|
|
| Bob's second link didn't work, but I got the article another way. For those who couldn't access it, here it is:
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY:
Rapid Evolution Can Foil Even the Best-Laid Plans
Carl Zimmer*
By triggering bouts of natural selection, efforts to protect and manage
endangered species can have unintended--and unwelcome--consequences
Natural selection, once seen as a stately and imperceptible process, can be
speeded up to resemble a case of hyperactive jiggles. Over the past 20 years, as
evolutionary biologists have begun to study natural selection in the wild, they
have documented record-breaking changes in some populations of animals and
plants that occur in years--not centuries or millennia.
Now conservation biologists are beginning to take note. "The last year or two
have been the first time that people have really been hammering on this issue,"
says Andrew Hendry of McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Hendry is the
co-author of a recent paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that exhorts his
colleagues to think about the effects of rapid evolution when they draw up plans
to protect and manage species. Conservation biologists "have actually been
studying species that change right under their noses," adds Joel Brown of the
University of Illinois, Chicago. They ignore it at their peril, he wrote in a
recent paper in Biological Conservation, because conservation efforts can drive
evolution in unexpected ways, sometimes making a protected species maladapted to
its environment in just a few generations. But there's a plus as well: A better
understanding of rapid evolution may let conservation biologists harness its
powers to save species from extinction.
The clearest cases of rapid evolution are triggered by sudden changes, either
natural or anthropogenic, in a species' environment. On the Galapagos Islands,
for example, Darwin's finches evolve larger or smaller beaks as their food
supplies fluctuate with the climate. In Trinidad several years ago, scientists
triggered a burst of evolution by simply moving guppies from a pond with
predators to one without. After 11 years, evolution's mark was apparent: The
guppies took 10% longer to reach sexual maturity and as adults weighed 10% more
(Science, 28 March 1997, p. 1934).
A number of biologists now suspect that fisheries managers have been
inadvertently triggering similar bouts of rapid evolution. To keep stocks from
collapsing, managers often put a minimum size limit on catch, giving younger
fish a chance to breed before they are killed. Despite these efforts, the
average size of caught fish has been falling in recent decades in many
fisheries.
Studies in Europe and the United States strongly suggest that the strategy
selects for smaller individuals. The evolutionary advantages are clear: If fish
can become sexually mature while still small, they have more chance to reproduce
and are likely to pass down more of their genes. As a result, the population on
the whole gets smaller. Biologists don't yet know whether this trend threatens
the survival of the fish stocks, but fishers already know what it means to their
pocketbooks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pintsize. Captive breeding programs can drive salmon to lay smaller eggs--a
distinct disadvantage in the wild.
CREDIT: DANIEL HEATH/UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR, ONTARIO, CANADA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Norway, grayling in mountain lakes have long been protected by size limits.
Thrond Haugen of the University of Oslo and colleagues have found that after 6
decades, the fish reached adulthood when they were 25% smaller. Researchers at
the State University of New York, Stony Brook, have recreated such fishing
pressures in the lab. David Conover and colleagues raised thousands of Atlantic
silversides and harvested the biggest from each generation. In four generations,
the fish became genetically programmed to grow only half as large (Science, 5
July 2002, p. 94).
Conover says these results suggest that fisheries will suffer from low yields
for a long time even if managers remove catch sizes. Because the small size of
the fish is genetically programmed, only an intense evolutionary pressure can
reverse the trend. But natural selection in favor of larger sizes is far milder
than the intense pressure created by commercial fishing. "That could take
thousands of generations," says Conover. "There's no force that directs
evolution in the opposite direction that fishing does."
Some conservation biologists believe that captive breeding programs can also
backfire in the face of unanticipated evolution. In studies on wild and captive
chinook salmon, Daniel Heath of the University of Windsor in Ontario and
colleagues documented that females face an evolutionary tradeoff. On one hand,
it pays for a salmon to lay big eggs, because the extra energy she packs into
them helps the offspring survive after they hatch. But the bigger the eggs, the
fewer a salmon can lay. Captive breeding programs change this tradeoff, because
in the less stressful environment of a hatchery, salmon eggs can survive even if
they're small, and females that lay a lot of eggs are at an evolutionary
advantage. In studies at a British Columbia fish farm, Heath has found that
captive salmon have indeed become more prolific egg-layers; over just four
generations the eggs have become 25% smaller (Science, 14 March, p. 1738).
"You're looking at a phenomenal response," says Heath--one of !
the fastest rates of evolution ever recorded outside a lab. If these fish were
to be put back in the wild, Heath warns, their small eggs would be less likely
to survive to adult fish.
He believes the lessons from salmon apply to many other endangered species. "If
you grab the last few animals and you put them in a zoo to make sure they don't
die, you could potentially drive evolution of some trait that you don't expect,"
says Heath. If the animals were eventually released into the wild, "a loss of
fitness might mean the difference of survival and extinction. That's the scary
part."
Scary, but not hopeless, adds Hendry. He thinks captive breeding programs should
try to breed animals and plants in the same way farmers breed
crops--selectively, for certain traits. One way to do this, Hendry suggests, is
to regularly release a few captive-bred individuals--"selection probes," as some
researchers calls them--and see which survive. The biologists could then breed
the relatives of the survivors but not the less fit individuals. "It would be a
drastic shift in the way people thought about these things," says Hendry. But it
might save some species in the process. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
The studies you have posted all deal with fisheries and lab experiments under far more intense pressure than what we have here. The 'harvest' of large muskies here is extremely small, to the point of many passing on of old age. The model these articles suggest is one of intense harvest pressure taking most or all of the larger fish. If what you suggest is true, the lake down the road from my house and the other lake I mentioned, both stocked from the same hatchery, same years, same fish, should not have the variation they do. One lake, a small dark water system, produces fish in the 48" to 52" class from the stocked fish and offspring and the other rarely a 40" fish. Pressure on both is about the same, with the release rate very high. So following your article examples, the lake with the smaller fish seems to match the scenario, while the lake putting out the big fish doesn't. Please explain that, and why the fish that you claim are genetically inferior are reaching trophy size in one system, and not the other.
There may be a few waters in the state that are pressured to the point of evolution 'speeding up', but with today's CPR philosophy, it would require a wholesale taking of all or at least a majority of the big fish available. Are you suggesting that is the problem? If so, why can't we simply address the situation by raising the limit to the maximum size the fish EVER reach in each system, relegating the fishery to catch and release only for all intents, therefore allowing the adults to maximize their potential? If you feel the genetics are damaged, then one might use the strain that was planted in the lake right here in Rhinelander. Seems to be a good, strong, well developed genetic sample. here's one at about 12 years of age.
Attachments
----------------
 imag0004.jpg (9KB - 246 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Ok I just can’t stay out of this. I’m not a geneticist, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I think Firstsixfeet’s first post, was one of the best on the thread.
I totally under stand the point Bob is trying to make. Use eggs from large females and the chances of producing larger off spring are BETTER, not guaranteed, just better.
I’m 6’4” if I have children have 100 kids, the odds are the average size of those kids will be above average.
If you take eggs from a 52” musky the odds are that the average size of the offspring will be larger than if you take eggs from a 40” musky. Now the 40” musky may have the potential to reach 52” and it may not. But we know for sure the 52” musky holds the genes to have larger than average babies.
The idea of selective breeding in a controlled environment isn’t a good one, because of the reasons FSF pointed out. But, if a way or money could be found to have the DNR strip eggs from larger females it would probably be worth the effort. At least we know the off spring would have the potential. With the limited budget the DNR is working with they just set nets and take eggs from the first females they catch. Once they have the number of eggs the need, they are done. They can’t spend a bunch of time culling, waiting to capture larger females. Maybe this would be a good place for some Musky clubs to spend their money. Give the DNR money to specifically spend more time stripping eggs from only above average musky.
This might actually be a relatively cheep way to try and increase the potential overall size of stocked fish.
What would make it easier for the DNR to find lakes with these big girls, selective 50” size limits on lakes with proven trophy potential. By the way this is also the absolute cheapist way to grow bigger fish. Cost the DNR and the State nothing. As the smallest population of sport fishermen, we need to look at that.
Had more thoughts, but was interrupted by work and lost them, can you believe that?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | again, from the horsee mouth....."There is a goal by the department to provide a wide range of angling opportunities statewide. Muskellunge are part of this and our wide range of regulations and stocking practices reflects this. Are we managing all waters for trophies? The answer is no. Some are managed as action waters, some for trophies, and others to suppress muskellunge numbers.
So is there a DNR theme to grow bigger muskies? Yes, on those specific few waters that have the potential to grow bigger fish. These are typically larger waters, not stocked, have abundant forage, and low density musky populations. The vote in the conservation congress two years ago on the 50 inch lakes points out that a majority of folks are not ready for this type of reg on a large number of waters. But, a third of those who did vote wanted this type of reg. As an agency that represents all the anglers of the state this points out that there is a significant demand out there right now for this type of management.
We currently have very little requirements on brood stock sources other than "Source of fish should be the same waterbody if possible or otherwise a basin stock should be used". This is the current policy we are following. I'm not aware of a hatchery program to produce fish with trophy genetics, but that would be a question you would have to pose to our hatchery staff.
A 1997 genetic survey of the fish populations of the state showed that there are distinct genetic populations around the state. They came up with 5 general genetic regions for muskellunge covering our state.
1. Mississippi River drainage
2. Lake Michigan Drainage
3. Upper Wisconsin River Drainage
4. Upper Flambeau-Chippewa
5. Lake Superior
So there are various strains out there, but stocking across drainage's for the last 100 years has muddied the dividing lines.
|
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 10/26/2004 11:59 PM
"The 'harvest' of large muskies here is extremely small, to the point of many passing on of old age."
I don't believe the harvest of large fish is small. I did some research on the Muskies Inc. Website. I sampled 3 lakes - the Chip, LCO and Bone. The kill rate on 50" fish is 44%, 40% and 50% respectively. Considering that Muskies can and should live and spawn for an additional 15 years after reaching this size, this is tremendous pressure on the resource. Let's stop quoting 99% release as it does not apply to the large fish. These high kill rates are based on the most dedeicated C&R anglers, and do not count the average angler which would drive these kill rates much higher. I would have liked to quote the kill rates of 50" fish on the NE Wisconsin brood lakes of Squirrel and Big Arbor Vitae - but no MI member has ever registered one. (PROBLEM) The Kill rate on 45"+ fish on these lakes is 40% and 33% respectively - again for MI members only!!!! I do not believe that more than 2% of Big muskies die of old age. I believe that 90 % of small muskies die of old age after spawning their ENTIRE lives.
"The model these articles suggest is one of intense harvest pressure taking most or all of the larger fish."
I believe we are taking most of the larger fish, and releasing 99% of the smaller fish. With 40% harvest on large fish, and many of these fish getting caught more than once - I'd call that intense harvest.
"If what you suggest is true, the lake down the road from my house and the other lake I mentioned, both stocked from the same hatchery, same years, same fish, should not have the variation they do. One lake, a small dark water system, produces fish in the 48" to 52" class from the stocked fish and offspring and the other rarely a 40" fish. Pressure on both is about the same, with the release rate very high. So following your article examples, the lake with the smaller fish seems to match the scenario, while the lake putting out the big fish doesn't. Please explain that, and why the fish that you claim are genetically inferior are reaching trophy size in one system, and not the other."
I don't know the full history of these lakes - so I can only speculate. Can we be sure that those big fish were "stocked", they likely were born from Large Muskies that were already in the lake. We have big Muskies in the Chip - I believe these are natural fish, I do not believe they come from Bone lake.
As for the lake where they don't grow big - I do not believe it's the "lake". I have many lakes like that near my home - then once every 10 years someone pops a 53" and kills it.
If it was the "lake". How do you account for that occasional monster from these lakes? I think it's that occasional good gene popping thru, or the occasional egg from a big fish that did get milked. Problem is in Squirrel Lake it's got a 40% chance of getting killed at age 8 and 45" after spawning once. If it get's caught again the next year at 46.5, chances are it's dead. It's weak little cousin however is now 33 inches and 11 years old, and will spread her genes for the NEXT 15 YEARS.
"There may be a few waters in the state that are pressured to the point of evolution 'speeding up', but with today's CPR philosophy, it would require a wholesale taking of all or at least a majority of the big fish available. Are you suggesting that is the problem? "
I do not believe the CPR on large fish is anywhere near what people want to believe. I have lots of data on this. I believe that for 150 years we have taken most of the big fish. I find numerous references to commercial muskie fishing in Northern Wisconsin 100 years ago - check the compendium, or Musky Country, among others. I believe that the Kill Kill Kll entality we had prior to 1980 had a huge affect on genetics. I believe the continued harvest of big fish 40%+ By MI data, combined with 99% release of small fish has made the problem worse.
"If so, why can't we simply address the situation by raising the limit to the maximum size the fish EVER reach in each system, relegating the fishery to catch and release only for all intents, therefore allowing the adults to maximize their potential? "
I'm for total C&R. I'm for setting large size limits. I think we need to protect Large fish. I don't believe small fish need protection - although I would never harm one myself.
"If you feel the genetics are damaged, then one might use the strain that was planted in the lake right here in Rhinelander. Seems to be a good, strong, well developed genetic sample. here's one at about 12 years of age."
I think we should use those 52" fish for eggs. Those fish are good. I'm against taking eggs from 32" females (thyat may be 20 years old.) I feel we are altering genetics by killing 40% of the large fish and releasing 99% of small fish. I'm for only breeding large fish, because I believe this will help balance out the effects of harvesting large fish. I believe this is a necessary step until we can work to get size limits where we need them. I'm not saying we are not doing some good thing, I'm saying we can do things better. I want to start today. We will have bigger fish in 7 years if we do.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Bob,
There have to be more 35+ pound live mounts hanging on the walls of WI pubs, tackle shops, resorts and homes, than any other place in North America. It is a constant reminder of what once was. It is also clear evidence of the probably close to 100% kill rate of fish this size prior to the 1980s. If what took place during that time was not a harvest of big fish genes then I don't know what was.
I couldn't agree with your what you said in your last post more. I want it today also, and I want it for my kids.
How the heck to we get there?
Sean
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Yes, we can be certain the fish were from a stocking program, and we can be sure the other lake doesn't produce the same quality fish despite the fact they were both stocked from the same base at the same time. The fish were fin clipped. I admire your energy, now let's see you get your ideas applied. The 'from the horses mouth' post says it all, reality. Some lakes are able to support a trophy fishery, some not. That's a fact, and insisting it isn't is raging against nature. No matter WHAT you do, if you try to manage some waters for trophies, you are wasting the resource. By the way, some actually promote selective harvest as a management tool. What would a slot limit do for you? Say, allow the harvest of 34" to 39" fish, protect the 40" to (pick a size) fish, then allow harvest of only whatever the size is in that system the fish reach when at the end of their lifespan? Or should we NEVER harvest any ANYWHERE and cease all efforts to stock lakes where the fish simply do not grow to the desired size?
Why does the Wisconsin River keep kicking out big fish? What the heck is up with the Moen Chain? I fished Bone alot in the 60's and 70's, and guess what, there were darned few 50's, if any (I can only remember one) even though the crowd fishing there with us at the time was the Lindners, Portincaso, Latino, the McBride brothers, Jim Cairnes(pretty accomplished sticks from that era) so how the heck would the attached articles apply there?? How does one factor in the reality of Native American winter and spring harvest across the North which is NOT going to go away by ruling of the US Supreme Court? Things are not so simple, not by a long shot, and experiments are EXPENSIVE. Our DNR is so cash strapped, I can't even imagine that happening before they give a few folks a deserved raise. In Perfect, when our budget is all healed up, maybe we can get a few new warm water hatcheries which we desperately need, and see what the management folks think of an experiment like the one you propose.
I gave specific examples, and can give many more where recent management has vastly IMPROVED the population of trophy muskies from the genetics we have RIGHT NOW. Pelican Lake is another example. Great numbers despite the average 'big fish' harvest rate in the since I became familiar with the lake in the early 70's, heavy private and DNR stocking program in the 80's and 90's, good native population, good natural reproduction, excellent growth rate for a mostly perch based foarge and more fish now over 48" than ever. CPR has offset spearing, but the size of the average muskie in Pelican is excellent, year class distribution is great, and 'trophy' muskies swim in lake in good numbers consistent with the average for the total population. I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.
Waters have had 'crashes' in walleye, muskie, pike, panfish, or other populations of fish, that happens due to about a hundred different variables, including overharvest of SMALLER fish, in fact ALL fish of any one description. To difintitvely associate any population with the articles attached here is a good and valid question, but does not definite cause/effect. Each and every system has to be examined individually because each and every system is different. Heck, look at the creel census figures over the years and try to apply what you are suggesting. Wide, sweeping generizations won't cut it with the folks who are managing the muskies in Wisconsin, and budget, social, political, biological, and all other forms of reality HAVE to be considered.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Also, my son does quite a bit of aging work with scale samples, I will ask him to produce a record, let alone a common occurence of a 16 year old 33" female sample and see what he can do. MI has good data, but the release/kill ratio you are discussingis only applicable to the TOTAL number of muskies in the system matching that size. What are those numbers? A ratio of personal choice on CPR is not a ratio of the total big fish in the system to total harvest of same from that year class. Waves on the water make the wind blow, go ahead and argue with that. Big waves, always big wind. No waves, no wind. Waves on the water make the wind blow. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | sworrall
You said “ I gave specific examples, and can give many more where recent management has vastly IMPROVED the population of trophy muskies from the genetics we have RIGHT NOW. Pelican Lake is another example. Great numbers despite the average 'big fish' harvest rate in the since I became familiar with the lake in the early 70's, heavy private and DNR stocking program in the 80's and 90's, good native population, good natural reproduction, excellent growth rate for a mostly perch based foarge and more fish now over 48" than ever. CPR has offset spearing, but the size of the average muskie in Pelican is excellent, year class distribution is great, and 'trophy' muskies swim in lake in good numbers consistent with the average for the total population. I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.”
If what you say here about Pelican lake is true then please explain this to us.
If Pelican has more fish over 48” now than ever, then why has there only been 1 fish over 50” ever registered to muskies inc. from Pelican, which was back in 1995?
Why has the number of fish 40” or larger registered to muskies inc. from Pelican lake steadily declined from 1991 until now?
If you look at the total number of fish 40” and larger registered to muskies inc. from Pelican lake from 1991 until today you will find that:
59% were caught between 1991 and 1995.
30% were caught between 1996 and 2000.
11% were caught between 2001 and today.
Why has the number of fish 45” or larger registered to muskies inc. from Pelican lake steadily declined from 1991 until now?
If you look at the total number of fish 45” and larger registered to muskies inc. from Pelican lake from 1991 until today you will find that:
55% were caught between 91 and 95
27% were caught between 96 and 2000
18% were caught between 2001 and today
How can you say, “I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.”?????
I suspect you feel that the muskies inc. data is not credible because it does not support your own opinions as is pointed here with regards to Pelican Lake. Please show us or tell us where we can find the same data that you apparently have seen that supports your opinions and differs from the muskies inc. data shown here. |
|
| |
|
|
Interesting information on your two lakes - I've never seen a fin clipped fish on this side of Wisconsin, although I see them often in Minnesota. I'd love to understand why they are fin clipped and what information they get from doing this. Can you provide it? I do not dispute that different lakes will have different growth rates, but surely you can't dispute that different fish have different growth rates? By putting superior fish into poor quality lakes, we may get 45" instead of 40". In quality lakes we should get 57" instead of 52". I'm not sure where you stand on the big fish of the old days (world records and otherwise)
but when I go to Hayward, I see lot's of huge fish in the bars and museums. The lakes did not get any bigger - but the fish appear to be getting smaller. Or there are not as many big fish. I'm drawing the line at 53"
I like the Idea of slot limits - I like any idea that protects large fish. And I see nothing wrong with having lakes where fish can be harvested - even the large ones. I would like to see a network of lakes where the Biggest Baddest Muskies are protected and allowed to breed together. At the same time - I'm not going off the deep end - Action lakes are great too?
"Why does the Wisconsin River keep kicking out big fish? What the heck is up with the Moen Chain?"
I follow the Wisconsin river pretty closely - It does consistently give up big fish, no doubt. That would be one place I'd choose to net Big Muskies.
" I fished Bone alot in the 60's and 70's, and guess what, there were darned few 50's, if any"
Thats because they used genetically inferior fish in Bone Lake from day 1. When you factor in Winter spearing of large fish - It just makes my case on breeding large fish even better. We've stopped the harvest about as much as we can - BUT IT"S STILL SIGNIFICANT ON THE BIG FISH. Since we have limited ability to stop the taking of big fish, we need to examine the other end of things - Creating big fish. What can we do to create more big fish? Breed them.
I still don't believe it would cost any more money. The expense is in raising the fish. If we have less money, we need to be more careful about the fish we are raising. I'd love to get into this subject deeper sometime. I need to take a few days and lay this whole thing out. Let's give the DNR a raise (well deserved) and then let's send the out to net some Big Muskies!!!!
I appreciate your examples - but am still convinced that all animals will resemble their parents.
I'll try to get back on some of these other things also. this is not a wide sweeping generalization - but a narrow focused way to get more big muskies.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw,
I guide the lake, sir. There are WAY fewer Muskies Inc folks there, just don't see many at all. I know of 3 over 50" this fall alone. You figure Muskies Inc represents the total muskie fishing public? I used to belong, but didn't register my fish much. I don't at all any more. I also fish the lake recreationally quite a bit.
What happened here was an invasive specie went nuts, the Red Rusty Crayfish. The weeds went quickly, and as a result, the fishing became tougher, and much of the out of the area pressure went somewhere where the fish were easier to find and boat. The ANGLERS WENT ELSEWHERE, NOT THE FISH. Also, Thiel's Lakeview Inn was run by a Muskie man, and when he sold, the bar became more of a hangout for non anglers, and the trailers that used to house muskie anglers were removed. Also, the Native Americans spear that lake, and many mistakenly think the lake was badly damaged. Another factor is the reduction of the number of resorts catering to the Muskie angler. Several closed in the late 80's to early nineties, selling the land to folks who built year round homes. Advice; be careful to apply only one source of anecdotal data to draw your conclusions, you will end up not considering VERY important information and data that might be pertinent.
I live here. I know the stocking data, creel data, and fyke net data. The lake is in great shape; in my opinion better than when I first began guiding the water in the 70's. I had three- 5 -fish- over- 42" days two summers ago fishing the 18' breakline, something I feel is pretty incredible anywhere. There are a couple pictures of 50" Pelican fish right here onsite, BTW.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | sworrall
No I do not feel muskies inc represents the total muskie fishing public. Obviously it does not. But the muskies inc data does provide the largest sample size of CATCH data avaiable that people can evaluate that I am aware of. If the stocking data, creel data, and fyke net data that you have seen tells a different story than the muskies inc. catch data tells for this time period, then why not post it here so we can all see for ourselves that the muskies inc. data is apparently misleading? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 147
Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | One other thing that has me a little confused here.
You just said "the anglers went elsewhere, not the fish."
But in a post just prior to this you said "I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.
Huh???? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Eau Claire weather got you crabby, sir?
The pressure on Pelican is intelligent, local for the most part for the last several years other than the Kevin Worrall Memorial tournament and the Hodag, and yes, intense.
Yes, I have looked into the creel, netting and stocking data on Pelican, and it supports my ideas about the lake. The lake is VERY healthy, just different from what it was due to the invasives and a shift in predator/prey relationships. It IS tougher to fish than it was, but the fish are there in numbers and size.
I didn't say MI data is misleading. YOU chose those words. I said you should be careful not to draw conclusions from ONLY a largely anecdotal source, and that you should investigate further before jumping all over other's comments. I backed up my comments with facts about the type of pressure on the lake.
I thought I was clear. By the way, I respect what you say and have tried to voice my differing point of view in a reasonable fashion. I would ask you to reciprocate. |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Worrall - I agree with Lockjaw that it'd be great to actually see the DNR data you mention, instead of just taking your word for it. In particular I'd like to see information on the size structure of the Muskies in Pelican.
At over 3500 acres - this is a lake that should compare favorably with what we see happening in Minnesota.
While I agree that Muskies Inc. data is not perfect, it is without a doubt the single largest source of information on what people are catching. You made the statement that you don't register fish, but this happens everywhere - not just Pelican Lake.
I'd have to agree with Lockjaw that you do seem pretty quick to dismiss any data that does not agree with your opinion. You have completely dismissed the studies by biologists on genetics, as you have dismissed the Kill rates and catch rates posted by myself and Lockjaw. Specifically the data pulled from MI records should be looked on as facts - and I believe this data gives a best case scenario for both Release rates and numbers of large fish. This is because I believe MI members are more likely to 1. Catch and 2. Release large fish.
After you dismiss all this information, you say things like: "I know the stocking data, creel data, and fyke net data. The lake is in great shape; in my opinion better than when I first began guiding the water in the 70's."
I don't mean to sound critical - but I'd like you to share this data with us, so that we can all make more informed decisions.
One other question? what is the biggest Muskie ever taken from Pelican Lake? and what year was it caught?
Over here we have a history of Big fish - all my lakes gave up their biggest fish before I was born. If they aren't getting bigger - they are getting smaller.
|
|
| |
|
| Yesterday I received a picture of a 5 year old Muskie that was 47.5 inches s long and 29.2 pounds. I would make the case that ALL female muskies would grow like this under my plan. (Oh my God - I sound like John Kerry)
If we assume that 30 % of the muskies in a given lake are female - 30 % of the Muskies should be this size or bigger. This is what I see every day on the lakes that I currently spend time on. (I do a lot of driving.)
This was on a small lake with limited forage and not known to produce numbers of fish over 50 inches or 30 pounds - but I do not follow the lake closely. THE FISH HAS GOOD GENES. In this case it just so happened to be a Leech Lake strain fish. I believe the fish is part of Project Green Gene in Illinois.
Please spare me any comments about them growing faster down in Illinois. Those fish grow unbelievably fast everywhere you put them. All truly big Muskies get to a large size fast. If a fish is 10 years ald and is not 45 inches, I believe it will NEVER get to 50 inches. In fact I would only breed female Muskies that have reached 50 inches by age 10. If you tell me it costs too much to net these fsih, I will tell you that we are netting the wrong fish, and we have a bigger problem. One that would require a different strain of fish to be stocked. I don't believe that is the case - YET! I do believe things are getting worse and not better. I think we can change that, and I think enough people are coming around that we will see change soon. I'm hoping that we'll be organized by the Conservation Congress hearings this spring.
I'm researching data on Big Wisconsin fish now to get an idea of age vs. length. I have a friend who's in school for Fish Biology (or something like that) who has been aging muskies with scale samples - he often finds fish that are 36 inches and 15 years old in NW Wisconsin. Releasing those fish, does not create bigger Muskies - it creates more small ones. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| Wow Great Thread. Let the fisticuffs begin.
First my credibility is a degree in environmental science and biology, also a fettish with this very subject,GENTICS.
Steve I commend your reserch but your intuition is simply WRONG and VERY MUCH SO!
Bob you are right in almost everything you have said and I have had these same thoughts about a brood stock lake before reading this post. I'm not sure why you are posting anonymous.
1. holding all other compounding variables constant: LAKE SIZE is not the direct factor of fish size. PREY AVAILABILTY AND THE ENERGY TAKEN TO COSUME IS. big lakes allow the apex predator to consume more prey with less energy spent PERIOD. If you don't believe this READ A BOOK.
2. Steve with as much SCIENTIFIC information out there i'm not sure why you disregard genetics as much as you do. GENETICS ARE KEY TO HUGE FISH PERIOD. I feel no need to argue this point do your own reserch.
The key argument that is tuffling my feathers is your apparent disregard for the idea that using larger fish for breeding won't help. The last article about the leech lake strain speaks for itself. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS FISHERIES BIOLOGIST EXTRA EFFORT TO USE LARGER FISH WAS WRONG? I feel no need to argue this anymore either. The facts speak for themselves.
The main question here is why are fisheries biologist not selecting big fish for breading today? I'm not sure, but it is something that WE THE MUSKY COMMUNITY NEED TO BRING UP. Many biologist I know don't care about fish size, they are more concerned with the ecosystem itself which is fine, BUT CALL ME SELFISH BUT I WANT BIG FISH. The notion that selective breeding may cause increased chance of biological problems is a good question to bring up, but simply not the case.
My unltimate question for those in oppostion is HOW EXACLTY WILL THIS COST SO MUCH MORE MONEY??? this is the only factor which could prevent this from occuring.
-skippy
Edited by MuskieBum 10/31/2004 12:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| Bob now I may finally disagree with something you said. LOL. Where are you comming up with this data for the 5 year old fish??
Also make sure you take water temp into consideration when doing your reserch. Metabolism rates are differant everywhere you go.
git er done
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | MuskieBum:
Here are all my comments in this thread:
'I don't think the commercial fishing model would apply here, and the idea that a genetic attribute could be eliminated in that fashion is in my opinion a stretch, anyway. Normally, a slot style limit is imposed to protect reproduction by making sure the fish in their reproductive prime remain in the system. Not enough of the total Muskie population from the waters that would support fish of that quality has EVER been harvested in Wisconsin to cause what you describe to happen. I think the numbers of big fish in Wisconsin waters has increased over the last twenty years due to CPR, and by a considerable amount. The reasons Wisconsin looks anemic when compared to Minnesota are several, including the introduction of Great Lakes strain muskies in BIG, fertile, Minnesota impoundments and lakes and the successful introduction of a couple strains in GIANT Lake Mille Lacs and other bodies of water. Great fisheries because of great management and because of the ecosystem involved.
Watch for the BIG water areas in Wisconsin the Great Lakes strain has been introduced, and watch what happens with the quality, it will be there. CPR philosophy is strong in Wisconsin, with most fish getting returned.
I think some of the systems here in Northern Wisconsin should be designated as trophy only, perhaps at 50", maybe even 52". Will that insure greater numbers of 50" class fish available? No one is sure. I for one would sure like to see it tested. '
''Steve W. lives in WI.....so take his opinion into consideration. WI just doesn't get it.
People still love to kill muskies up there. But the resort owners must not mind the drop in business from hard core musky fishermen.....because I know very few people who would travel to WI for a musky trip. The fishing is so much better in Minnesota, Canada, heck, even Indiana.'
My opinion isn't based on where I live. It's based on fact and information from the DNR Fisheries folks here and in other areas as well. It's based on reality instead of emotion, and you have taken it out of context and attacked me and other muskie anglers from Wisconsin without justification based on what; your decades long experience muskie angling and dedication to the preservation and expansion of the sport? I think not, your comments are as usual when you go off on a rant, based on rhetoric and your acidic personal opinion, but stated as fact. I take special exception to the comment 'People love to kill muskies up there' Bull. Absolute Bull. The release rate here is as good or better as many to most areas in the country, WITHOUT legislating it to be so. I DO know many folks who came here to fish muskies this year, and can't tell you of a single killed fish out of many, many caught. I don't have to defend my personal record, that speaks for itself, but I WILL defend the record of other Wisconsin Guides and Muskie anglers from garbage slinging like that. You are out of line. The debate over the 50" limit proposal (and the reasons it failed, straight from the DNR Fisheries manager in Madison) was discussed at length here, and I believe I made my position clear as did many of the other anglers from this State. Everyone here feels we will get Trophy Only designations passed on more waters that will support the management technique, and soon.
The Muskie fishing is better in Indiana??? I have about 200 muskie lakes within easy driving distance of my house. Many hold and give up fish in the 50" class every year. Most muskies caught from these waters are released, just like most are in Indiana, Minnesota, and Canada.
I can fish 4 small muskie lakes in a day around home, and see maybe 3 or 4 other muskie boats. Many of these lakes and rivers see little or no real pressure. Unfortunately, most are under 500 acres, and are not suited for many reasons to support many muskies over 50", if ANY. I will wager there are nearly ZERO fish harvested off these waters, yet HMMMM, no really big muskies despite the fact the waters have been managed for Muskies for over 30 years. Does that mean they are poor lakes? Not to me. Lots of muskies, into the low 40" to mid 40" class, where they top out despite being into the upper teens or more in age. Not because of harvest, either, so don't even go there. Actually, there are many lakes JUST like that in Ontario, too.
I believe I covered the Minnesota issue. By the way, what IS the size limit on Cass, Leech, and Mille Lacs? Is it 50 or 52"? If not, why not?
What are the size limits on the Indiana lakes? Is there natural reproduction there as there is in most of the waters in Northern Wisconsin, or are most to all the muskies stocked there?
To clarify things a bit better, what the original poster was missing in the discussion is an understanding of Natural Selection and genetics, and what it would actually take to have the model proposed occur.'
'
1) Taking spawn from a 50" fish doesn't gaurantee a thing as to how big the offspring, stocked in another system with different water chemistry, food chain, water temps, and more. Ther IS no direct correlation between a fish reaching 50" and a guarantee the offspring will. Way too many variables. Will every female hatched from a 50" fish grow to 50"? No.
2) The DNR here KNOWS the strain they are using to stock, and what that strain is capable of. Explain why roe stripped from a 43" fish that is 10 years old and at the peak of it's reproductive capacity won't reach 50"? I know the DNR stripped fish from Pelican many times over the years, and that lake has kicked out many 50" fish. Same with lake Tomahawk. the strain of fish stripped and stocked DOES make difference, but that difference is subject to the ecosystem and all the variables contained there.
3) There is much more to the lake size issue than acreage. Cover, habitat, food chain, chemistry, water temps and size of the spawning areas in the Spring, fertility, and so much more including successful access to the big fish by the angler.
4) A study about a saltwater population of fish under commercial fishing pressure is pretty diffucult to compare to a completely different ecosystem in fresh water and a type of fish that is positioned in the ecosystem in a totally different fashion, not to mention the angling pressure isn't even remotely comparable. I'm not 'ignoring' the work, I just feel it's a stretch to transfer that one study to a new management philosophy for muskies.
5) Would generations of dogs grow bigger if the bigger yard allowed for better foraging, better puppy health at birth and throughout early development and allowed for natural selection/competition to assist in making that so? Maybe. Absolute apples to oranges there. You feed, care for, and either allow or not allow the dog to breed, both male and female. Take that controlled environment into the wild and have food become sparse over continuous generations because of bad populations of prey animals, and the dogs might just grow smaller.
6) A female muskie will be ready to spawn at too soon in nearly every case for the idea that all under 42" should be destroyed. Here is a good place to start reading about the subject. http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol04.html Here's another with a writer's perspective. http://www.fishontario.com/articles/world-record_muskie/
7) It's true that if 'every' fish that reaches 50" in a body of water is harvested, that there will be few 50" fish in that water. I doubt that is happening in most cases, but can be on some smaller or extremely heavily pressured waters in areas where CPR hasn't been brought to the front yet. If one wante to GUARANTEE no fish under 52" will be harvested, then that should be the limit if the fisheries folks feel the system will support it. I recently caught a couple in that class from a lake less than a mile from my house, which gets average pressure but produces a fair number of big girls every year because of the CPR ethic here in Oneida County pretty much 100% CPR and the system supports big muskies. The walleyes, though, do very poorly, because the prey they rely on is sparse.. That goes back to the education factor, not management. The DNR planted these fish in the late 80's and early 90's, and they are doing VERY well. CATCH AND RELEASE!! Some want that mandated for all waters here at over the capacity of that water, which makes little sense.The attempts to get the systems that match the models in the above mentioned articles and papers failed because it was rushed, there wasn't enough PR and educational work done with the public. We can and WILL get it done, if a bit more slowly and carefully so the public understands the project.
There is a huge reference out there in the scientific community that will get you the information you want about this issue. When I get back in off the road, I'll post another group of links on the 'net and get some book titles up.
Wisconsin gets it, alright, but we DO need to get the lakes capable of kicking out the big girls up to a 50" or even 52" limit.'
'Actually the comment was regarding when biologists do a study and anglers disregard it. I'm not one of those anglers, by the way. I was simply stating I felt the study on Cod doesn't necessarily correlate, and the concept that contemporary evolution is in play with the Wisconsin trophy Muskie population isn't based on or supported by the data available. Also, the CPR ethic we all want to spread encourages trophy release, not just smaller fish. There was a recent attempt by the DNR here to designate several lakes as 50" trophy only waters that failed due to the fact the public plain didn't understand the proposal. The public has a 'vote' in Wisconsin through the Conservation Congress, and can send a great proposal to the recycle bin in a hurry.
I agree with you many folks disagree with fisheries management because they are uninformed. My son works for the Wisconsin DNR and constantly is amazed what the 'locals' believe about the waters under study. I have a couple years study in the field as well, abandoned formally because of many reasons including the wage scale in Fisheries Management at the time. I continue to read, study, and learn as much as I can, despite the fact I chose a different field of endeavor. Whenever I run into a wall, I have a couple Fisheries Management buddies I can call to get straightened out. You'd be surprised how many folks visiting MuskieFIRST have a formal Fisheries, marine biology, or environmental science based education and are not practicing. It's a shame the folks who are so dedicated to the science and practicing management are not paid what the job is worth in so many states.
'There are so many variables to consider for each lake that it's very difficult to make a management decision that fits all situations. Some lakes may limit the production of big fish by winter habitat, spawning habitat, food, cover, the list goes on and on. If I were interested in managing certain waters for "big fish", however, I would look for a "reference lake" that consistently pays out "trophy fish". '
The links I posted do just that, and give away why I spend my vacation time fishing muskies where I do. '
Be careful to keep this in contect:
'The age of the fish stripped is not that hard to obtain through scale sampling and general knowledge about that water and it's Muskie populations. Yes, I would be opposed to stripping spawn from only 50" fish, as that wouldn't be a viable program even in waters where the 50" class of fish is large when compared to total population. The idea that the fish reached 50" strictly or even mostly because of genetics discounts environmental factors that can cause considerable differences year to year in growth rates in a single lake's population and substantial maximum growth differences in same sample year classes planted in different lakes. In short, I stand by the original concept that stripping big females doesn't mean one will get big females from stocked fish propagated from that effort in multiple lakes, impoundments, or rivers. In fact, the fish that actually reach that size might do so BECAUSE of environmental factors that favor the fish's genetics, which might not exist in the waters in which they are stocked. Look at Pewaukee, a near total put and take fishery. CPR and management has created a pretty good fishery that has produced a number of fish over 50" this year alone. The ONE true supertanker came out of that water after an extensive attempt to stock brown trout. Could the big fish and the brown trout have any cause/effect relationship? I don't know.
I would disagree with the idea that lakes producing big muskies do so because of the genetics alone, and the lakes producing small muskies do so for the same reason. The concept is simply incorrect. Also, your following statement implies that muskies from the lakes you are critical of mature more quickly, and do not have the genetic capacity to reach trophy size. How do you reach that conclusion? Also, there IS no 'strain' of Muskies that I am aware of that reaches a maximum of 38" as a female. By the way, the average length of a 7 year old female in Georgian Bay is 37.7", and the St. Lawrence average for a 7 year old is two inches longer. It is true that the growth rate at 7 years for a female muskie on some waters dictate the fish at viability will be 42" or more, but much more than genetics enters into that equasion.
I disagree that 100% of the available muskie population or anything close is captured on most waters, and can catagorically refute that idea on many northern Wisconsin lakes where creel data and fyke netting/boom shock data is available. Also, comparing a commercial fishing operation on saltwater that is HUGE, very concentrated due to the Cod's location, and extensive beyond most folks comprehension to sport fishing where catch and release is a clear and excercised option is very dicey. I still don't see a direct association on most Wisconsin waters to that article. Do we harvest most or all of the largest muskies? No. Many waters in fact show as much as 90% release rate due to CPR.
I mentioned a lake down the road from my house that sports a great population of 45" to 52" muskies from a stocking effort by the DNR. Fin clipping shows a direct link between the fish stocked and those in the 50" range today, they are one and the same. This is a 500 acre lake, well managed and well cared for by the local muskie anglers who have been accused here of 'not getting it'. There are several busy resorts on the lake as well, yet the overall release rate is excellent. Why does this lake support 50" fish and the SAME strain, stripped out of the same waters, that when stocked in another 500 acre lake here never seem to get past 45", despite the fact both lakes are fished by the same crowd and maintained similarly, and both have good habitat? It's the ecosystem itself, NOT the fish. By the way, both lakes support natural reproduction, successful enough to have great year classes available from the stocked generations.
Your statement number 5 totally disregards natural selection and all the associated elements effecting a population in the wild. The DNR can't 'breed' muskies successfully as you suggest, the undertaking would have to be MASSIVE, would be unbelievably expensive, and might not work in many waters anyway due to environment. I bet it would be a Fisheries Biologist's dream job to try, however!
Selective breeding is a controlled undertaking that doesn't allow ANY crossbreeding at all, so most lakes would have to be killed off completely to even begin the process. In short, your idea is noble, would probably work in a totally enclosed/controlled perfect environment (raising certain breeds of dogs, for example) at least short term if everything else was perfect.
By the way, commercial fishing for Muskies has been around in Canada for generations. Between 1837 and 1936, a total of 13,202,348 pounds of Muskies were harvested commercially in Ontario, and 2,888,045 pounds in Quebec. The practice has been severly curtailed, but the fish seem to be growing to an exceptional size despite the tremendous depletion during that time.
The last couple paragraphs are well intentioned I am sure, but what you are asking for isn't going to happen. It's simply not possible from so many standpoints it becomes a nice concept, but only that. There is strong evidence that the concept you are promotiong probably will not give you the results you seek.'
'Bob,
The studies you have posted all deal with fisheries and lab experiments under far more intense pressure than what we have here. The 'harvest' of large muskies here is extremely small, to the point of many passing on of old age. The model these articles suggest is one of intense harvest pressure taking most or all of the larger fish. If what you suggest is true, the lake down the road from my house and the other lake I mentioned, both stocked from the same hatchery, same years, same fish, should not have the variation they do. One lake, a small dark water system, produces fish in the 48" to 52" class from the stocked fish and offspring and the other rarely a 40" fish. Pressure on both is about the same, with the release rate very high. So following your article examples, the lake with the smaller fish seems to match the scenario, while the lake putting out the big fish doesn't. Please explain that, and why the fish that you claim are genetically inferior are reaching trophy size in one system, and not the other.
There may be a few waters in the state that are pressured to the point of evolution 'speeding up', but with today's CPR philosophy, it would require a wholesale taking of all or at least a majority of the big fish available. Are you suggesting that is the problem? If so, why can't we simply address the situation by raising the limit to the maximum size the fish EVER reach in each system, relegating the fishery to catch and release only for all intents, therefore allowing the adults to maximize their potential? If you feel the genetics are damaged, then one might use the strain that was planted in the lake right here in Rhinelander. Seems to be a good, strong, well developed genetic sample. here's one at about 12 years of age.'
'Yes, we can be certain the fish were from a stocking program, and we can be sure the other lake doesn't produce the same quality fish despite the fact they were both stocked from the same base at the same time. The fish were fin clipped. I admire your energy, now let's see you get your ideas applied. The 'from the horses mouth' post says it all, reality. Some lakes are able to support a trophy fishery, some not. That's a fact, and insisting it isn't is raging against nature. No matter WHAT you do, if you try to manage some waters for trophies, you are wasting the resource. By the way, some actually promote selective harvest as a management tool. What would a slot limit do for you? Say, allow the harvest of 34" to 39" fish, protect the 40" to (pick a size) fish, then allow harvest of only whatever the size is in that system the fish reach when at the end of their lifespan? Or should we NEVER harvest any ANYWHERE and cease all efforts to stock lakes where the fish simply do not grow to the desired size?
Why does the Wisconsin River keep kicking out big fish? What the heck is up with the Moen Chain? I fished Bone alot in the 60's and 70's, and guess what, there were darned few 50's, if any (I can only remember one) even though the crowd fishing there with us at the time was the Lindners, Portincaso, Latino, the McBride brothers, Jim Cairnes(pretty accomplished sticks from that era) so how the heck would the attached articles apply there?? How does one factor in the reality of Native American winter and spring harvest across the North which is NOT going to go away by ruling of the US Supreme Court? Things are not so simple, not by a long shot, and experiments are EXPENSIVE. Our DNR is so cash strapped, I can't even imagine that happening before they give a few folks a deserved raise. In Perfect, when our budget is all healed up, maybe we can get a few new warm water hatcheries which we desperately need, and see what the management folks think of an experiment like the one you propose.
I gave specific examples, and can give many more where recent management has vastly IMPROVED the population of trophy muskies from the genetics we have RIGHT NOW. Pelican Lake is another example. Great numbers despite the average 'big fish' harvest rate in the since I became familiar with the lake in the early 70's, heavy private and DNR stocking program in the 80's and 90's, good native population, good natural reproduction, excellent growth rate for a mostly perch based foarge and more fish now over 48" than ever. CPR has offset spearing, but the size of the average muskie in Pelican is excellent, year class distribution is great, and 'trophy' muskies swim in lake in good numbers consistent with the average for the total population. I personally feel despite the immense pressure on that water the overall trophy chances there continue to improve.
Waters have had 'crashes' in walleye, muskie, pike, panfish, or other populations of fish, that happens due to about a hundred different variables, including overharvest of SMALLER fish, in fact ALL fish of any one description. To difintitvely associate any population with the articles attached here is a good and valid question, but does not definite cause/effect. Each and every system has to be examined individually because each and every system is different. Heck, look at the creel census figures over the years and try to apply what you are suggesting. Wide, sweeping generizations won't cut it with the folks who are managing the muskies in Wisconsin, and budget, social, political, biological, and all other forms of reality HAVE to be considered.
'Also, my son does quite a bit of aging work with scale samples, I will ask him to produce a record, let alone a common occurence of a 16 year old 33" female sample and see what he can do. MI has good data, but the release/kill ratio you are discussingis only applicable to the TOTAL number of muskies in the system matching that size. What are those numbers? A ratio of personal choice on CPR is not a ratio of the total big fish in the system to total harvest of same from that year class. Waves on the water make the wind blow, go ahead and argue with that. Big waves, always big wind. No waves, no wind. Waves on the water make the wind blow.'
'Lockjaw,
I guide the lake, sir. There are WAY fewer Muskies Inc folks there, just don't see many at all. I know of 3 over 50" this fall alone. You figure Muskies Inc represents the total muskie fishing public? I used to belong, but didn't register my fish much. I don't at all any more. I also fish the lake recreationally quite a bit.
What happened here was an invasive specie went nuts, the Red Rusty Crayfish. The weeds went quickly, and as a result, the fishing became tougher, and much of the out of the area pressure went somewhere where the fish were easier to find and boat. The ANGLERS WENT ELSEWHERE, NOT THE FISH. Also, Thiel's Lakeview Inn was run by a Muskie man, and when he sold, the bar became more of a hangout for non anglers, and the trailers that used to house muskie anglers were removed. Also, the Native Americans spear that lake, and many mistakenly think the lake was badly damaged. Another factor is the reduction of the number of resorts catering to the Muskie angler. Several closed in the late 80's to early nineties, selling the land to folks who built year round homes. Advice; be careful to apply only one source of anecdotal data to draw your conclusions, you will end up not considering VERY important information and data that might be pertinent.
I live here. I know the stocking data, creel data, and fyke net data. The lake is in great shape; in my opinion better than when I first began guiding the water in the 70's. I had three- 5 -fish- over- 42" days two summers ago fishing the 18' breakline, something I feel is pretty incredible anywhere. There are a couple pictures of 50" Pelican fish right here onsite, BTW. '
'Eau Claire weather got you crabby, sir?
The pressure on Pelican is intelligent, local for the most part for the last several years other than the Kevin Worrall Memorial tournament and the Hodag, and yes, intense.
Yes, I have looked into the creel, netting and stocking data on Pelican, and it supports my ideas about the lake. The lake is VERY healthy, just different from what it was due to the invasives and a shift in predator/prey relationships. It IS tougher to fish than it was, but the fish are there in numbers and size.
I didn't say MI data is misleading. YOU chose those words. I said you should be careful not to draw conclusions from ONLY a largely anecdotal source, and that you should investigate further before jumping all over other's comments. I backed up my comments with facts about the type of pressure on the lake.
I thought I was clear. By the way, I respect what you say and have tried to voice my differing point of view in a reasonable fashion. I would ask you to reciprocate.'
OK, that's what I had to say so far.
NEW POST IN RESPONSE TO MB:
Where did I say that big fish have to come from big lakes? In fact, I stated that I have a very small lake near my house that produces big fish in great numbers when compared to the total population in the lake and the lake size due to a stocking effort by the DNR. And where did I say that genetics have nothing to do with big fish? I never said either, far as I can remember.
I also didn't, don't, and never would 'disregard' genetics, I cautioned over and over again that simply introducing a 'good' genetic strain into any Wisconsin Lake will not necessarily produce 50" plus fish. I also stated that we HAVE some strains here with good genetics, and listed a couple examples including Lake George and Pelican and the differences between those lakes and others in the area that are similar in size but due to many factors including prey type and availability, do NOT produce large fish. I also mentioned that the DNR here is stocking Great Lakes strain where they feel the fish will do well. Would the Great Lakes strain produce more fish over 50" than the Arbor Vitae or Tomahawk stripped fish would when stocked in Spider Lake or the Moen Chain? Bob and Lockjaw claimed the lakes that didn't produce 50" class fish had to be stocked with an inferior strain, but they were actually stocked with the same fish as lakes producing big girls stocked with the same hatchery raised fish during the exact same timeframe. Since you're credentialed, I'll ask you this:
You said clearly that prey availability and energy spent to consume same is the key, not necessarliy lake size. If the lake or impoundment is large, you stated that also that big lakes allow for the top predators to access th. That is EXACTLY what I said, several times, mentioning water chemistry, and other variables as well, mand that is what I was referring to with the efforts in Minnesota on Mille Lacs, Leech, Cass, and like waters. If the lake IS constant with all other variables, what will happen if one introduces fish with excellent genetics into a system that has a poor forage base, type or numbers? Bob claimed that a lake as I just described should produce big muskies, and that it's the fish, not the lake. Is he correct? What of competition from other species, if the lake is as I just described? Is there not a big difference between lake and river characteristics and what any system can sustain for large fish?
I also did NOT say that using big fish for selective breeding won't help. I said, I thought pretty clearly, that using big fish for breeding will not guarantee big fish in the lake or river where they are stocked, and will stand by that statement. I also said that using only 50" fish to strip for spawn is not a viable concept , even in a brood stock lake because the number of fish required to get enough fry is too large vs potential availability to maintain the program the state undertakes for the Muskie fishery. Another point I tried to make is this:
If one has a good proven genetic base in a strain, why would one ONLY strip fish of trophy size? Wouldn't you agree that the genetic traits should be carried by the younger and prime fish of that proven population at say 44" in the same waters? Is there any literature out there that suggests that the viable fish from a good genetic strain will produce smaller offspring if stripped when 40", and larger if stripped when 48"?
Also, I questioned the some of the statements made in this thread because of this, now tell me I'm wrong and why:
If the strain used for stocking produces 50" to 54" fish in one system and only fish up to low 40's in another, what exactly is wrong with the genetics? Should that strain be 'killed off' and replaced with another? I only have 2 years education in environmental science and biology and that was in the 70's, but some things don't change all that much, I wouldn't think. I am only asking that all the points described here be considered in the reality of the economic, social, environmental, and biological reality we have here in Wisconsin today.
OK, you mention I get cranked up when 'someone doesn't agree with my point of view'. That isn't the issue, sir. My point of view or yours isn't the relevant factor here, it's the overall discussion and the points made by all involved, correct and incorrect, balanced against fact. I made the points I described pretty carefully, but none the less am (in my very humble opinion) falsely accused of a disregard for genetics, lack of understanding about forage/predator relationships and lake size, and more.
Much of the original argument of was taken out of original context of the discussion which was accelerated evolution being the reason for smaller fish in Wisconsin, which has an entirely different argument for lake size, and then applied to big fish stripped=big fish no matter the lake.
Should one be direct about being taken out of context, misquoted, or misrepresented?
You said;LAKE SIZE is not the direct factor of fish size.
Your point was to refute a concept you thought I had that a small lake wouldn't produce big fish. You obviously didn't read my posts about the big fish in the little lake a couple miles from my house.
Then you said, in the next sentense; PREY AVAILABILTY AND THE ENERGY TAKEN TO COSUME IS. big lakes allow the apex predator to consume more prey with less energy spent PERIOD.
I agree with you, and said nothing in any of my posts that would indicate I don't. It does, however, sound like a direct contradiction of you previous statement. I could, if I was inclined, argue with you about that, but I know what you meant and took it in context IE that a small lake can produce big fish if the predator/prey relationship is correct, but that big lakes, all other factors to remain constant, are advantaged because of same, as you stated in the quote above. You were attempting to indicate that I was incorrect and didn't understand lake size and trophy potential, but you had not read my posts carefully or you would have seen I already made those same points.
Then you said this; If you don't believe this READ A BOOK.
Hmmmm.
To answer the Pelican Lake question; the biggest I know of was caught a couple years ago and was 55". I have a 54, a 54.5, and 13 over 50 in my boat. Some of those fish were the strain that was stocked there. The lake was stocked heavily up to 1998.
Lake George and the Moen Chain were also stocked heavily using the same brood stock. George produces some really nice fish, and there's quite a few in that puddle. The Moen has a deserved reputation of rarely putting out a fish over 48" but has good numbers of low 40" fish. Why is that? Accelerated evolution? Bad genetics? MuskieBum, what do you think?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, I agree that numbers lakes are a reality, and kinda like them, too. The fish that was 47.5 at 5 years, was that an Ontario fish?
Also, I asked around a bit, and found that 35" males at 10 years are not uncommon, but 35" females that age seem to be. What I'm told is that the fish that peak out at say 45" in a system are usually average age to growth ratio in the first few years unless there is an environmental anomoly, but do not then seem to grow as fast in the later years or ever reach 50 plus primarily because of environmental factors. Of COURSE genetics has a key role balanced with environment. My argument was never that genetics were not critical, my argument was mostly a series of questions and points as to why some systems kick out big fish and some don't from the SAME genetic sample.
Here are some stocking figures for the lakes I referenced at one point or another in the discussion.
I started guiding Pelican in 1974, guided full time from 1979 to 1989 and experienced the impact of the stocking which I still feel was fantastic for the fishery. I started guiding George in '85. I fished the Moen, but didn't guide it because I felt the system was primarily a numbers flowage. Oddly, records for Thompson ( a favorite of mine, low density, good quality, but a BIG fish of 50" is rare) are not available. The relevant stocking to todays trophies surviving from any of these is probably 1977 at the oldest to date, and from my understanding of the average age of the muskies here that would be pretty old.
George:
8217 since 1972.
Moen:
3820 since 1972
Pelican:
33826 since 1972 PLUS 100,000 fry in 1996.
Crescent:
11612
Boom Lake Flowage:
3874 10" plus, and 200000 fingerlings. Stocking there began in 1991. I've seen a marked increase in fish up to 48 myself, but that is my observation and is anecdotal. I've fished this water on and off since 1979.
Crescent seems to be putting out big fish as often now as it was in the 80's, as is Boom. Keep in mind Boom is part of the Wisconsin River system, too. Crescent receives big pressure with Native American winter spearing. Boom doesn't, nor do Moen, Pelican or George, don't know why. May be a water clarity issue.
I want to make myself clear, as a few folks have decided I am saying something I am NOT. I feel we have the genetics NOW and HERE in Wisconsin to develop new and continue to manage existing trophy fisheries. My opinion is some waters would support that effort, some will not. Those that won't are not worth the expense and effort, but definitely are worth managing for muskies in the context of the lake or river's ability to support a fishable population. Trophy anglers can just skip that water. The DNR promoted a list in concert with a group of anglers a couple years ago of waters THEY felt would support a trophy only fishery. The proposal was voted down ( great idea, letting the public manage the fisheries managers, sheesh), primarily due to a lack of knowledge and an even larger lack of proper promotion of the idea of and to the folks who voted against the proposal. The DNR here HAS stocked spotted muskies, and is doing so in waters they feel will support the strain and grow them huge. WHAT I DON'T AGREE WITH is the concept that all musiies should be raised from only 50" class stripped fish and that doing so will create a strain that will grow to 50" plus no matter where they are stocked. I stated I felt the development of a 'super strain' and successful manipulation of existing populations to successfully introduce those fish by our DNR would be very expensive, and probably not politically 'workable' right now. Keep in mind, we are not starting from scratch here, most of the waters that will support muskies already have a population. I also mentioned that simply introducing a super strain into a lake or river would not necessarily produce super tanker fish. I stand by that idea.
I also started my comments in this debate with the personal belief that accelerated evolution is not what is wrong with most muskie waters in the state of Wisconsin. I stand by that belief as well, but will be discussing the idea with the fisheries folks in Madison and Woodruff tomorrow to get their perspective.
OK, everyone, pile on...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
|
Steve this is your quote that caused my earlier response.
"There IS no direct correlation between a fish reaching 50" and a guarantee the offspring will"
This statement is somewhat misleading and you can read it different ways. THERE IS A DEFINATE CORRELATION BETWEEN FISH REACHING 50" AND THIER OFFSPRING REACHING IT AS WELL. is it gauranteed? No, as you said. I now understand what you were saying but your theme for all the posts is very one sided to try to prove your ultimate point which is a point that I can not quite figure out yet. I think your point is defending WI fisheries programs and why WI doesn't produce big fish.
Are you saying WI lakes are too small to produce large numbers of big fish? There are plenty of lakes in WI that should produce super tankers yet dont. WHY? What happened to the absolute slobs that were caught in past generations? Your only defense to this question is to say that lake conditions have changed which is why there are no more HUGE fish caught in WI: Very weak argument.
There is only a very small amount of Individuals who possess this Saquile Oneil characteristic. It is possible that your lake by your house that produces big fish luckily was introduced with Saqs offspring. Get it? I'm trying to make this clear but I may be slaughtering it.
You can not simply put all stocked fish into one category in referencing the BIG stocked fish that have been caught. Maybe the Striped Mother was a 40" 6 year old female (Huge fish for its age, thus great genetics) who's offspring had great genetics thus great size. The other lake next to your house that you refer to, that doesn't produce big fish, was not necessarily stocked with the same genetic offspring even though they were the same strain.
all people in a family are not the same size so you can't say that randomly picking someone out of the family(which in fish, genetics vary to a much higher degree) will guarentee good genetics.
Steve could you explain why it would be impossible, in economical terms, to have one lake that was just stocked with Super Fish and only use this brood stock lake's best growing individuals for reproducing? (This question is intended to get answered because I honestly don't know)
I'm not trying to throw mud here, Just hoping to inform and learn.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 236
| Steve why are you saying things like this.
"Keep in mind, we are not starting from scratch here, most of the waters that will support muskies already have a population. I also mentioned that simply introducing a super strain into a lake or river would not necessarily produce super tanker fish. I stand by that idea. "
Its too politcal of a statment. Just because it doesn't gurenteee it doesn't mean its not a VERY LIKELY Positive Possiblilty. INTRODUCING BETTER GENETIC FISH WILL PRODUCE BIGGER FISH PERIOD.
My goal is to produce better Musky fishing in WI, I'm not sure what your's is.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | "There IS no direct correlation between a fish reaching 50" and a guarantee the offspring will" I stand by that comment in the context of the argument at the time it was posted. Bob and Lockjaw were saying that if we strip only 50" fish, the offspring will all grow to 50" regardless of the waters in which they were stocked. No correlation in that context. Sure, in a perfect environment, there is, but that doesn't mean that a muskie that is 50" will produce ONLY adult females that are 50". Too many variables, and the male enters the equasion too. If you added 'possibly' to your second all caps statement, I'd agree 100%.
My argument is not at all one sided. I am simply stating that some lakes here DO put out big fish, and some do not. The stocking of those lakes was undertaken using 6 to 12" fish from the same hatchery, stripped from the same waters, and distributed through the stocking program here. Year class observations ( not single big fish) produce an AVERAGE year class female big fish catagory in some waters, yet not in others. What I'm trying to say is it isn't as simple to produce a trophy fishery as just stocking the 'right' fish, and that in may cases, the 'right' fish for one system may not be for another.
NO on the small lake question, I'm not saying that at all. Again, my example of Lake Goerge, a 500 acre lake that produces big girls because it is currently environmentally well suited to do so compared to a couple similar lakes that don't despite the fact they WERE stocked with the same strain, stripped from the same lakes, at the same time. So the basketball player anology doesn't fit logically. Same parents, same genetic sample raised the same year in the same hatchery from the same stripping of the same waters, yet one lake less than 3 miles from another similar lake produces big fish and two similar lakes do not.
The original subject here was accelerated evolution, by the way. The discussion accelerated and evolved faster than the fish, that's for sure! 
I didn't say that a brood lake stocked with only genetically superior fish from say....Wabigoon, would be 'impossible' as in not biologically viable. I carefully qualified my statements with the reasons it probably won't happen anytime soon here, which are, not necessarily in order of previous posts:
1) Cost of running the program, probably at least two area managers and support staff to manage the project, acquiring the brood stock, designating a lake that will support the idea and getting that past those who live there. It would have to be a lake with no current muskie population and enough food existing for the muskies to do well, plus the availability for the fish to reproduce there, be relatively easily captured by Fyke net, etc.
2) OK, we get that done. How many adults can one raise from fry raised in a hatchery from this brood lake? Enough to stock hundreds of Wisconsin Muskie lakes with 12" fish? If we are talking about creating 'new' big fish waters, then that means we need to stock lakes that have NO muskies in them or that we stock lakes where natural reproduction doesn't occur; or that we somehow remove all the existing muskies in the lakes where we have natural reproduction to preserve the new strain from crossbreeding with the existing strian, which if it happened might actually produce a disaster. Just because a strain grows big doesn't mean it is suited well to compete and dominate the top predator spot any one system or another, quite the contrary. If we stock these fish in Pewaukee, they might not compete well with the Pike, existing population, etc. for the available forage, as an example. In other words, we don't even know how well this fish will adapt in many of our waters.
3) The State of Wisconsin doesn't have enough personnel, enough warm water hatchey facility ( I was a keynote after dinner speaker at a meeting of Natural Resources Fisheries Biologists not toooo awful long ago, and heard repeatedly about the need for more facilities, people, and money to properly manage the fisheries in the State), and enough money to start this program, much less bring it to reality. Budget cuts have already near gutted the DNR, Forestry, and other vital state organization's current ability to do much more than meet the status quo. Some rumor that the fisheries management here might cease to exist as we know it in the not too distant future if things don't get better soon. GOOOOO WISCONSIN ECONOMY!! New taxes on the Sportsman, maybe? Dedicated federal and state funds to create trophy muskie waters? Not too likely, I'm afraid. We are underfunded, and that's all there is to it.
As to the absolute slobs caught by earlier generations, that would be restricted to a few storied waters in the state, like the Chip. I think the fish caught there might have been as rare as hen's teeth even then. Was there a super strain that was lost completley to overharvest, or to a introduced strain better suited to dominate there? Maybe. Did the fishery crash due to any one of a host of variables like overharvest of a prey fish the muskies were reliant on? Maybe. I don't pretend to know. As far as Vilas and Oneida, and surrounding counties and big fish, the 'good old days' are right now. Look at Greg Bohn's 56.5, pretty nice fish! look at the pictures of the pigs from Vilas in the August/September/October picture contest. A 52" fish in the 50's was many times destined to be a 56" or even 60" by the time the story got into the 80's anyway. Now every fish picture is examined by sooo many folks it is either legit or blown out of the water right away.
Are the great lakes strain Muskies faster growing faster and do they get bigger than the barred if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL? I honestly think so, but Mille Lacs may just prove me to be wrong there.
By the way, I'm trying to do exacly what you stated in your last sentense myself!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here you go, MuskieBum, from the Panel discussion including Scientists Hanson, Axon, Casselman, Haas, Schiavone, and Martin Smith from the Lakeland MI Chapter published in the book ' Managing Muskies', A Treatise on the Biology and Propagation of Muskellunge in North America :
Quote:
Wingate (1986) discussed past and present philosophies for muskkellunge management. Management goals generally fall within one of the following catagories:
1) preservation of a self-sustaining natural population
2) restoration ofa foremerly self sustaining natural population
3) managing a fishery for maximum recreational opportunity
4) increasing predator populations to control the abundance of a prey species
Under 1 and 2 a healthy, natural population is the primary concern, and angler use is allowed only to the extent as to not harm the resource. Management under catagory 3 will manipulate the maximise opportunityand stocking is considered an acceptable cost of doing business. 4 is merely a tool for managing other species, and hasn't worked well in many instances.'
End Quote
OK, part of the following discussion:
Quote;
'The Muskellunge has limited geographic distribution (Crossman 1978)and is maintained by supplemental stocking throughout much of it's range by stocking. (Ragan, et al, 1986, and Porter, 1977) It is therefore imperitive to preserve what is left of the 'wild' muskellunge resourse and not allow it to be available only as a domesticated fishery.
Most states/provinces manage muskellunge for 'trophy' sized fish.The definition of a trophy varies among anglers, depending on past experiences.While the anglers have the luxury of making personal definitions, managers neeed a clear biological definition of 'trophy management'.Three possible definitions for consideration are:
1) Management for maximum density of 30" fish
2) Management for a large percentage of individual fish to reach their potential ultimate sizes
3) Management to produce a world record size fish.
Management decisions under these definitions will differ greatly. For instance, under definition 3, genetic manipulation through selective breeding or bioengineering may be desirable, whereas, under definition 2, management will emphase maximum production within existing genetic constraints. Management for a high density may lead to reduced growth rates and would conflict with definition 2 and 3. Limited angling pressure in the past has allowed adequate management in the absence of a clear definition of the program goal; however, the future will not be so kind. Managers will need specific program objectives concerning the management philosophy as well as management goals regardint the desired density, size and age structure of populations.
RESEARCH NEEDS-Genetics-The subject of identification of genetic stocks of muskellunge has been of historical interest and is discussed by Crossman (l986). Despite this interest, little work has been done on stock identification and evaluation of stock characteristics until recently (Hanson et al. 1983, and Koppelman and Philipp 1986), and both need a great deal more study. Once identified, genetic diversity of self-sustaining populations needs to be preserved. The impact of stocking practices on the genetic diversity in natural populations is generally unknown. This problem needs attention, particularlily since the inability of hatcheries to handle large numbers of adults from many populations makes the muskellunge a candidate for inbreeding and inadvertent selective breeding.
Management agencies need to develop a policy for preservation of native stocks and their genetic suitability. Issues which should be addressed include documentation of present diversity, evaluation of the effect of management practices on diversity and identification of conditions under which selective breeding and genetic engineering should be considered. '
There's a good portion of the 'rub'. Introduction of a 'superior' strain's genetics into a system that already has a sustainable population of 'good' fish (Pelican Lake in Oneida County, for example) would probaly not be acceptable to most fisheries managers. The introduction of that same strain might create the scenario as described above: 'The impact of stocking practices on the genetic diversity in natural populations is generally unknown. This problem needs attention, particularlily since the inability of hatcheries to handle large numbers of adults from many populations makes the muskellunge a candidate for inbreeding and inadvertent selective breeding.'
Not to mention the additional strain already added to some lakes through supplemental stocking to date. The overall effect of adding another strain isn't known.
And, I still offer the point that some waters won't support a trophy muskie fishery and in fact don't now despite the fact a stocking that produced trophy fish in another lake produced only average muskies there. If indeed the Fisheries folks feel a lake has trophy potential, I'd be all for management towards that goal. If they feel the addition of say, the Great Lakes muskie, would be a benefit, I'd support that too, of course. That's exactly what was done in Green Bay, producing some pretty big fish so far. I have great hopes for the Winnebago system, too. MuskieBum, you asked what are my goals? To see the Muskie program in Wisconsin and across the country improved, and see the TOTAL management of both trophy quality fisheries and 'number' fisheries expanded. Same as most, I'd bet, but with at least a rudimentary acceptance of the political, social, and economic problems presented against achieving that goal as a resource today. First things first, let's get the 50" limit passed on 13 lakes in the North. According to Madison, we would know in as little as 5 years if that is working. Let's fund the study the effects of genetic manipulation in trophy muskie management and effects of inadvertant selective breeding and perhaps if applicable accelerated evolutionary pressures, and get more money designated to our fisheries departments. That might also do wonders for my sons job security.
All of us who are part of the Muskie world's social fabric also need to be keenly aware that not all others sharing the resources our Muskie waters represent understand or agree with our desired goals. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, those of us who would 'carry a torch' for change which will require adjustments for all who use the resource should do so with that firmly in mind. That might be called politics by some, to me it's social awareness.
Just the typo filled ramblings of an old muskie fanatic.
By the way, didn't the fisheries folks on the Great Lakes have a super strain of King Salmon stocked? How'd that go? Any monsters yet? That is a put and take fishery and the hybrid engineered superior King Salmon raised in a hatchery so it should by account of some arguments here, be a slam dunk. I have not heard what happened, anyone have that information?
I know the hybrid Bluegill work went very well, I've already experienced the success there by catching and eating a few. |
|
| |
|
| I'll register soon, I'm not a regular poster. My name is Bob Benson, I live in Chetek, Wisconsin. I've been spending most of my time fishing Minnesota - but I want to fish for Big Muskies in Misconsin.
"Bob now I may finally disagree with something you said. LOL. Where are you comming up with this data for the 5 year old fish??"
50 inch fish in 10 years is considered phenomenal growth rates. I've always heard this type of growth only happened in the south - like Kentucky. I've since found that it happens on a regular basis in Minnesota. I've also found cases of this in Wisconsin (example - 54 inches in 10 years in Wisconsin). This also happens in smaller lakes as well as larger lakes. I'm working to get more data here. If anyone has data please post it - I'm interested in the growth rates of large fish only. I'd like to compare the ages of 50 inch fish across regions.
I will contend that the largest fish are the first fish to be harvested, making later generations smaller - because we remove these fish first.
I am also coming to the conclusion that the supposed "First introduction" of Muskies into a body of water creates the largest fish with the following generations being smaller. This is also untrue. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe this is brought on by man harvesting the largest fish in the system leaving only smaller one's to breed. I'm watching this happen in Minesota now. The release ofall muskies is relatively high. What I see is many people keeping the largest fish. While release is 99% overall, 33% of the muskies I've heard over 54" have been harvested. (1 of 3) Some of this is secondhand information , and I know people will say this is a "small sample group". I say this a huge sample group for fish of that size and is representative of what happens everywhere.
|
|
| |
|
| Steve - I never stated or implied that all eggs taken from a 50" female will grow to 50 inches. (I didn't check this on the thread) What I'm trying to say is that eggs taken from a 50" female have a better chance of becoming 50" fish than eggs taken from a smaller female (say - 40") of the same or similar age. I feel we need to do this based on past and continued harvest of large fish. It only makes sense and can do no harm.
I will also dispute the fact that Lake and forage are the primary factor in growth rates. I base this on the study Minnesota DNR did in checking the growth of various strains. My interpretation of this study is that they stocked 4-5 different strains in a single body of water and got different growth rates for the different strains. If it was the lake and the forage - the growth would have been the same for all fish stocked. Feel free to correct me on this. Please chime in here you biology majors. I will agree that from the same group of eggs the lake and forage will have an effect on Size. But GENETICS come fist. If you stock a Shoepac muskie in Mille Lacs - will it grow to 50"??? Highly unlikely. Doesnt matter how much forage they have.
Give me a 55" female and a 48" male Muskie of ANY strain and i believe I can grow 50" muskies in any body of water in Wisconsin. What about all the 35" in those lakes now? They'll make a good forage base, for the fish I'll stock.
Questions for the Minnesota folks: Are there any lakes where the Leech fish fail to grow to lare sizes? I've got friends fishing small metro lakes and they seem to be encountering 50" fish on all of them.
|
|
| |
|
| Steve - you detailed the plan below it's a bunch of BS. Period. (sorry for stating that so strongly)
1) Cost of running the program, probably at least two area managers and support staff to manage the project, acquiring the brood stock, designating a lake that will support the idea and getting that past those who live there. It would have to be a lake with no current muskie population and enough food existing for the muskies to do well, plus the availability for the fish to reproduce there, be relatively easily captured by Fyke net, etc.
My Answer - we net the fish the same as we do today. No new personnel, just a new Brood lake.
2) OK, we get that done. How many adults can one raise from fry raised in a hatchery from this brood lake? Enough to stock hundreds of Wisconsin Muskie lakes with 12" fish? If we are talking about creating 'new' big fish waters, then that means we need to stock lakes that have NO muskies in them or that we stock lakes where natural reproduction doesn't occur; or that we somehow remove all the existing muskies in the lakes where we have natural reproduction to preserve the new strain from crossbreeding with the existing strian, which if it happened might actually produce a disaster. Just because a strain grows big doesn't mean it is suited well to compete and dominate the top predator spot any one system or another, quite the contrary. If we stock these fish in Pewaukee, they might not compete well with the Pike, existing population, etc. for the available forage, as an example. In other words, we don't even know how well this fish will adapt in many of our waters.
My reply - we use the same hatcherys as today. we leave the fish that are in the lakes alone. I'm not suggesting we get fish from, Leech, Wabigoon, or the great Lakes. (Although to be clear - I would not oppose it) I'm suggesting we only use the biggest fastest growing fish from our existing Wisconsin strain as Brood fish.
3) The State of Wisconsin doesn't have enough personnel, enough warm water hatchey facility ( I was a keynote after dinner speaker at a meeting of Natural Resources Fisheries Biologists not toooo awful long ago, and heard repeatedly about the need for more facilities, people, and money to properly manage the fisheries in the State), and enough money to start this program, much less bring it to reality. Budget cuts have already near gutted the DNR, Forestry, and other vital state organization's current ability to do much more than meet the status quo. Some rumor that the fisheries management here might cease to exist as we know it in the not too distant future if things don't get better soon. GOOOOO WISCONSIN ECONOMY!! New taxes on the Sportsman, maybe? Dedicated federal and state funds to create trophy muskie waters? Not too likely, I'm afraid. We are underfunded, and that's all there is to it.
My reply - We need to be smarter with our limited resources and budget. By taking eggs from the best fish available, we will be doing just that.
In Summary - there are two places we have a chance to affect our fisheries when we PUT fish in and when we TAKE them out.
I strongly feel we need to start focusing on the genetics at the beginning of the process. I'd love to see 58" size limits on trophy lakes - but it's not going to happen any time soon. I don't even feel it's necessary if we do the right things when we stock fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Thanks for the answers. OK, let me get this straight.
1) You are suggesting that Wisconsin strips spawn only from 'young' fish of trophy stature. Is that correct?
2) You suggest we have a brood lake to do this from. How does the state accomplish that? What lake? Where do the fish come from to stock this lake or does this lake already exist? What about the muskies already IN that lake, wouldn't they interbreed if we are to 'create' the strain were looking for? Which hatchery would raise the fish?
3) You are stating that a 1 in 3 kill ratio of the biggest fish caught by angling from any particular lake will cause accelerated evolution?
4) You feel that with the budget the DNR has today they could radically alter the muskie stocking program, and that the idea would be accepted by the CC and the area fish managers? That stripping spawn from one lake would give the state enough muskies to stock at the rate they do currently?
4) You feel Leech Lake strain would be successful anywhere they are stocked and grow to trophy sizes? Same applies to Wisconsin strains that grow fast and get big? Didn't some Illinois waters get stocked with that strain and the project failed? I remember something about that, any insight form someone familiar with what happened there?
4) You feel that forage, water quality, chemistry, and all the other environmental factors that make up the waters you would have the fish stocked in would not effect maximum size or growth rates? Or are you saying that all things equal no matter how infertile the system, that one strain from Northern Wisconsin will out do another and grow to trophy size?
5) You do not think that offspring from 50" fish would all reach 50". I stand corrected. How much of an effect would your plan actually have on the lake's total population assuming stockings of perhaps 1 fish per acre every other year that are added to the naturally reproducing population already in place? How would they differ? Should those fish that are not 'superior' and do NOT reach trophy size from the stocked fish be allowed to breed, and how would that be checked? How much a percentage of the adults stocked reaching trophy size is acceptable?
6) Are you suggesting that all fish are aged before stripping them for spawn?
7) Are you going to answer the continuous question that I asked:
Why does the same stocked fish, from the same lake, stripped during the same spring, raised at the same hatchery, grow to 50" in one lake, and only low 40" class in others?
8) Where are the biggest, fastest growing fish in Wisconsin? What lakes should we use for stripping spawn? What strain are these fish, and how do they differ genetically from fish in 'other' areas? Shoepac aside, that one is out of the discussion for obvious reasons and is a Minnesota strain anyway.
9) How many muskies do you suppose the Wisconsin DNR stocks per year?
OK, that will do for questions for now.
Answers:
We BOTH agree with some Wisconsin fisheries folks that there should be lakes in Wisconsin that are trophy only or at least managed for trophy fish. I'd like to see 54", but we couldn't pass FIFTY on LIMITED water, for cripes sake. I won't ignore the social and political reality here, and I'm baffled why you think you can. THE 50" PROPOSAL CAN PASS, but it will take a temendous amount of PR work.
The Wisconsin State budget stinks. Money is really tight. What I was saying and am saying is that your proposal for a new brood stock lake if one follows the parameters you laid out from the beginning for management practices of 'trophy only' muskies would cost extra money. I have contacted three biologists from the state and will report back with what I'm told.
FSF said it well. Re-read his post, it's pretty well presented, in my opinion.
No problem with the BS comment, but your answers didn't explain why my ideas were BS, they simply offered a different perspective with little information as to how it would be executed and attain what you are looking for. I'll refrain from calling your ideas BS if you will refrain from caling mine BS, deal?
 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | What we need is a cost benefit analysis to see if Bob’s idea is worth while. Correct me if I am wrong but I think Steve’s point is that it wouldn’t be.
It will cost more money to strip eggs from large females only. It is unrealistic to age them first, but getting eggs from only large females would be a possibility. But how much time and effort is required to get eggs from large females only. Big muskies are few and far between and whether we are trying to catch them hook and line or with a net they are harder to catch.
I can see Bobs point of trying to saturate the gene pool of stocked fish with fish that have big fish potential. It makes sense and I don’t think you would need to do it in a perfectly controlled environment just get those big fish genes out there in the lakes. If you stock 1 fish per acre for 10 years and those fish all have big fish potential it’s better than stocking 1 fish per acre with some of them not carrying that propensity for bigness. Also all the offspring of those fish would also carry that propensity. I don’t see a down side of that other than the initial cost of stripping.
One source I have says adult muskies carry between 22,000 and 180,000 eggs. That means one big fish is like getting over 8 smaller ones. When they do get the big ones in the net, they do save some time by having to strip less fish for the same amount of eggs. Now remember at the time of stripping, age is not known. So a young 42” female may have the big fish potential while an old 42” fish of the same size may not. But it’s pretty obvious that a 50” fish has the potential, though after aging it may be found that 50” fish is 30 years old and the hatchery just got 180,000+/- eggs with the slow growing genes.
There is no perfect way to do this, but the best way would be to develop some high density trophy waters and use those waters as brood stock lakes. Maybe the high limit could be applied to these lakes to protect the brood stock, like Mn does it. Of course the waters would need to have the make up to be able to sustain a high density trophy fishery. When this is establish please line me up at the landing.
But really to get this going all that needs to be done is establish these lakes with high limits. If they take off like everyone says they will, it would be a no brainer for the DNR to start netting these lakes for stripping. By doing this Bobs plan could maybe be implemented without any additional cost. The key is ESTABLISHING these lakes.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I just finished a conversation with the fisheries people in Madison. Here's a synopsis:
Q) Are there several strains of muskies planted in Wisconsin waters, and if so, what are they?
A) We stock the northern strain in all waters except Green Bay and the Winnebago system. Those fish are Great Lake strain and are obtained from lake St. Claire. Winnebago is being managed to reintroduce a muskie population there.
Q) Why are spotted fish not stocked in inland waters? Wouldn't we get larger fish as a result?
A) We have a policy to keep the strain in inland waters seperate. There is nothing wrong with the genetics of the fish we are stocking in inland waters. Most of the waters managed for muskies that have trophy potential are not producing trophy fish because of harvest. Many of the larger fish are harvested before they can reach trophy size. Lakes where catch and release is doing well are producing big fish. Some waters are not managed for trophies, and are not well suited to produce big fish. Q) I like those lakes, I call them 'numbers lakes'.A) Yes, one lake I fish has great numbers but very rarely produces a muskie trophy sized, but I catch as many as 5 muskies a day. Some lakes are not at all well suited to support large muskies, but we continue to manage them for muskies anyway.
Q) There is a strong desire by some of us to see trophy management with a 50" size limit on appropriate Wisconsin waters. I felt the poposal two years ago was pushed through to the Spring hearings before the public was informed well. Is there going to be a continuing effort to promote and develop 'trophy waters' in Wisconsin?
A) Yes. We have made some headway with public support in the North and Northwest and locally as well.
Q) There is a discussion now online about accelerated evolution. Do you feel that there is an effect on the Wisconsin muskie population from overharvest of large fish?
A) No. Of course, in any fisheries management program there's a danger of overharvest of the fish that grow the fastest, as they reach large size more rapidly. This scenario much easier to develop in the lab than in the field. We are very aware of the biology there, and do manage the fishery to avoid it. Our fisheries managers make sure that we acquire spawn from varying systems, size and age groups, generally assuring good genetic traits. We do not feel the muskie population is in any danger of experiencing this.
Q) Some here feel if we just stocked our waters with a different and better strain we would see immediate benefits and larger fish. What do you think of that idea, perhaps using Leech Lake strain for example?
A) We tried that in a few systems, and had very poor success. Our resident fish are well adapted to our State waters, but the others we tried were not and didn't do very well. We have excellent potential with the fish we have.
Q) Do we need another source for good fish to stock, another brood lake for example?
A) We have very good genetics in our resident population. We need to continue to encourage Catch and Release on waters where there is trophy potential. The muskie fishing overall is better now than it has been in decades. The 'good old days of Muskie fishing' in Wisconsin are now and into the future.
Tomorrow I am interviewing the top Wisconsin Muskellunge manager if I can get through to him and will post the conversation. |
|
| |
