | We want young/larger and old/huge, not old/smaller. Steve you and the Fisheries folks are exactly right the young/small fish MAY be carrying big fish genes. The problem with a fish in the field is you don’t know if it is a 15 year old 35 incher or a 4 year old 35 incher. One you may want to use as breed stock one you many not. If you have a 52 incher you don’t know if it is a 10 year old 52 incher or a 20 year old 52 incher, but you know it grew to 52 inches.
Say eggs are taken from 4 35 inchers some carrying big genes some not, all young have the same chance to survive genes are passed on equally. Say eggs are taken from 3 35 inchers and one 52 incher. Using the DNR average numbers the 35 inchers combined produce 66,000 eggs, the 52 incher produces 180,000 eggs. Which fish passes on the most genes to survival?
There has to be natural genetic variability even in the same species of fish, just like in humans some grow only to be 5’ tall some grow to be 7’. The difference is a 7’ woman doesn’t produce 8 times the eggs as a 5’ woman. They don’t need to for the species to survive. The number of eggs a musky can produce is based on it’s size not it’s age, more eggs with those genes means more young survive each year. Nature has dictated that it is better for the species to have more big fish than small fish other wise egg production would be a function of age not size.
Again I admit there is no guarantee that those eggs grow into bigger fish, the odds are just a lot better they do.
Purely speculation on my part, but makes sense to me.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1938
Location: Black Creek, WI | I agree with MRoberts and am glad to see him finally using his geniousness to think like the mathmatician/engineer that he is... rather than an armchair biologist.
Trying to break the DNA code and identify the superior "gene" is a very very very very long term vision and why I have avoided the entire GENETIC discussion. I feel it is a NOBLE effort... but I also feel thinking in more simple terms (less assumptions, considering probability, and using good common sense) will get us good results faster. Will they be the BEST results? Probably not... but I'd rather see SOME results in my lifetime. I'll let my boys enjoy the "superior gene" bonanza once I"m dead and gone.
Thus, I'm gonna be selfish and just continue to focus on how to work with what we got right now. I want to catch a Wisconsin 40 pounder in 2005..... not 2025!
jlong |
|
| |
