Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air.... |  |
| Message Subject: Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air.... | |||
Bob |
| ||
| I'm back from the Dale Carnegie Institute. Hey, can someone post a picture of the Vilas Co. record - Myrl Mcfauls 53 pounder. There is a picture in the November 1995 Muskyhunter mag. page 62. A picture is worth a thousand words. Nothing but Spots from the headwaters of the Wisconsin river. What's been coming out of North Twin lately? Lake is the same size, forage is the same, what happened? | |||
| esox-dan |
| ||
| Recreational development is a job not of building roads into lovely country but building receptivity into the still unlovely human mind. -Aldo Leopold | |||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | We all know what happened. The lake got pounded and too many big fish were harvested. North Twin, no question is a prime candidate to get spottys back in there. If I were on the North Twin Lake Association, I would be pleading with the WDNR to put spottys back in there and get what once was a trophy musky lake back. In the end, the WDNR needs to make available spottys to lakes where there associations simply have no interest in waiting for the results of a long term genetic study. I would think that they would be happy to get started today and live with the results. To me , that is a win win. Sean Murphy | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Larry, Why doesn't the WDNR stop stocking mutts completely for a period of time, say 5 years? Would our musky waters be any worse off? There may even be some benefits, no? During this time, the WDNR could spend their time (and save their $) determining which lakes have natural reproduction, which lakes are candidates for spottys and which might benefit from riverine. In the meantime, the WDNR provides spottys to those lakes where the Lake Associations have decided that they have no interest in waiting for DNR genetic testing results. Also, during this time, the WDNR strongly recommends a No Kill above 40" for those 5yrs. If all the above were to actually happen, think of what we will have learned over the 5 yr period! We would see the results of a greatly decreased 'big fish harvest' and the results of spotty stockings (from what I understand, spottys are on verge of a real growth spurt at 5 yrs of age). A plan like this, kind of gives everyone what they want, no? Sean Murphy | ||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | SEan- I must respectfully say that giving lake associations fish for their lakes just because they don't want to wait and find out is nothing but lack of responsibility for the fishery to gain short term gain without understanding the long term implications. We have fisheries experts for a reason...and I would bet none of them are on the Lake associations. I think Steve put it quite well in his last post. I think the DNR are going to ease into a revamping of the current stocking philosphy. But it WILL take time, period. Why ease? To make sure it IS the right thing to do. They have been stocking the current way for 100 years or so....if they slowly make progress to learn about the genetics state wide over a period of time, while working on projects to stock leechers/WI strain in certain lakes, the additional 5 years is not the end of the world. It is from our WE WANT IT NOW society...but in the BIg long term sceme of things its really not. And I am sure Larry will reply that it is.....but our fishery isn't THAT bad, even after a 100 years...so with some strategic short term changes (i.e. not stocking bone in Great lakes) and some studies (ie genetics, side by side leech/WI strain) and a little time we can do the right thing. I think this is going to be the more realistic chain of events. Just my opinion. Cory | ||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | I have argued the same thing for years. Luckily the DNR did stop stocking a large number of lakes a couple years ago. These were lakes and rivers with known good natural reproduction. I applaud the DNR for this work. Waters like the Flambeau river, Chippewa river, upper Black river, Jump river, and numerous lakes really should have been left alone years ago. I feel that there is little left of the original strains that once inhabited these waters, and that is unfortunate. In my opinion far too many lakes in WI are being stocked that never should have been. Lots of local politics played a role in lakes getting stocked over the years, and it was not always the DNR's fault that things got screwed up. The squeeky wheel often gets the grease and it is the same way with stocking. Many lakes in WI are prime for rehabilitating. This does not mean all lakes, as I fish alot of lakes up north as Steve has mentioned, that really don't need 'fixing'. Why screw up an already good thing. Many, though, especially those with direct watershed ties to historical populations of the Miss. fish, are prime for their return. It is not a WI vs. MN thing. Those fish did not know state boundaries, and did exist in WI waters that were once navigable for fish to the Mississippi river before man created barriers in the form of dams and spillways on our lakes and rivers. Prior to that, glaciation separated more lakes that once had ties to the Miss. as well. It is heartwarming to know that we have DNR officials in guys like Scott Hassett, that are even considering this option. It is a big step, and I applaud them for it. Edited by Reef Hawg 3/23/2005 11:46 AM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Working on a "venting" but it can wait. Mr. Worrall said: "By the way, what strain are the Mille Lacs 'barred' fish (not the spots, those I have figured out), and where were they acquired? Just curious." My reply: If you are talking about the huge "semi-barred" fish that were caught from there last year, I am prepared to argue that they are Leech Lake strain fish...period. While Mille Lacs was stocked for a few years with Wisconsin fish, it has been stocked with Leech Lake strain for the past 15 years. Some over there have felt that they may have been crosses between Leech Lake strain and Wisconsin strain, but my personal opinion is that they are pure LL fish. Close examination of a poster size photo left little to doubt in my mind, but as with all other "guesses" it is all anecdotal. Sean asks: "Why doesn't the WDNR stop stocking mutts completely for a period of time, say 5 years? Would our musky waters be any worse off? There may even be some benefits, no? During this time, the WDNR could spend their time (and save their $) determining which lakes have natural reproduction, which lakes are candidates for spottys and which might benefit from riverine." My reply: Interesting suggestion. Just last night I spent some time talking to a long time, highly respected and well known Wisconsin guide about this. He said that he has been arguing with the DNR (three different regimes) about Woodruff hatchery strain practices for over 30 years! He always ended up with the same result...zip. When the DNR announced two years ago that they were reducing stocking by 50%, he cheered! When just last week he was told that they may cut stocking by another 25%, he was happy all over again!! Sean, one of the things we mentioned to the DNR was just that. DON'T STOCK if there is not going to be change. Our lakes would be better off and the DNR would save money. The balance of your suggestion too has merit and could produce great results. Sean continues: "In the meantime, the WDNR provides spottys to those lakes where the Lake Associations have decided that they have no interest in waiting for DNR genetic testing results. Also, during this time, the WDNR strongly recommends a No Kill above 40" for those 5yrs." My reply: Obviously, this won't happen. Thinking about this, I reviewed the stocking sheet for the Sooner hatchery for 2005. I took a quick count and might be off a bit, but of the only 41 waters slated for stocking from the Sooner hatchery this year, only about 14 are considered native Muskie waters in the sense that they once had viable self-sustaining populations. I can't yet do the same for the Woodruff hatchery, as the request information has not yet been provided. My point being, that from the Sooner hatchery alone, 27 waters could be stocked with Mississippi River strain fish THIS YEAR and it wouldn't affect a thing negatively and would be doing the RIGHT thing for the Mississippi River drainage! Note: this list of 41 lakes includes every major drainage in the state except the Great Lakes drainage's, which I assume will be found on the Woodruff hatchery list. Sean continues: "If all the above were to actually happen, think of what we will have learned over the 5 yr period! We would see the results of a greatly decreased 'big fish harvest' and the results of spotty stockings (from what I understand, spottys are on verge of a real growth spurt at 5 yrs of age). A plan like this, kind of gives everyone what they want, no?" My reply: Yes, we can learn more, but let's do it while something is being done vs. the continuation of the past errors. It is the right thing to do. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Steve, In an earlier post of yours from a day or two ago you said "The 'native' strain there seem to reach trophy size at about 13 or so based on scale samples, and are VERY well proportioned, which is a trait of that strain." From conversations we have had with the dnr we learned that scale samples are only accurate for aging fish up to about 4 years of age. Just thought I should clarify this. The dnr has told us that aging muskies using scale samples does not work beyond age 4. EJohnson | |||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7090 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Steve Worrall is on his way to Cave Run, limited access to a computer. | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Cory, Lake Associations deciding stocking practices isn't the solution that I think any of us is looking for. But It would be, in my opinion, better than doing nothing! What is more irresponsible, putting spottys back in trophy lakes that are crashing, or continuing to let them crash? Why did it need to be pointed out to our 'fisheries experts' that our musky fisheries were in decline? Why did it need to be pointed out that MN's musky fishery is booming? Why should we be content to leave this situation in the hands of the folks who get us here? I have a ton of respect for any and all individuals that I have dealt with at the WDNR, but as an organization they have dropped the ball in a very big way with their stocking of mutts state wide! I don't understand why everyone is supposed to tip toe around the WDNR at this point. If there was ever a time to be demanding, this is it. This isn't about egos, this isn't about hurting anyone's feelings..we are all big boys here. Let's turn this thing around | ||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | Sean- You don't know that it would be better to put these fish in, you just assume it would. "Continue to let them crash?" 4-5 more years on top of 100 plus years...I highly doubt would make that big of an impact. AND, this is not saying the DNR is going to sit on there hands till then as well. But they sure aren't going to run wild shutting down all stocking and stocking blindly Leech lake strain....as Larry said, it IS a big puzzle. ANd as well polished and laid out as they have their possition....it doesn't mean its ALL 100%RIGHT...it means it is a strong theory. I am not, and I don't think Steve is saying, that we need to Tip toe around. BUT, some heavy walls have been built in certain parts of the state between clubs/fisherman/DNR individuals. You may say egos aren't involved, or its not personal or hurting feelings...but we are still dealing with humans (on both sides of the equation) and all those factors come into play when trying to work together. "Why did it need to be pointed out to our 'fisheries experts' that our musky fisheries were in decline? Why did it need to be pointed out that MN's musky fishery is booming? Why should we be content to leave this situation in the hands of the folks who get us here? ....They have dropped the ball" Frustration taken...understood, and not even fully disagreeing...but stomping our feet and pointing this out ISN'T going to get us to the next level with the DNR. AND THAT is what needs to change on our end to cross over to working with them instead of holding it against them. my opinion. Cory | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| First a response to Cory. I did say it was a big puzzle. And I did say that the pieces of the puzzle in and of themselves were insignificant. I also said that when the puzzle had finally been put together it painted a very clear picture. On to "venting." Hope you don't mind, but it is time to "vent." I will try and keep it below Mr. Worrall's "RANT," but will likely get close. First, a point of clarification of why I am involved in this. I have known for many years that there was a problem with the decline in trophy muskie fishing in Wisconsin. The "boom" in Minnesota began to cost me a great deal of my business, especially last year. I had one client tell me; "Larry we love ya, but just can't fish with you anymore. We are going where we can catch big fish, and lots of them." While I found this disheartening, it was certainly understandable, as I was well aware of what was going on in Minnesota. When I started working on the Restoration Project this winter, the reasons for the continual decline in Wisconsin's trophy muskie fishing became clearer and clearer. Once it started to become clear that the past (and current) stocking practices were to blame, I became concerned. The more we dug into it, the madder I got. At every turn, nearly every day, additional pieces of information were found to add to the puzzle. It became horrendous! I/we got even madder. When we realized not only what had happened to our trophy fisheries, but our Tourism as well, which directly affected me personally, we became alarmed.. We knew that this information, if it got out, could further damage tourism. We decided to try and work with the DNR "behind the scenes" and see if something couldn't be done before it was too late. Things went well at first, and we even managed to keep it off of the Internet (for over 10 weeks). It was at the State Musky Committee where things went "south." There is no point in going into great detail at this point, but suffice it to say we left that meeting extremely mad, especially when the DNR agreed we had made valid points of concern, and then said they weren't going to do anything about them. The people of the State of Wisconsin should be mad as hell. We sure were and are. Did we overreact? Perhaps, but when over 2000 hours of work and research was ignored we felt we had a right to react. We would still love to work with the DNR and help with money and manpower where ever possible, but the ball is in their court. The DNR seems to like to study things, in fact that is what they propose now. Let's talk about studies a bit and the results and what were done with them. In the 1950's a DNR Researcher discovered after "study" that one of the states premier musky lakes, and the western Wisconsin primary brood stock lake, Lac Court Orielles, had a reproduction problem. It was learned that there was insufficient natural reproduction to maintain a viable muskellunge fishery. Now I don't know about you folks, but I would certainly think that if a problem of that magnitude had been discovered, the next thing to "study" would be why and how to fix it. What "was" done? Certainly more studies (that is what researchers do), but the next studies were to find out how well hatchery stocked fish survived in LCO after stocking. Absolutely no attempt to get a the more serious problem of why there was insufficient natural reproduction to "continue" to sustain the fishery after doing so for over 10,000 years. It was known then that "official" stocking had taken place in LCO since at least 1933, and an unknown amount of "unofficial" stocking done prior to that for around 50 years. One logical hypothesis should have been that the intervention by man had caused a problem in one manner or another. Why, and how can we fix it should have been the next "study." It was not. As for a more recent study, RR 175, which is covered in great detail on our web site (www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org), has been used by DNR personnel all over the state to indicated that Leech Lake fish did not "do well," or "work" in Wisconsin. Nothing could be further from the truth. They ask us to trust them to do what is best. They haven't. And what about keeping up on studies done by other states and the Canadian provinces? I would think that this would be a normal part of the job, but apparently other than attending various scientific meetings, this isn't required or else they are too overworked and have too much area of responsibility to treat each species properly. During our very first meeting with any DNR personnel this winter, neither the area biologist or his supervisor had seen or heard of the two Minnesota Mississippi River strain studies, both of which involved Wisconsin strain muskies, until we gave them a copy of them!! In addition, they had not heard of or seen the 1982 genetic study that also involved Wisconsin muskies. SAD. Enough, on to other things. The "two strains" (large strain - small strain) thing still bothers me. When the "multiple spawning" of the large strain was discovered and published in the early and mid 1980's, it was basically ignored or not understood. It was made clear then that it had management ramifications, but little has been done in that regard.. Recently, the geneticists have come to an agreement that the muskellunge is a single species with great variability. Personally I believe this derives mostly due to "current" genetic status of muskellunge populations; mostly those "created" by stocking. Some scientists still believe there are two distinct "evolved" species due to evolution over the past 10-12,000 years. Since even the scientists cannot all agree on a definite protocol as to what should determine a distinct species, far be it for me to try. I do know however, that work nearing completion prior to submission for peer review and subsequent publishing, is being done, and will bring the issue again to the forefront. What is most important, again, is the knowledge we now have that the large growing multiple spawners are the fish of choice, whether it be Great Lakes strain or Mississippi River strain. I find it very interesting in light of the things I have learned, that our sister state to the east, Michigan, has managed their muskellunge fishery for the two strains for OVER 50 years! On our west side, Minnesota came to the proper realization of "two different animals" and in 1982, made the total switch to Mississippi River strain fish. Meanwhile, here Wisconsin sits in the middle, doing business as usual, totally ignoring all of the supporting studies and what our neighbors have been doing and are now doing, and watching the tourism "drain" to Minnesota's amazing turnaround without an obvious concern and total inaction. Interesting indeed! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Fish-n-Freak |
| ||
Posts: 259 Location: Alexandria, MN | I would like to start by thanking the powers behind this project; Bob Benson, Larry Ramsell and Eric Johnson. These gentlemen have spent their entire winter season doinng research and trying to put the pieces together. I have been in contact and offering any help I could to further their work. I have never fished in Wisconsin, but I wanted to help, because the problem in Wisconsin, was starting to concern me. It brought two points up that I wanted to clear up -- First was the concern that MN could find our fishery in the same condition down the road. I wanted to help them fix Wisconsin, so MN could see what went wrong and what was done to fix it. The second concern stemmed from the first. What if all these extra people coming to MN putting all this extra pressure on our Muskies, speeds up the failure of the MN fishery? As things were found in their research about over harvest and poor stocking practices, it make me worried about the people coming to MN for their "trophy" and how long MN could decorate dens, before we started to suffer. MN just changed one of their brrod stock lakes to a RELEASE only lake. There were a few BIG fish killed out of Elk Lake and the DNR had enough. I am glad the MN DNR had the guts to step up and close the lake to meat hunters. On the down side, that lake has lost a big chunk of its gene pool. How will the future fish from the lake grow? Has this harvesting from a brood stock lake started the down hill slide in MN? I have been fishing Muskies in MN for over twenty years. I have spent most of my time on Leech Lake and I have seen and caught the same "semi-barred" fish on Leech that are seen on Mille Lacs, Vermilion and other lakes that are stocked with Leech fish. I would strongly agree with Larry on the fact that these fish are pure Leech Lake Muskies and the color pattern does not mean they are crossed with anything. We also see a few of the "clear" phased Muskies in MN lakes, I don't think color dictates a strain. I commend Larry for his lifes work and the time he has spent on this board answering everyones questions and trying to fill in the blanks. This is a very important issue for me, even if I never cross the boarder to fish. I want to help fix the problem in Wisconsin so I can help prevent the same thing from happening in MN, or help to fix it if does. MN has been very lucky -- most of the muskie fishermen have been great about CPR. We have been able to keep most of our big fish in our lakes. I have seen an increase in the kill rate though as we start getting more new comers in our state, plus all the extra people from Wisconsin. I want the Wisconsin fishery to get fixed to save the MN fishery. MN can't support the current level of harvest, without seeing some decline in our fishery. MN is riding a high right now! We have many lakes that are at their PEAK and they have a number of very big fish in them. MN has 54 to 55" fish all over the state right now. I want those fish to be allowed to spawn until they die of old age. We don't want those genes lost. I have seen fish in the Mid 50" range on a number of lakes in MN, from Leech and Vermilion to Minnetonka, Forest and White Bear. MN offers a trophy fishery from north to south. These Leech Lake fish have proven their abilty to grow in all types and sizes of lakes. Please look at the Wisconsin Project with an open mind. Don't think about it as a group of guys that are trying to force the DNR to do something. This group has tried to give the DNR every chance to make a change and play the part of the hero. The DNR turned their backs on all the work that was done. Wisconsin needs to look at the research along with what MN, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and others have done. With more and more options for big fish, the number of people going to Wisconsin will get less and less. The resorts and guides should be banging on the doors at the DNR demanding something changes. Again thanks to Bob, Larry and Eric for all their hardwork. They knew back in October last year that they would run into many that didn't understand or didn't want to admit there was a problem. They have forged ahead with a passion that just won't die. A concerned Muskie angler, Steve Sedesky | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| an observation... the WMRP has been criticized more on the style/tone of how the information was presented once it went public than on the content. my initial reaction to pre-release glimpses i had of it was that the message might get lost in the rhetoric. i believe it highly likely that this discussion has gone a long way to helping the people who are reading it understand what the message is and that the WMRP is able to present that message in a passionate yet respectful manner. thank you to those involved for taking the time to do so in this forum. i think you're starting to catch more bears here with honey than with vinegar... | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Steve, Thanks for your support and response here. You bring up some very legitimate concerns that we have thought about ourselves. You do not fish in WI but yet you are an angler that is concerned about what happens in WI because it could negatively impact your MN trophy fishery. This is a very legitimate concern. I would think more folks like you would feel the same way. We certainly agree with you. Over harvest of larger fish from MN is a real threat when its becoming the only option for a lot of anglers that are sadly seeking a wall mount. Also the stocking practices in some of the WI waters also threatens MN waters and the trophy fishing they offer right now from the possibility of the WI stocked fish making thier way into your waters and contaminating the only known pure strain of mississippi strain of muskellunge left on earth. We have the same concern for the great lakes muskie. The drainage waters that empty into the great Lakes that are stocked with the WI small growing mixed strains of muskellunge is a real threat as well. Could this contaminate the great lakes strain of muskie? Could this threaten the restoration of the great lakes strain of muskie in the green bay area that has been going on for several years now? Has the contamination already started? These are real concerns that are of great importance to us and should be to EVERYONE. I also agree that you simply can not tell the strain of muskie by looking at it, especially larger ones. In some bodies of water they do seem to hold a particualr pattern or color better than in others but that is not real common. I have numerous photos of fish of both strains from both states from different lakes in each state that I would challenge anyone to try and tell me what strain of fish it is, Mississippi strain or a WI mixed strain, or even a strain from Ontario. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJ, the premise has been right from the start that the introduction of spotted muskies won't be a problem where there are other strains, as the Spots will spawn at a different temp and in a different area and will become dominant. There are quotes to that effect in this thread. If that is true then no worries, because they won't interbreed. I spent a fair amount of time over this last winter talking to scientists from all over the country about this issue. I read a ton, even more than usual. I came to some understandings, but couldn't and didn't personally draw all of the seemingly concrete conclusions the restoration group has. Some, yes, all no. Is it now a scientific principle that compiling evidence to support an opinion makes that opinion so? Now I'm not a scientist or geneticist or fisheries biologist. I'm not, so I figure if you're (collectively) not, then we can debate this as equals with mutual respect. If a biologist steps in to the discussion, I guarantee I'll give that person my undivided attention, for obvious reasons. I will continue to question, talk with our fisheries folks here in Wisconsin and in other states, and keep an open mind. I'm leaning toward the idea that the actual facts of the situation are somewhere in the middle of this debate, as is many times the case. I'm keeping an open mind. How about you? Ever hear my 'waves on the water make the wind blow' analogy? I spoke with several folks in fisheries management and government today again while on the road to Kentucky. I wasn't disappointed a bit, and I bet most reasonable folks who take the time to listen wouldn't be, either. I learned that the genetics research underway has acquired more information than was ever available before, and continues. This research has been underway for quite a while, by the way. I learned also that there are plans to do much of what the restoration group wants, just not as fast or exactly as demanded and for good reason. And, I learned that my Lake X fish are definitely stocked fish. For sure. What does that mean? I asked that question today. In all probability the big fish there are not getting harvested, and are allowed to GET big. If the word gets out and the fish are hit hard, many will be harvested, and that story will come to an unhappy ending. I also found out this lake isn't going to be stocked for a very long time. If natural reproduction is stable it will be very interesting to see what happens down the road. There IS natural reproduction there, I actually caught a few YOY muskies this year fishing crappies. One thing from the soapbox. 'Sledgehammer diplomacy' when dealing with an issue like this doesn't work well. Cory tried to say that in a nice way, I'm going to be more blunt. 'Thus far, the Doyle Administration has turned a deaf ear to our requests. We met with the top Madison officials and biologists of the DNR on multiple occasions. At those meetings, they admitted that there is a problem but for whatever reason, the Doyle Administration and Wisconsin DNR officials have turned a deaf ear to our solution. We are not asking them to reinvent the wheel. Our solution to the problem has been done very successfully in Minnesota and it will not be costly - the solution is as simple as shifting where the Wisconsin DNR gets the eggs for it’s musky stocking program. We have made the WDNR aware that the musky clubs and organizations that we have spoken with have pledged manpower and funding to assist with any transition costs. Some of the more cynical members of our group predicted that the Wisconsin DNR, which is faced with huge budget cuts and the elimination of positions will not take this problem seriously, rather they will see this problem as nothing more than an opportunity to save the DNR positions that are proposed for elimination. By applying for federal grants to study this problem, the WDNR can circumvent the State budget cuts and use federal funding for a re-hashed study of musky genetics with the ulterior motive to use much of the study money to save the staff positions that would have been eliminated. We hoped that the more cynical members of our group were wrong, but it seems that their predictions may have some credibility. We have heard that the Wisconsin DNR now plans a genetic study of the differences between the strains of muskies. First of all the study they are hoping to get funding for has already been done by the Minnesota DNR. They have a copies of the genetics studies that have already been done. To spend taxpayer dollars on a studies that have already been done is, at the very least, wasteful.' There are at least two statements that are unwarranted and ill advised, an ill advised AND misinformed statement of rumor from 'cynical members', a series of threats contained in this and the following paragraph, and at least one probable misleading or flat inaccurate statement contained in this posting on the restoration website. I bet the folks on the receiving end of this blast are just DYING to meet with this group again. Then again, I found those folks to be pretty reasonable today, so maybe I'm wrong. This, of course, is my personal studied opinion, just like the posts by everyone else here; so no one has to take it any more seriously than that. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sheesh, double posts here in Kentucky! | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Setve From WDNR Research Report 175 - The mixing of muskellunge from Nancy Lake with adjacent populations and a reduction in fitness resulting from outbreeding depression is possible(Philipp et al. 1993). Because of the potential negative consequences of introgression with native stocks, transfers such as the one accomplished in Nancy Lake should be closely scrutinized. The problem with this statement is this. What native stock of muskellunge in WI was being threatened here? On several occasions when asking what strain is used for stocking in WI or if we even have a pure strain of musky left in WI, our DNR has said that they do not know what we have due to the mixing of muskellunge over the years. If the fish in Nancy lake were to make it into the St. Croix River basin which is indicated in this report as a concern, then what is the threat here? The St. Croix River basin is a drainage water of the mississippi? That IS thier native waters! Should we be more concerned about them threatening an introduced non-native strain of muskellunge of unknown origins that have been stocked there and that don't reproduce or grow large? What this statement in RR-175 does indicate to me is that the stocking of mixed strains/stocks of muskellunge from our Spooner and Woodruff hatcheries into the drainage waters of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes could threaten these proven native pure strains of muskellunge known to exisist there. Shouldn't this be more of a concern than the possibility of mississippi strain fish making thier way into drainage waters of the mississippi river, thier native waters that have been stocked with non-native strains? If we are going to stock any fish anywhere, and there is any possibility of cross-breeding with other populations, would it not be best to stock known pure strains of muskellunge that we know all grow large and also offer the best chance of maintaining a fishable population through natural reproduction? Isn't this a better option than to continue to stock unknown mixed stocks/strains that have nearly no succesful natural reproduction and continue adding to the problem we have already created and are faced with today? If we have a choice, which we do, why would we elect to continue to stock mixed strains/stocks of muskellunge into our waters over a pure strain? Especially when the evidence from all previous DNR studies indicates superior growth and more sucessful natural reproduction with the mississippi strain over WI mixed strains? EJohnson | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Folks, First of all I want to thank all the people who run Muskie first for both running the board in a responsible,positive manner and also for being willing to participate in what is clearly a touchy controversial issue. Over the past 4-5 months which is the extent of my Message Board posting, I have also found the readers of the MuskieFirst site to have an interest in these topics not shared by other sites. Despite my frustration at times, I have very much enjoyed the discussion. I've been happy letting Eric and Larry lead the discussion the last few days, but feel I must come back and make a few points. 1. Steve - you continue to characterize these changes as "desired by a few people". I believe these changes are desired by a vast majority of the Muskie anglers in Wisconsin and Minnesota. These changes have the support of approximately 100% of the members of the MI chapter I belong to. (I say approximately because I have not talked to every single -member, but no one has stepped forward against it.) I believe this to be true for many other clubs, but I will not speak for them. Please stop characterizing us as a small group, unless you have data to back this up. 2. I've been watching the tendency to beat up the messenger rather than the message. Folks, We have been working on this with the DNR for months and other than one e-mail sent out of sheer frustration we have treated the DNR with courtesy and respect. That one e-mail is something we wish we could take back and are working on correcting. We worked a long time without going public, we did not want to do it in plain view. You must realize we are trying to get something done. It has become known to me that people around the state have been trying to get something changed here for TWENTY FIVE YEARS!!!! Some people tried 10 years ago, some of us 5 or 6, and many are jumping on board now. The results = no change. 3. FACTS. The WMRP has very diligently tried to base all of our research on facts. We do not use Lake X and Lake Y - we cite lake names and provide facts. This is at times very painful for us as fisherman but is the right thing to do. Steve, I ask that you do the same as personally I take all of the "Lake X has big fish" as pure speculation. I know of 20 lakes in this area that have virtually no harvest, are stocked with fish from Bone Lake and have no large fish. While statements like that can be construed as facts, a much better argument is to name lakes in both states of equal size and compare the fisheries. Nancy Lake was stocked with Leech Lake Muskies on 3 occasions and was able to maintain a trophy fishery for 20 years without stocking in spite of heavy harvest. If the mixed strain fish from our brood lakes are not able to maintain trophy fisheries with some harvest, then I believe the DNR should stock pure large growing fish that can. 4. Harvest - The recurring theme on the Wisconsin fishery is that Harvest is the problem, while I used to believe this, I feel I was wrong and this is truly not the case. And yes, I have facts to back it up. Folks, Wisconsin was giving up more fish in the mid to upper 50 inch range when we were killing ALL of the Muskies we caught, then we do today. It's interesting that these fish had almost identical lengths and girth as the Minnesota fish caught in that time frame. I'll list a bunch of those fish in a second. Now I'll name Lakes again - Let's compare Lac Court Oreilles vs. Lake Miltona in Minnesota. LCO has a 50 inch sizelimit and has had virtually no harvest for the past 10 years, Meanwhile Lake Miltona (home of No More Muskies) while the same size has a 40 inch size limit and has the NMM group specifically targeting and harvesting Muskies. This past year there were more 50" Muskies registered in Muskies INC from Lake Miltona than the entire state of Wisconsin. The difference - THE FISH THAT ARE STOCKED!!! See item Number 3 above. 5. Responsibility. The DNR has the responsibility to manage the natural resources of this state. There should be no excuses - we either have big muskies or we don't. We should benchmark ourselves against our neighboring state with simialr waters on the same Mississsippi drainage, this is fair. The state Government runs the DNR with the Governor being responsible in the end. We'd like to work at the local level, but found out quickly that they cannot make the call, it comes from Madison. We still have not found the person who can make the call and do the right thing. No one will tell us who can make the call. They are hiding behind politics. As citizens of this state we have the responsibility to stand up and speak when things are being done wrong. People on this message board urged me months ago to do something about it if I didn't llike it. Thanks for encouraging me. 6. The thing that still get's me going is the need to take things slowly. My father and amy others of similar age are very hopeful that things get's changed and changed now. They know that taking it slow as Cory suggests will rob them of any chance that they will see pure large growing Muskies in our lakes during their life-time. I ask those that happen to live near one lake that may see immediate change to stay with us and not work against what the majority of Muskie anglers in this state desire. CHANGE. To not change based on what we know of our fisheries and our brood lakes would be irresponsible. (IMHO) We start growing BIGGER MUSKIES THIS SPRING!!!!! Bob Benson | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Following Eric and Bob's posts doesn't leave much to say, but here are a couple of points that should be considered, one of which I covered yesterday. 1) The DNR DOES have the power to stop harvest of our big fish is they truly do believe that to be the problem (we do not). They stop sturgeon harvest when they think it is endangering the stocks, and they do it without any politics...they just do it. They can do the same thing for muskies. We find it hard to believe that they do not realize or believe that there is a difference in the two strains of muskies (I covered that yesterday as well). 2) Not directly muskie related, but a fair comparison of what powers they have: If you lived on the shore of a muskie lake, and your septic system was leaking raw sewage into that lake, they would insist that you fix it IMMEDIATELY. They wouldn't want to hear from you that you are going to have a couple of engineers come out to "study" the situation and problem and then you will later address how to fix it when funds become available! The problem had been identified by them and they want it fixed...NOW...period. Well, we have publically identified a problem that is endangering our remnant native large strain muskies, and ask that it too, be fixed...now, not after 10 more years of "study." This is only fair. If they truly believe it cannot be fixed this year (we again disagree...eggs are available to switch), then they should discontinue stocking "as usual" until the right thing can be done. As I also pointed out yesterday, about 27 of the 41 lakes on the stocking schedule for the Spooner hatchery are non-native muskie waters. Switching at least those 27 lakes to Mississippi River strain fish, enhancing rather than confounding Minnesota's return to stocking Mississippi River strain muskies into the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers is the right thing to do. Cancel the approximately 14 other native muskie lakes on the list for this year while things get sorted out. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, I don't disagree with much of your ideas on some of the waters here in Wisconsin, but question your ideas as applied to others. We're talking a STATE WIDE change you're asking for, hundreds of lakes. I'm firmly in the camp that caution is advised, but that immediate changes can and should be made on some waters while leaving others to the current management stratagies which I understand is the case at present. If the Group states as fact certain items about natural reproduction and the maxium size of stocked fish, and I know of glaring exceptions to that theory, should I NOT list them and ask what happened there? If the group says the stocked fish do not reproduce, but are dangerous to introduce where there is a Natural strain, (which is stated to be near extinct or non existant except one base population) because the strains will interbreed and weaken the overall genetic disposition toward large size, doesn't that beg a question or two? If the facts used are applied to a Lake X or Lake Y and the success or failure of any one program there, would that not conversely encourage questions about Muskie populations in waters that seem to directly conflict? I don't think anyone here is 'beating up' the messenger, that's certainly not my intent. However, one could say what you posted in that paragraph differently and still say the same thing without a controversial slant. Then, after apologising somewhat for a radical statement in the very same paragraph, you accuse someone you cannot even name of 'hiding behind politics'. I think I've been clear as a new picture window that it's also not necessarliy the message, it's the delivery at times which needs moderation. I have as much an individual voice as any one of you, and will use it to ask questions wherever I see one I would like ask. I appreciate your comments, and don't feel you or anyone else involved with the restoration group wants anything but good for us all. I am just plain far to questioning to blindly accept anything this complicated as simple stuff. I didn't characterize anything or anyone, I tried to get some facts by asking questions and adding observations looking for clarifiaction. I agree that most muskie anglers would like to see more big fish in Wisconsin. I don't agree that all or even most of the muskie anglers in the state understand clearly what you are asking for, know all the details from the several perspectives that are in play, or fully understand the benefit/risk big picture. I was at the Board Meeting in Milwaukee when the resolution was passed to support your group. The discussion of the details, what you are asking or demanding, the possible repercussions, or for that matter ANY discussion of what was about to occur simply didn't hapen. No one asked a single question, the club officers simply voted to support whatever your group wanted. The presentation by some here on MuskieFIRST could be, and HAS been by some perceived to be media based anti-DNR PR campaign by the restoration group. I'm fairly certain you are not actually trying to come off that way, but inexperience in handling the PR of this sort of issue breeds frustration, which can overflow and cause unreasonable behavior, in public, which further complicates. That scenario demands of any good media source strong attempts to balance the conversation. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I think right now on this side of the state, eastern, as has been explained by Larry, we get at least some mixing of musky stock. I know they take spawn from a number of different lakes for Woodruff including Big Saint Germain, known to have some big fish still swimming. I believe it is a result of this that every once and awhile in lakes where stocked fish are given a chance to grow those big fish genes can and do show themselves. This would explain Steve’s Lake X and a number of other Lake Xs I know about. But what if every fish stocked had that potential, wouldn’t that make more sense, especially considering more would have a better chance at becoming natural spawners? Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| ChadG |
| ||
Posts: 440 | This is a case where science muddies things up beyond good old common sense. The easiest and quickess solution (most logical) to this whole thing is being more selective when choosing females to harvest eggs from. Get a good cross section of females and let nature take its course. Maybe find out where those big fish in the Pastika's catalog are coming from and do some netting and egg harvesting there. I wouldn't waste the time or energy on some scientific study. Just a waste. Use the fish from Wisconsin water, the large ones, then you don't have to worry about mixing. The KISS theory comes to mind. | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | This is an incredible thread. I agree with about 99% of what the restoration project wants to do. I agree 100% with Mr. Worral that some diplomacy needs to be used. I wish the WMR would change their front page on their website. Making political threats is not a very good way to get things changed. To say that the introduction of the Wisconsin fish could destroy the Great Lakes Strain is a bit far fetched. On one hand you state there is very little chance of the two breeds crossing and on the other you have cross breeding happenning so much that it infiltrates the Great Lake spots. I would think the WDNR fish are not even reproducing in the rivers and would disappear soon after the proper strain starts getting stocked. If we are worried about the integrity of the Great Lake spots, which we should be, the Mississippi strain that the MN DNR is putting into the St Louis river would pose a much bigger risk to the Great Lakes genetics than the fish the WDNR are putting in the St. Louis. Great Lakes spots should be the only strain that gets put in the St. Louis and the Mississippi strain should be the only strain that goes into the St. Croix. It would be great if the WDNR would let their voice be heard here. I see this project as win/win for the entire state. To those people that are saying to stop the current stocking, if you are saying to stop it where there is natural production(agree). If you are staying to stop it everywhere(disagree). My local waters , Lakes Monona and Waubesa, would crash and burn without the stocking. I still would rather be able to fish these "small muskies" than not to have any Muskies at all. Edited by Bytor 3/24/2005 11:38 AM | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Bytor, I would like, as well, to somehow see the DNR get invlolved here. There is too much time and energy being spent here on 'DNR Etiiquette'. Larry Ramsell is right when he says the the poeple of WI should be "mad as hell"...it is their right to be mad as hell. I would love to see the WDNR open up about the past practices and future plans of the musky fishery. The timing couldn't be better for them to do so. I think this represents a great opportunity for them. Sean Murphy | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Just a quick Biography note here on my history with the DNR (I believe Larry and Eric are similar but will let them speak for themselves) : I am not a DNR hater. I personally up to this year have supported the DNR on nearly everything they have done. I have and still do support EVERY increase in license hikes and funding. I believe a fishing license at even ten times the price is the biggest bargain available. If desired I can feed my family all year for $30.00. I can't get the family into the Movie theatre for that. I show up to Conservation Congress meetings, actually listen to the DNR reasoning on matters and have voted with the DNR on every proposal I can recall. I can recall listening to Frank Pratt at my first meeting in Hayward and found his thoughts on our fisheries fascinating. I reccomend you all attend these meetings and actually LISTEN. (myself included) I have found the local DNR people across the state to be extremely helpful and accomodating. Folks like Joe Kurz, Dave Neuswanger, Scot Stewart, Larry Damman, Frank Pratt and Steve Gilbert, the folks at the hatcheries have been just tremendous. It's not personal, it's not about them. It's about the FISH. MUSKIES! Big Muskies! Steve - I know you think we may have done some things not the "best way". Even I would not dispute that. Sometimes the best way, will not get things done. When we decided to invest the time, effort and money into this project, we had to make a decision that we had to focus on getting things done and not tiptoe around. If we had done it the way that we and everyone else tried prviously, we would have gotten nowhere. At this point we are asking that EVERYONE get involved and help get things done. Things are turning now to where Muskie clubs across the state need to be working with their local DNR to make the right changes, and to make their voices heard in Madison. If you are not a member of a muskie club - now is the time to join and help make a difference. If you are quiet - you will not be heard. Bob Benson | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| From Bytor: "This is an incredible thread. I agree with about 99% of what the restoration project wants to do. I agree 100% with Mr. Worral that some diplomacy needs to be used. I wish the WMR would change their front page on their website. Making political threats is not a very good way to get things changed." My reply: Bytor and all: Earlier today, Bob offered and "olive branch" to the DNR (further details up to Bob). I will take it another step, and see that the front page of our web site is changed as you suggested...for awhile at least, pending response to Bob from the DNR. Bytor continues: "To say that the introduction of the Wisconsin fish could destroy the Great Lakes Strain is a bit far fetched. On one hand you state there is very little chance of the two breeds crossing and on the other you have cross breeding happening so much that it infiltrates the Great Lake spots. I would think the WDNR fish are not even reproducing in the rivers and would disappear soon after the proper strain starts getting stocked. If we are worried about the integrity of the Great Lake spots, which we should be, the Mississippi strain that the MN DNR is putting into the St Louis river would pose a much bigger risk to the Great Lakes genetics than the fish the WDNR are putting in the St. Louis. Great Lakes spots should be the only strain that gets put in the St. Louis and the Mississippi strain should be the only strain that goes into the St. Croix." My reply: For the second time in as many days, there is confusion regarding "cross breeding." Your comments are more personal opinion than fact based. First, there is always a chance for cross breeding...if the two strains find each other during an overlap in preferred spawning thermal regimes (water temp.), it can/will happen. Despite this fact, our DNR continually mixes stocks within the state and in border waters, while at the same time saying they are trying to protect "genetic integrity." They can't have it both ways. There most certainly IS a real threat to our hatchery fish getting into the Great Lakes. When the Green Bay Restoration biologist heard this at the State Musky Committee, he wasn't happy about it...he evidently had no prior knowledge that this practice was going on. All there agreed that it was wrong and should be looked into. It follows the higher genetic principals of protecting native stocks. We have no native large strain stocks left in Wisconsin...lakes with some large strain left in them, yes, but in insufficient numbers to sustain themselves. Your statement: "I would think the WDNR fish are not even reproducing in the rivers and would disappear soon after the proper strain starts getting stocked." is just that, "your thought." Please consider that the muskellunge IS a river fish. To say they won't spawn there, without proof, is incorrect. It would take one or both of two things to prevent them spawning in rivers; One would be pollution. The second, and unproven but indicated, is that due to mixing, the fish now being used in the hatchery has minimum natural production at best, and none in worst case (most) scenarios. These small fish will eventually disappear is stocking is changed to the large strain, just as happened in Minnesota, and the large strain should reproduce, contribute toward more self=sustaining populations, even in non-native muskie lakes, and reduce hatchery burden. Bytor's last: "To those people that are saying to stop the current stocking, if you are saying to stop it where there is natural production(agree). If you are staying to stop it everywhere(disagree). My local waters , Lakes Monona and Waubesa, would crash and burn without the stocking. I still would rather be able to fish these "small muskies" than not to have any Muskies at all." My reply: The "grey area" here is lakes where there is "some" natural reproduction and those that are self-sustaining and need no stocking. I have two points to make; If a "native" muskie lakes MUST be stocked to maintain a viable fishery, my first question would be why? Is it because of past stocking practices or is it some other factor that came into play before man came or after man came? The initial feeling is the former, past stocking practices. Note: As I have said before, we don't really KNOW for sure which of the state lakes were native muskie water pre-man, and which were created by man. If the latter, this too could help explain the lack of sufficient natural reproduction. At any rate, if a native lake is deemed to forever require stocking (as historical stocking records would indicate) and MUST be stocked, why not stock it with the only pure Mississippi River strain muskie left. One known to grow big and fast and reproduce naturally, and will pose no risk to the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers? While a bit selfish (no offense intended) your last comment needn't cause you worry. Your statement infers that you don't care about down stream waters (in that case not as much as a concern as the northern lakes), you just want fish, and you shall have them. It is my understanding that you WILL be getting Leech Lake fish, but as we have pointed out, this will do nothing for the native muskie range in the northern one-third of the state nor its related tourism industry. Your comment: "I still would rather be able to fish these "small muskies" than not to have any Muskies at all." is very understandable. But what if you can have small muskies, medium muskies and BIG muskies, and at the same cost? Sounds like a good deal to me! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Grass |
| ||
Posts: 620 Location: Seymour, WI | Musky restorization Group you indicated that the DNR would not listen to any of your ideas when you met with them. I'm wondering if the group of people on this board could start some type of petition to the WDNR to review the current spawn and milt collection processes? We could get the support of the WI musky club alliance I'm sure as well as the WI Guides asso. I would not support the petition unless it was worded in a diplomatic way. What do you think of this idea? Would it help at all? Grass, | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | Mr. Ramsell thanks for the responce, my posts here on Muskiefirst are always 100 % my opinion.I would appreciate your opinion on whether mississipi strain fish should be put in the St. Louis river? It is my understanding that you WILL be getting Leech Lake fish, but as we have pointed out, this will do nothing for the native muskie range in the northern one-third of the state nor its related tourism industry. I think the first bodies of waters to do this on should be the larger river systems. The Chippewa Flowage would be an excellent choice. Troy Schoonover Edited by Bytor 3/24/2005 3:51 PM | ||
| Fred J |
| ||
| Bytor, I would think that the Great lakes Strain would be the proper choice for the St. Louis River. I think that the Missippi Strain are very close geniticly to the Great Lakes strain and would be a better choice than the fish from our current brrod stock but still think that Great Lakes Strain would be most preferable. Fred J | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |