|
|
Posts: 419
Location: MN | I requested the citation, because I was very suspicious of both the claims and language style. That journal has a website and you can browse the articles by year. I found nothing meeting that description from 2000. It seems that article simply doesn't exist. Presumably the same is true for the other "citations."
This account has been around since 2020. Most of the posts are either simple comments or links. I'm thinking it has been a bot the whole time, maybe ramping up sophistication recently. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| nar160 - 5/5/2023 10:36 AM
I requested the citation, because I was very suspicious of both the claims and language style. That journal has a website and you can browse the articles by year. I found nothing meeting that description from 2000. It seems that article simply doesn't exist. Presumably the same is true for the other "citations."
This account has been around since 2020. Most of the posts are either simple comments or links. I'm thinking it has been a bot the whole time, maybe ramping up sophistication recently.
Hi, you requested citations, which were provided to you. So, now you are accusing me of being a Musky Bot 
Edited by Muthsky 5/5/2023 10:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 419
Location: MN | No, I'm accusing you of being a Muthsky bot.
Curious about the response to this: why can't I find the article you cited in Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences? I checked all issues from 2000. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | nar160 - 5/5/2023 10:36 AM
I requested the citation, because I was very suspicious of both the claims and language style. That journal has a website and you can browse the articles by year. I found nothing meeting that description from 2000. It seems that article simply doesn't exist. Presumably the same is true for the other "citations."
This account has been around since 2020. Most of the posts are either simple comments or links. I'm thinking it has been a bot the whole time, maybe ramping up sophistication recently.
Good to know Nar160. This sort of confirms my point on the where we will be in 500 years thread. Just an FYI - many of my buddies work up in the arctic, and one of the guys who did the original Kazan survey stuff way back was actually a couple doors down from me back in the day.
This bot is very sophisticated for sure, however it works. The bot seems/attempts to be benign, pushing site traffic or something to that effect, perhaps to numerous sites concurrently, but ultimately only has the internet as a base of its universe, and no real world experience, history or contacts. Needs to be shut down...
No need to argue with the bot as there are no musky there and never will be.
For my part I definitely would like some of the thread cleaned up. Some good/great scientists there and I would consider Schindler (RIP) to be one right at the pinnacle of Canada's aquatic scientists (started ELA which ultimately kyboshed acid rain, cleared up Lake Erie). Would suck to the have his name come up with this garbage in some search engine.
Edited by Angling Oracle 5/5/2023 12:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| nar160 - 5/5/2023 10:53 AM
No, I'm accusing you of being a Muthsky bot.
Curious about the response to this: why can't I find the article you cited in Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences? I checked all issues from 2000.
You would have to request the article and pay a fee.
Good luck,
Muthsky Bot |
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| Angling Oracle - 5/5/2023 10:55 AM Some good/great scientists there and I would consider Schindler (RIP) to be one right at the pinnacle of Canada's aquatic scientists (started ELA which ultimately kyboshed acid rain, cleared up Lake Erie). Would suck to the have his name come up with this garbage in some search engine.
Rather than getting angry and upset, why not find some citations that support your position that muskellunge are not in the Kazan River. This is a musky topic forum and we come here to discuss; I am open minded
Enjoy your day! |
|
| |
|
| Muthsky - 5/5/2023 11:53 AM
nar160 - 5/5/2023 10:53 AM
No, I'm accusing you of being a Muthsky bot.
Curious about the response to this: why can't I find the article you cited in Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences? I checked all issues from 2000.
You would have to request the article and pay a fee.
Good luck,
Muthsky Bot : )
Seems reasonable. I subscribe to two newspapers online, they do offer some stories to anyone who accesses their website but most stories require you to subscribe, i.e. pay for the right to read the stories and that includes archived stories. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 419
Location: MN | That is not a newspaper - it's a journal full of research papers. I didn't see any free articles. However, you can browse the contents (title + abstract) for all of the articles in each issue. |
|
| |
|
| nar160 - 5/5/2023 12:41 PM
That is not a newspaper - it's a journal full of research papers. I didn't see any free articles. However, you can browse the contents (title + abstract) for all of the articles in each issue.
Understood. My point is that most publications today require a fee to read stories/articles. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32887
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | All the bot pontificating is unwarranted if there's actual concern any automated program is posting here, no bots can post. We have very sophisticated filters in place, and no 'guest' posting is allowed. I personally approve or deny all applications to be a member here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 5/5/2023 2:07 PM
All the bot pontificating is unwarranted if there's actual concern any automated program is posting here, no bots can post. We have very sophisticated filters in place, and no 'guest' posting is allowed. I personally approve or deny all applications to be a member here.
The replies certainly point to a human component, but the content in this thread (related to Kazan) is clearly auto-generated. The sophistication is to a level that is in excess of the requirement to sort of pull the wool over - ie. details a bit too on point; actual researchers names used, titles similar to those that exist, years close to actual studies conducted. In excess of sort of perhaps tricking someone not familiar with how literature is cited and where to find it. The fact that the poster alludes to using ChatGpt earlier in the thread basically confirms same.
Nowadays one can plug in a research paper and find all the papers that cited it. There are literature review papers that list every paper on a specific topic or region - these assist researchers to find the information they need. The person editing the generated information likely has some clue to this given there are not proper citations in the way that Nar160 alluded to. The facts are there are no musky in Kazan Lake or River (or ever have been) and ergo no actual literature exists.
If we can both agree that musky and Kazan do not compute, then one concern I have is potential negative implications of the poster using actual names of real researchers in the same niche of research and associating them to false articles. In the research community, obviously having published works is in essence a CV. I believe a certain line has been crossed in this regard, notwithstanding the general disrespect of other forum users baiting replies with nonsense. I would almost prefer a bot to someone with motivations that are... unclear, at best.
Obviously all of the users and contributors to this forum appreciate a certain level of respect that is two-way...
Edited by Angling Oracle 5/5/2023 5:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
| Muthsky - 5/4/2023 8:33 AM
BillM - 5/1/2023 1:56 PM There are no muskie in the Kazan or Kasba lake which is it's headwaters.
With respect, there is scientific evidence to support the presence of muskellunge in the Kazan River.
Scientific evidence of muskellunge in the Kazan River comes from studies conducted by researchers. For example, a study published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences in 2000 examined the genetic structure of muskellunge populations in the Hudson Bay drainage system, which includes the Kazan River. The study found evidence of muskellunge in the Kazan River based on genetic analysis of fish samples collected from the river.
The study examined the genetic structure of muskellunge populations in the Hudson Bay drainage system, which includes the Kazan River. The researchers collected tissue samples from muskellunge in various locations throughout the drainage system, including the Kazan River, and analyzed the genetic markers of these samples to determine how genetically distinct the different populations were.
The researchers found that all of the populations of muskellunge they analyzed were genetically distinct from one another, indicating that there are multiple, genetically isolated populations of muskellunge in the Hudson Bay drainage system. They also found that the populations of muskellunge in the Hudson Bay drainage system were more closely related to populations in the Great Lakes region than to populations in the northern parts of Canada, which suggests that the muskellunge in the Hudson Bay drainage system may have been introduced from the Great Lakes.
In terms of the Kazan River specifically, the researchers found that the muskellunge population in the river was genetically distinct from other populations in the Hudson Bay drainage system, indicating that the Kazan River population is isolated from other populations in the region. The researchers noted that the genetic diversity of the muskellunge population in the Kazan River was relatively low compared to other populations in the drainage system, which suggests that the population may be smaller or less diverse.
Overall, the genetic analysis conducted in this study provides scientific evidence that muskellunge live in the Kazan River, as tissue samples from muskellunge collected in the river were analyzed and found to be genetically distinct from other populations in the Hudson Bay drainage system.
Additionally, the Canadian government's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO ) conducts regular surveys of fish populations in the area, which include the Kazan River. These surveys have also recorded the presence of muskellunge in the river.
While there may not be extensive scientific research on muskellunge populations in the Kazan River specifically, the combination of anecdotal and scientific evidence supports the conclusion that muskellunge do live in the river.
Thank you,
Muthsky : )
You can type whatever you want into ChatGPT but we all know this is bull#*#* |
|
| |
|
Posts: 458
| Interesting stuff, quite the article on Irregular Lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| This topic again? I thought this had clearly been decided in the middle part of the last century. It is the Chippewa River strain. I mean "Three Record Muskies in His Day" c'mon.
All kidding aside, is this the largest muskie ever documented? http://www.larryramsell.com/do-muskies-get-that-big.html
"Two hatchery employees, H.L. Ganske, holding the tail, and Bill Billings, holding the head were shown displaying "a fish of dreams" taken during spawn netting operations on Lac Court Oreilles near Hayward, Wisconsin during the 1950's. The fish wasn't weighed, only measured for length at an incredible 68 inches. While the photograph doesn't do the fish justice due to the way it had to be held to control it, needless to say there can be no doubt that it was indeed huge! While not extremely heavy in its rear section, the girth of this musky behind the head is immense and the length of the head alone would scare most average musky anglers!! This fish easily dwarfs the 5 foot holding tank in the boat, leaving no doubt as to the accuracy of the length measurement. The fish was not weighed."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2330
Location: Chisholm, MN | R/T - 5/10/2023 9:10 AM
This topic again? I thought this had clearly been decided in the middle part of the last century. It is the Chippewa River strain. I mean "Three Record Muskies in His Day" c'mon.
All kidding aside, is this the largest muskie ever documented? http://www.larryramsell.com/do-muskies-get-that-big.html
"Two hatchery employees, H.L. Ganske, holding the tail, and Bill Billings, holding the head were shown displaying "a fish of dreams" taken during spawn netting operations on Lac Court Oreilles near Hayward, Wisconsin during the 1950's. The fish wasn't weighed, only measured for length at an incredible 68 inches. While the photograph doesn't do the fish justice due to the way it had to be held to control it, needless to say there can be no doubt that it was indeed huge! While not extremely heavy in its rear section, the girth of this musky behind the head is immense and the length of the head alone would scare most average musky anglers!! This fish easily dwarfs the 5 foot holding tank in the boat, leaving no doubt as to the accuracy of the length measurement. The fish was not weighed."
I like Larry's article. I do believe it's possible that muskies grew bigger back then. Probably not to the sizes claimed but why not have 60" fish more common? I blame fishing pressure now. Too many people hammering the fish to the point where they cannot reach their maximum size due to harassment.
Side note, people nowadays cannot experience muskies that have not been pressured. I did once. There are a few secrets out there still but not many. The fish I encountered that day acted like they had never seen a bait. I hope others can experience that because it's remarkable how different they act. It's how it was meant to be. That lake has now seen enough pressure to make the fish slightly conditioned and I don't think it takes much to do that to them. I was too young an inexperienced to fully capitalize on those fish. I wish I could do it over again. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | Kirby Budrow - 5/10/2023 10:26 AM
R/T - 5/10/2023 9:10 AM
This topic again? I thought this had clearly been decided in the middle part of the last century. It is the Chippewa River strain. I mean "Three Record Muskies in His Day" c'mon.
All kidding aside, is this the largest muskie ever documented? http://www.larryramsell.com/do-muskies-get-that-big.html
"Two hatchery employees, H.L. Ganske, holding the tail, and Bill Billings, holding the head were shown displaying "a fish of dreams" taken during spawn netting operations on Lac Court Oreilles near Hayward, Wisconsin during the 1950's. The fish wasn't weighed, only measured for length at an incredible 68 inches. While the photograph doesn't do the fish justice due to the way it had to be held to control it, needless to say there can be no doubt that it was indeed huge! While not extremely heavy in its rear section, the girth of this musky behind the head is immense and the length of the head alone would scare most average musky anglers!! This fish easily dwarfs the 5 foot holding tank in the boat, leaving no doubt as to the accuracy of the length measurement. The fish was not weighed."
I like Larry's article. I do believe it's possible that muskies grew bigger back then. Probably not to the sizes claimed but why not have 60" fish more common? I blame fishing pressure now. Too many people hammering the fish to the point where they cannot reach their maximum size due to harassment.
Side note, people nowadays cannot experience muskies that have not been pressured. I did once. There are a few secrets out there still but not many. The fish I encountered that day acted like they had never seen a bait. I hope others can experience that because it's remarkable how different they act. It's how it was meant to be. That lake has now seen enough pressure to make the fish slightly conditioned and I don't think it takes much to do that to them. I was too young an inexperienced to fully capitalize on those fish. I wish I could do it over again.
Truths spoken here. My area(North Central WI) gave up bigger fish per capita 15-25 years ago. Pressure came, handling, numbers increased, size diminished. A lot of factors, but fish that aren't bothered, grow bigger almost unilaterally. Fished some similar MN and WI waters alike, not many left, if any, that don't see some intelligent pressure, which is enough to 'change' things. Great post Kirby.
Edited by Reef Hawg 5/11/2023 1:26 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Along with fishing pressure, I wonder what impact water quality issues have on musky.
Top of the food chain predators like musky depend on the entire ecosystem to achieve maximum size. If their prey fish, like suckers, perch, bull heads, tullibee, etc,, are not doing well because of the impact of water quality issues that impact the smallest life in the lake, right down to microscopic, it would seem to make sense it would impact musky. More and more lakes are carrying heavy loads of phosphorus and other man made run off.
Some lakes suffer from acid rain, even after a lot of effort to clean it up. Read a book by a PhD out of MN, who is also an avid fisherman. He described a lake in northern MN that once had a solid musky population but now had few fish of any kind because of acid rain. The water he said was more acid than strong tea. Aquatic life just can't thrive in that environment.
It would be interesting to see water quality reports on some of the major lake systems that produce big musky from 50 years ago compared to today. Not sure if it would help because of the tech being so much better today in terms of parts per million, etc. but it would be a starting point. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 326
| Yes indeed. A shame that few will ever see how truly big muskies act, and are meant to act, absent pressure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| Handling was mentioned and although catch and release works handling is something we need to consider. I read on page 65 of the March/April edition of In Fisherman that "Studies show that pike gills develop necrosis (cells die) after one minute out of the water." I will make the leap and assume this would be very similar in muskies. So I'll go there, if a 46 is your PB do you need to measure a 36? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1415
Location: Brighton CO. | Tons of good info here! We all look for that lake and that fish. With that said, it takes me back to a post I made a number of years ago on another Muskie board. I don't even know the topic or how it got started. Here was my post.
"How would you like to take a time machine back to Lake Of The Woods or any where other native water with your modern equipment"? Just a thought! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | North of 8 - 5/11/2023 7:01 AM
Along with fishing pressure, I wonder what impact water quality issues have on musky.
Top of the food chain predators like musky depend on the entire ecosystem to achieve maximum size. If their prey fish, like suckers, perch, bull heads, tullibee, etc,, are not doing well because of the impact of water quality issues that impact the smallest life in the lake, right down to microscopic, it would seem to make sense it would impact musky. More and more lakes are carrying heavy loads of phosphorus and other man made run off.
Some lakes suffer from acid rain, even after a lot of effort to clean it up. Read a book by a PhD out of MN, who is also an avid fisherman. He described a lake in northern MN that once had a solid musky population but now had few fish of any kind because of acid rain. The water he said was more acid than strong tea. Aquatic life just can't thrive in that environment.
It would be interesting to see water quality reports on some of the major lake systems that produce big musky from 50 years ago compared to today. Not sure if it would help because of the tech being so much better today in terms of parts per million, etc. but it would be a starting point.
I'm sure it does. However, the area of which I mention(Wisconsin River), has seen immense water quality improvements over the past 50 years vs the other way around. As lead water quality engineer for local wastewater group, it delights me and saddens me to see this, as it is industry that is closing it's doors up and down the river at an alarming rate, that is the root of this recent and immediate improvement. Indicator species that didn't exist even 15 years ago, are thriving in parts of the river, now, creating struggle for niche, while also providing food sources fatty and otherwise. There is no doubt that water quality is a major issue in some waters, concern in all. The success stories are rarely a topic, even if it costs working class several thousand jobs has occured here. |
|
| |
|
| I grew up less than two blocks from the Wis. River in Wis. Rapids, so I am very familiar
with how bad it was. And while it is certainly far cleaner, I still would not eat a fish out of the river below Rhinelander. A few years ago I was back in Rapids for a class reunion and young guys were catching musky from shore downtown, in a spot my buddies and I fished for carp back in the 1960s. That was great to see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 46
| If I was to predict where the next WR muskellunge was to be caught I would say it is Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada. This large body of water in Ontario is known for its clear, cold waters and abundant forage, making it a prime location for muskies to grow to massive sizes.
Some secondary choices would be:
Lake of the Woods, Ontario, Canada
Chippewa Flowage, Wisconsin, USA
St. Lawrence River, New York, USA
Lake Vermilion, Minnesota, USA
Where do you fellows think the next WR is swimming?
Muthsky Bot |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Kirby Budrow - 5/10/2023 10:26 AM
I like Larry's article. I do believe it's possible that muskies grew bigger back then. Probably not to the sizes claimed but why not have 60" fish more common? I blame fishing pressure now. Too many people hammering the fish to the point where they cannot reach their maximum size due to harassment.
Side note, people nowadays cannot experience muskies that have not been pressured. I did once. There are a few secrets out there still but not many. The fish I encountered that day acted like they had never seen a bait. I hope others can experience that because it's remarkable how different they act. It's how it was meant to be. That lake has now seen enough pressure to make the fish slightly conditioned and I don't think it takes much to do that to them. I was too young an inexperienced to fully capitalize on those fish. I wish I could do it over again.
Agreed. Hence why I believed live-imaging should be banned entirely up here (for muskies) and season shortened or regulations changed to open-water only. If pressure gets a bit out of hand it may require some gear restrictions at some point (ie barbless, or tine numbers). There are some folks that really want to catch lots of fish and very big fish at all costs - basically at the maturity/ethical development of a novice but starting-to-put it together - but in this case these anglers have the tools to be very effective and efficient (tools being technology and social media).
The pressure thing is a factor. Muskies, like all predators, learn from negative experiences. If they always tried to eat things that were bad for them, then would not grow, survive and reproduce. They will make a mistake now and then, but they learn from them, just like other predators. Lots of prey in all environments bite back, taste bad, are prickly or poisonous - predators may try to consume once or perhaps learn from parents or by observation, testing. Consider porcupines, skunks, butterflies, beetles, flowers , jellyfish - oceans are fully of colourful nasties that very few critters can eat - and then there are imitators than are edible but have the same protection given the predators will avoid. Predators test out and learn for the next time. Treble hooks and being netted and hauled into a boat for sure has a negative influence on predatory responses for the next interaction. Plenty of research on it and in the fishing world proven with largemouth bass in tank studies.
The implication for us as musky anglers is this: if a few very effective anglers are catching a very high proportion of muskies, then this is a not a good thing for the overall musky fishing community. The data would start looking like this: very high numbers caught overall, skewed distribution of catches to a few anglers with very high CPUE. The overall CPUE though will decline (i.e. the hours fished per musky by all anglers will be high per musky). The CPUE will likely steadily decline - as muskies are "educated" the easy fish will not be available, and it will be harder for everyone, but less hard for those with the more advanced technologies - able to fish in open water and at night. Add in mortalities in these high catch rates from iffy handling, deep or hot water, deep hooks or bad luck, and need to take a hard look at what musky fishing should look like.
Edited by Angling Oracle 5/12/2023 12:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8785
| The only way to preserve a pure unadulterated population of muskies is to just not fish for them. The same can be said for all species of game fish and musky forage (prey). I don't think I'm alone in my thinking here: If we can't catch them for fun, what good are they?? Eagle food? Considering all the toxins the fish are soaking up over 10-15 years, I sure wouldn't eat one.
While I agree that naturally reproducing/native populations should be managed with care, what difference does it make with stocked fish, especially in the vast array of lakes where they don't belong anyway? Do we really want to head down the "I don't like other people using this or that technology because it makes it harder for me to catch muskies" road? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 355
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | esoxaddict - 5/12/2023 12:43 PM
The only way to preserve a pure unadulterated population of muskies is to just not fish for them. The same can be said for all species of game fish and musky forage (prey). I don't think I'm alone in my thinking here: If we can't catch them for fun, what good are they?? Eagle food? Considering all the toxins the fish are soaking up over 10-15 years, I sure wouldn't eat one.
While I agree that naturally reproducing/native populations should be managed with care, what difference does it make with stocked fish, especially in the vast array of lakes where they don't belong anyway? Do we really want to head down the "I don't like other people using this or that technology because it makes it harder for me to catch muskies" road?
My only motive is a sustainable quality fishing experience. I notice you said naturally reproducing/native - that is what we have here.
You said "we." No offence - we are both being philosophical. I am referring to the "collective we", and you are referring to "me" we. We are not talking about whether I like anything or not, we are talking about fishing quality - a quality musky fishery available to all the stakeholders for that fishery. Not everyone can afford the tech, but that is irrelevant to my arguments. It is inevitable that the quality of the fishery will decrease for everyone - starting with the low tech novice folks and ultimately for the experts and finally for guides making a living loaded up with the latest tech to get all the advantages they can (and expected by their clients). As posited in other threads, it is not like this tech is not going to get more effective and the technology much further advanced and sophisticated. It likely already is but of course industry needs to slow sell to always have a new and improved for next year.
Edited by Angling Oracle 5/12/2023 1:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Watching spawning musky this past week reminded me of a question I have had for a while. The musky on the chain where I live have very little, if any, markings. Just dark green backs, silver sides and maybe very faint markings on sides. I have been told that is because the water is very dark, stained. Ok, but then why are the few tigers I have caught have quite bold markings? Should point out they are naturally occurring, not stocked tigers. Not a big deal, but I am curious about this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8785
| I fish some of the tannic stained waters in N/WI and here's what I've encountered:
Pike, LMB, bluegills and sunfish all have a dark brown color. Their markings are similar to what you'd find on clear lakes, but the coloration is not. Not sure if it's an adaptation to their environment or a case of stained water = stained fish. Another oddball thing is those fish stink. Like bad-stink. If they weren't alive half an hour ago I'd toss these fillets, because this fish has gone South. They do not stink when you cook them and taste just fine. Yellow perch seem unaffected. Why?
The muskies you're catching sound like what I see on my lake. Ugly brown/green fish with little or no bars/spots/stripes. The lake, however, is super clear. To me that says genetics. I've yet to encounter any hybrids on any of the area lakes short of one juvenile that was iffy on whether it was a hybrid or not. But that particular lake is stocked in addition to having some natural reproduction so who knows what kind of mutts are living there.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32887
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I've been lucky enough to fish several areas where pressure on the native muskies was near zero. That means I am old. In answer to the hybrid Moen Chain muskies, it seems that really tannic water lessens
markings on many fish, but causes hybrids to go nearly black and white. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1415
Location: Brighton CO. | I've seen some really pretty Hybrid's in Wisconsin in dark (tannic) water that were powder Blue. They kinda glowed. |
|
| |
