Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Nancy Lake Discussion |
| Message Subject: Nancy Lake Discussion | |||
MuskyMonk |
| ||
| I will watch when I get the chance too. Maybe I'll sum up my position in one question. What will it take for the WIDNR to consider a different genetic strain for LCO? The success of LL fish in other Wi lakes? The failure of Butternut fish in LCO? What will it take for Dave to SUPPORT a different strain of fish (ANY STRAIN) in LCO than the one currently failing? I'll leave it that. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I understand the stance on the ENTIRE Chippewa basin, but what about LCO specifically. With the problems that are apparently present there. Why not try a strain of fish that have proven different spawning habits. What makes Wissota different than LCO, or is the 90 miles of river enough? Nail A Pig! Mike Should this thread, again be broken off into a separate line under LCO. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You need to prove that the 'strain' in LCO is the problem if you are both going to keep insinuating I'm somehow responsible for the DNR policies regarding those fish. Yes, I understand the reasoning behind the reluctance to stock Mississippi strain fish there, because I took the time to call the biologists and ask the questions, acquire the answers; then check those answers with biologists from OTHER STATES who confirmed. LCO ISN'T Wissota, that much you must admit. I know of a couple fish surveyed on LCO over the last few seasons that were true giants, so some LCO fish can and do get big. I know the fish raised from LCO stocks reproduce elsewhere. I know that some muskies from LCO can and do grow large, very large. I know that there is a population problem in LCO that needs to be addressed, at least one that SEEMS to be very serious. I know some of that water doesn't reside on territory we have any control over. I know that there are a number of difficulties in assessing the population there that do not exist on waters we DO have better data from, at least in the reporting portion of the equasion, and that this particular water body has a couple twists that many others in the Ceded territory do not. I know that the fish from there have a history; recent history, of the capability to reach magnificent size and weight and that the fish SHOULD be reproducing. They apparently are not, and we need to find out why. The natural place for a logical thinker to go to next is perhaps a plethera of factors including harvest, habitat destruction, water chemistry, or any number of others that could be in play INCLUDING but not EXCLUSIVE to genetics. The genetics issue is in the discussion and under investigation by Dr. Sloss, a management plan/proposal is in place, and I don't think to look for a magic bullet quick fix is in the most likely to be dealt cards from the DNR at this point. I guess I am a realist that way. I know that the transfer from Butternut is an opportunity to work in the here and now and get immediate results, helping get an overpopulated lake's numbers down while working with a fish we know can reproduce and should be able to get to trophy size in the process. If they don't, we will know pretty quickly, not having to wait 5 years for the fish to mature. And I know that since the variables mentioned are real, and are part of the LCO equasion, it isn't likely LL fish will be approved for that water by the DNR even if Mr. Neuswanger personally begged for them. Mike, Mr. Diana was very clear in his statement during the symposium that Leech Lake fish adapted to a condition on Leech Lake, and may NOT behave the same in another water body. That is is evidenced by the failure of the strain in Illinois testing on four waterbodies ranging from Northern temperate to southern, lake to impoundment. I have also heard that same comment on a more generalized basis from other biologists and researchers. There are lakes here in our area that have some muskie population issues to worry about. Pelican is one, the density could fall dramatically and soon if those fish are not protected. What do you think our chances would be asking for a Leech Lake or Lake St Clair stocking on Pelican while it is under the management plan you are aware of there for the forseeable future? How about the River? Is there any guarantee the muskie fishing in Pelican will not deteriorate considerably with no stocking and high harvest of large fish from spearing and angling harvest over that timeframe down to what LCO is experiencing? What's the difference here except that LCO might just be further along than Pelican because of numbers of harvested fish that are not even counted? What if you had a chance to indicate that the fish are capable of growing large and reproducing, or disprove it, and could do so with a small amount of privately raised funding, add 500 adult fish to a system that sure seems to need them, and even solicit cooperation from sources that were not in the reporting loop during the process? Would you pass that opportunity by and do nothing, which at this pont seems to be the only other option? If you were to place 500 fingerling LL fish in LCO, and they survived as well as those first stocked in Nancy, by my math there would be less than 150 left at the end of year two, and less than 50 by the time they matured enough to begin possible reproduction. What you are proposing with a matched stocking isn't even possible unless we can acquire 500 adult Leech Lake fish. Someone can correct me if my math is off, it's been a long day. The assumption you both are forwarding is that the problem is the genetic makeup of the LCO fish. What if that isn't the issue at all? What if Dr. Sloss's work proves that the LCO fish today are genetically the same as those from years ago? What IF those fish are perfectly capable of reaching trophy size? Remember, the WMRP data was supposedly VERY conclusive that the stocked fish from Woodruff and Minocqua are slow growing small strain. Bull!!!!!!! Those stocked fish produce 40# adults RIGHT NOW from lakes that had no native muskies and were 100% reliant upon stocking at first. Some of those waters were only stocked ONE time, yet produce fish into the 53" class and show good NR DESPITE high Pike populations, and I'm talking TODAY. I'll defer to the fisheries folks to answer the rest and tell me where I'm full of beans.  | ||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| Like our friend Monk, I have many other things to attend to. But I'll give this one more try, after which we may simply have to agree to disagree with some of the fine folks who understandably wish to see musky fishing improve in places like LCO. I promise to do my best to make that happen in a responsible, scientifically and socially enlightened manner. MONK: "Maybe I'll sum up my position in one question. What will it take for the WIDNR to consider a different genetic strain for LCO? The success of LL fish in other Wi lakes? The failure of Butternut fish in LCO? What will it take for Dave to SUPPORT a different strain of fish (ANY STRAIN) in LCO than the one currently failing?" DAVE: It will take a realization on my part, and on the part of several experienced WDNR fishery supervisors above me in the chain of command, that there is something irrecoverably wrong with the population genome of LCO muskellunge, rather than simply a fish community imbalance. Because of thorough file searching and reporting by the WMRP Team, there is now clear documentatioin of within-state source mixing among fish stocked into LCO; but that has occurred on all stocked Wisconsin waters, and they are not all suffering like LCO. Muskies in LCO get big (captured 56" and 57" fish in fyke nets a couple years ago), but natural recruitment is virtually nil. Is this because of inbreeding depression, outbreeding depression, or fish community change and imbalance? We do not know. Nobody knows, but we are working on finding out, and I am betting on the latter. Why? Let's look at what's going on "next door" to LCO in Grindstone Lake. We've all seen the statistics from LCO in 2004, when volunteer cooperators reported fishing 305 hours in 102 trips for muskies and caught only 4 fish (1 fish per 76.3 hours). Pretty poor compared with the excellent Wisconsin state average of 1 fish per 25 hours. At Grindstone, volunteer cooperators reported fishing 135 hours in 35 trips for muskies and catching 16 fish (1 fish per 8.4 hours). Outstanding action! What's the difference between these two lakes? They're both deep, clear-water lakes with a diverse prey base. Both lakes harbor big fish that are heavy for their length. Natural recruitment has been virtually nil in BOTH lakes for at least the last three decades, probably due in part to a shortage of nursery habitat (shallow, weedy bays or shorelines) and the establishment of northern pike that frequent those rare weedy habitats and prey upon young muskellunge year-round. Both lakes are STOCKED with the same Wisconsin hatchery fish, yet musky fishing at Grindstone is outstanding for those who know how to catch them. So what’s the difference between LCO and Grindstone? It may be as simple as differential northern pike density in those waters (not all waters by any means). We lack good quantitative data on northern pike there, but my field staff and many anglers are convinced that there are far more northerns in LCO than in Grindstone. IF that is true, knowing there are few places for young muskies (less than 20 inches long) to hide in those lakes, perhaps we should not be surprised that more 10- to 12-inch musky fingerlings survive in Grindstone than in LCO. It could be that simple (not certain). Recall Ocham’s Razor in science, which suggests that for each problem, we should try the simplest potential solution first. That is the basis for our plans to supplement the LCO musky population. If we acknowledge that mechanical or chemical pike eradication is neither desirable nor possible, the next best option is to tip the balance in favor of muskies by adding some genetically compatible adults to LCO that are not needed elsewhere (e.g., Butternut Lake). It is reasonable to believe that increased musky density will reduce northern pike recruitment in the future. I would like to say one other thing relative to an earlier post by Monk. He assumes that I (we) do not talk to our colleagues in Minnesota. That is not true. I have known and communicated with Minnesota biologists since I was Missouri’s representative to the Esocid Technical Committee of the North Central Division of the American Fisheries Society. They are fine professionals who, to my knowledge, agree with our policy to not stock Leech Lake strain muskellunge into the native range of muskellunge in Wisconsin. They experienced similar challenges a few years ago, when Minnesota anglers were pressuring them to stock Wisconsin fish into Minnesota waters, ostensibly because the Wisconsin fish were so much heavier for their length than the allegedly skinny Leech Lake fish. Minnesota biologists did the right thing and resisted that pressure. We talk, Monk. And we read each other’s reports. And if we interpret them differently than you, it is because we do this for a living. Best of luck to you on the water, sir. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| And with that, better to let this issue go. I will agree to disagree, but keep an eye on the results. I do sincerely hope things will improve. Good luck. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I don't know if I agree or disagree but just like fishing for these fish I am trying to answer the all important question WHY? I apologize this is going to get very long. STEVE: “… I took the time to call the biologists and ask the questions, acquire the answers; then check those answers with biologists from OTHER STATES who confirmed.” Response: Steve the above is exactly why I keep asking you these questions. I know you are not responsible, but I also know you understand the thinking better than anybody else on this board other than Dave. You are both busy so I am trying to spread the love so the discussion can continue. I am also cognizant of the fact that Dave is responsible for the entire North Eastern fishery not just MUSKY, and I very much appreciate the time he is taking to be involved in this discussion, because he doesn’t need to be and it has probably caused him many headaches. STEVE: “LCO ISN'T Wissota, that much you must admit.” Response: I will agree LCO isn’t Wissota, and you and Dave have given me the info I was after in the above posts. Still a remnant population of big fish there, not a total loss yet, and I think the Grindstone info Dave provided is very important. STEVE: “The natural place for a logical thinker to go to next is perhaps a plethera of factors including harvest, habitat destruction, water chemistry, or any number of others that could be in play INCLUDING but not EXCLUSIVE to genetics. The genetics issue is in the discussion and under investigation by Dr. Sloss, a management plan/proposal is in place, and I don't think to look for a magic bullet quick fix is in the most likely to be dealt cards from the DNR at this point. I guess I am a realist that way.” Response: I’m not necessarily looking for a magic bullet, I personally am trying to look at the LCO problem logically. Look at two possible factors for the problem you list above, harvest and habitat destruction. My thinking was that the habits of the LL fish may be such that these two factors could be limited. In my opinion adding 500 adult fish to LCO is a magic bullet, I have never said I was against this and no matter what happens with the LL fish, which at the time we all know is nothing. I think putting those 500 fish into LCO is a great idea. I think they very well might get big, IF ALLOWED. Will they spawn successfully, that is the big question. But they immediately add a significant adult population to the lake which I feel can’t be a bad thing. IF the WMRP is correct and they have bad genes and they are correct and they won’t be able to reproduce there. It really shouldn’t present any kind of long term problem, because they will all be gone in 10 to 15 years anyway. STEVE: "Mike, Mr. Diana was very clear in his statement during the symposium that Leech Lake fish adapted to a condition on Leech Lake, and may NOT behave the same in another water body. That is evidenced by the failure of the strain in Illinois testing on four waterbodies ranging from Northern temperate to southern, lake to impoundment. I have also heard that same comment on a more generalized basis from other biologists and researchers." Response: That may be the case, but I don’t think the Illinois comparison fits. Leech and LCO are much closer in latitude and total distance. If LL fish spawn on a specific structure in Leech and LCO has some of that same type of structure (big question I don’t know the answer to) then the adaptation Mr. Diana speaks about could be exactly why they MAY work in LCO. Especially IF the spawning habitat, WI muskie look for, is gone. STEVE: "There are lakes here in our area that have some muskie population issues to worry about. Pelican is one, the density could fall dramatically and soon if those fish are not protected. What do you think our chances would be asking for a Leech Lake or Lake St Clair stocking on Pelican while it is under the management plan you are aware of there for the forseeable future? How about the River? Is there any guarantee the muskie fishing in Pelican will not deteriorate considerably with no stocking and high harvest of large fish from spearing and angling harvest over that timeframe down to what LCO is experiencing? What's the difference here except that LCO might just be further along than Pelican because of numbers of harvested fish that are not even counted? What if you had a chance to indicate that the fish are capable of growing large and reproducing, or disprove it, and could do so with a small amount of privately raised funding, add 500 adult fish to a system that sure seems to need them, and even solicit cooperation from sources that were not in the reporting loop during the process? Would you pass that opportunity by and do nothing, which at this pont seems to be the only other option?" Response: I hope we are taking steps on Pelican to stop this downward spiral. LCO has had a 50” limit for 10 +/- years. We all know we can’t do anything about the spearing so what options are left. I don’t think it is feasible to give it an infusion of adult fish on a regular basis. Lets hope Pelican doesn’t have all the problems LCO does or it may be in big trouble. And IF the size limit increase passes on Pelican and 10 years down the road it is in the same shape as LCO right now you can bet I will be screaming to try something else. There has to be a point where you cut your losses and realize because of harvest, habitat destruction, water chemistry, or any number of others factors all you are left with is a put and take fishery and you stock what will grow the best. We know from the 80s and 90s that WI stocked fish will survive and grow in Pelican, if the size limit doesn’t work hopefully we go back to the level of stocking seen in the 80s and 90s. Pelican is definitely not at that point and hopefully limiting harvest along with NR will grow more and bigger fish. But I don’t feel you can stop stocking and not address the harvest issue on a lake that sees the pressure Pelican sees or there will be huge problems a few years down the road. I don’t know exactly where LCO is on the slope, and that is what I am trying to determine, from your and Daves posts I don’t think it is at the bottom yet, but it’s much closer to the bottom than Pelican. As I stated above I am all for the transfer of fish if the genetics works. STEVE: "If you were to place 500 fingerling LL fish in LCO, and they survived as well as those first stocked in Nancy, by my math there would be less than 150 left at the end of year two, and less than 50 by the time they matured enough to begin possible reproduction. What you are proposing with a matched stocking isn't even possible unless we can acquire 500 adult Leech Lake fish. Someone can correct me if my math is off, it's been a long day." Response: I agree 500 fingerlings in a 5000 acre lake probably wouldn’t be enough. I agree putting 500 adult Leech Lake fish into LCO would depend on finding a source. I stated that when I first suggested it. It was just a suggestion for a apples to apples comparison. I would only do this if LCO is proven sterile for WI Musky. WHEN is that call made? After how many studies? STEVE: "The assumption you both are forwarding is that the problem is the genetic makeup of the LCO fish. What if that isn't the issue at all? What if Dr. Sloss's work proves that the LCO fish today are genetically the same as those from years ago?" Response: What I am trying to forward is maybe the LL genetics are better suited for LCO TODAY, not that WI genetics are inferior. If the lake has changed because of many different factors in the last 100 years then maybe the original LCO genetics are no longer suited for the lake and different genetics could work better. IF (I admit, very big if) this is the case it may very likely be LCO is the only lake in the state where this is the case, however there may be more lakes where this thinking could be valid. STEVE: "What IF those fish are perfectly capable of reaching trophy size? Remember, the WMRP data was supposedly VERY conclusive that the stocked fish from Woodruff and Minocqua are slow growing small strain. Bull!!!!!!! Those stocked fish produce 40# adults RIGHT NOW from lakes that had no native muskies and were 100% reliant upon stocking at first. Some of those waters were only stocked ONE time, yet produce fish into the 53" class and show good NR DESPITE high Pike populations, and I'm talking TODAY." Response: I agree with you, but maybe LCO is different because of all the factors affecting it. DAVE: "It will take a realization on my part, and on the part of several experienced WDNR fishery supervisors above me in the chain of command, that there is something irrecoverably wrong with the population genome of LCO muskellunge, rather than simply a fish community imbalance." Question: What if it’s not the genome of LCO muskellunge, but fish community imbalance along with limnology problems. If the fish community imbalance couldn’t be corrected because of the limnology could/should a different muskellunge genome be considered? Dave, thank you for the information comparing LCO and Grindstone. When I look at the map I notice that both lakes have cranberry bogs and both are half in the Reservation. Both are Cat.3 lakes, with no known reproduction. My guess is, both have approximately the same harvest. So it makes sense the difference in pike population could be a significant part of the cause as to why the stocked fish don’t show up in numbers on LCO, but they do in Grindstone. But how is the reproduction problem resolved in both bodies of water? Steve and Dave I again thank you both for taking the time to discuss this. I understand you both probably have much better things to do with your time. But I think it’s important to fully understand these issues. Thanks Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | MROBERTS: Question: What if it’s not the genome of LCO muskellunge, but fish community imbalance along with limnology problems. If the fish community imbalance couldn’t be corrected because of the limnology could/should a different muskellunge genome be considered? DAVE: Mike, you've hit upon a good point here. I think limnology, which includes consideration of aquatic plants and other physical habitat features in a lake, certainly plays an interactive role with the fish community in LCO. For example, dense beds of aquatic plants throughout Musky Bay seem to comprise perfect nursery habitat for young northern pike. If that habitat could be altered to the disadvantage of northern pike, would that help tip the balance in favor of muskellunge at LCO? I'm not sure, but it seems like one thing to consider. Could near-shore cover in other parts of the lake be enhanced (for example, tree drops) in such a way that the probability of survival of young muskellunge (natural or stocked) would increase in areas outside of Musky Bay? This might be another productive avenue to investigate. I regret that I can only address your question with more questions of my own, but these are the questions I ask myself, and these are the habitat-related strategies Frank Pratt and I would consider before resorting to the introduction of an exotic strain of muskellunge from Minnesota into the heart of Hayward musky country. Given WDNR policy decisions at levels far above me, I think this is a moot point anyway. MROBERTS: Dave, thank you for the information comparing LCO and Grindstone. When I look at the map I notice that both lakes have cranberry bogs and both are half in the Reservation. Both are Cat.3 lakes, with no known reproduction. My guess is, both have approximately the same harvest. So it makes sense the difference in pike population could be a significant part of the cause as to why the stocked fish don’t show up in numbers on LCO, but they do in Grindstone. But how is the reproduction problem resolved in both bodies of water? DAVE: You're very welcome, Mike. Your challenging questions are a PLEASURE to answer because you pose them with civility and respect. (I have ceased to respond to people who don't.) I'll be a nitpicky biologist for a moment and beg your indulgence by distinguishing between reproduction and recruitment. Frank Pratt and I think there is suitable spawning habitat for muskies in both lakes (maybe not in Musky Bay of LCO anymore, but elsewhere in the lake). So we believe natural reproduction of muskellunge can and does occur in both lakes. It is recruitment -- the survival of young muskies to stock size (20 inches) -- that seems to be the main problem. Any condition that facilitates predation upon young muskellunge during their first couple years of life should be considered a potential contributor to recruitment failure. The more large predators in these lakes (northern pike and even adult muskellunge) and the fewer hiding spots for young muskies (near-shore areas with structural complexity), the greater the threat to musky recruitment. So I'll rephrase your question to say, "How is the recruitment problem resolved in both lakes?" I wish I had a silver bullet for that one. But in general, I think we do what we can to protect muskellunge (50" length limits already in place, but may need to address the live bait mortality issue), encourage harvest of northern pike, and increase structural complexity in near-shore areas to provide young muskies with safe places to hide and feed. We will certainly address these things in the upcoming fishery management plan for LCO. Thanks, Mike. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Well it certainly is going to be difficult to do the tree falls on the lake. Most of the shoreline seems dedicated to cabin frontage. Obviously to anyone who has drifted musky bay and either burned a bucktail or a Johnson silver minnow with a rind on the back, northerns are abundant. Billy Boy flowage is another significant northern nursery and I am sure that it produces a bunch of them. I did ask the question about imprinting and possibly changing spawning sites for these fish or would that be far fetched? If I remember Johnsons study it involved an initial population of fish which was being depleted every year and his conclusion was that there was NO natural reproduction going on any more. I think as a historic fishery, the loss of Couderay is particularly vexing if not painful to the older segment of the fishing population. I was friend to a family that had a cabin up there since post depression times and from there reports the fishery was very different in those days, and Musky Bay was named such because it actually had MUSKIES in it. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Dave thanks again for the responses, have a few more questions I have been thinking about and have come up in some email exchanges. I looked through the stocking reports for Grindstone and LCO, from that Grindstone has actually been receiving more muskies per/acre than LCO. From 1990 through 2003 Grindstone received approx 2 musky/acre more than LCO. Combine that with the supposed higher pike population in LCO maybe that alone explains the difference in musky stocking recruitment. Maybe LCO just needs a higher stocking density. Is that economically feasible? I understand that the 500 fish transfer will be an immediate adult population boost, but I don’t think it would be possible to do that every 5 or even 10 years if it’s needed. I know, I know…..….that has never even been suggested, I’m just rambling. Regarding the tipping of the balance in favor of muskies, is it fare to say an increase in musky density will reduce northern pike recruitment? I think it’s important to be careful with statements like this, because from a muskie fisherman’s perspective this could come back to haunt us, when looking to increase musky density or size structure on any lake. While working on size limit increase the number one question we need to answer is what effect will this size limit have on walleye and panfish. The best response we have is “Musky are such a low density fish that yes, they will eat some walleye and panfish, but when looking at totally densities it is minimal, compared even to cannibalization.” According to one DNR biologist I have talked to Musky stockings have been tried in the past to control stunted panfish populations, it has never worked. Because, in most situations muskies just do not reach a density, high enough, to control other fish populations. Walleye, Pike and Bass have been used successfully to control stunted panfish populations. Musky are typically at less than 1 adult fish/acre, many good lakes are at less than .5/acre. One of my favorite musky lakes, which I would consider to have a moderate pike population, is supposedly at 6 adult pike/acre. I don’t see any way to tip that balance other than to get a high enough musky population so the young survive. Not so the muskies reduce the pike population. I don’t see how that could be possible, without other negative affects. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| "Regarding the tipping of the balance in favor of muskies, is it fare to say an increase in musky density will reduce northern pike recruitment?" Good question, Mike. If you were to look at Butternut Lake, its fair to say that incresed musky density had no impact on the Northern Pike population. I think (maybe wrong) the goal of the transfer is to increase adult musky spawning populations and thus generate a type of critical mass in which a self-sustaining population may occur (still an open question as to the impact this will have on TROPHY fish). However, reading recent comments, the thought may be that overriding ecological factors are playing a predominant role in recruitment. Okay. Now do those same ecological factors exist in Butternut, and despite those factors, both pike and musky thrive? I don't know, but there is a reason that pike and musky coexist in Butternut. And do those reasons apply to LCO. Again, we should try to find a situation similar to LCO and see what worked. There might not be a similar situation. There might be a list of x number of "close" situations. But I would like to see if there were other lakes that had similar difficulties and see what was done. And if we were to compile such a list, would Butternut still be an appropriate example. Are other lakes, maybe in Minnesotta, closer to the mark? Again, I don't know. To me, it would seem like a logical step. | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | MROBERTS: I looked through the stocking reports for Grindstone and LCO, from that Grindstone has actually been receiving more muskies per/acre than LCO. From 1990 through 2003 Grindstone received approx 2 musky/acre more than LCO. Combine that with the supposed higher pike population in LCO maybe that alone explains the difference in musky stocking recruitment. Maybe LCO just needs a higher stocking density. Is that economically feasible? DAVE: Mike, exceptions are possible during times of hatchery surplus, but by policy, we cannot PLAN to stock any given lake with more than 2,500 fall musky fingerlings from WDNR hatcheries in one year. This upper limit was imposed many years ago in order to distribute our most expensive hatchery products equitably throughout the state. Also, there's a general understanding that such stockings usually will occur only on alternate years. MIKE: Regarding the tipping of the balance in favor of muskies, is it fare to say an increase in musky density will reduce northern pike recruitment? I think it’s important to be careful with statements like this, because from a muskie fisherman’s perspective this could come back to haunt us, when looking to increase musky density or size structure on any lake. DAVE: I think it's fair to say that it's worth a try. We don't know if it will work, but there seem to be precious few other options for reversing the dominance of northern pike in a lake like LCO. Each lake has complex and dynamic interacting factors that we rarely understand completely. At Butternut Lake, our electrofishing capture rate of northern pike more than doubled in the most recent decade, coinciding with a five-fold decrease in musky stocking from 1985-1994 to 1995-2004, but also a significant increase in adult musky density in the latter part of the most recent decade due to high natural recruitment and low adult mortality. When we see contradictory evidence like this, it's a pretty good indicator that we do not understand all the complex interactions at work. About all I am able to conclude is that muskellunge have reproduced naturally and actually increased in abundance despite the doubling of fall electrofishing capture rate of northern pike at Butternut Lake in the most recent decade. Now that adult musky density has reached a high level of 1.0 per acre at Butternut, will they repress future pike recruitment there? If we don't move half of them to LCO, we may find out. If we do move half of them to LCO, we stand to learn a lot there too. Regarding the social implications you mentioned, I am comfortable with our direction. In the Upper Chippewa Basin, northern pike have their fans in a few select waters with excellent pike fishing potential (e.g., Nelson Lake and Miller Dam Flowage), but muskies are still rated MUCH higher in angler preference by local stakeholders on most waters. And at LCO, muskies were the NUMBER ONE species of interest among our visioning session participants. All lakes cannot be all things to all anglers, so we have to make tradeoffs. In the case of LCO, we are going to do our best to feature muskellunge, and we will do so unapologetically, even to the disadvantage of species held in lower regard if necessary. Ten miles away at Nelson Lake, we have no muskellunge objectives at all, but we will start managing a trophy northern pike fishery if participants in the Conservation Congress hearings next spring give us the "thumbs up" on our proposal for a 32" minimum length limit and 1 daily bag limit for pike there. Different priorities for different waters, influenced by what each system is capable of supporting and by what stakeholders indicate they want via local meetings, creel surveys, statewide mail surveys, etc. I don't know how else to do it. Hope this answers your questions, Mike. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks great answers, but they lead to more questions. DAVE: …we cannot PLAN to stock any given lake with more than 2,500 fall musky fingerlings from WDNR hatcheries in one year. Question: Dave, if local clubs could come up with the money and APPROVED fish could they supplement the stocking from a private source on a lake like LCO? Or if clubs put 2,500 fish in LCO, is the DNR obligated to stock their fish in other places because the quota was reached? Dave: Ten miles away at Nelson Lake, we have no muskellunge objectives at all, but we will start managing a trophy northern pike fishery if participants in the Conservation Congress hearings next spring give us the "thumbs up" on our proposal for a 32" minimum length limit and 1 daily bag limit for pike there. Question: You brought up Nelson Lake again and it reminded me of a question I was meaning to ask about NANCY. I had a brain freeze for a while there and confused the two. Anyway, I noticed that NANCY is on the no stock list for musky. Why not continue the LL experiment there and do some supplemental stocking of LL fish to try and build that current LL musky fishery? Or is the plan to continue to study the lake, to see how the existing LL fish survive? It seems the DNR could get some good PR by at least continuing the LL program there. It would give the people who want it a close destination. Unlike the 5 lakes near by that are schedled to be stocked 06 thru 09, Nacy has a current fishable population of LLers Thanks Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 11/22/2005 10:00 AM | ||
| Troyz. |
| ||
Posts: 734 Location: Watertown, MN | Wow, I am tired after reading this post, lot of good information regarding LCO, been fishing it for 5 years now, very limited success. Fish per hours really seem right on the head. I also think Grindstone is more fish friendly due to it size and fishablility. Dave a couple Questions. 1- How does your fish per hour vary by season? Usually have much more success till 1st week of July, then after turnorver, suspect move deep and the vast open water(limited fish) make them harder to contact in summer. 2-With LCO has limited natural reproduction due to spawning habitat demise, why not try the LL that spawn in different habitat, and may not be vunerable to the density of pike in LCO? What is the risk of mixed reproduction of LL and LCO fish if they are using different spawning habitat? 3 Have you tried using 2 year old in stocking, in MN we have noted they have much higher survival rate than fingerlings? 4 As mike eluded to why not keep stocking Nancy, with 7-10% survival rate of stocked fish, you would think that there needs to be more stockings to ensure that there are enough adult fish to really have a chance at this lake becoming a brood stock lake? MN still stocks most of its lakes yearly to build its adult fishery with hopes of the lakes becoming self sustaining. 5-Why a limit on at 2500 fingerling, why not have it be a ratio based on lake size? Yes there are big fish in LCO, but few and far between, it has the Hype of a Trophly lake, but its glory years are in the past and is in definite need of help. Troyz Edited by Troyz. 11/22/2005 2:13 PM | ||
| Grindstone Angler |
| ||
| Someone show me where Grindstone is the fantastic lake Dave says it is! I fish it as well as several other good musky hunters I know, and yes there are good numbers of fish there but all of us seem to have trouble getting past that mid to upper 40 inch size range. Not even seeing but a very ocasional 50! Lots of them though 36 to 42, and decent nubmbers from 42 to 45 or 46, few larger. This is EXACTLY what we are seeing on almost every lake up here. We have been seeing the same size structure for the last 5 or more years and no increase above that. Almost like they have topped out where they are. Even with the 50 inch limits, Grindstone is not much different in average size fish it gives up that say Teal, Lost Land, Siss, or most other lakes here. | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Grindstone Angler... nail meet head! That my friend is the entire point of this discussion. Let me repeat the comments from Mr. Neuswanger, 1. "At Grindstone, volunteer cooperators reported fishing 135 hours in 35 trips for muskies and catching 16 fish (1 fish per 8.4 hours). Outstanding action!.... Both lakes are STOCKED with the same Wisconsin hatchery fish, yet musky fishing at Grindstone is outstanding for those who know how to catch them." - Key word, action. What was the average size of those fish? What was the biggest? This is the point of my arguement. If the DNR is satisfied with the results of Grindstone, then there you have the root of the problem. We are not looking for action on these lakes, we are looking for the big girls, trophies. I don't know, maybe we need another set of lake meetings to clarify angler priorities. | |||
| Troyz. |
| ||
Posts: 734 Location: Watertown, MN | I don't fish grindstone much, due to its boat landing and my boat. But the size structure suprises me. I know on LCO the last few years I have seen more fish, but in low 30" size range. I also talked to a group that spends a week in the fall on LCO, the award a trophy for big fish, 9 caught, 31" was the winner. So size structure is still a issue, sure the grow an occasional big fish, but the consistancy is an issue. Troyz | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Grindstone angler, In IR 418 (page 14 table 6) by the MN DNR, it is written that the average LCO strain female will reach a maximum size of 1194 mm or 47 inches (vs. 1341mm / 53in for MS strain) in the lake studied. This is not my opinion it's something written by Biologists. (Likely by certified members of the AFS) If you are catching 46 inch fish in Grindstone, you should feel good about yourself, it may be as big as those stocked fish can grow. Of course there will always be some exceptions. MRoberts, it is true that Policy dictates that no more than 2500 Muskies be stocked in a body of water on a given year. It is the same type of policy that limits the stocking of alternate strains (including those proven to grow 10% larger in MN and Wi waters - IR418 & RR175) in Wisconsin waters. That policy applies even where those other strains exist today (Nancy). Concerned citizens of Wisconsin would like to see both policies changed in order to provide higher quality fisheries. If we can change one policy, we can certainly change the other. By the way - how many Muskies were stocked into Green Bay this year? Last year? Bob Benson Member - American Fisheries Society | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, I think one needs to be cautious when using data from a study in Minnesota on a Eutrophic lake arbitrarily to predict L and 95% CI for the same fish in LCO. The lake mentioned in your reference, Waconia, is described as larger than Grace (the other study water) shallower, and more eutrophic on the edge of forest/ag area of SE Minnesota , a markedly different waterbody than LCO, I would say. The figures on the page you mention offer far more information than you mentioned, and conclusions were for those waters. Please reference the difference in L and in 95% CI Limit between Grace and Waconia Mississippi strain, and please note also the Minocqua strain L and 95% CI Limit listed for Grace VS the Mississippi strain there, and the fact that LCO fish were not stocked in Grace, and Minocqua fish were not stocked in Waconia. I think one needs be cautious that data from this work isn't used to discuss what the same parameters on LCO might be, there is not necessarily a correlation between the two. Would the Mississippi strain perform as in Grace when stocked in a Hayward area lake, or would they perform as they did in Waconia, or as they did in Forest or the Fox in Illinois? How would LCO fish have done against the Mississippi strain in Grace? Against the Minocqua fish? I don't know, that isn't in the data mentioned and I'm not qualified to venture a guess. Here's a link to the mentioned study: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational... We will have the entire Green Bay video presentation from the recent symposium up soon. Just to make sure no confusion occurs, the fish in Green Bay are not Mississippi strain. Lake St Clair, I think. Dave, Is there any indication the LCO fish will not reach 50? 54"? 56"? If indeed I at least somewhat understood many of the presentations at the Symposium and all I have read over the years, it isn't just the genetics or the water body or the forage or angler harvest or spearing or..... that indicates how many of the older, oldest, large fish survive from each year class and are available as a result for us as anglers as 'trophy class fish' it's a combination of all. Am I correct? I believe Dr. Casselman stated slower growing fish that live longer and develop a solid length/weight ratio are preferable long term trophy material, do I have that right too? Is there any data on Grindstone that indicates what is happening on that water and has happened to overall size structure of the muskie population there? Grindstone Angler, Please see the tone in which questions and answers are exchanged here. This forum is designed to do just that, allow for an exchange between anglers, fisheries folks, etc. We encourage constructive discussion, and strongly discourage that which isn't. Please keep your posts within those limits, and you can expect to get answers from varying points of view to any question you might have. Thanks to Bob, Monk, Mike, Troyz, Dave, and everyone for keeping it real, let's maintain the air of mutual respect. | ||
| Grindstone angler |
| ||
| The fact still remains that even 20 years ago the fish in Grindstone and LCO were bigger than today and there were far more of that larger size as well. Not so any more! There will always be the rare and very few exceptions, but those larger fish are just not there anymore. In Grindstone What is in there and as I said before have been there for the last 5 or so years, is plenty of fish up to to low to mid 40s and THEY JUST DO NOT SEEM TO BE GETTING ANY LARGER. What I am seeing is a kind of almost universal fish topping off around the mid 40s in almost every lake I fish up here. Why is that. Should we not have a better shot at a bigger fish on some of the former trophy lakes than the numbers lakes? That is not what is happening. Today you have just about as good of chance on the numbers lakes and just as good of chance for the mid 40s fish. Should not be so and don't make sense! Is it the hatchery fish we are stocking???? Not much else has changed | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I suggest you look to the reams of discussion here about that issue on this board, there are several points of view answering that question many times over. I also suggest you watch the Dr. Casselman video, that is extremely germane to this issue. We are working on the rest of the Symposium video and audio, you will be able to see every one of the main stage presentations and almost every one of the breakout sessions here soon. There is no such thing, as I understand the dynamic, as 'exceptions' to the rule. A population is either capable of reaching a certain size, or it is not, depending on the variables mentioned in several threads here on the Research board. What thereIS talked about quite a bit in the literature is the upper confidence limit, and those fish in any given population that reach the 1% upper limit, if you will excuse possible misuse of the term. I heard that term alot when discussing the big fish in Georgian Bay, Wabigoon, Eagle, Lake St. Clair, the St Lawrence, the Ottawa, and other well known trophy water either in or bordering Canada. Not every female in any population will make it to the upper 1% for a number of reasons, and if that capacity is there, then the culprit, VERY generally speaking, lays in those variables. In several studies I read, of 1000 fish stocked only a fraction survived to reach adult spawning age. At a rate of loss at I believe about 25% each season's remaining numbers of that class, do the math on how many will be present especially if the larger, preciously rare really big fish are harvested by anglers or the tip of a spear, or die from handling or single hook or....you get the picture. Part of the problem when discussing this issue is most of us want things to be easy to fix, one shot fix it all with a 'it's the fish' answer. I learned over the last year and at the Symposium that there are some indicators that certain fish do well in certain waters, especially those they have adapted to over the years, that an initial 'introduced' population always does better in the first stocking than in subsequent stockings, and that natural reproduction and resulting recruitment is quite a challenge for the Muskie on many of our waters man has altered forever. I learned that one of the answers I got from biologists in Illinois, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, Several provinces in Canada, Minnesoata, Wisconsin, and other areas is that it's not a good idea to bring a strain from aother natural range and overstock those you have, especially if the fish you have there can and do reach trophy size. The argument that they (A strain some folks proclaimed as slow growing small strain) cannot has been pretty much discounted in North Eastern and North Central Wisconsin, that's obvious as anyone's nose they can and do reach very respectable size well into the mid 50" class, and undoubtably need more protection so that the good year classes have an upper TEN percent allowed to get to what most folks consider a trophy, and the upper 1% reach that WHOA!!! size. If indeed there are fish reaching the 50" and more from a good year class with good recruitment from the strain in MW Wisconsin, then there isn't a logical progression anywhere that would indicate a genetic 'problem' with those fish, and that's clear and logical examination of fact and reasonable conclusion supported by the experts I have spoken to from the areas mentioned above. Not to say that the genetics coupled with conditions, social applications to those fish by anglers, Native Americans, and 'accidental muskie anglers' wouldn't have an effect, there are reams of support for that idea in the literature. Others might successfullyargue and have a well thought out and logical sounding platform, but I'm still waiting for a biologist and fisheries manager (or a dozen, if the assumption is to be so obvious that 'it's the fish' as to generate the hype around the platform that scientists JUMP at the opportunity to prove it to be so) to step in and do just that. It's my experience that scientists actually get off a bit disagreeing with each other, but there is none of that with this issue yet. We've been covering it for over a year. The claim that they are all in collusion and will never disagree with each other isn't borne out in the history of the science, so that one's out. Editorial commentary: Is my statement 'biased'? No, that's as ridiculous as calling Grindstone Angler's or Bob Benson's post 'biased'. It's their heart felt opinion, and this is mine; we are all entitled, and we all can debate the accuracy in a friendly, straight up, non agressisve atmosphere. I can and do enter the conversation here, because I'm just as much an activist as the next guy, some days. I'll continue to do so in support of reaonable debate, and that's just the way it'll be. There will be NONE of the name calling, sophmoric, heck, even bordering on libelous commentary that has surfaced elsewhere, that sort of thing never will be allowed to ruin anyone's day at MuskieFIRST and is horribly counterproductive in making any headway toward any changes proposed by anyone for the management of Muskies in Wisconsin. If I read a personal attack against the folks working toward resolution of concepts and ideas in this state or anyone else for that matter, no matter they be DNR, Muskies Inc, or independant anglers here from any side of the discussion, it's gone. No dancing around the issue here, DNR, Muskies Inc, American Fisheries Society members, WMRT, or just a guy interested in Muskies, you are all more than welcome to post to the issues here, but keep it reasonable and clean or go post opinions elsewhere on discussion boards who's operators care not about civility and fair play in debate. By the way, to clarify a point because it is imporatant to this discussion and those who I might be able to convince it's reasonably safe to expect a fair debate here, I am the only moderator of this board. If your post is deleted, you can take it to the bank I am the one who deleted it, and you can bet you were outside of the posting permissions discussed above. I HATE this sort of editorializing, but the nasty tone and ebb and flow of attacks and counterattacks elsewhere is a waste of all of our time, don't you agree? | ||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| For those of us who sometimes get caught up in the issues of the day, a brief visit to a nursing home can put everything into proper perspective. Today I visited my wife’s uncle, Joseph Drasler, a 94-year-old gentlemen in every sense of the word who is living his last days in hospice care. Joe was a foot soldier in Patton’s Third Army. He landed on Omaha Beach a month after D-Day and did not leave Europe until Hitler was dead. He slogged through every mud hole, fox hole, and hell hole in Eastern Europe, fought the entire Battle of the Bulge, and was one of only three members of his original twenty-man unit who survived the conflict. He lost five commanding officers, including a captain who got blown out of an adjacent fox hole by an allied bomber who did not realize that our troops were so far forward. I know all this because Joe faithfully wrote a letter almost every day to his beloved wife of over 60 years, Alice, to let her know how things were going. All those letters were later assembled into his personal war diary. The Steven Spielberg movie “Saving Private Ryan” was shocking. Joe told me it didn’t begin to describe the real horrors on the ground in Europe. Despite this, he never complained about it. It had to be done. It’s over. I cannot begin to repay Corporal Joseph Drasler for the freedoms and opportunity that he and others of his selfless generation bequeathed to me and others of my generation. But I can try to honor his service and his sacrifice by using my time on Earth to protect and enhance to the best of my ability some of those things that make America great. I can spend my days (and sometimes my nights) conserving our aquatic natural resources in order to sustain a quality of life that only a free and prosperous people can enjoy. When Joe was still able to think and communicate clearly, he was always interested in what I did, and he seemed proud of me for doing something useful with my life. He knew there were some hard, long days, both physically and mentally. But his life experience has helped me to put those things into proper perspective. (My life is a walk in the park.) As Joe awaits the gentle hand of death to end the misery he has endured over the past few months, I respectfully submit that the Wisconsin musky fishery issues important to me and many of you over the past few months are truly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Are they worthy of discussion by all who question and care? Certainly. But are they worthy of the vitriolic personal attacks that have characterized the silly little “war” that has been waged by some in the Hayward area media? I think not. Actually, I know not. Joe Drasler taught me what real war is all about. And I am quite certain that today's bad guys are hiding in the mountains of western Pakistan and in the halls of power in North Korea. So on this Thanksgiving Day, I am grateful for several things. I am thankful to have known Joe Drasler. I am thankful for the freedom and the quality of life that he and others like him have given to me and my family. I am thankful to live in northern Wisconsin, where fish and wildlife of all types and sizes abound in relatively unpolluted lakes and streams surrounded by inspiring wild lands. I am thankful to have a job that gives me the opportunity to make those things even better. I am thankful to live in a warm home that has not been flooded, burned, buried in a landslide, blown over or blown up. Most of all, I am thankful to have a loving family and good friends who I hope will remember me one day with even a smidgeon of the honor and respect that I will remember Joe Drasler. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave, Great post, sir. Thanks for providing an additional perspective on this fine Northern Wisconsin Thankgiving Day. I spent the mornning writing an article, the mid day with family, and last two hours of light watching deer freak out when hit by little tornados of snow when they tried to get across the powerline opening on my land. Some of those whirlwinds of snow were 50' high, and pretty stong as they clipped and rocked the stand I was in. Pretty cool stuff, living in Wisconsin. | ||
| Grindstone angler |
| ||
| Steve; This can go on forever but let me add this observation. I am glad you added that 1% upper confidence limit thing as from what I am seeing on most alkes here is that that limit would have to fall just short of the 50 inch mark. As someone who has fished the area for more years than I want to think about and someone who has in tha past caught more over 50 than most have here, I can tell you we have seen changes. Some good and some bad. Good is that we are now seeing more 40 to 45 inchers than ever before. Bad is that we are seeing fewer over 50 and almost no over 52 that we did in the past. In fact you tell me why the lakes that are called numbers lakes now stack up almost identically in size structure to the larger trophy lakes?? From what I am seeing these fish for the most part top out at 45 to 47 inches with a very very few ever getting to 50 much less over 50. Does this mean we need to stock something else? I can not answer that one but it appears that there could well be a problem with the Bone lake fish, maybe more so than the Minouqua fish you mentioned as getting larger. So if there is a problem, what is the answer? Where do we get our fish from if not LL strain? Even IF we can find a relatively "PURE" source, will they be sucessfull at reproducing with the hordes of small pike now in many of these lakes. IF we do go that route and it fails at least we "might" have a little better chance of larger upper end fish, but maybe still not as large as the LL fish, but still a put and take fishery with no recruitment. Using the LL fish raises questions too but at least there we have maybe a better shot at NR lakes and there is not much question that they do get larger and faster. Whatever the case it's likely you and I as well as a good portion of todays musky anglers will be worm food before we see changes | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Grindstone Angler, I disagree, there have been changes in procedure announced in cooperation with Dr. Sloss's work, and a new LCO plan will be released soon. LL fish are going to be stocked in the ST. Croix, and have been in Wissota. Far as the LL fish, as Mr. Diana said at the Symposium, there is NO indication the fish from Leech would be any more successful competing with Pike than the muskies we have in place, and the MN DNR has had to continue stocking in some waters to supplement NR in many of the waters there, I believe. The exact quote from Mr. Diana is posted in complete context in the Pike/Muskie thread. One of the most interesting sessions at the Symposium was about LOTW's muskie population. The average size reported has fallen off over the last few years. Now I could take that data and make a case that there's a problem, but quite the contrary, it's not a problem at all. The reason for the diminishing over all average is the larger number of small fish from extremely successful year classes. These year classes, unlike many others now gone or nearly gone, will be better protected throughout their life to whatever size thay can attain, up to the limit there whcih is 54" now, I believe. The argument that live bait fishing hasn't hurt the population over there because the rigs were almost eliminated from the shelves bodies well for the year classes you describe, but damage to the larger, older, big girls has already been done. Since muskies can and do live to 25 or even older, and the single hook rig controversy and changes in the norm came just a couple years back, I'm sure you see my point. Add to that the other mortality issues and poor recruitment on a couple of the lakes, and it spells trouble. As I have said, and I believe I am at least on the correct page, there is NO indication at this point there is anything wrong with the genetics on the LCO and Grindstone fish. There is that possibility, albeit small, and I believe it has been discussed by the Muskie committee and has been addressed in a recent statement, and will addressed further in future management plans. | ||
| Grindstone angler |
| ||
| Steve' Yes live bait can be a factor but consider this on that subject. You say you are still seeing and catching the big girls over East? I know from talking to some of the guides over there that the single hook method is still very much practiced and you can buy them off the shelf over there too. Why has it only "hurt" us and not over there? Do you think there are more live bait anglers on this side of the state? I doubt it. Yet we have fewer of the big girls even though we have way fewer people still using single hook methods and we have way bigger lakes on the average. If there is no difference in the fish genetics, then in theory we should be ahead of the East side of the state in big fish production???BTW many the best big fish anglers over here quit using the single hook rigs over a decade ago as we then felt that it was not good, way before the DNR came to the conclusion. Ask any of the better known muskie guides over here that have been fishing these lakes, the ones that fish multiple lakes, for the last 30 years and they will tell you the same as I am telling you on average sizes and max sizes. Our fishing is actually great if all you want is action and fish up to the mid to maybe upper 40s, but for the 50s and up they are simply not here. Good example, I know of one angler who I would put up against anyone, anywhere on catching big fish that spent a real lot of time on our trophy waters this fall. The result was a bunch of fish from 44 to 47, a 48, a 49, and one just over 50. Now consider that virtually every time that angler has made a trip to MN or Canada for just a few days he has caught a 50 or better?? I can tell you for sure that 20 years ago we would have caught a lot more 50s in the fall with that kind of effort. I know because many of us did. I do not profess to have the answers to why but thats what we see and we need to come up with a fix as quickly as we can. Hopefully one that does not take a generation or two before we see inmprovements. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Believe me, where the single hook sucker rigs were used alot, our area was hurt pretty badly too. I am not aware of anywhere one can buy them off the shelves here, all the sport shops here have had them off the shelves for a couple years. I know a large number of guides over here, and don't know any who don't use quick strike rigs now. Yes, I said there are big fish here, and there are big fish over there, too. The papers have 50's in them pretty regular, most times released these days, and I saw a number of big fish photos this season from across Wisconsin. Do some of the trophy lakes over there have a problem? I think LCO does, as does the DNR; read the posts regarding the LCO again. Far as the water over here, look at this link, blow up the map and compare: http://www.wistravel.com/wisconsinstatemap.htm We have a couple large inland lake chains, Three Lakes and Eagle River, Wisconsin River and associated flowages, Pelican River and flowages, the Minocqua, Tomahawk chain, and LOTS of other water. Further East and North are the Michigan/Wisconsin boundary lakes, too. I'll check with the folks in fisheries management next week and see what I can find out about plans for the future. One thing for sure, the consensus so far amongst the folks the State has organized to deal with the issues is no LL fish there. | ||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| Steve Worrall mentioned the following in a previous post: STEVE: "Believe me, where the single hook sucker rigs were used alot, our area was hurt pretty badly too. I am not aware of anywhere one can buy them off the shelves here, all the sport shops here have had them off the shelves for a couple years. I know a large number of guides over here, and don't know any who don't use quick strike rigs now." DAVE: I concur with Steve's observations and will share my own personal impression that single-hook sucker rigs are becoming obsolete in the Hayward area. But as Steve went on to say, we cannot dismiss the lag effect of past use on the size structure of today's musky populations. Muskies in the 40-45 inch range 5-10 years ago (when swallow rigs were still the norm) would have been today's 50-inchers if 83% of those caught on single-hook sucker rigs (Terry Margenau's recent study results) had not died within a year of their release. We also need to be careful not to over-generalize about the degree to which "swallow rigs" have fallen out of favor. In a recent telephone conversation with an avid Hayward area musky angler, I was informed that two very active guides on the Chippewa Flowage STILL use swallow rigs when guiding clients. I was told that those two guides are responsible for well over 100 sucker-caught muskies on one resort's board over the past five years. (I have not sought independent confirmation of this story, so please consider it as one angler's opinion only.) IF these suspicions are correct, those two guides alone could be unwittingly responsible for the death of over 83 muskies over that five-year time period. How many of those fish might have become 50-inchers by 2006? How many non-guided anglers, including non-locals who buy or make their own swallow rigs at home, are also catching and presumably live-releasing (but probably killing 4 of 5) nice muskies every fall? We don't know. I think it would be interesting and useful to find out. Maybe the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. could help us assimilate that kind of information... Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | |||
| Grindstone angler |
| ||
| Dave; I think blaming sucker fishing as being the main culprit would be a real stretch being that even if there were a number of fish dieing from that it would in no way equal what was killed or kept back when no one released fish. Even then there were more of those upper end fish being caught. There is just no way sucker fishing could be the largest problem as even if we are loosing fish that way some would get thru to grow to the upper sizes we are talking about and that is not the case. Also again over east they too use suckers and they still are producing more of the 51, 52 and up sizes there. As for the guides you mentioned still using single hooks, I too know who they are and what they are using are circle hooks, not the same as the old j hook. Yes you can still gut hook a fish with them but very few. Not the same as the regular single hook. Steve and Dave, I have asked several good and legitimate questions here that still remain unanswered? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Look in the earlier discussion from last winter about the 'strain' we have here in Oneida County and in NC Wisconsin. It was stated the the fish from the Woodruff Hatchery were mutts and a couple folks went to great lengths to attempt to show a problem with the genetics of the fish. In fact I was taken to task pretty strongly calling my claims that there ARE good fish in Northern Wisconsin a story, and it was insinuated my personal experience was strictly anecdoatal and therefore to be ignored. So if the fish are indeed 'genetically OK' here, yet the proof from the WMRP is otherwise, do you see a problem with the insistence that 'it's the fish' statement as being the conclusive and only cause/effect? I do. You are retracing a discussion that took all winter last year, and was discussed over and over. Your question was answered several times, but I'll do my best to clarify what I've said about a dozen times. By the way, when others didn't like answers they were given, they became beligerent as well. Not acceptable, sir, stay with Q&A or take it elsewhere. First: No one claimed that single hook rigs were the primary problem or 'jumped on it real quick'. I believe I said that harvest. spearing, single hook sucker fishing took a definite toll on fish that would otherwise now BE trophy class, and harvest rates on large muskies that were fairly high I feel are contributing factors. Is it just the fish stocked? I think that that subject has been covered as much as it can be. Second: I have repeatedly asked the opposing question you ask. What proof is there that there actually IS a genetic problem with the fish in Butternut, LCO, etc? As I stated, the DNR did recently discuss the issue in a recent report. Would you at least admit there are other dynamics at work there, and that those need to be addressed, considered, and management strategies developed as a result? Read the recent report on the DNR website from the statewide muskie committee. Third: I believe Dr. Sloss has work underway that will help clarify this. His work was first condemned, then dismissed, then touted by those who support 'it's the fish'. Look, read the entire progression of the discussion here. It went from Accelerated Evolution to Genetics to it's the fish to It's The Pike so we need a fish adapted to Pike back now to it's the fish. Until the State decides otherwise, you won't see LL fish in LCO. They base their decisions on current, solid, working science. Opposing viewpoints from what I've seen are based on selectively searching the data for anything that would support what they want, and using a sledgehammer approach and exterme PR techniques to try to force the issues. Is the WMRP platform correct? I don't know, but the bulk of opinion from the scientific community seems to contradict a considerable portion of their platform. They need more public support from the scientific community, which has yet to materialize. I would disagree that the pressure over here is any higher than than on waters over west of here. I'd bet it's the opposite, but maybe not. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Two quick notes to Grindstone angler. I never claimed that swallow rigs were the MAIN factor in suppressing the proportion of muskies over 50 inches long that you perceive to be in Wisconsin lakes. But the ubiquitous past use and reduced current use of swallow rigs may well be ONE factor that could be significant. That's all I said. We all know that other factors may be involved, including excessive stocking of some lakes, excessively high or low natural recruitment in others, spearing harvest, and harvest or hooking/handling mortality by novice anglers. (Bad genetics is on the bottom of the list of suspected factors.) Please do not alter and oversimplify my statements in order to make them easier to challenge. Second, it has been a long Thanksgiving weekend. I just buried my wife's uncle and my good friend -- a World War II hero. I'm in no mood to hear complaints about lack of contact with public servants on holiday weekends. If you can find another biologist willing to do so even during a regular work week, good luck. I may respond later if I get time. Some of your questions may have been addressed in earlier posts on different threads here. Please review some of those if you get time. Thanks. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 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 |