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 -> State of WI Strive for Quality Fishing |
| Message Subject: State of WI Strive for Quality Fishing | |||
Kazmuskie |
| ||
Posts: 194 | If the goal is to get genetics from "Different" populations, I don't understand the choice here. Isn't Moose Lake just upriver from the Chippewa Flowage? Seems to me like the possibilty that the fish in Moose are very similar to the fish in the Flowage from a genetic point of view. They are connected by the same river that didn't always have dams in the way. Why not choose to use fish from different River systems if the goal is true genetic diverstity? Like maybe the Flambeau or Wisconsin? I'm sure the Moose genetics will do fine in different waters, but I don't see how the genetically diverse requirement is getting met by using a fish from the same system the DNR used only two years ago. | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | are choices made based on proximity to the people employed to do the work? i would imagine that does play into some decisions ... why not go to a place with proven performance like north and south twin ?? Edited by jonnysled 4/6/2008 11:27 AM | ||
| tfootstalker |
| ||
Posts: 299 Location: Nowheresville, MN | Kazmuskie - 4/6/2008 8:44 AM If the goal is to get genetics from "Different" populations, I don't understand the choice here. Isn't Moose Lake just upriver from the Chippewa Flowage? Seems to me like the possibilty that the fish in Moose are very similar to the fish in the Flowage from a genetic point of view. They are connected by the same river that didn't always have dams in the way. Why not choose to use fish from different River systems if the goal is true genetic diverstity? Like maybe the Flambeau or Wisconsin? I'm sure the Moose genetics will do fine in different waters, but I don't see how the genetically diverse requirement is getting met by using a fish from the same system the DNR used only two years ago. I was thinking the same thing. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32879 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave, thanks for the response. I'll give you a call this week and set up an interview to cover the basic 'questions' raised. To answer a couple inquiries, proximity is important for several reasons. I believe the details can be seen on the research board as to Dr. Sloss's recommendations as well. | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Good morning Steve, As a suggestion can we start a new thread regarding Mr. Neuswanger's last posting. I think this is not the thread for a civil and open minded disscussion . Just based on my two posts alone. I want to apologize for dragging this thread down. It really wasn't my intention. Dave | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | jonnysled - 4/6/2008 10:56 AM are choices made based on proximity to the people employed to do the work? i would imagine that does play into some decisions ... why not go to a place with proven performance like north and south twin ?? North and South Twin are within the area served by the Art Oehmke Hatchery at Woodruff. I don't know where the Oehmke folks are planning to capture broodstock for production in Woodruff this year. I work with the Spooner folks who produce all the muskies for northwestern Wisconsin where I work. For anyone to imply that Moose Lake was chosen because I live close to the lake is at best naive and at worst highly disrespectful. Most of WDNR's broodstock collection crew will have to travel a long distance from Spooner in order to get to Moose Lake. They had to travel even further last year to get to Butternut Lake in Price County. Long travel time poses serious logistical challenges to the crew with respect to the amount of time fertilized eggs can be transported intact back to the hatchery. The hatchery crews would rather work closer to home where they aren't pushing the limits of egg viability during transport. But they have been willing and able to overcome that problem and travel to the few lakes that meet our new genetic stock conservation criteria, wherever they may be. I couldn't work with a more competent and dedicated group of people. Please don't belittle our efforts by implying that we only do what's easy or convenient. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32879 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hunter, no worries, this conversation is moving along nicely. | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Ok, thanks Steve | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | Dave N - 4/6/2008 11:54 AM jonnysled - 4/6/2008 10:56 AM are choices made based on proximity to the people employed to do the work? i would imagine that does play into some decisions ... why not go to a place with proven performance like north and south twin ?? North and South Twin are within the area served by the Art Oehmke Hatchery at Woodruff. I don't know where the Oehmke folks are planning to capture broodstock for production in Woodruff this year. I work with the Spooner folks who produce all the muskies for northwestern Wisconsin where I work. For anyone to imply that Moose Lake was chosen because I live close to the lake is at best naive and at worst highly disrespectful. Most of WDNR's broodstock collection crew will have to travel a long distance from Spooner in order to get to Moose Lake. They had to travel even further last year to get to Butternut Lake in Price County. Long travel time poses serious logistical challenges to the crew with respect to the amount of time fertilized eggs can be transported intact back to the hatchery. The hatchery crews would rather work closer to home where they aren't pushing the limits of egg viability during transport. But they have been willing and able to overcome that problem and travel to the few lakes that meet our new genetic stock conservation criteria, wherever they may be. I couldn't work with a more competent and dedicated group of people. Please don't belittle our efforts by implying that we only do what's easy or convenient. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward no implication meant ... a question from someone that isn't aware of the dnr and it's organization so much. i was under the impression that your area was the management for the overall state musky program? ... again, naive and truly not understanding of the organization and who does what. can you shed some light on how the department is organized so that i can better understand how it all gets coordinated? i'm sure there are others like me who scratch their heads at times trying to keep up with all the information and how it all ties in. thanks | ||
| Kazmuskie |
| ||
Posts: 194 | Dave N- Your most recent post raises a question for me. What is your area boundry for the NW part of the state? | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | It would seem that some of the confusion here is associated with folks simply not understanding exactly how Wisconsin DNR is organized programmatically and geographically. And that's very understandable. I moved here five years ago from Missouri and am still learning new things about the organization. One question pertained to my personal area of responsibility. I am WDNR's Fisheries Supervisor for a six-county area in northwestern Wisconsin that is called the "Upper Chippewa Basin" which falls roughly within the boundaries of the Upper Chippewa River watershed. (I supervise only Management personnel -- not Research personnel or Hatchery personnel.) My counties of responsibility include Sawyer, Price, Rusk, Taylor, and the inland portions of Ashland and Iron counties (not Lake Superior). I supervise biologists and technicians stationed in Hayward, Park Falls, and Mercer. I have no direct responsibility for fish propagation at DNR hatcheries, but we (in Management) cooperate with our colleagues (in Hatcheries) on various occasions, including this major change in where and how WDNR obtains broodstock muskellunge for hatchery production. The person who supervises ALL Management and Hatcheries personnel in the WDNR's Northern Region is Steve Avelallemant in Rhinelander. Steve is my supervisor. He has a daunting job. But he is one of the best fishery professionals I know; so if anyone can do it, he can. The two hatcheries where we raise muskies in northern Wisconsin are Oehmke Hatchery in Woodruff and Thompson Hatchery in Spooner. The Woodruff folks obtain their broodstock from lakes in the Vilas/Oneida county area, and they stock lakes mostly in north central and northeastern Wisconsin. The Spooner folks have been obtaining their broodstock lately from lakes in Sawyer and Price counties, and they stock lakes throughout northwestern Wisconsin. Both hatcheries supply fish for stocking in southern Wisconsin and other waters outside the native range of muskellunge. Until we know more about actual genetic stock composition in Wisconsin, it makes sense for Spooner to obtain broodstock from the same Upper Chippewa Basin waters they intend to stock, while Woodruff obtains broodstock from the same Headwaters Basin (of the Wisconsin River) waters they intend to stock. We believe this lowers the risk of stocking fish so different from one another, genetically, that outbreeding depression could occur in subsequent generations of naturally produced fish. (Not going to define that here, but MuskieFIRST has covered the subject well under earlier forum topics.) I want to clarify that I'm not a statewide program spokesperson. I simply feel an obligation to try to help anglers understand what we are doing, and why, whenever concerns focus on programs and projects in the Upper Chippewa Basin where I have supervisory responsibility for Management operations. I hope this helps MuskieFIRST readers to understand a bit more clearly how we operate. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| ShaneW |
| ||
Posts: 619 Location: Verona, WI | Dave, This is really great to see you on here. There is often a lot of speculation, accusation, and fingerpointing amongst folks that are "arm chair biologists" - I really look forward to an interview with you on MuskieFirst. Shane | ||
| Kazmuskie |
| ||
Posts: 194 | Dave, Thanks for the clarification. It sounds to me like the hatchery biologists might be able to use waters outside your direct area, correct? Is there any reason why they would be limited to collecting eggs and milt from your region? In other words, is there a rough radius that they need to remain inside to keep eggs viable? | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Kazmuskie - 4/6/2008 6:16 PM Dave, Thanks for the clarification. It sounds to me like the hatchery biologists might be able to use waters outside your direct area, correct? Is there any reason why they would be limited to collecting eggs and milt from your region? In other words, is there a rough radius that they need to remain inside to keep eggs viable? Kaz, there is no doubt that WDNR fish propagation personnel from Spooner must try to operate within a reasonable distance of the hatchery, but that's actually one of the least important considerations in determining which broodstock lakes to use. The important criteria are: 1) waters within the native range of muskellunge in northwestern Wisconsin with muskellunge populations established wholly or predominately by NATURAL reproduction (NOT stocking); 2) waters with ENOUGH fish to allow us to conduct 19-26 matings at a 3:1 ratio of unique males to unique females; and 3) waters with the potential to produce fish of all sizes. Most anglers are amazed to learn how FEW lakes meet the above criteria anywhere in northern Wisconsin, mostly because SO many waters have been stocked SO often that we cannot be certain those populations are based predominately on natural reproduction and recruitment. We have been trying to identify 5 waters to use for each of the two northern hatcheries that would meet those criteria; and it has been a challenge. So far we have selected 3 such waters as broodstock sources for the hatchery at Spooner -- the Chippewa Flowage, Butternut Lake (Price County), and Moose Lake (Sawyer County). Even the Chippewa Flowage may have more stocked fish than we realize, but we decided to use it anyway until we have a better idea about the relative contribution of stocked versus naturally produced fish there. Last year our Hayward fish management team (biologist Frank Pratt and technician Russ Warwick) set fyke nets in Blaisdell Lake in the East Fork Chippewa River system in order to determine if enough fish could be captured to meet our objectives for genetic diversity. We knew there were big fish in Blaisdell, and we knew the population was supported by natural reproduction (despite the presence of northern pike). But we did not know if we could catch enough fish to count on it as a source of hatchery broodstock. Unfortunately, Frank and Russ found that the fish moved upstream (out of the lake and into the East Fork Chippewa River) to spawn so quickly that any amount of lake netting effort would not produce the desired number of fish. We had to scrap plans to use Blaisdell Lake as a source of hatchery broodstock. This spring a team of WDNR researchers from Spooner will be test-netting Teal and Lost Land lakes in Sawyer County to see if enough fish can be captured there to support future broodstock collection efforts. Both lakes have been stocked many times, so we would be violating one of our new criteria to use them immediately. But we also believe there may be sufficient natural reproduction there to cease stocking and use those waters as a source of hatchery broodstock in the future. In the meantime, we will use Moose Lake in 2008. As you can hopefully see, nothing about this has been easy. There are many uncertainties, and we are constantly seeking, testing, and learning where we might go in order to achieve our overall genetic diversity objective (5 sources in annual rotation for each coolwater hatchery in northern Wisconsin). Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20212 Location: oswego, il | Dave, thanks for taking the time to post on this issue. Do you think Teal and lost land can forgo stocking since the introduction of pike in it's waters. Having fished it a few times, there are alot of pike in there. Would Ghost not be an option? Another question, since there isn't any data that says Moose lake fish are not genetically inferior in regards to growth, are the tiger cat and day lake muskies inferior to growth outside of their lake? Edited by ToddM 4/6/2008 10:48 PM | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| Dave; I'm curious why it's important the lakes used for collecting eggs are naturally reproducing, native lakes. Or at least you want them to be "mostly" that way. In MN, all lakes used for getting hatchery fish are lakes that were not native, and do recieve annual stockings. The parent lake of course is Leech, a native naturally reproducing body of water. I'm just wondering why there is a different philosophy or different situation there. John | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | TODDM asked: "Do you think Teal and Lost Land can forgo stocking since the introduction of pike in its waters?" DAVE: Probably. I suspect Lost Land has more pike than Teal (and fewer muskies). In our most recent comprehensive survey on Teal in 2004, the muskellunge population was strong and there were few pike (probably BECAUSE of predation by abundant, good-sized muskellunge). TODDM: "Would Ghost not be an option?" DAVE: No. Ghost Lake is way too small to yield 80 fish (60 males and 20 females) needed for annual egg-take. TODDM: "Another question, since there isn't any data that says Moose Lake fish are not genetically inferior in regards to growth, are the Tiger Cat and Day Lake muskies inferior to growth outside of their lake?" DAVE: Despite past misinterpretation and exaggeration of extremely limited data by some vocal amateurs, there are insufficient data in Wisconsin to conclude at this time that any Wisconsin muskellunge are GENETICALLY programmed to grow slower or reach a smaller ultimate size than average. But we know certain lakes (like Tiger Cat and Day) have muskellunge that grow very slowly and rarely achieve a size desired by trophy anglers, probably due to conditions of habitat and prey availability. On the CHANCE that we may one day learn there is a GENETIC basis for that slow growth also, we are avoiding those waters as sources of broodstock, and going instead to lakes with the demonstrated potential to produce at least a few very large fish (Chippewa Flowage, Butternut, Moose). Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Good morning Dave, This might be a dumb question but here it goes. How is a lake determined to be suitible for the stocking of musky? I'll sit down and listen for my answer. Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions. Its appreciated more than you probably realize. Dave | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | john skarie - 4/7/2008 7:03 AM Dave; I'm curious why it's important the lakes used for collecting eggs are naturally reproducing, native lakes. Or at least you want them to be "mostly" that way. In MN, all lakes used for getting hatchery fish are lakes that were not native, and do recieve annual stockings. The parent lake of course is Leech, a native naturally reproducing body of water. I'm just wondering why there is a different philosophy or different situation there. John John, I cannot speak for the Minnesota DNR of course, because I have not attended their policy meetings and I would not pretend to understand their logistical constraints. But I can tell you that Wisconsin DNR seeks waters with naturally reproducing muskellunge because we want the wild-source fish we are stocking today to reproduce on their own tomorrow. We realize there are many waters that will always require stocking to maintain a muskie fishery at the desired level. But the more populations that can be maintained by natural reproduction of genetically fit fish, the better. Our policy is based upon the advice of some of the best fish population geneticists in the country; and I stand behind it. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| ShaneW |
| ||
Posts: 619 Location: Verona, WI | Dave, In your last post you mention that "want the wild-source fish we are stocking today to reproduce on their own tomorrow." Is that the ultimate goal of the DNR in managing the musky fishery - to attempt to build self-reproducing fish? Shane | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | ShaneW - 4/7/2008 8:30 AM Dave, In your last post you mention that "want the wild-source fish we are stocking today to reproduce on their own tomorrow." Is that the ultimate goal of the DNR in managing the musky fishery - to attempt to build self-reproducing fish? Shane Shane, as I said above, "Wisconsin DNR seeks waters with naturally reproducing muskellunge because we want the wild-source fish we are stocking today to reproduce on their own tomorrow. We realize there are many waters that will always require stocking to maintain a muskie fishery at the desired level. But the more populations that can be maintained by natural reproduction of genetically fit fish, the better." I believe this answers your question. If not, I'm just not sure what more I can add. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| ShaneW |
| ||
Posts: 619 Location: Verona, WI | Dave, That answers it. Thanks, Shane | ||
| Moltisanti |
| ||
Posts: 639 Location: Hudson, WI | Wouldn't Minnesota be in a little different boat than Wisconsin in general? In the Sportsman's Connection map book of the TC Lakes, printed in 1994, there is very limited mention of muskie fishing on Minnetonka, White Bear and Bald Eagle. No mention at all of muskies on Forest, despite the fact that the stocking of muskies is printed right above the fishing info. The point I'm trying to make is that now that these lakes have "come of age," it's like, "MNDNR does everything right and WDNR does everything wrong." I would think that the WDNR has significantly more challenges based on fishing pressure than the MDNR has, since muskie fishing has been in WI esox anglers for practically 100 years and the pressure reflects that. I'm actually proud of the fact that Bone (I'm sure the Hayward lakes as well) get 50 boats hammering it on any given day and you still have the chance to double up on fish. If it was a lower density/big fish lake, people would probably start crying that they don't see as many fish any more. I could be wrong, but i don't you can have your cake and eat it to. BTW, a few friends of mine have started complaining about how their milk runs on Minnetonka are starting to dry up because they are getting fished so hard. People probably had that same problem on the Chippewa flowage...30 years ago. Dave, keep up the good work. You know more about the situation than anyone, it's what you do for a living and I'm sure you take it seriously. | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| I'm curious as to the thoughts on the offspring of "wild" fish being able to more successfuly reproduce than that of stocked fish. Is there any evidence that a fish raised in a hatchery will have any better success at spawning after it is stocked because it's parents were not stocked? There is very clear evidence that fish taken out of brood stock lakes in MN and then stocked in non-native waters do reproduce. While levels may not reach that of a self-sustaining population, that is thought to be more of a habitat problem rather than a fish problem. John | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | JOHN SKARIE asked: Is there any evidence that a fish raised in a hatchery will have any better success at spawning after it is stocked because it's parents were not stocked? DAVE: Yes. Studies too numerous to mention in the journals of fishery science demonstrate that the offspring of wild-captured broodstock of many fish species are more likely to survive and reproduce themselves than the offspring of fish that have been held as captive broodstock for several generations or reared at a hatchery themselves where they did not undergo the selective pressures that weed out the least fit among them. This is a basic principle in fish conservation genetics. Also, even the best hatchery propagation efforts, like Wisconsin's new muskie program, cannot produce the level of genetic diversity in a population that exists in a viable, unstocked population of muskellunge. Natural reproduction in a healthy population maximizes genetic diversity, which then maximizes the probability that fish in that population will be able to adapt and cope with all the environmental stressors we humans are heaping upon them. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8772 | So if I'm understanding this correctly, the main goal here is genetic diversity, which science has proven is the key to producing fish that will survive and reproduce successfully. But the fish themselves are only a small part of the equation. Things like water chemistry, habitat, forage, etc. are a far greater influence in determining the overall size structure of the fish in a given ecosystem. So Dave, let me ask you something: Of all the factors that determine how big muskies get in the lakes you are familiar with, what is most significant? Is it forage? Size of the lake? Lack of recruitment? Runoff? Silt? Shoreline development? More importantly, is it something that can be changed? Or will we find ourselves in 20 years realizing that the lakes are what they are, and no amount of genetic research is going to change that? | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| Thanks for your reply Dave. You answered my question, but I maybe didn't word it quite correctly. What I was getting at is if you have a lake where it's population was established by stocking, is there any difference in the behavior of the progeny of those fish vs. getting them from a lake that is not stocked. I realize a difference in fish that are held in captivity and used for hatchery purposes vs. utilizing fish that live their lives in a natural environment. In the case of taking eggs from a brood stock lake vs. a natural lake, the eggs go to a hatchery, and then fish are raised and released into a new environment. So no matter where they came from, they still will be raised in a hatchery or a rearing pond before being released. Why would there be a difference in behavior being the fingerlings go through the same environment before being stocked? Again thanks for your replies. This is info I'm very interested in learning more about. John | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | JOHN SKARIE asked: "... If you have a lake where its population was established by stocking, is there any difference in the behavior of the progeny of those fish vs. getting them from a lake that is not stocked?" DAVE: I don't know if there is a difference in behavior (how the fish act), but there is probably a big difference in genetic diversity and performance of future generations, depending on how many males and females were used to create the stocked population from which you are now collecting broodstock (and how they were crossed). If only a couple big, egg-laden females were used to create the stocked population (not an uncommon situation in past hatchery operations throughout the country); or if some of the same males were used to fertilize the eggs from both females (also not uncommon); then that stocked population from which you now propose to obtain broodstock may have a VERY low frequencey of "rare alleles" and other variable genetic material that is needed to ensure the long-term viability (including natural reproduction) of future generations. JOHN: In the case of taking eggs from a brood stock lake vs. a natural lake, the eggs go to a hatchery, and then fish are raised and released into a new environment. So no matter where they came from, they still will be raised in a hatchery or a rearing pond before being released. Why would there be a difference in behavior being the fingerlings go through the same environment before being stocked? DAVE: Again, there may be no difference in behavior, but because of the lower genetic diversity of fish in the stocked broodsource lake (unless extraordinary measures were taken to ensure otherwise), their progeny will not be as adaptable to survive or fit to reproduce in current and future environments as will progeny from wild fish that have greater genetic diversity and have demonstrated the recent ability to survive to reproductive age in their native environment. To sum it all up, Nature knows best. Or to quote Aldo Leopold, "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts." In this case, the parts are genes. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| Then why isn't Wisc. using a broodstock lake system of recruitment then? Come on. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32879 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest, I suggest you re-read Dave's last post. Dave, Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you via MuskieFIRST Radio this afternoon. I'm sure the information you provided will assist everyone in better understanding the work you and your staff in the Upper Chippewa Basin in NW WI and those elsewhere in the Wisconsin Muskie management program here in Wisconsin do. We should have the interview posted sometime in the next 24 hours. | ||
| 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 |