Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Wisconsin DNR Answers Hayward Muskie Stocking Meeting Questions! |
| Message Subject: Wisconsin DNR Answers Hayward Muskie Stocking Meeting Questions! | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ty, Chill, dude. I am not 'supporting' the DNR, I am supporting fact and reasonable debate while attempting to force unruly behavior into the time-out corner. It's possible to debate this with out uncalled for accusations, which is what got my friend John in hot water with me. He took the ill advised WMRT tact in his first post here in attacking the DNR because he didn't like a QUOTE HE MADE being re-quoted EXACTLY IN CONTEXT. Here's what he posted: "Dave, please if you must take one of my statements, do not do it out of context!!!!! I know what I said and it not only refered to the resorts being full in the summer but had nothing to do with the musky fishing. But you conviently left out that info." John, read your own post, you were and are out of line by any measure of reasonable debate. That's not discussion and debate, it's exactly what Lambeau indicated in his last post. If you don't want quotes used in public, don't post quotes that CAN be. That's the press, my friend, and you need to be accountable at all times if you choose to be a public representative of that community. The question you answered was posed by a fisherman, and it could have been a Muskie angler, no one knows. As far as 'letting people vent', that's a slippery slope in this business. If folks think they can indiscriminately throw stones based on emotion and perception, the entire discussion becomes what I call 'train wreck'; basically just a fight. That's a terrible atmosphere in which to have a discussion where there is any chance of reality coming to light or consensus and positive action undetaken as a result. Yes, this forum is tightly moderated, and for good reason. EJ likes to attack that, which is indicative of why he has a problem with us in the first place; it's a self fulfilling prophesy if one starts out with an emotional attack and ends with an emotional attack. When that isn't present, things flow here pretty well. Stay to facts, keep the discussion civil, don't get personal, and don't 'accuse'. This is a State issue, as has been indicated, and isn't just one or two DNR folks responsibility. The issues are complicated and hard for the average guy to get his arms around, and therefore easy to muck up by appealing to the emotional side of things. It's my job to see that doesn't happen. SOme folks see that as bias, but if you were to look carefully, you'd see it's nothing more than my desire to keep the discussion on a reasonably professional level. TY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The DNR------ HAS----- stopped------ stocking------Pelican Lake-----and many others in this area. They quit stocking my favorite lake several years ago, and will not for at least another dozen years. With the kill rate there in the hundreds per year as recently as the late 1990's and the safe harvest rate closer to 40, it's obvious that the lake cannot withstand this pressure and hold any sort of fishable trophy potential, or for that matter a decent population of muskies due to poor NR. Norm Wild, Mike Roberts, and I (Mostly Mike and Norm, I just do the media stuff and offer support wherever I can) have embarked on a crusade to get a 50" limit on Pelican, working WITH the DNR and Pelican Lake Association, supporters AND detractors to get the facts out and a vote on this April's ballot. It is there, and we'd appreciate your help with this subject when it comes to vote this April 10th. I could have chosen to attack everyone I could think of and blamed them for the decline that is inevitable in Pelican, but instead chose to join two very dedicated conservationists in an effort to protect this valuable fishery, enlisting the help of the same folks many are demonizing, getting ALL the facts, and in the end, hoping we can get all this past the Conservation Congress this Spring. If we don't, IMHO Pelican is done for. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | EJohnson - 3/21/2006 7:15 AM Dave - "Only fish from Wisconsin were stocked from 1984 through 1987. No fish were actually stocked in 1988. The first Leech Lake fish were stocked in 1989, including a few yearlings of the 1988 year class. Fish were captured, tagged, and aged by MDNR during 1996-1998. Recaptures have been noted ever since. All 13 fish reported to date as recaptures over 50 inches long were from the 1984-1987 year classes (Wisconsin fish). Also, 19 of 26 fish (73%) 45-49 inches long originated as Wisconsin fish stocked during 1984-1987." Another question. How do you know that the fish that were tagged in 1996-1998 were WI fish? From the info you have provided here they apparently were not tagged when they were stocked so how can you be so sure of this? There were also LL fish there from 1989 on. They could have been LL fish unless you left out some info. Also, how did they age these fish in 96-98? You know as well as I do that aging fish older than about 5 years of age using scale samples can be very inaccurate. How were these fish aged? These are all questions that I asked (more diplomatically, of course) of the Minnesota DNR biologists who provided me with the information about Mille Lacs and the Minnesota musky program in general. The questions were answered to my satisfaction. I am 100% confident of MDNR's judgement and interpretation of these data, as reported. If anyone has a problem believing this information because it is SO inconsistent with the WMRP allegation that most Wisconsin-source fish are incapable of growing fast or getting big due to 100+ years of mixing "slow-growth strains" in our hatchery system, then I suggest they contact the Minnesota DNR and get the Mille Lacs story from the MDNR biologists themselves. It's obvious that some people are not going to believe me, so the logical solution for them is to go directly to the source of the information. The Minnesota biologists I consulted with about all this (Younk, Reed, and Bruesewitz) definitely know what they're doing. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| ESOX Maniac |
| ||
Posts: 2752 Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | lambeau - 3/21/2006 8:17 AM brain function research with people who hold strong partisan political views found interesting results. when exposed to information from the "other" side of the political fence, it was perceived as threatening and the emotion-centers of the brain were highly activated; the cognition portions of the brain were not activated much at all. that's right, when given information that doesn't match their pre-existing beliefs, people respond based on their feelings and don't think. when the genetic mapping project is completed on WI muskies, we'll actually have information to think about and make meaning from in regards to where fish were taken from and whether or not that impacted the results of side-by-side growth studies. throwing mud in each other's faces is more about feeling than thinking... Lambeau- Thank you! Are you also a "pet psychic"? Have fun! Al | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Dave I figured you would choose not answer that question. But not answering actually says a lot. What about the WDNR not using fish raised from Bone Lake, our brood stock lake, for its growth studies in the past? Why was this done? Got an answer for that one? | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | EJohnson - 3/24/2006 11:53 AM Dave I figured you would choose not answer that question. But not answering actually says a lot. What about the WDNR not using fish raised from Bone Lake, our brood stock lake, for its growth studies in the past? Why was this done? Got an answer for that one? Mr. Johnson, I just completed a 20-page document answering musky angler questions about this issue. Your current question is really for the Minnesota DNR. It is their judgement being questioned here, not mine. You seem to be pretty fond of them, so I suggest you give them a call. I don't want to speak for them. Speaking of answering questions, is anyone from the WMRP Team going to respond to the questions posed by Troy Schoonover (Bytor) in his earlier response to "Curious" on this thread? Those were some good ones. I'm curious to hear how the WMRP would explain some of the inconsistencies and contradictions referenced in those questions. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 3/24/2006 3:54 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Eric, Quoted--- 'These are all questions that I asked (more diplomatically, of course) of the Minnesota DNR biologists who provided me with the information about Mille Lacs and the Minnesota musky program in general. The questions were answered to my satisfaction. I am 100% confident of MDNR's judgement and interpretation of these data, as reported.' How is that not an answer? Mr. Neuswanger specifically says he got the information he posted about the Mille Lacs fish directly from the MNDNR biologists, and that they can be contacted if you don't want to take his word for it. Give them a call. Dave listed names, so finding those numbers shouldn't be too difficult, I wouldn't think. As to the last question, isn't it the WMRT premise that ALL fish from all hatcheries in Wisconsin are hopelessly genetically 'mixed', and are all basically unable to grow to large size or grow fast? Isn't that part of the stock mixing timeline summary and a basic premise of your groups entire platform? And what studies are you talking about, specifically? Why would it be any different, from what your group has claimed, if the fish in any study were from the Hatchery in Woodruff? | ||
| Curious |
| ||
| Mr. Neuswanger: I believe Mr. Johnson's question was for you/WDNR regarding why eggs were not taken from Bone Lake during study years 1981 and 1984, questions I asked earlier, along with others that to date you have not responded to. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1290 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Steve: Please don't take this wrong, but you seem to have selective memory when it comes to what the WMRP has said. We have never said that "all" hatchery fish cannot grow large or fast. We have cited Art Oehmcke's work of the 60's and the "huge" average size difference he found between various brood stock lakes of the Woodruff hatcher..."most" with an average female size of 33 inches and "some" with an average female size of 44 inches! On your side of the state, where multiple brood sources have been used continuously, you still occasionally get the "good stuff." Over here in the NW, it is no secret that LCO is for all intents and purposes "dead" and any eggs taken from it in the past quarter century or more are nothing like what LCO "used" to have, unless they happened to capture one of the few remaining native strain fish. Bone Lake was the PRIMARY brood stock lake for the Spooner hatchery in 44 of the last 49 years! Two of those "execption years" were noted above; 1981 when a growth study was done, and 1984; when MN/WI growth studies were done. As was asked and not answered, WHY did the DNR "not" take eggs from Bone Lake during those two study years, as well as a third example in 1994, when the Illinois Natural History Survey Genetic study was started, and again eggs were NOT taken from Bone Lake; WHY??? I don't believe that those are unfair question to ask answers of from the DNR, do you? Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Project Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/24/2006 6:36 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I just have trouble some days keeping up with the landscape as to what the WMRT means about which fish are genetically no good anymore and why. I don't have time tonight to drag out all the commentary, but will try in the next few days to locate each point. What did that study indicate, and why would it be important that fish from Bone were used as you insinuate? Where were those fish from, and what significance is there to attach to that information? Who made the decision to use fish from those sources? Since you are here demanding answers about what happened in 1982 or so from a DNR representative who's been here a couple years, let's hear your iterpretation of the genetic study done in the early 80's, and what the conclusions of that work were. Let's also investigate why fish were selected from the waters they were. Let's hear your interpretation of the results from the genetic study in the early 80's, and the results of 94 work, let's hear the answers you get from the scientists that did that work, too. Give 'em a call. Then I'd like tio hear why fish did and are doing so well in Rice Lake and why they are doing so well in Mille Lacs. I'd also like you to call the MN DNR, those names are in a post above. Ask them if the representation of those Mille Lacs fish is correct. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
why would it be important that fish from Bone were used as you insinuate? Where were those fish from, and what significance is there to attach to that information? Who made the decision to use fish from those sources? Since you are here demanding answers about what happened in 1982 or so from a DNR representative who's been here a couple years, let's hear your iterpretation of the genetic study done in the early 80's, and what the conclusions of that work were. Let's also investigate why fish were selected from the waters they were. Let's hear your interpretation of the results from the genetic study in the early 80's, and the results of 94 work, let's hear the answers you get from the scientists that did that work, too. Give 'em a call. to me the inferences are pretty straightforward, and valid (to a certain point): the vast majority of fish stocked into NW WI are from Bone Lake brood (44 of 49 years, according to Mr. Ramsell's research), yet the fish used in growth studies are not from Bone Lake brood. IF one assumes that genetics are key to growth, and IF one assumes Bone Lake fish and study fish from other area lakes have different genetics, and the WI strain fish did favorably in those growth studies, then those studies cannot be seen as evidence about the the Bone Lake fish growth potential. that's basic good science; however predicated on a number of big IFs. regardless, it leads to the following conclusions: 1) Bone Lake fish are inferior and shouldn't be used for brood 2) non-Bone Lake fish are better and should be used for brood instead 3) non-Bone Lake fish compare favorably to Leech strain fish in side-by-side studies but wait! the DNR is changing it's practices on this issue. they are no longer using Bone Lake fish and are using the "better" fish for brood stock, the same fish which compared favorably to the Leech strain fish in the side-by-side studies. is there a reason to keep beating on it other than sticking our tongues out at the DNR? by changing their practice based on input from a genetic scientist, what they are saying in effect is that they were doing it wrong in the past. what else is being looked for on this one? you can't disqualify the side-by-side growth studies validity by saying the DNR was using non-Bone Lake brood when the DNR has switched to using non-Bone Lake fish for their brood - fish which HAVE performed favorably when compared to Leech strain fish. the MN DNR chose Leech strain because they were a good performing LOCAL fish, not because they did better than the WI fish. if we've got a comparably good performing LOCAL fish of our own, why not use it? is the goal of the WMRP to get better fish into area lakes or to get Leech strain into area lakes? isn't the DNRs changes to practice going to improve fish quality? Edited by lambeau 3/25/2006 2:13 PM | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's what has created some of my questions about the inference LCO, Bone, or Minocqua fish were or were not used in studies, and what possible point the folks asking are trying to make. WMRT: 'Since Bone Lake has “been managed for muskellunge since 1935.” (Cornelius & Margenau 1999), if there were any stockings into Bone Lake in 1935 thru 1938, they would have had to have come from direct transfers of netted fish from Lac Court Oreilles (there is no “direct” mention of the Bone Lake population being established this way in any literature we have reviewed to date. Johnson did say in TB #49 that the initial “introductions” in Bone Lake were from LCO). After the initial stocking, Bone Lake could have also received muskies from Wisconsin River drainage stock via the Woodruff hatchery as well. Due to the poor stocking records of that period, we will likely never know. What we do know though, is that the LCO stock was NOT pure in 1935, and if fish were netted from LCO for stocking into Bone, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of those fish were fish of the Wisconsin River drainage after “at least” two years of stocking LCO from the Woodruff Hatchery!' And: 'We feel strongly that the current state of our brood stock MUST be corrected IMMEDIATELY! To return to the “glory days,” the Wisconsin DNR “decision makers” must acknowledge that over 100 years of stock “mixing” has indeed created a statewide “hatchery strain” of muskies. Only “selective egg taking” from remnant large growth potential native stocks, or an immediate switch to the only known pure stock of large strain muskies left in existence, the Mississippi River strain, can return Wisconsin to its rightful place in the muskie world. We MUST begin NOW. Wisconsin Musky Tourism and future trophy muskie fishing depends on it!!' And: 'In all likelihood every lake in NW Wisconsin that was stocked in 1956 received Big Spider lake Muskies. (I'd like the DNR to comment on that also.) Since LCO was still a brood lake, these BSL fish undoubtedly left LCO to be stocked all over the state in later years in any case.' And: ' Since I have it handy, let's go back again to the statement in TB #49 (I know it is not included in the graphs there, as that study didn't get specifically into that aspect. However, I believe the statement: "Essentially, the known-age muskellunge in the three lakes (LCO, Bone, Big Spider) were derived from Lac Court Oreilles brood fish. Even muskellunge spawned from BONE LAKE in later years were from this strain, because the initial introductions had been from Lac Court Oreilles. THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OCCURRED IN 1956 WHEN MOST OF THE FINGERLINGS STOCKED WERE DERIVED FROM A SLOW-GROWING POPULATION OF MUSKELLUNGE FROM BIG SPIDER LAKE." The sentence preceding that last sentence in the quote refers directly to Bone Lake ONLY. ' And: RE: Dr. Sloss's work, which is employing new techinques, equipment, and science not even imaginable in 1984-- 'This new genetic sampling proposal will do exactly the same thing with the Wisconsin stocks that have been created and mixed, as well as stocked into native-natural muskie lakes in Wisconsin over the past 130 years!' And: 'Your reply to Bob regarding "outbreeding depression" is intersting. We have heard that elsewhere also. However, what those gentlemen need to consider, is that ever since those Big Spider Lake fish were stocked in LCO and Bone Lake and became mature, they have been spawning those fish, raising them at the hatchery and stocking them right back into Bone and LCO. They didn't "disappear" as some have suggested. We contend that those fish are the ONLY fish they are getting viable eggs from during years they take eggs at 38-42 degrees.' And: ' You missed my point completely. I was NOT referring necessarily to cross-breeding, although it IS known to happen. My point was that once the Big Spider Lake fish got mature, about 1960 or 1961, it is entirely reasonable to assume that in the egg taking process, especially in Bone Lake, a NON-native lake, they did in fact continuously take eggs from BSL fish, raise them in the hatchery and stock them back into Bone Lake (and LCO) EVERY YEAR. Pretty hard for them to "disappear" when they are continuously propagated! ' And: 'Spider Lake fish were taken from Spider Lake (a lake with no pike and a lake where the muskies do not grow) and put into LCO in 1956 (a lake with better environments and a history of producing extremely large fish) and 19 years later they found 19 year old Spider Lake fish in LCO that were still in the low 30 inch size. 33 inches if I remember correctly. Then fish were taken from LCO and put into Bone Lake. What fish were taken from LCO and put into Bone lake? Pure LCO strain? Spider Lake strain? Or a mixed breed of the two? Or possibly a combination of all three? Based on the size structure of the fish in Bone lake, I know what my guess would be. Another thing is this. The DNR needs to explain to the WI public what thier definition is of "mixing". They have told us directly to our faces that they do not know what we have for a muskie strain in WI due to the mixing of strains over the years. Now they turn around and say there has been no mixing? Also they say that they are using "wild fish". This doesn't mean squat! The MDNR could have kept using its "wild strain" of Shoepack fish and still be in the same situation WI is in. The DNR needs to explain what thier definition is of "wild fish" to the WI public. Even if they are "wild fish",....why would we want "Wild fish" that do not grow large or naturally reproduce? I don't. I'll take a pure strain thats been proven to grow large and has successfull naturall reproducion over the "wild fish" that we are using everytime single time' And: 'Ramsell: Yes they did, and that has been a major point of contention throughout these past months. That they are "wild" is a given. However, the DNR's own Research Scientists studies have on multiple occasions indicated that they have indeed been "mixed" in BOTH hatchery systems. There was mixing within LCO "before" they moved some fish to Bone Lake and created a musky population there and, again, in 1956 they stocked the KNOWN (again DNR Research Scientists studies) small growing stain muskies from the "allopatric" stock in Big Spider Lake into both LCO and Bone. In addition, DNR hatchery stocking records indicate that fish from the Woodruff hatchery in the Wisconsin River drainage have ALSO been "mixed" with Bone and LCO fish in 2000 (as far back as we obtained records). YES, they have indeed been "mixed!" If they "meant" to say that they have never been mixed with fish from outside of Wisconsin, that may or may not be true. We are still following up on information in that regard. Unfortunately our neighbors cannot say we have not mixed "our" fish with theirs.' And: ' Earlier, as I was reveiwing the Woodruff hatchery sheets, I missed one that was printed on two sides. I discovered that in 2000, the Woodruff hatchery stocked 2000 muskies into the Spooner hatchery BROOD STOCK LAKE, Bone Lake! In addition, they stocked 1,014 into the Chippewa Flowage, among others!! Is it any wonder our trophy fishing has declined? It is EXACTLY as we have maintained all along. Our muskie stocks are so mixed up, and with small strain stocks to boot, that there is no way to sort it all out. Overstocking with the only known pure Mississippi River strain left, as Minnesota did, is the only sure way to fix it! It has been extremely successful there, and it can be here in Wisconsin too.' And: 'NOW, STILL MORE "NEW" FINDINGS: After I finally had time to figure out an acronym, I discovered yet another interesting stocking fact from 2004. In addition to the Woodruff hatchery doing some stocking in the Spooner hatchery waters of the Chippewa River drainage, there were 17 lakes in Lincoln, ONEIDA, and Vilas county that were stocked from the Spooner hatchery mixed small strain stock into the Wisconsin River drainage waters in 2004. I know Mr. Worrall usually plays devils advocate, but this continual hatchery stock mixing across drainages, a seeming trend, leads to a logical question. Is the DNR intentionally trying to create one large homogeneous "hatchery strain" of muskies in Wisconsin, in order to close down one hatchery? Please don't take this as an accusation, rather just a simple question. If this is the plan to save additional budget dollars, the tax-payers have a right to know. Since muskie stocking was cut 50% two years ago and some are saying another 25% is in the works, it certainly makes one wonder.' And: 'I personally think your question leads directly back to "what" was stocked. Research Report #172 (1996) clearly shows that Minocqua strain muskies (Wisconsin River drainage-Woodruff hatchery) were stocked into Butternut Lake (Chippewa River drainage-Spooner hatchery responsibility). This, combined with other "mixed strain" stocking from the Spooner hatchery, to me, defines the problem. I am not discounting possible "overstocking," but I still believe that the fish being stocked to be more of a problem than the numbers.' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK. the premise is clearly submitted that the fish in all drainages are hopelessly 'mixed' and are as a result incapable of good and sustained growth. Where DID the study fish in the questions by Curious (apparently Larry) and demands made by 'Guest' come from? Minocqua? LCO? The Wisconsin River? Read the above again. And the results of one of the studies, in the early 80's, was that as I uinderstand it, indicating that the ONE gene studied was inherent in those fish as it was in Shoepac fish? Did it also indicate the Leech fish had that same characteristic? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the capacity of the science of the day back in 1984 and for that matter the 1990's isn't even CLOSE to what geneticists can do with the equipment, techniques, accomplishments and understanding of the field today? And WHAT will the scientists, as even more technology is developed and the field of genetics advances, know TOMORROW? Would't it be fair to say what was strongly supported by the scientific study and community of yesterday might be radically different than what is accepted as fact today, and that that might be subject to the cold hard light of new science tomorrow? I'm trying to express a rather simple principle that all working scientists are keenly aware of; working with the still proven science of yesterdayand discarding that which has been disproven or influenced by advance while performing the science of today and addressing the research for the advancement of today's science for tomorrow....I might not have said that as well as I need to, but I hope the reader gets what I'm shooting at here. And I again ask, of what significance is the question about using fish other than Bone Lake fish in a couple studies? What is the origin of Bone lake stock? How does that in ANY way indicate some weird grand conspiracy by BOTH the WDNR and those involved in those studies??? lambeau, It appears that the fish in Rice Lake are from the stock that is accused of what is listed above. According to what I can find out, so were the fish stocked in Mille Lacs, they were certainly Wisconsin fish from what is described above as "one large homogeneous "hatchery strain" of muskies in Wisconsin" at one point. I'm still having trouble seeing how the premise clearly put forth can be what it's claimed. If one was to take this as intended by the author, the Butternut fish that are on the docket for potential transfer to LCO should be netted and sent there this April, no questions asked, as those fish are, basically, one and the same as the LCO population at this date. I believe Dr. Sloss will let us know if that is fact. If it is fact, it doesn't mean this is a result of 'mixing' as is claimed, look at the responses by scientists, and the symposium documents for reference, I'm sure I can get you more to read if needed. The fish in Rice Lake, a secret until this year, are unquestionably from NW Wisconsin sources. If the premise that the fish from there are as represented as above, the success of this initial 'new reservoir syndrome' success would be highly unlikely to impossible, just like Lake George, the Moen, the Wisconsin River, and other waters kicking out more 50's now than in the past. My little Lkae X REALLY would be an anomoly. Here is my debate position, nutshelled : The WMRT doesn't have to be correct, just emotional and loud because they answer to no one. They don't NEED to be careful and absolute, prove anything at all, or even be qualified to analyze the data with management goals in mind, which they are not. They can pick out information that reads well to support their platform, and ignore that which doesn't. I have emails from some of the most respected fisheries scientists, geneticists, and fisheries managers in North America, all encouraging MuskieFIRST to keep the subject debatable and as open and honest as is possible allowing the facts to be presented. I've REALLY tried to do exactly that. Those claiming to have a silver bullet fix can claim whatever they wish, and then demand the DNR prove or disprove sometimes wild, sometimes irresponsible, and always overstated and loaded with attack verbage and demonization cue material. I have said this before; that is an IMHO distasteful tactic used in the filed of politics all the time. Look it up. Google the concept, there's a huge reading base available. They insult the scientists openly, and attempt to decide for ALL of us what should be done with a very complicated management strategy and force the issue by threat. From the very beginning they have told those in the DNR that they can agree and do so immediately and without condition and be made 'heros' or expect 'WAR' and be made villians. That, sorry to say, is a fact. The focus has shifted from accelerated evolution, to Big Spider Lake fish to conspiracy theory to economic disaster and all points in between. Lambeau once gave the perfect response to all that. Instead, the folks responsible for the Muskie management here listened, looked at the work already in process since 1998, and actually DID cooperate with reasonable and measured work by Muskie Clubs and groups. The results are posted. Mr. Neuswanger has withstood repeated attacks, ridiculous and unseemly statements, and has attempted to answer all questions here and elsewhere pertaining to his management area, sometimes reacting just a bit but always offering the science, reason, and application of both to the present and future management goals and plans. Whether one agrees or doesn't, one certainly should respect his steady temper and above the call desire to educate the public. You see, the DNR DOES have to be correct, careful, and absolute as is possible, cannot USE emotion and demonization as an effective debate tool if they want to retain credibility, and other than a couple times where tempers really flared, the entire DNR has done a pretty good job of holding the fort. I hope that the continuing discussion can be held to a higher standard, for the sake of the reader here, and our understanding of this subject and the beliefs of all sides of the issue. | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | Could the the WMRP please answer these questions. Bytor - 3/21/2006 1:32 PM 1. Wasn’t it part of your mission statement that you wanted to have eggs gathered from the Chippewa Flowage? Wasn’t that listed as a preference over the Leach Lake strain? Isn’t that is what is being done this year? Yet, you guys don’t seem to be satisfied. Lockjaw seems to be implying that the side by side study that is starting this year should use Bone Lake brood. What is with that? 2. Wasn’t the WMRP opposed to the work being done by Dr. Sloss? Didn’t you guys change your tune on this position AFTER you found out he was telling the WDNR that they should change their brood lake? 3. Does the WMRP believe in Dr. Casselman’s maximum growth work? That each body of water has it’s own maximum growth rate? 4. Does the WMRP believe that Muskies, regardless of strain or should I say perceived strain, will perform better in lakes when they are first introduced into a lake? 5. What does the WMRP feel about the Bone Lake “mutts” performing very well in Rice Lake? 6. What does the WMRP have to say about the performance of the Leech Lake strain in Illinois? 7. Does the WMRP have the support of any fisheries bioligist’s? Anywhere? | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Here’s my opinion on LCO and maybe some of the other lakes in the area. I have gone back and forth on the Leech Lake Musky issue, but right now it’s a moot point. FACE FACTS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET LEECHERS INTO LCO ANYTIME SOON? So what can be done NOW! It’s already protected with a 50” limit. You can’t do anything immediate about the pike. You can’t do anything immediate about the spearing. You can’t do anything immediate about natural reproduction. What can be done? STOCK THE $HIT OUT OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The WMRP claim that the bone lakers, don’t reproduce anyway, especially in LCO so why not dump as many fish as possible into the lake NOW. Support the Butternut transfer and it’s like stocking over 7500 fingerlings and you don’t need to wait the 5 to 7 years for them to reach a fun size. There are so many ifs and buts we all just don’t know, maybe they won’t reproduce there, if that’s the case maybe down the road leechers could be stocked there cross that bridge later. Maybe with it’s forage base it will start producing trophy fish again, if enough can make it through the gauntlet there. Petition to remove the silly 2500 fish limit form LCO and any other lake that may need more fish per year, raise the money and STOCK, STOCK, STOCK. Let the biologist figure out the genetics, in the mean time STOCK what you can and try and save a fishery that everyone says is DEAD! Here’s an interesting idea for a study: Look at the stocking level on Rice Lake over the last 10 years. Match that on LCO over the next 10 years and see if it make a difference. I understand totally different waters, but if LCO has the forage to sustain it, give it a try what is there to loose on a lake everyone, including the WDNR admits has serious problems. No baby steps needed and if you can’t take the leap in the Genetics direction, why not try leap in a different direction. Ty mentioned Pelican in his post and I can tell you if Pelican ever reached the point that LCO is apparently at, this is what I would be pushing for. Hey maybe stocking LCO with Leechers would be a good idea, it doesn’t matter any more that battle is lost, move on and try to make a difference NOW! Have a pike tourney, and fry, on LCO and use the money raised to stock MUSKY. The first annual “Fillet a Pike, Stock a Ski festival” Just my opinion, but I don’t see the constant arguing going anywhere. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey Mike, I'll have a copy of the LCO management plan tomorrow from Dave Neuswanger. Give me a call! There is a plan to move 500 adult fish from Butternut over to LCO, if Dr. Sloss says it's a good transfer. That will do some of what you are talking about, but even that has been a subject of heated debate. | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Steve, Will you be able to post the plan on the site? Have been EAGERLY awaiting this... and other lake plans... for months. Would love to see the measurables that have been set forth. Going off fuzzy memory here... due to the fact I remember what the post was in which Dave responded.... but what were the lake goals? .5 fish/acre, 5-10% of population over 50"s? That and what SPECIFICALLY the DNR plans to do to measure against those criteria is of GREAT interest. And lets not stop there... what about Round, Chip and Grindstone. Steve, maybe you can get those plans up as well. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, Monk, and everyone, here's the link to the article. http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/articles/03.28.2006/1033/The.WDNR.L... | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I scanned though most of the Management Plan and had a question. I like the Goals: A muskellunge population of moderate density with a moderate proportion of memorable-size fish and a low-moderate proportion of trophy-size fish. Objective 1.1: 0.2 to 0.3 adult muskellunge per acre in population estimates. Objective 1.2: Of all muskellunge 20 inches and longer captured by fyke netting in early spring, 30-40% should be 42 inches or longer (RSD-42 = 30-40%). Objective 1.3: Of all muskellunge 20 inches and longer captured by fyke netting in early spring, 5-10% should be 50 inches or longer (RSD-50 = 5-10%). It then goes on to talk about status and management strategies first paragraph says a lot in my opinion: “We have been unable to document natural recruitment of muskellunge in LCO since musky spawning habitat deteriorated in Musky Bay and northern pike became well established 30-40 years ago. Stocking has been required in recent decades in order to maintain even a low-density population of 200-600 adult fish (based upon seven mark/recapture population estimates during 1967-1997). Stocking quotas were reduced in 2001 from annual to alternate-year requests for 2,500 large fingerlings (10-12 inches) to reflect the belief that catch-and-release under the 50-inch minimum length limit implemented in 1998 would reduce adult mortality and the need to stock. LCO is one of many local waters currently included in a ten-year (2002-2012) statewide stocking evaluation designed to determine if lower stocking rates can accomplish desired objectives.” It then outlines the strategies, I will try and thumb nail them: 1A Genetic testing to determine if LCO muskeis have changed over time. Makes sense. 1B Restore spawing habitat. Again makes sense. 1C Lower pike population. Good. 1D 500 adult fish infusion, from Butternut. Now were talking!!!! Immediate results! Also includes working with the Tribe for research purposes, very good. 1E Eliminate Swallowed, single-hook sucker rigs. No brainer! 1F 50” minimum on all connected waters. Again total sense! 1G Improve Frequency and quality of monitoring. Very smart. Those goals are all great, but in my mind there is one missing. THE STOCKING STRATEGIE, maybe I missed it but most of the goals outlined have to do with evaluating and protecting existing musky stock, only 1D outlines a strategy for increasing current musky numbers considering there currently is NO natural reproduction. If anglers and DNR personnel all agree that “low angler catch rates for muskellunge are a problem at Lac Courte Oreilles; and not enough trophy-class fish are being seen or caught by anglers.” Isn’t it time to pull LCO out of the “ten-year (2002-2012) statewide stocking evaluation designed to determine if lower stocking rates can accomplish desired objectives”, and say on LCO they CANNOT? Then use higher stocking rates to get the population to the desired .2 to .3 fish per acre as outlined in Objective 1.? This can be done while the other goals are implemented and hopefully 5 to 10 years down the road there will be a naturally reproducing population of musky in LCO that can take advantage of the benefit of all the goals. I probably have no business commenting on LCO as I know nothing about it other than what I have learned here and from friends, but Ty asked Steve “what if this was Pelican?” To be honest that is what I use as motivation. What if this was Pelican or another of my favorite lakes in this Area? By the way the problems on Trout Lake seem very similar to LCO other than maybe the spawning grounds issue. But if this was the lake I know the most about, Pelican, this is the type of stuff I would be looking for and the questions I would be asking. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Mike, We agree. I LOVE the objectives, and glad they are on paper.... because beleive me, I WILL hold Dave's office to those objectives. The plan, as it relates to musky, is somewhat vague. I agree, the Butternut transfer at best, puts us at .15/acre. Our goal is .2 or .3 per acre. How do we close the gap? Increased stocking? Are we hoping the Butternuts increase NR? If so, are we going to do YOY surveys to validate this? When and how often would those surveys occur? What would our expected results be? How far along is Dr. Sloss in his assessment of the Butternut/LCO comparison? Shouldn't we have results by now? Additionally, I like the idea of doing a angler dairy, but why only every three years? If you get the participation for year 1, why not do it yearly? Wouldn't it make sense to do it yearly? And how often will the Spring fyke netting be done? Yearly, every other year, every three years? And what short term results are we expecting from the fyke nets to confirm whether or not the methods employed are tracking towards our objectives? Is there a list of criteria that should be met, say after a period 5 years, that would tell us if we are heading towards those size ranges? And do we have to have a limit on Northern on LCO? Could we expand it to 10 or 15, or no limit at all? Wouldn't that send the message, "Come to LCO and get the Northern out of here". Sorry for the barrage of questions. Just would like to see this lake improve. Wouldn't mind every now and then trailering the 2 miles to LCO instead of the 20 to the Chip. | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Mike, thanks for your kind words and excellent feedback (good summary of the LCO musky objectives and strategies). You raise a good question about whether stocking should be increased; and I must admit that I am not 100% certain of our position to "stay the course" on the statewide project evaluating musky stocking density and periodicity. I WILL say this: It is quite possible that we could double the stocking of 11-inch muskies and accomplish little more than feeding the larger esocids (particularly the pike) in LCO. It seems that VERY few of the 2,500 fish currently being stocked into LCO every other year are "running the gauntlet" successfully and contributing to the adult stock. We may one day be able to identify a threshhold for each system above which NO amount of stocking will result in higher adult density. (Keep in mind that 2,500 is no small quantity to stock, even in alternate years. Mille Lacs rarely gets more than 4,000 fish annually, and it's 26 times the size of LCO.) Occasionally (but rarely) I'm 99% sure of things. This is not one of those times. But I usually support an action if I'm at least 70% sure it's the way to go. In this case, I'm about 80% sure that additional stocking of 11-inch muskies into a strong population of big pike won't help much. I think we need to try the Butternut Lake transfer (which you support), and then do our best to reduce pike density while concurrently working to improve natural spawning and nursery habitat for muskellunge. We want to "get the bed made" for muskies so they can reproduce and recruit naturally once the main predators on their young have been reduced significantly. Reasonable people could disagree on this approach, but this is what we have chosen to try. We will appreciate your support, and we will consider changing strategies if our approach fails to produce positive results. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| If it is the Pike that are our main obstacle, I for one wouldn't mind getting more aggressive with our strategies? Again, love the objectives... there is no reason the lake should not be at those levels. But if Pike are the restricting constraint, lets hit the red button! No possession limits, get the Tribe to spear the hell out of them in the spring, hold weekend pike tourny's... whatever... lets take the gloves off and hit 'em hard. If we made a conserted effort, I think we could make a sizable dent in that population in one season. Heck, I'd even forgo some of my limited time in Hayward to drag my limit out of LCO. Take care of Musky Bay and other habitat and stock it to the gills with 'Skis. Preferrably ones that get big and fat. Hopefully Dr. Sloss will tell us what they are.... and not too soon. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for the response Dave, I can see where you may be correct about the break even point, how would you ever quantify and measure that. Also wouldn’t at least every year be better than every other year. I understand cost is a major concern, but let the local musky clubs help, DNR stocks one year clubs stock the next year and if the clubs want the put in more than the 2500 let them, it’s their money not the tax payers. Give them something positive to do and they will be less likely to be constantly crawling up your back side I would bet. Also what about stocking yearlings, again I know money would be a issue, but I know they are doing it with success with the Great Lakes Restoration project. Again I bet the clubs would help, maybe they could even raise the fish, I know in central Wisconsin some clubs have built ponds and raise the muskies for the Pete themselves, why not do some of that in the northern part of the State. Again thanks for the responses, I will be in Florida until the 10th if I can get on a computer I will try and check in, but I bet I will have lots of catching up to do when I get back. Probably at work also. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Derrys |
| ||
| Lambeau, Thanks for the link. A lot of good info here. Do the resort owners really believe that more people will come with a 34" Minimum size limit? I think in MN, they feel more people would come if they had a chance at a 50+" fish. I may be wrong. At a local lake near me, a lot of fish were being harvested, including three this past year that were over 54". A 40" Minimum size limit is enforced on that lake, and it was brought to the attention of the DNR to maybe up it a bit. Instead, they decided to start stocking more fish. Another lake near Park Rapids, MN had a lot of 48"+ fish being harvested. After a bunch of people spoke to the DNR, got signatures, and so forth, the MN DNR made it the first Catch & Release only lake in Minnesota. Anyway, thanks again Lambeau. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Bytor I've addressed your questions below. Let me say that Larry, Eric and I may all have slightly different opinions on some of these topics and I'm sure you can find something somewhere that disagrees with my answers, but I've tried to answer your questions directly. We all agree that the fine fishing that is being created by the Wisconsin DNR in the Fox River/green bay and by the Minnesota DNR everywhere in Minnesota could be duplicated in nearly all areas of Wisconsin by stocking fish that are proven to grow large everywhere they are stocked. If you don't feel I answered any of your questions please rephrase them and ask again. Bytor - 3/25/2006 8:54 PM Could the the WMRP please answer these questions. 1. Wasn’t it part of your mission statement that you wanted to have eggs gathered from the Chippewa Flowage? Wasn’t that listed as a preference over the Leach Lake strain? Isn’t that is what is being done this year? Yet, you guys don’t seem to be satisfied. Lockjaw seems to be implying that the side by side study that is starting this year should use Bone Lake brood. What is with that? Answer: Our mission statement was that we would like to see large fish from the Chippewa Flowage. This is not what is happening this year. We stated we wanted large fish used because we believe there are fish capable of growing to large sizes there. We also believe there are smaller muskies there that are incapable of growing to large sizes. These smaller muskies that Wisconsin DNR studies have shown are not capable of growing large sizes swim down from Callahan lake, the Tiger cat Flowage and Moose lake via connecting rivers. If you take Muskies of all sizes as the DNR plans, you will be continuing the mixing of smaller strains into our brood stock. We all have different feelings on whether we use Bone Lake fish or fish from the Chippewa flowage in the upcoming growth studies. I feel we know how the Boners don't grow, and i personally prefer the chip for brood stock and the growth studies - for now. The DNr does not want Bone lake fish in the growth studies for obvious reasons - they know they don't grow as fast of the Mississippi strain. Where I'm disappointed is that we are still stocking Mixed WI strains into great Lakes drainages and into the St. Croix drainage where the Mississippi strain would be the native fish. Also remember that no matter what happens with the growth study, if the Mississippi strain continues to show larger growth as they did in all previous studies - the WDNR has stated they won't be stocked in the Chippewa and Wisconsin river drainages. I'm not certain why biologists would state that before genetic work even begins...... 2. Wasn’t the WMRP opposed to the work being done by Dr. Sloss? Didn’t you guys change your tune on this position AFTER you found out he was telling the WDNR that they should change their brood lake? Answer: I still oppose waiting for the genetic testing before stopping the stocking of fish that have unknown genetic qualities into the St. Croix river drainage and Great Lakes drainages. We can get known quality fish for the Great Lakes and St. croix drainages today at little or no additional cost. I am in favor of genetic testing and work on Muskellunge everywhere. I'm OK with waiting for genetic tests in the native range, particularly on waters with Natural Reproduction. While I do support Dr. Sloss's work, I think it'll have little effect in improving our fisheries as the genetic work will tell us nothing about Growth, survival or natural reproduction. It will only tell us if fish are "related". Genetic testing on the chip will likely show that the fish there are related to Muskies from LCO, Big Spider Lake, and Bone Lake as these are 3 brood sources for the chip. They will also be related to Moose Lake, Tiger Cat and Mud/Callahan. Since they are all related, we get to use those fish as brood stock. That is my understanding of how the genetics tests will choose our brood stock. I support the study, but I don't like the looks of how it will improve our fisheries, if anything it actually frightens me in NW Wisconsin. 3. Does the WMRP believe in Dr. Casselman’s maximum growth work? That each body of water has it’s own maximum growth rate? I believe that every fish has a different maximum growth potential. I believe that two different fish in the same body of water may have different growth potential. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not the lake that influences growth the most, it's the fish. There are certainly extremes that can be cited - a muskie in a goldfish bowl with no food is not going to grow regardless of genetics. If this does not answer your question, please rephrase and ask again. Bytor - a question for you: Do you believe in the ultimate growth work the MN DNR did in their strain comparison that utilized the same science that Dr Casselman created? 4. Does the WMRP believe that Muskies, regardless of strain or should I say perceived strain, will perform better in lakes when they are first introduced into a lake? I believe this is generally true, but not nearly to the extent that we are led to believe. Muskies grow fast and large in places like Leech Lake, Winnie, LOTW, Rowan, Fog, Eagle, Wabigoon and Georgian Bay where they have existed for thousands of years. They haven't shrunk just because Muskies were there before the current generation. Every Muskie lake Minnesota surveys turns up large 48"plus MS strain Muskies regardless of when they were introduced, or whether there were Muskies in them prior to the Mississippi strain being introduced. 5. What does the WMRP feel about the Bone Lake “mutts” performing very well in Rice Lake? I believe that Rice Lake and Nancy lake were stocked approximately the same time. (The 1st Rice stocking was the same year as the second Nancy stocking.) Nancy started producing Monstrous fish by the mid 90's when the largest fish in NW Wisconsin's Lucky 13 contest had the champ come out of Nancy one year and 2nd place the year before. It took another 10 years before Rice Lake even hit the radar screen although they were stocked at approximately the same time. To this day there are more large Muskies found in Nancy lake netting surveys than in Rice Lake netting surveys. I believe the Fishing on Rice Lake is overhyped by the people on this site. I live near it and I've fished it and know many others that have too. I believe that we can stock fish that can reach 50 inches in ten years or we can stock fish that only one or two may if they live 20 years. I believe we have a choice to make. A guy who worked at a ranger dealer in Rice Lake used to fish Rice lake a lot, he always showed me pictures of 38 inchers from Rice, and then he'd show some bigger fish from Minnesota. After he started fishing in MN, he moved there and I've not seen him since in Wisconsin. Not even on Rice Lake. There are some nice fish caught in Rice Lake as there are throughout Wisconsin. There would be many more if we stocked fish that grow Larger, like we do in the Fox River(GB) and in Minnesota. 6. What does the WMRP have to say about the performance of the Leech Lake strain in Illinois? I believe the Mississippi strain has performed very well in Illinois in some places. They have done great in Places like Storey, Snake Den and Evergreen, ask the Illinois DNR. The jury is likely out in other places, but I don't believe anything that is based on visual inspection of Muskie strains (no spots). I'm not positive they are the best fish for Illinois waters as it's a very different climate than we have up here in the Upper Mississippi drainage of Wisconsin and Minnesota. They have not done well in the pond studies of project Green Gene, but I've seen more information expalining why than is made light of here. Florida strain bass don't work well when taken out of a warm climate, but they work wonderful when taken hundreds or thousands of miles away to similar climates like Texas and california. I think Illinois (DNR and Muskie clubs) is doing a good job with their Muskie program, they want to do the right thing. 7. Does the WMRP have the support of any fisheries bioligist’s? Anywhere? Answer: Yes. Biologists across the state of Wisconsin have supported many of our initiatives. Many at the Wisconsin DNR give the WMRP a lot of credit for getting the funding for Dr. Sloss work, the new growth studies and brood stock plan. I've not heard a single person at the DNR suggest that the WMRP is not responsible for many of the changes that are going on in the Muskie program. The Wisconsin DNR invited the WMRP to be the main focus of the statewide Muskie committee meeting - largely because they believed and supported many of our ideas. WMRP members have also been present at and worked with the WDNR at two other Statewide Muskie committee meetings. Many WDNR biologists are supporting the stocking of Mississippi strain muskies across many areas of the state. Nearly everyone at the WDNR supports the WMRP's contention that we should be stocking Great Lakes strain muskies into all Great Lakes drainages. The biggest difference that the WMRP and the WDNR seem to have is that the DNR is fine with letting the current generation of 35 plus year old muskie fisherman die while they fail to make the changes that have proven successful in Minnesota and the Fox River drainage of Wisconsin. I think we can stock proven large growing fish into many areas while these studies go on and we protect native fish. We can do both, we should do both. The WMRP also has written support from many different Muskie clubs and orginations from Wisconsin and other states. Bytor, I hope that your questions have been addressed. If you have others, post them. In fairness I hope that you'll answer mine too. thanks, Bob | |||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | Bob thanks for the reply. I think that all the changes that are taking place in Wisconsin are a direct result of the work of your group and I applaud your efforts. I just have a problem with the tone that your group has been displaying. Although I was very happy to see Larry’s last post regarding the LCO lake management project. I feel more will get accomplished if everybody works together. Insulting the WDNR and their employees will not get it done IMO. Bytor - a question for you: Do you believe in the ultimate growth work the MN DNR did in their strain comparison that utilized the same science that Dr Casselman created? Yes I do Bob, I believe that the LL fish do grow faster and have a slightly higher maximum growth potential than the barred fish of Wisconsin. Where I do disagree with you slightly is that I believe the growth potential of the lake is very significant. If all we want is the biggest fish, we should be pushing the GL fish instead of the LL fish. I think the GL fish show the greatest potential for maximum size. Bob-“Our mission statement was that we would like to see large fish from the Chippewa Flowage. This is not what is happening this year. We stated we wanted large fish used because we believe there are fish capable of growing to large sizes there.” I believe that the use of large females only has been discussed by the experts and I am not in a position to question them on this one. Altough I see why you are concerned given that so many Bone Lake fish have been stocked in the Chip. Personally I believe the native fish are easily identified, they do not have the bars like the bone lake fish and they are more of a goldish color. Maybe Dr. Sloss could identify these fish and those fish could be used to create a new brood lake. Bob-“I still oppose waiting for the genetic testing before stopping the stocking of fish that have unknown genetic qualities into the St. Croix river drainage and Great Lakes drainages. We can get known quality fish for the Great Lakes and St. croix drainages today at little or no additional cost. I am in favor of genetic testing and work on Muskellunge everywhere.” I agree with you on this one. The GL drainages should have GL fish and the St. Croix drainages should have LL fish. The MDNR should not be putting LL fish in the St Louis river, IMO. I would like to see the two states work out an agreement where Wisconsin took over all the stocking of the St. Louis with GL fish and Minnesota did all of the stocking in the St. Croix with LL fish. Wisconsin barred fish should not be stocked in the St. Croix river. Is this still being done? I do believe that the Gile Flowage( GL drainage) is getting GL fish in it this year. If that is true that would be a positive change. | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7037 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Is there any chance the WMRP can back up their claims with actual numbers, names, etc.? The WMRP puts out claims that do not seem to be backed up by anything beyond words. Who are your biologists in support of your initiatives? Where are the pictures of the monsterous fish coming out of Nancy Lake? Who are these anglers, what are their names? Where are the huge numbers of fish netted in Nancy Lake? Please supply these so that we can support you. Please supply recent (as in within the last 5 years) scientific information that supports your theories. You demand action by people who live by budgetary numbers, scientific support, and actual proof of the theories that are put into action. I believe, as do many whose tax dollars and license fees donors, those who would be paying for the programs you advocate, deserve this. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Bytor, I think the tone thing has been way overplayed, and wish everyone would let it rest. It's difficult to talk openly about these subjects on message boards without it turning ugly. (See the post above) Internet message boards aren't the real world - I think if you'd take the time to attend a musky Committe meeting or somewhere where we meet in person you'd see what's really happening out there. The perspective on things is amusing at times. Our message is that we believe with some stocking changes our trophy Musky fisheries in Wisconsin can rival Minnesota and Ontario. Somehow that get's twisted into "there are no big Muskies in Wisconsin". If we believed that there are no Big Muskies in Wisconsin why would we be asking them to take eggs from big Wisconsin Muskies? It's kind of funny when you think about it. There is nothing we'd rather do than work with the DNR, in fact we've been doing just that for the last two years. Much of the work we've been doing also falls under our respective MI clubs, you just don't see that publicized. I agree with you also on the Great Lakes fish, and there may be a bigger opportunity to do that immediately than the MS strain. If you believe in the Drainage based plan that the WDNR is going to take several years to implement, The Great Lakes strain makes sense on the Eastern Side of the state, and along the Lake Superior drainage waters. There are many lakes in Vilas county that drain North to Lake Superior (Crab, Presque Isle, and others I believe). The St.Croix/Mississippi drainage would seem a fit for the Mississippi strain. I'd love to see a growth study on a Central Wisconsin lake between the GL and MS strain (WS too if necessary) to decide what is the better fit. From a fisherman's perspective I'd like to see the largest fastest growing fish stocked in all non-native waters. I believe in the drainage based plan, I just believe it can be started today - with little to no additional cost. no Need to wait even one year. Despite some uninformed people making noise about the costs, the WDNR has acknowleged in Muskie committee meetings that since we would be raising fish anyway, so there is no additional cost to raise the same number of Muskies of another strain. Since the WDNR (and MN DNR) has signed on to the New Great Lakes Charter to manage the Great Lakes as single ecosystem, there is hope that we can see the GL program expanded soon. You stated: " Personally I believe the native fish are easily identified, they do not have the bars like the bone lake fish and they are more of a goldish color. Maybe Dr. Sloss could identify these fish and those fish could be used to create a new brood lake." Selecting them from appearance is just as bad as selecting for size according to Dr. Sloss (IMHO - I don't want to quote him direct). Essentially selecting for any single trait is considered bad. (I have mixed feelings here as Fisherman often selectively remove only large muskies where there are high size limits - why isn't this bad?) you also stated: "I do believe that the Gile Flowage( GL drainage) is getting GL fish in it this year. If that is true that would be a positive change. " I'd agree wholeheartedly,but I don't believe its true. If it is, I'd like to see what we can do to help. The WDNR has some amazing success stories out there, this would likely end up as another one. The fisheries the WDNR created in the Fox River and Green Bay and Nancy Lake are world Class fisheries created by the WDNR and they should be applauded for it. You also mentioned in your post that you feel size selection is bad, yet professional Musky breeders like Kalepps fish farm breed from size. They select the larger Males and females for brood stock which explains why lakes stocked from those sources often see larger fish coming through than from the lakes that only get stocked from Brood lakes like Bone. It's why Kalepps stands behind their fish, while the NW Wisconsin brood lake (Bone) was abandoned before genetic and growth studies are completed. There are many fisheries/breeding/genetic experts out there that donot work for the WDNR - and to be clear there many fisheries/breeding/genetic experts out there that DO work for the Wisconsin DNR, and we are appreciative of them. Thanks for the note Bytor, I'll try to check here more often as I find time. Bob | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32880 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, I don't think Slamr's questions were in any way out of line or negative. I think he asks some very pointed and well placed questions. WHY is Slamr's post 'ugly"? He asked you to prove out your position, a totally reasonable request. Here's a few from me: 1) Why is it best to stock 'fastest growing' fish? Are there not other important considerations? Isn't it true that when considered over a long term (lifecycle) the Wisconsin fish compare favorably with the LL fish in Minnesota waters? Is six years a long enough time to indicate overall fitness, maximum growth, NR in the correct environs, and trophy potential? Is 'faster' always 'better' in the long term? Why, sir, is the upper confidence level on Wabigoon so much lower that the St Lawrence? Shouldn't both reach the maximum size quickly, if they are 'pure' strain spotted muskies? Why does it take so long for the Wabigoon fish(up to 20 or more yars) to meet that upper confidence level, and are they inferior to Lake St Clair fish? Or are the LSC fish inferior to the St. Lawrence fish? If that's so, why wouldn't we want St Lawrence fish for ALL our waters? isn't it true that Dr. casselman feels the next world record will come from the St Lawrence, and that the upper confidence lveel there is CONSIDERABLY larger than even Georgian Bay? 2) What makes a Leech lake fish more suitable for waters in NW Wisconsin? What makes it 'pure' as claimed? What benefit to the waters in Wisconsin is that? Doesn't Dr. Casselman state clearly that an important trait to encourage is sustained growth over a long period of time? Doesn't he state that SOME waters will NEVER support trophy fish? Have you listened to his presentation at the Symposium we have here? Has anyone actually proven that the fish you are so set against CAN'T grow to trophy range in a reasonable timeframe under the proper conditions, or that the fish you like WILL grow fast and survive well in a far more sterile and lees buffered environment may Wisconsin Lakes have? 3) Didn't the 'no big fish in Wisconsin' retribution comments stem from frustration created by direct commentary from your group at one point even claiming fish in the 40# class I and others have caught were 'purely anecdotal', and only 'remnants' if indeed they WERE real? I can find that commentary and repost it if you like. If the fish in Rice Lake are over hyped, who is over hyping the size structure? Are you saying that the representation that a strong trophy population exists in Rice is not fact? 4) Why would we look to stock GL fish from St Clair in any of the managed muskie waters in North Eastern WI or NC Wisconsin? Those are NOT native fish to this water, and don't belong here, IMHO. Why would they be better suited to survive in the waters close to where I live than the fish already here? What is wrong with the fish already here? 5) A statement you made indicates you feel high size limits select for large fish to be harvested (agreed, that's the entire idea I'd say, no harvest until the fish reaches trophy status and has reproduced multiple times), and you ask why that isn't a bad thing. You CAN'T be going back to the original accelerated evolution argument, can you? Are you suggesting that placing a 50" limit on waters that can grow trophy fish is harmful? If so why would Canada use an even LARGER limit? 6) You continually refer to Nancy as a total success, yet NR was not good enough to develop Nancy as a brood stock source or sustain the population, and overall, it was determined that using Nancy for that purpose would not be viable. The last test netting didn't produce any 'monsters' in Nancy, despite the fact it was done in the temperature range into the mid 50's in the basin with twice the nets and almost three times the normal length of time for the survey. See the Nancy Lake thread, it's carefully discussed there. 7) How did your group help acquire funding for Dr. Sloss's work? Didn't your group initially represent that work as a waste of taxpayers money, and a waste of time? Did your reversal of that opinion create a funding stream, and if so, how? 8) What part, in exact terms, of your groups platform or recommendations are supported by WIDNR Biologists, and who are those biologists; what district are they from, and how might i speak to them? How about some references, so they can be checked to confirm your claims? That would seem to me to be a very good thing for the WMRP to provide. 9) No one I can find in the Muskie fisheries management field suggests that selective breeding for 'size' as you put it is either a good idea, or economically feasible even if it WAS a good idea. Can you find a working Muskie fisheries biologist who suggests that should be done; breeding primarily selected large fish from a population, and if so, who might that biologist be so I might speak to him/her? Bob, this isn't getting 'ugly', it's asking you to prove out your claims. That's to be expected..... | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7037 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Your lack of answers to my question again shows that the WMRP, though full of passion and a desire to create a fishery with bigger fish, doesnt really have tangible evidence and support of experts in accordance with their theories. Or maybe they do, but do not feel it necessary to share with the muskie public. Either way, again, for this one muskie fisherman, you have missed an opportunity to prove legitimacy to me. | ||
| Derrys |
| ||
| I thought the MN DNR was bad...... My Muskies Inc. Chapter wanted to pay for some heavy duty aluminum "Know the difference" signs to be placed at the local Muskie lakes' public landings. These are the signs that show the differences between Northern Pike and Muskie. They said they'd rather we didn't, and I think it was because it's got to the point where they almost don't want people to know there are even Muskies in some of these lakes, because then they'd have to deal with the "Muskies are eating all the Walleyes" guys. They even started stocking less Muskies into an Alexandria area lake because a guy started a "No more Muskies" club. He felt that Muskies were eating all the Walleyes. Well why don't they just come right out and say they agree with him, as stocking less fish is saying that anyway! They're ridiculous sometimes. I see your frustration, Slamr. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| 1) Why is it best to stock 'fastest growing' fish? Are there not other important considerations? Isn't it true that when considered over a long term (lifecycle) the Wisconsin fish compare favorably with the LL fish in Minnesota waters? Is six years a long enough time to indicate overall fitness, maximum growth, NR in the correct environs, and trophy potential? Is 'faster' always 'better' in the long term? Why, sir, is the upper confidence level on Wabigoon so much lower that the St Lawrence? Shouldn't both reach the maximum size quickly, if they are 'pure' strain spotted muskies? Why does it take so long for the Wabigoon fish(up to 20 or more yars) to meet that upper confidence level, and are they inferior to Lake St Clair fish? Or are the LSC fish inferior to the St. Lawrence fish? If that's so, why wouldn't we want St Lawrence fish for ALL our waters? isn't it true that Dr. casselman feels the next world record will come from the St Lawrence, and that the upper confidence lveel there is CONSIDERABLY larger than even Georgian Bay? answer: This question is a bit convoluted - i"ll try and be clear: If it's a choice between fast and slow growth - excluding other factors - Fast is better than slow. There are other inportant considerations, many of them. Fish that grow to a large size fast are indeed large. Many fish that grow slowly never reach large sizes(documented in Wis, MN and ON - casselman) It is not true in any scientific research papers that the growth of Wisconsin strain compares to MS strain in Minnesota or Wisconsin waters. I do not believe six or ten years is long enough to fully evaluate muskellunge growth, but this what is the Wisconsin DNR's growth study - so you may want to ask them. I do believe 6 to ten years will provide enough information to make good decisions (it worked well in Minnesota). In regards to the wabigoon vs. St. Lawrence growth: I don't see why the growth should be the same.....they are different fish from different waters. Low sample size of fish from what lake or the other could have an effect. vastly different temporal climates could also have an effect. You are wrong that either should reach the maximum size quickly, I know of nowhere that Muskies reach "Maximum" size quickly. Large - yes, Maximum - no. I don't feel that Wabigoon fish or LSC fish or MS fish are inferior to St. Lawrence Muskies or any other. I'll take any of them in just a few waters here in NW Wisconsin. I feel that when you sorted out the world record issue, the two largest muskies of the last 20 years were caught out of Georgian Bay. (Williamson and Obrien) Casselman may be wrong, then again he may not be. If you use a drainage based paln like Wisconsin is moving towards, the G-bay, St. Clair and St. Lawrence fish would be in the same genetic Management Unit. By the way The fish in Green Bay/Fox River are said to be growing EXTREMELY fast by the WDNR. I think this is good, don't you? 2) What makes a Leech lake fish more suitable for waters in NW Wisconsin? What makes it 'pure' as claimed? What benefit to the waters in Wisconsin is that? Doesn't Dr. Casselman state clearly that an important trait to encourage is sustained growth over a long period of time? Doesn't he state that SOME waters will NEVER support trophy fish? Have you listened to his presentation at the Symposium we have here? Has anyone actually proven that the fish you are so set against CAN'T grow to trophy range in a reasonable timeframe under the proper conditions, or that the fish you like WILL grow fast and survive well in a far more sterile and lees buffered environment may Wisconsin Lakes have? answer: Wisconsin research papers show MS strain grows faster with a larger projected growth in Wisconsin waters. From a fishermans perspective this makes them more suitable to provide a trophy fishery. The Wisconsin and Minnesota DNR hired the INHS to do a study on Muskie genetics and stocking history and that 1997 study indicated that that is one of very few(only) sources of fish that had not been stocked from other sources. Sustained growth over a period of at least ten to 12 tyears is required to grow a record class muskie - yes, Dr. Casselman stated this. He did not state that slow growth over a sustained time is required. Yes, I've listened to it, it's a good presentation, where is the Hayward presentation you promised? Exactly what fish am I set against? I would like to answer this. I'm for any and all proven large growing fish to be stocked. As far as I can tell there are no places where Great Lakes or MS strain Muskies have been staocked that they fail to reach large sizes. Bone is not a sterile lake - it's actually very fertile and the DNR last year could not net even one female muskie larger than the male Muskies in Nancy lake. (WDNR netting data.) 3) Didn't the 'no big fish in Wisconsin' retribution comments stem from frustration created by direct commentary from your group at one point even claiming fish in the 40# class I and others have caught were 'purely anecdotal', and only 'remnants' if indeed they WERE real? I can find that commentary and repost it if you like. If the fish in Rice Lake are over hyped, who is over hyping the size structure? Are you saying that the representation that a strong trophy population exists in Rice is not fact? I don't know where the no big fish thing came from. I never said it, and I don't recall Anyone I know ever saying it. The very first thing we asked the WDNR to do was to use eggs from LARGE WISCONSIN MUSKIES. I think the Rice Lake fishery has been over-hyped on this website - I may be wrong. Some people have asked me to display pictures recently - even though they have been on public display twice. I have spent the last 4-5 years looking for a picture of a 50"plus muskie from Rice Lake and have yet to find one. I live 7 miles from Rice Lake and am there every week. I talked with the WDNR biologist in charge of Rice lake last year and he told me that he had never seen one either. Very close he said - yes. Do I believe there have been 50" fish caught from Rice Lake - yes it's been stocked for 20 years. Some of the Muskies we stock can grow to 50"in 20 years. I believe every lake in Wisconsin is capable of growing large Muskies. I just wish every muskie we stocked was capable of growing to large sizes like the WDNR stocks in Green Bay and MN stocks everywhere. 4) Why would we look to stock GL fish from St Clair in any of the managed muskie waters in North Eastern WI or NC Wisconsin? Those are NOT native fish to this water, and don't belong here, IMHO. Why would they be better suited to survive in the waters close to where I live than the fish already here? What is wrong with the fish already here? I'm saying if the lake drains into the great Lakes we should stock great Lakes Muskies - It costs nothing more to do this.. The fish from Bone Lake and the Oehmcke strain are not native to those waters either. If it's OK to stock other (WS/MS) strains into Great Lakes drainages where they are not native than it should be OK to stock other strains into other drainages. Let's be consistent - that's what I'm looking for. The WDNR has even set up GMU's that indicate stocking GL strain into GL waters is the long term thing to do. The fish from Lake St. Clair are not native to Green Bay or Wisconsin. They come from another lake 700 miles away in another state - Michigan. I think the Wisconsin DNR is doing the right thing by getting large growing fish from another state - especially if they don't have them here. It's worked tremendously thus far. "What is wrong with the fish already here?" What is wrong with what fish? please be clear in your questions, there are many fish here. Sorry out of time, will stop back as time permits. Thanks for keeping a nice tone and not spinning things out of control. It's refreshing to see. thanks, Bob | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 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 |