Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Stunning new findings by the Musky Restoration Project Team |
| Message Subject: Stunning new findings by the Musky Restoration Project Team | |||
sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Pal, I could not agree with you more. From the WDNR..." You should be aware that there is a proposal (conservation congress not WDNR) on the statewide spring hearing to allow trolling with one line while casting on all waters of the state. This is question 74 and will be voted on at the April 11 hearings. This is an attempt by musky anglers to allow them to drag a sucker behind the boat while casting another line in parts of the state (including Vilas County) where it is currently not legal to do so. Based on your comments below you may want to get folks that feel the same way you do to show up and vote. You can get a copy of the questionnaire from any WDNR office and it also list the hearing locations in each county. Question 73 may also be of interest to you since it deals with establishing a musky stamp. Again, this is a conservation congress question, not WDNR." Did this vote , which was yesterday (I do not know the outcome), appear on anyone's radar? Who decided to even vote on these issues? My reply to the WDNR was: "That's all we need is yet another way to kill muskies. Who in particular pioneered this vote? I am assuming that this does not allow the use of a gas motor, but would legalize a sucker being dragged with the use of am electric trolling motor or a natural drift? Musky Stamp is a great idea..who pioneered that for vote?" WDNR Reply: Both questions came from conservation congress committees (independent organization of citizens) and are advisory questions. The trolling question, as written, does not limit the type of motor. I am not sure what to think here other than there are certan groups that have the ear of the conservative congress. So, while there is a very big debate with the WDNR concerning stocking and the future of WI musky fishery, the conservative congreess is busy putting votes to allowing sucker sto be dragged/trolled? I don't get it. I know I don't like it. Sean Murphy | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, I believe anyone from Wisconsin can ask for a proposal to be added to the CC agenda. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | From what I understood as it was explained last night, the trolling issue was placed on the ballot at the request of DNR wardens to clarify the position fishing rule. Don’t know if this was a resolution brought by citizens last year. I do believe the Musky Stamp was brought in the form of a resolution last year at the some of the county hearings. My understanding of the way it works, bring a resolution to the meeting, have it voted on. If it gets enough votes it is on the official ballot as an advisory question the following year. I believe that the CC committees can also place advisory questions on the ballot as a result of there meetings, if an organization wants a question voted on it would pay to know people. After the advisory question passes the natural resource board can place the question on the official rule change ballot for the next years meeting. DNR personnel can also petition the natural resources board to place questions on the rule change ballot if they feel they are needed. After the rule change is voted yes it may be inacted the following year, or if it is of great importance it could take effect as soon as the paper work is completed. If I am wrong in the process please enlighten us. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I understand your ramblings but for discussion sake lets say there are only three variable that determine the size structure in any given musky water. Lets also assume that they are of equal importance, in no particular order: 1. Environment 2. Harvest (whether it’s actual or increased delayed as a result of increased pressure) 3. Genetics First, in my opinion, there isn’t much we can do about environment; we are blessed with the lakes God has given us. We should do what we can to protect them and keep them clean, but honestly I don’t see an environmental problem with our lakes. Lakes that produced numbers of trophy fish 50 years ago should be able to do it today. Second harvest, this is an issue that still needs to be dealt with but frankly what can we do about it in the short term. Spearing is here to stay and all the whining in the world isn’t going to make it go away, right now. The spring hearing have once again proven that in the north part of the state any more restrictive regulation is a bad regulation, so the battle to reduce harvest through increased minimum length limits is ongoing and far from being implemented. We need to not give up, but realize we may need to take other steps to try and better the Wisconsin Musky fishery. So that leaves Genetics I believe that this is an area that can be addressed immediately, and by immediately I mean I the next year or so, not necessarily the next month. I think we need to take Mr. Simonson for his word in the April 8th letter and figure out what we can do to “privately stock other strains in waters where the strain used is unlikely to harm native fish.” We need to get off the pot (or in this case the internet) and try and get something done. If there are musky Inc, chapters that support what the WMRP is trying to accomplish then they should put up some money to stock Mississippi Strain muskies in DNR approved waters in northern Wisconsin. At least something will be getting done as the DNR is completing their research. These first waters could serve as excellent test waters and the sooner the stocking start the faster we will have some answers. Everyone needs to start working together as a team, sometimes there will be disagreements but the common goal is more and bigger muskies in the state of Wisconsin. When I leave work today I plan to stop by the DNR office and ask our fisheries biologist what waters in Oneida county could be candidates for MR muskies. It’s the first step, I can do. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, What I was trying to say, and think the DNR said it in the post on the main board Cory Painter put up today, is that we HAVE great genetics in most waters here, and that the fish stocked in them are perfectly capable of reaching trophy class in an acceptable timeframe. Read the piece and see what I'm talking about, this is what I've been attempting to inject into the debate since the beginning when we were discussing Accelerated Evolution. I was aware of the work underway from the gentleman from Stevens Point, and the intention to plant MR fish in some additional waters. I firmly disagree with the premise that Wisconsin fish will not grow fast or big under proper circumstances. I've seen them do exactly that. I've also seen Cass Lake year classes that are skinny and anemic looking. I think I've seen some barred fish in Minnesota waters get pretty big, too. Interestingly, overstocking and the effects are discussed in some detail. I think that waters where there isn't natural reproduction, do not have a large muskie population present, have decent prey species for the Muskies, and are fertile enough will be the acceptable candidates for stocking spotted muskies at this point ( like the Petenwell). I don't think the DNR will risk planting them in waters with good natural reproduction from the fish native to that water at this point. I'm not 'whining' about the spearing issue, I'm pointing out that it's a real issue here and if a dozen fish over 45" are speared a year in Pelican, that is a VERY significant portion of the representative trophy potential there. Wouldn't matter if they were spots or barred, they'd still be gone. Read the survival stats from the MN study again; look at the numbers stocked ( thousands down to a very few) and the numbers alive 10 years later WITH NO ANGLING ALLOWED. Then apply that average to natural reproduction and angling mortality from heavily pressured Wisconsin water, and add spearing, and you have a tough environment to grow any numbers of 55" fish. I wish we had shad in some of our waters. Kentucky is planting fish up to 5 per acre densities a a 'put and take' fishery, and when the shad are in good shape, the muskies grow fast and burn very brightly. Unfortunately, shad and warm wtaer go together, and with that comes a dead fish of old age at 12 or 13. | ||
| Musky Man |
| ||
| Steve's right, Steve your one of the few that keep telling it like it is when it comes to the spearing issue.I think maybe the DNR are hesitant about implementing a change of stocking practices as long as the spearing continues.A change in the North where theirs spearing may be a waste of time no matter what strain is planted.Many people still don't believe spearing is that bad!people I'm here to tell you, on some of the best waters in Wisconsin and especially Pelican the spearing is devastating.It's a snowball effect because now you have people say why release it, if it's going to be speared anyway. I know of another trophy lake just north of their that has a very high release rate and a high spearing rate,the spearing takes it's toll.Maybe the best policy for now would be to just not stock any more lakes period for a determined time frame and find out which lakes hold their own. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I know your not whining about spearing and I didn’t mean that post to sound like I was talking about you specifically. It was general statement, there are many people throughout the north woods that whine daily about spearing and use it as an excuse to continually shoot down progressive management. Every time a size limit issue came up at the spring hearing regarding musky and walleye there was comments about spearing from the crowd. Even the rule change to get Pelican back to a 15” minimum on walleye. This passed overwhelmingly, but there was a group of 4 or 5 guys sitting around me that where grumbling why raise the minimum they will only get speared. I am trying to say lets not give up that fight, but it isn’t going to change anytime soon. So lets put some effort forth on thing that can be done without going through the CC. There are things regarding Genetics that can be done immediately. MR fish can be stocked in some waters exactly as you have described. Also why not try and get some eggs from these big Wisconsin musky with good genetics and use them for stocking rather than the small fish from lakes they have been harvesting eggs from for years. I think Dick Pearsons quote which he applies to fishing also could apply here to stocking. “If you always do, what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got” I also agree that on some lakes stocking should just be stopped. But if harvest really is a major problem are we risking a bunch of really poor year classes on some bodies of water that have had stocking suspended. Using Pelican as an example which is very close to my heart and Steve’s heart, yes lots of big fish showing up both to anglers but also to spearers, it makes me sick every year. But I do have some worry that natural reproduction wont be able to keep up with harvest. A couple years ago Norm and I tried to keep a running total of fish over 45 inches that he heard where killed (by spear and angler) I believe it ended at 9 with a couple of those over 50. There has been no stocking on Pelican since ’98. Here is what was stocked in the last 20 years. Year Species Strain AgeClass Avg.Length NumberStocked 1985 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.0 2,500 1986 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,176 1988 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 1,500 1988 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 1,000 1989 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 9.0 210 1989 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,000 1991 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 10.0 1,750 1992 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 11.0 2,500 1993 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 12.4 2,500 1996 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FINGERLING 10.8 2,500 1996 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED FRY .5 100,000 1998 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 12.0 1,250 1998 MUSKELLUNGE UNSPECIFIED LARGE FINGERLING 12.7 1,250 I think if stocking is going to be suspended on a body of water that sees that kind of harvesting pressure something should be done with size limits, and lets not forget about delayed mortality. It was stated, by our fisheries biologist, at this years CC meeting that pelican sees the highest angling hour in the area and the area is already extremely high. But as I stated the DNR doesn’t control this, Federal Judges and the “People” do. Musky Man, what do you do if you find out after 10 year that a Lake can’t hold it own with just natural reproduction? Is it worth the risk? Would you want to risk it on your favorite lake, a lake you maybe plan to retire to. All I am trying to say is lets do something. Stock some MR fish, where we can, try and harvest some of these big Wisconsin genetics, but lets not do what we always did, because it obviously isn’t working. Unless you want to concede that a 45 incher in Wisconsin is a trophy fish and that’s just the way it is. The WDNR is on the right track, as avid musky fishermen lets do what we can to help them. By the way I missed Steve A. (area Biologist) at the office yesterday and he will be in the field for a month doing research so I will email him to try and get a list of lakes in Oneida county that can be stocked with MR Fish. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | MRobets, I don't have the latest copy in front of me, but am I mistaken, or did I read in the Musky Hunter article about the success in MN, that the MNDNR uses only 12 females to stock the entire state? Again, I am not sure if I am correct on that...but if I am..then your idea of stocking some giant WI musky genetics could be right on. Why not spend soem time trying to get som eof these big girls captured and useed as brood? Sean Murphy | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, I agree that things are not as we would like, but all the reasons listed are the 'why' of it. As I said, it doesn't matter if the fish is a spot or a fish from Woodruff, if it's harvested, it's gone. Great post and comments, let us know what 'Ave' has to say. Maybe we can raise enough money to help stock a couple lakes up here. I think that Pelican isn't all that unique to the area, other than the undeniable pressure there and the surface area. I kept track as best I could last year, and knew personally of 12 fish over 45" harvested. Two were because the fish plain didn't make it. One was a floater I found, a 50" fish. As you said, Pelican is not currently stocked. I think as density falls, opportunity will fall with it for numbers, but quality will rise dramatically. As a result, the pressure will drop because the fishing isn't as hot as it was when the lake was stocked heavily, and mortality will drop as a result. The spearing will continue, but that should just keep pace with what used to be the harvest by anglers alone before CPR. Maybe Pelican will return to what I experienced in the early 70's to the 80's, high quality, lower density, in other words, a 'trophy' fishery. I sure hope so. As was posted on the main board, the DNR is evaluating the collection of muskie roe right now. Should be interesting to see what they come up with. | ||
| Grass |
| ||
Posts: 620 Location: Seymour, WI | Steve, When you say the DNR is evaluating the collection of roe, do you know specifically what they are looking at? What do they anticipate to change? Just wondering, Grass | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Grass & all: I too would like to know the answer to your question. I pointed out in my post above about the "core problem" and would like to share with you all a bit more to go along with that. At the State Musky Committee meeting, the MN DNR Research Biologist/Scientist made it very clear to all present that the larger strain fish, the Mississippi River strain, that they are now using, spawn at higher water temperatures that those small strain fish that eggs had been taken from previously. Until they delayed their egg taking to 50 degree water temps, they had no success in the hatchery with eggs taken at the colder temps. Once they made the change to taking them in warmer water temps as noted, they were immediately successful. We felt that this was very profound. When we talked with the Spooner hatchery foreman, he told us that they were getting into Bone Lake at 38 degrees and out by 42 degrees. The thought immediately occurred that this could be a contributing factor to why we no longer have many big fish, especially in northwestern Wisconsin, as only the small strain fish were ripe for egg taking. I did some more digging, and I found that this thought does have much merit. In the proceedings of the 4th Annual Interstate Muskellunge Workshop in 1971, I found the following: 1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." WOW...fits right in with MN and BIG strain fish, and is a likely explanation as to why Wisconsin used to have many more big fish than now. If in "normal" years back then only 30 to 40% of the females were ripe at 48-52 degrees (and remember it was only 16% in 1971), how many large strain muskies do you think are ripe at the 38 to 42 degree temps that they take eggs in currently? In eastern Wisconsin, the hatchery egg taking crews used to rotate 20 different lakes for egg taking in the 1960's, including some lakes that did have large strain fish with the "average" female being 44+ inches. Unfortunatly that wound down to taking eggs that only gave good egg and fry survival in the hatchery (assumed to be due to unripe large strain eggs taken too early), i.e. small strains where the "average female was 33.9 inches. Currently only four lakes are used. In northwestern Wisconsin eggs used to be taken only from Lac Court Oreilles, stocked since 1933 with "mixed strains, then LCO fish were transferrred to Bone Lake (a non-native musky lake) and for many years they took eggs from both lakes. Currently they take eggs from Bone Lake only. That this temperature thing should be looked at was concurred with very recently by a local fisheries biologist in NW Wisconsin. We certainly hope that it is. Are they now taking eggs at these colder water temps because they have learned that since the Big Spider Lake slow-growing, limited maximum growth strain of muskies were planted in LCO and Bone lakes that they can now get "mature" fish in the nets earlier which makes it easier to "time" their hatchery operation to the taking of sucker eggs and thereby perpetrating the propagation of this small strain? Certainly food for thought isn't it? Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMusktyRestoration.org Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/14/2005 9:32 AM | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
Edited by lambeau 4/14/2005 8:45 AM | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
Larry Ramsell - 4/14/2005 8:27 AM Are they now taking eggs at these colder water temps because they have learned that since the Big Spider Lake slow-growing, limited maximum growth strain of muskies were planted in LCO and Bone lakes that they can now get "mature" fish in the nets earlier which makes it easier to "time" their hatchery operation to the taking of sucker eggs and thereby perpetrating the propagation of this small strain? Certainly food for thought isn't it? Larry, are you suggesting that the DNR has been PURPOSEFULLY breeding smaller fish because it makes it easier for them to collect the eggs??? | |||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 177 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | I do not beleive that Mr Ramsell is saying that the WDNR's intent is to grow smaller muskies. I think he is saying that by making the process easier for themselves, the result is smaller muskies. Sean Murphy | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | lambeau asked: "Larry, are you suggesting that the DNR has been PURPOSEFULLY breeding smaller fish because it makes it easier for them to collect the eggs???" My reply: No, not at all. Sean's comment; "I do not beleive that Mr Ramsell is saying that the WDNR's intent is to grow smaller muskies. I think he is saying that by making the process easier for themselves, the result is smaller muskies." is pretty much right on target. We have maintained right from the start that we believe that the things that have changed were done with the best of intentions, and obviously budget constraints have come into play as well. We believe that our "findings," which continue (note: I edited the above post and added a bit of additional info), do provide indicator's that we feel play a significant part in the decline of our trophy fishieries and should indeed be considered during the DNR's "review" of brood stock and egg taking practices. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | ||
| Don Pfeiffer |
| ||
Posts: 929 Location: Rhinelander. | I have kept awfully quiet on this matter I felt that my arguements for slots along with this was alot to deal with by the d.n.r. with this being project being put to them. Remember its the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Tthe project has brought alot of attention to the muskie fishery in the state. I take my hat off to them for the all the work they put into it. Just a note on the slot issue. Several biologist now agree with me that it could be a valuable tool in musky management and wish they had in the rules to use now on some lakes. I am still working on it but have decided to keep it off the boards. I will post if anything is about to happen in that direction. Please don't turn this thread into anything about slots. If you have a ? on it or want to know what is being done you can e-mail me. [email protected] Pfeiff | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the comparison and combined not too successful to then successful propagation of Leech Lake fish from the MN DNR compare spawning temperatures and depth, not to mention spawning as many as two times a year using the MN Strains they had previously stocked and those they wished to stock: Shoepac and Leech Lake fish? Didn't that information also indicate that the Leech Lake fish had an 'interesting' adaptation to Northern Pike competition that included spawning later and deeper, so it would lead to be correct that one must wait longer for warmer temps before stripping those particualr fish? Also, another thing that has been bothering me, doesn't the fact that Leech Lake fish mature 1 or more years later than Shoepac and LCO and Minocqua/Woodruff raised fish indicate that: 1) They have another year or more of growth before maturity? 2) Of course as a result they will be 'larger' at maturity? 3) That being larger at maturity is not a comparison of length and weight at a specific age between any two or more strains? Also, does that necessarily mean that large Wisconsin fish spawn at warmer temps than Shoepac or smaller Wisconsin fish? Didn't the DNR state that all fish stocked in Wisconsin are wild, and have never been 'mixed' with other strains? What you are suggesting indicates, unless I am reading your post wrong, that there are distinct strains that are small in Wisconsin Lakes that are ready to spawn earlier in colder water than other, larger strains present in the same waters. OR, you are simply saying that large fish spawn at warmer temps than smaller fish. OR, you are saying that the lakes used to strip spawn are populated exclusively with the smaller strain muskies, that will not grow to trophy size regardless of any other factors. I'm pretty sure that is where this whole debate begins to show wear. The statement also somewhat disregards natural reproduction and the age/size structure available in those waters. It also seems to conflict with success stocking those same fish in waters that are for all intents and purposes 'put and take', and having a good representative sample reach 50" or more. It also would directly conflict with the idea that the lake I have mentioned here in my area got it's stocked fish from some lucky collection of natural larger muskies, because that, by this premise would not be probable in several year classes as present in that lake, especially since the roe is taken from a handful of local lakes here every year. Test nets are placed in waters where there are good numbers of Suckers as of this week looking for them to begin the spawning run. I am told that some muskie spawn collection is still ongoing here in May. I am told that different crews take the spawn for suckers and muskies, and that there are waters where sucker spawn is taken where no muskies are stripped. Of course, spawn form both suckers and Muskies cannot be mixed, so that makes sense. It would seem that the way the fish are netted and roe taken would indicate no advantage for early collection as alluded to in the last paragraph of your post, as a somewhat more than casual observation. '1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." ' Nothing there states the water temps that year (1971), perhaps there was a late iceout, or a very cool Spring. I've seen water temps in the 60's by the third week April, and in extremes like that, temps in the 40's. Water temps are not stable and predictable by calendar, best as I know. It will be interesting to see what the DNR comes up with on the temperature/stripping question. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, I may be wrong but what I take away from all the stuff I have read from Larry and others about the two strain theory is that Yes the really big fish in Wisconsin are of a similar strain to Leech Lake fish. It’s the whole evolved in the presence of pike vs. evolved not in the presence of pike. That 1982 study showed that the small slow growing muskies from Wisconsin, they sampled, where similar in genetics to the Shopac strain. I don’t know if it was studied but wouldn’t it make sense that if they sampled a big fast growing musky from Wisconsin it may be genetically similar to Leech Lake fish. You asked “Didn't the DNR state that all fish stocked in Wisconsin are wild, and have never been 'mixed' with other strains?” I believe that the DNR did make that statement, but the question to ask is what are they talking about by strains and how do the know with over 100 years of stocking history? If muskies are taken from a land locked lake(that doesn’t have pike) and placed in a lake with natural muskies (that does have pike) and then fish are taken from that lake and placed back into a different land locked system with no muskie, isn’t it possible that if two different strains existed in the two different lakes, fish of both strains could end up in the third lake. I think it is also correct to state that calendar date doesn’t dictate water temps. I have seen surface temps on Pelican at 60 degrees less than two weeks after ice out. If this is the case all the fish could be spawning at the same time. It’s all about averages, if the water is colder on average when they take eggs, then over the long term they will end up with more eggs from the fish that spawn when it’s colder. It doesn’t mean they wont end up with SOME eggs from the fish that spawn in warmer water. These are the things I hope the DNR is trying to figure out. Did we have the same two type of strains here in Wisconsin? Do we still have some of these fish? How do we ensure the right fish are in the right spot? Does it matter if Pike now inhabit a lake where they weren’t originally located? Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Here's an interesting read. Make sure you take any information there in context by reading the reference material for each subject, if you are inclined to. There is an abundance of information here about the programs in each area, and the perception of each agency about the program in their area. http://www.fw.umn.edu/ncdafs/final.pdf | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, I know the MNR in Ontario was working on that issue with a scale sample genetics study, can someone point me to the results, if that is complete? I believe that study was to begin in 2000. http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol12.html I can't locate anything that shows the results, yet there are references to a study done in that timeframe elsewhere in the literature, but again, no specific place to find the info. Also, this shows in a couple places, but I can't find results. I'll check with Kentucky to see if they have the results. Anyone have anything on this one? Page 5 of: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/AnnualReport2003.pdf The Shoepac example is an interesting adaptation to a system to which the fish would, if none were present, seem to be poorly suited by today's standards. Those fish adapted to a system unique since the Ice Age. They, like the M/C fish from Wisconsin, do better in waters other than home, but not as well as other strains. Given enough time, would those fish adapt to better environments, and grow faster and larger? | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Steve you said "The Shoepac example is an interesting adaptation to a system to which the fish would, if none were present, seem to be poorly suited by today's standards. Those fish adapted to a system unique since the Ice Age. They, like the M/C fish from Wisconsin, do better in waters other than home, but not as well as other strains. Given enough time, would those fish adapt to better environments, and grow faster and larger?" Spider Lake fish were taken from Spider Lake (a lake with no pike and a lake where the muskies do not grow) and put into LCO in 1956 (a lake with better environments and a history of producing extremely large fish) and 19 years later they found 19 year old Spider Lake fish in LCO that were still in the low 30 inch size. 33 inches if I remember correctly. Then fish were taken from LCO and put into Bone Lake. What fish were taken from LCO and put into Bone lake? Pure LCO strain? Spider Lake strain? Or a mixed breed of the two? Or possibly a combination of all three? Based on the size structure of the fish in Bone lake, I know what my guess would be. Another thing is this. The DNR needs to explain to the WI public what thier definition is of "mixing". They have told us directly to our faces that they do not know what we have for a muskie strain in WI due to the mixing of strains over the years. Now they turn around and say there has been no mixing? Also they say that they are using "wild fish". This doesn't mean squat! The MDNR could have kept using its "wild strain" of Shoepack fish and still be in the same situation WI is in. The DNR needs to explain what thier definition is of "wild fish" to the WI public. Even if they are "wild fish",....why would we want "Wild fish" that do not grow large or naturally reproduce? I don't. I'll take a pure strain thats been proven to grow large and has successfull naturall reproducion over the "wild fish" that we are using everytime single time. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall: You have been and are making a point for me that I expressed to the other WMRP Team members over 2 months ago. I stated then, after a combined over 2000 hours of our research, that this problem was so complex that it was going to be near impossible to communicate it in a manner that many could follow and understand, including the biologists/scientists, unless the time was taken to do what we had done. I sincerely doubt that there is ANYONE that has tried to follow what we have published or researched more thoroughly than you have. You have always had a passion for these kinds of things and it shows. However, having said that, some of the questions you ask in some of your posts are either rhetorical or your lack of understanding is sincere. I will proceed on the basis of the latter. This post is going to get long, but to make it easier for all to follow, I will repeat your questions and then reply. Worrall: "Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the comparison and combined not too successful to then successful propagation of Leech Lake fish from the MN DNR compare spawning temperatures and depth, not to mention spawning as many as two times a year using the MN Strains they had previously stocked and those they wished to stock: Shoepac and Leech Lake fish?" Ramsell: I find this question somewhat confusing, so I will break it down into parts: The first part of this appears to combine a MN study and MN Research Biologist information given at the State Musky Committee meeting. Spawning temps and depths were studied (Younk et al. 1992). Quote: "Although temporal spawning periods tended to overlap, Mississippi strain spawned at significantly higher water temperatures than the Shoepac strain." This study was done AFTER the delay of Mississippi River strain egg taking to warmer temps during hatchery operations in the early 1980's. This study confirmed what he had "discovered" for the hatchery success. The "multiple spawning" was done ONLY by the Mississippi River strain (sympatric) vs. the single spawning of the Shoepac strain (allopatric). There is considerable published science with regard to this evolutionary development. Worrall: "Didn't that information also indicate that the Leech Lake fish had an 'interesting' adaptation to Northern Pike competition that included spawning later and deeper, so it would lead to be correct that one must wait longer for warmer temps before stripping those particular fish?" Ramsell: One would assume that this little known (at the time) information would have been a contributing factor in the decision to wait for warmer water temps. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the FACT that Wisconsin "used" to take eggs at similar warmer temps (at least in the NW) and do not now, could be a plausible explanation in the size decline here. Worrall: "Also, another thing that has been bothering me, doesn't the fact that Leech Lake fish mature 1 or more years later than Shoepac and LCO and Minocqua/Woodruff raised fish indicate that: 1) They have another year or more of growth before maturity? 2) Of course as a result they will be 'larger' at maturity? 3) That being larger at maturity is not a comparison of length and weight at a specific age between any two or more strains?" Ramsell: 1) This is not necessarily so. Mississippi River strain spawned at 5-6 years of age; LCO spawned at 5 years; Shoepac spawned at 4-5 years and Minocqua spawned at 5 years of age, so all could be mature at the same time. 2) Yes, INCLUDING at the same AGE. 3) To be CLEAR. ALL studies have shown that the Mississippi River strain muskellunge are LONGER at the same age as the others, "and" HEAVIER at length at the same age as the others. Worrall: "Also, does that necessarily mean that large Wisconsin fish spawn at warmer temps than Shoepac or smaller Wisconsin fish? Ramsell: Is there any indicator that they don't? Does not the maturation of up to 4 times the number of eggs in the multiple spawners dictate more time which also equals warmer water temps? Doesn't the decline of trophy size fish in NW Wisconsin, despite the prevalence of catch and release, and taking into consideration that egg taking was changed to colder water temps provide logical indication that there is indeed a problem, and the identified parameters are likely the reason? Worrall: "Didn't the DNR state that all fish stocked in Wisconsin are wild, and have never been 'mixed' with other strains?" Ramsell: Yes they did, and that has been a major point of contention throughout these past months. That they are "wild" is a given. However, the DNR's own Research Scientists studies have on multiple occasions indicated that they have indeed been "mixed" in BOTH hatchery systems. There was mixing within LCO "before" they moved some fish to Bone Lake and created a musky population there and, again, in 1956 they stocked the KNOWN (again DNR Research Scientists studies) small growing stain muskies from the "allopatric" stock in Big Spider Lake into both LCO and Bone. In addition, DNR hatchery stocking records indicate that fish from the Woodruff hatchery in the Wisconsin River drainage have ALSO been "mixed" with Bone and LCO fish in 2000 (as far back as we obtained records). YES, they have indeed been "mixed!" If they "meant" to say that they have never been mixed with fish from outside of Wisconsin, that may or may not be true. We are still following up on information in that regard. Unfortunately our neighbors cannot say we have not mixed "our" fish with theirs. Worrall: "What you are suggesting indicates, unless I am reading your post wrong, that there are distinct strains that are small in Wisconsin Lakes that are ready to spawn earlier in colder water than other, larger strains present in the same waters. OR, you are simply saying that large fish spawn at warmer temps than smaller fish." Ramsell: Yes on both counts. Where "mixed" on the first count. To clarify the second count, large "strains" spawn at warmer temps, but as noted above, there can be overlap, which could create a "hatchery strain" hybrid cross between the two strains, accounting for the stocked fisheries that produce a fair number of high 40 inch class fish, but topping out under 50 inches. Worrall: "OR, you are saying that the lakes used to strip spawn are populated exclusively with the smaller strain muskies, that will not grow to trophy size regardless of any other factors. I'm pretty sure that is where this whole debate begins to show wear." Ramsell: I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that egg taking at water temperatures that favor the earlier spawning small strains of muskies, merely perpetuates the propagation of the smaller strain, while the "remnant" large strains continue to be harvested and underutilized in the hatchery, and getting fewer with each passing year. The current 40 inch size limit on Bone Lake protects the small strain Big Spider Lake fish for their ENTIRE LIFE, because they indeed do not grow large "regardless of any other factors", while remaining large original LCO strain fish get harvested. As pointed out a couple of weeks ago, it is becoming a "crisis situation." Worrall: "The statement also somewhat disregards natural reproduction and the age/size structure available in those waters. It also seems to conflict with success stocking those same fish in waters that are for all intents and purposes 'put and take', and having a good representative sample reach 50" or more." Ramsell: "Natural reproduction" that is NOT happening to any degree, and certainly far from sufficient to maintain that fishery, hence the continued stocking of high numbers of hatchery fish, is certainly not "disregarding" anything. Age/size structure has been discussed before, for both hatchery lakes as well as other waters. Temporal overlap during egg taking easily accounts for some larger fish showing up. Years of fast warming could find a fairly significant number of the larger strain (which produce up to 4 times the number of eggs) contributing to that years production, and the explanation of some large fish showing up and being caught, and yes, "lucky" lakes get a good number of the large strain eggs during those years. "Conflict?" I don't think so. Worrall: "It also would directly conflict with the idea that the lake I have mentioned here in my area got it's stocked fish from some lucky collection of natural larger muskies, because that, by this premise would not be probable in several year classes as present in that lake, especially since the roe is taken from a handful of local lakes here every year." Ramsell: This discussion has been primarily about the Spooner hatchery and the lakes in NW Wisconsin. It is entirely possible that egg taking from the Woodruff hatchery is being done at higher water temps and some of the mixed large strain fish are contributing to fisheries in eastern Wisconsin. Information from there for recent years has been scarce. Worrall: "Test nets are placed in waters where there are good numbers of Suckers as of this week looking for them to begin the spawning run. I am told that some muskie spawn collection is still ongoing here in May. I am told that different crews take the spawn for suckers and muskies, and that there are waters where sucker spawn is taken where no muskies are stripped. Of course, spawn form both suckers and Muskies cannot be mixed, so that makes sense. It would seem that the way the fish are netted and roe taken would indicate no advantage for early collection as alluded to in the last paragraph of your post, as a somewhat more than casual observation." Ramsell: Egg collection in May indicates that Woodruff does indeed take eggs at higher temps. At Bone Lake, they start at 38 degrees and are DONE by 42 degrees! My last paragraph is indeed accurate as pertains to the Spooner hatchery, and was so indicated by the Spooner hatchery manager in the State Musky Committee meeting. From my previous post: "'1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." ' Worrall: "Nothing there states the water temps that year (1971), perhaps there was a late ice out, or a very cool Spring. I've seen water temps in the 60's by the third week April, and in extremes like that, temps in the 40's. Water temps are not stable and predictable by calendar, best as I know." Ramsell: I beg to differ. It quite clearly states that they took eggs from 48 to 52 degrees, and that happened from April 25 to May 7 in 1971. Has nothing to do with calendar period. Worrall: "It will be interesting to see what the DNR comes up with on the temperature/stripping question." Ramsell: It will indeed! Mike Roberts: I believe you have been doing your "homework" quite well and have an excellent grasp of what we have been trying to convey. Mike, they DID study LCO fish in the 1982 genetic study and "grouped" them with the Leech Lake fish, however, examination of the data suggests that they were more likely a 50-50 hybrid cross of small and large strains, as there were equal or better indicators that were similar to the grouping of Shoepac, Squirrel and Minocqua strains. Your comment about the 100 year stocking history actually could go back 130 years, as stocking has been going on since 1874. In the early years the DNR and the Forest Service used to transport fish in milk cans on rail cars, give them to "citizens" to stock "wherever!" There of course are no records of these stockings, so it is impossible to even know what lakes were native muskie lakes prior to man's intervention. This also muddies further the "mixing" that took place, as there are no records prior to 1933 in NW Wisconsin, and very limited information for the eastern side of the state. I covered your "allopatric" reference...Big Spider Lake's KNOWN small strain allopatric muskies WERE stocked in LCO and Bone lakes with pike. Mike, we are CONFIDENT that there are indeed two strains of muskies in Wisconsin, but the larger strains are getting closer and closer to extinction. There are only two ways to overcome total loss; selectively take eggs from the larger fish or replace them with the only known pure native large strain stock left on the planet...the Mississippi River strain muskie that inhabited the major Wisconsin river systems in the first place. It is not too late for the former, but the longer we wait, the more the latter will be the only cure. And YES, it does matter if pike now exist where once there were none if a self-sustaining population is the goal. Mr. Worrall. Your later post (#143194). That Esocid Technical Committee paper is basically a determination based on the INHS genetic study of 1996. As you may have noted, the genetic "zones of confidence" indicated basically a "hatchery strain" system that has been created. The "zones" basically circle each hatchery and its river system; Woodruff hatchery/Wisconsin River and Spooner hatchery/Chippewa and St. Croix River drainage's. In your following post, your first link refers to the genetic work of Michael Butler. His paper will be presented at the Muskie's, Inc. Symposium in October. The "abstract" for that paper is in the current issue of MUSKIE magazine. Your second link I was unable to download and read. Your Shoepac reference was interesting, but not Germain. FYI, M/C (Mud/Callahan) USED to have some BIG fish in it (one study had four OVER 48"). What happened there is a mystery we are also still pursuing. The latter part/question is, of course, an unknown. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sirs, First off, I was referring to the results of about a dozen studies, referring to the evolutionary intricasies that created the Shoepac fish, and wasn't talking 19 years. I was looking at the timeframe it took since the Ice Age, what hapened in Shoepac, and interesting observations that M/C and Shoepac DO grow faster in some waters. Certainly not as fast as we all would like, so that's not what I am saying; but it is interesting none the less, and germain to the points I was making. Many of us here might make an observation from time to time that isn't part of your core argument, but is an aside or comment to another poster here. You have taken the information supplied in the DNR release out of context, and misrepresent what was said. You say: "Another thing is this. The DNR needs to explain to the WI public what thier definition is of "mixing". They have told us directly to our faces that they do not know what we have for a muskie strain in WI due to the mixing of strains over the years. Now they turn around and say there has been no mixing? " What the release said was this: 'Wisconsin stocks fish hatched from eggs collected from wild fish every spring, Simonson says. The fish are native to the Upper Chippewa, Upper Wisconsin and Great Lake basins of Wisconsin, and have never been mixed with any strains from outside the area, Simonson says. Then you say: 'Also they say that they are using "wild fish". This doesn't mean squat! The MDNR could have kept using its "wild strain" of Shoepack fish and still be in the same situation WI is in. The DNR needs to explain what thier definition is of "wild fish" to the WI public. Even if they are "wild fish",....why would we want "Wild fish" that do not grow large or naturally reproduce? I don't. I'll take a pure strain thats been proven to grow large and has successfull natural reproducion over the "wild fish" that we are using everytime single time.' The release from the DNR says: Brian Sloss, a University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point fisheries professor will be conducting the genetic studies, including identifying the genetic structure of Wisconsin's naturally reproducing populations, and where specific strains should be stocked to preserve the genetic integrity of the fish. "One of the key questions, is, how many brood sources are needed in Wisconsin?" Simonson says. "Within the appropriate geographic areas, we'll use the most appropriate brood source lakes, based on the strain's population traits such as survival, growth, and trophy potential." ' Read that statement again, and keep it in context, please. The DNR appears to be doing exactly what you have asked for, and began that process some time ago. They are cooperating with private groups in efforts to stock spotted muskies THIS YEAR in waters that will support such an effort. They are working with the Scientist from Stevens Point to determine what fish should be stocked where, and are identifying the state's naturally reproducing populations, and have halted stocking on many waters completely where natural reproduction occurs because of concerns listed in the release. Larry, specifically: 'From my previous post: "'1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." ' Worrall: "Nothing there states the water temps that year (1971), perhaps there was a late ice out, or a very cool Spring. I've seen water temps in the 60's by the third week April, and in extremes like that, temps in the 40's. Water temps are not stable and predictable by calendar, best as I know." Ramsell: I beg to differ. It quite clearly states that they took eggs from 48 to 52 degrees, and that happened from April 25 to May 7 in 1971. Has nothing to do with calendar period.' I beg to differ as well. The statement says, and I quote: " Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees." That's 'spawning'. Doesn't say 'collection' or 'stripping'. That is a confusing statement if it was meant to say collection. Many references by the DNR I have seen talk about collection, stripping, etc. when discussing the collection process. Here are a couple statements from MN DNR and neighboring states: 'Muskies spawn when the water temperature reaches 48-59 degrees, about two weeks after northern pike.' 'Muskie spawning generally occurs when water temperatures are in the 50’s (oF), and a 40 pound female can produce about 200,000 eggs.' You can see where the statement you posted could mean either what you infer, or what I infer. Natural reproduction IS occuring in many lakes and rivers in Wisconsin. See the above statement. Stocking has been used to supplement those systems in some cases, which is currently under scrutiny, and as mentioned, stocking has halted on many of those waters. I am aware of the context and content of the works I posted links for, and hope that everyone interested in this subject will read that material and source documents carefully, so they may see the basis of the debate. I didn't just decide to look this material up, most I read some time ago out of interest in the fish. In other words, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either, but I'm still just a layman. Rhetorical indeed, that is exactly what I was shooting for, and you can choose to 'proceed' under whatever pretense you choose, but I rrespectfully request you choose your words more carefully so as not ot potentially create a misunderstanding or diminish the desire others might have to enter this conversation. In some cases I strongly disagree with the tendency to 'group' allegations and accusations in with concepts ( albeit potentially absolutely correct, still at this point conceptually based) that are presented as concrete fact. If indeed statements made apply to some waters in the NW of Wisconsin and may not apply Statewide, that should be carefully verbalized, should it not? | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall: Worrall: "First off, I was referring to the results of about a dozen studies, referring to the evolutionary intricasies that created the Shoepac fish, and wasn't talking 19 years. I was looking at the timeframe it took since the Ice Age, what hapened in Shoepac, and interesting observations that M/C and Shoepac DO grow faster in some waters. Certainly not as fast as we all would like, so that's not what I am saying; but it is interesting none the less, and germain to the points I was making. Many of us here might make an observation from time to time that isn't part of your core argument, but is an aside or comment to another poster here." Ramsell: I have no problem with your comment. Bottom line IS the FACT that regardless of where stocked, Shoepac and M/C fish DO NOT GROW LARGE. A 20 pounder is a MONSTER; a 25 pounder the equivalent of a World Record. Worrall: "You have taken the information supplied in the DNR release out of context, and misrepresent what was said. You say: 'Another thing is this. The DNR needs to explain to the WI public what their definition is of "mixing". They have told us directly to our faces that they do not know what we have for a muskie strain in WI due to the mixing of strains over the years. Now they turn around and say there has been no mixing?" What the release said was this: 'Wisconsin stocks fish hatched from eggs collected from wild fish every spring, Simonson says. The fish are native to the Upper Chippewa, Upper Wisconsin and Great Lake basins of Wisconsin, and have never been mixed with any strains from outside the area, Simonson says." Ramsell: Mr. Worrall can you define "from outside the area?" The DNR has not. Worrall: "Then you say: 'Also they say that they are using "wild fish". This doesn't mean squat! The MDNR could have kept using its "wild strain" of Shoepack fish and still be in the same situation WI is in. The DNR needs to explain what their definition is of "wild fish" to the WI public. Even if they are "wild fish",....why would we want "Wild fish" that do not grow large or naturally reproduce? I don't. I'll take a pure strain thats been proven to grow large and has successfull natural reproducion over the "wild fish" that we are using everytime single time.' The release from the DNR says: Brian Sloss, a University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point fisheries professor will be conducting the genetic studies, including identifying the genetic structure of Wisconsin's naturally reproducing populations, and where specific strains should be stocked to preserve the genetic integrity of the fish." Ramsell: This"new genetic" science can only tell what is in a lake. It cannot tell what was there first nor if a strain has been eliminated, nor whether or not is was a native muskie lake. Dr. Sloss' lab was developed to do genetic testing for the WDNR. Budget cuts created a problem. Scientists must study and Professor's need work for their students. Studying bullheads in New Mexico was not what was desired. Worrall:"One of the key questions, is, how many brood sources are needed in Wisconsin?" Simonson says. "Within the appropriate geographic areas, we'll use the most appropriate brood source lakes, based on the strain's population traits such as survival, growth, and trophy potential." ' Read that statement again, and keep it in context, please. The DNR appears to be doing exactly what you have asked for, and began that process some time ago." Ramsell: Mr. Worrall, allow me to take you back to the genetics discussion of 3/6/05 and use a brief quote from WDNR Fisheries Supervisor, Dave Neuswanger: "...As I understand it, with some funding from organized musky anglers and others, Brian contracted with a lab in California to create a 'library' so to speak, of ~50 microsatellite DNR markers -- the latest technology in genetic stock characterization. Armed with this library of reference markers, Brian is now prepared to begin analyzing the DNA of muskellunge from various stocks of interest in an attempt to define similarities and differences, and to eventually delineate those stocks. If organized musky anglers and others will fund Brian's work and take advantage of his lab's capabilities, we will know in a few short years (2-4) much of what we need to know to manage our stocks and our hatchery propagation system more effectively than ever before. We will likely be able to answer at least some of the questions regarding stock purity. WE WILL STILL BE A LONG WAY FROM KNOWING WHICH GENES GOVERN INDIVIDUAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES IMPORTANT TO REPRODUCTION, GROWTH AND BEHAVIOR." Ramsell: Isn't that last statement in direct conflict with what Simonson said, AND, isn't that last statement WHAT THIS WHOLE EXERCISE IS ALL ABOUT??? Neuswanger continues: "But we will at least be able to identify fish of similar genetic composition so that we do not continue to inadvertently (or intentionally in the case of those who promote stocking Leech Lake strain fish in Wisconsin) mix stocks at the risk of causing outbreeding depression." Ramsell: It is this "outbreeding depression" that we maintain has ALREADY taken place and created, using Neuswanger terminology, a hatchery strain of muskies! After over 100 years of mixing, no amount of genetic testing will resolve it other than to identify which "current" strains "may" be different. Do we really want to wait another 2-4 years to still NOT KNOW the important genetic things? And do we really want to wait another year to see what the "committee" decides to do with broodstock and then, according to Fisheries Chief Mike Staggs, wait another 10 years to see if it made any difference? Why go to all this bother and COST and still not know the most important things, when a PURE, NATIVE stock of Mississippi River strain muskies (Which by WDNR statement, and many other scientific studies are the fish that originally inhabited the Chippewa and Wisconsin River drainage's) are available? Let's get it back to simplicity; MN recognized in 1982 that there were two different animals out there and made the change immediately. The results have been nothing short of amazing. Say what you will about what "might" happen there in the future, but I'll wager that many of you will be heading over there this summer to get in on the bonanza!! Worrall: "They are cooperating with private groups in efforts to stock spotted muskies THIS YEAR in waters that will support such an effort. They are working with the Scientist from Stevens Point to determine what fish should be stocked where, and are identifying the state's naturally reproducing populations, and have halted stocking on many waters completely where natural reproduction occurs because of concerns listed in the release." Ramsell: This is great for the non-native muskie waters of the southern portion of the state, but it will only serve to further damage Tourism in the northern native range of Wisconsin on top of what damage has already been done by our loss to Minnesota. Worrall: "Larry, specifically:" 'From my previous post: "'1971 Workshop: "Wis.-Lindberg - ...In 1971, in the northwest, the first eggs were taken on the 25th of April and the last on May 7. Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees. This year (1971) only 16% of the females were ripe, however, in most years this runs between 30 and 40%. This year 37 quarts of eggs were taken..." ' Worrall: "Nothing there states the water temps that year (1971), perhaps there was a late ice out, or a very cool Spring. I've seen water temps in the 60's by the third week April, and in extremes like that, temps in the 40's. Water temps are not stable and predictable by calendar, best as I know." Ramsell: I beg to differ. It quite clearly states that they took eggs from 48 to 52 degrees, and that happened from April 25 to May 7 in 1971. Has nothing to do with calendar period.' Worrall: "I beg to differ as well. The statement says, and I quote: " Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 48 degrees and is generally finished when temperatures reach 52 degrees." That's 'spawning'. Doesn't say 'collection' or 'stripping'. That is a confusing statement if it was meant to say collection. Many references by the DNR I have seen talk about collection, stripping, etc. when discussing the collection process." Ramsell: Your "belaboring" this point, is, well, pointless. I believe everyone understands and accepts the DNR statement in the manner it was intended. Worrall: "Here are a couple statements from MN DNR and neighboring states: 'Muskies spawn when the water temperature reaches 48-59 degrees, about two weeks after northern pike.' 'Muskie spawning generally occurs when water temperatures are in the 50's (oF), and a 40 pound female can produce about 200,000 eggs.' You can see where the statement you posted could mean either what you infer, or what I infer." Ramsell: Totally disagree. Worrall: "Natural reproduction IS occuring in many lakes and rivers in Wisconsin. See the above statement. Stocking has been used to supplement those systems in some cases, which is currently under scrutiny, and as mentioned, stocking has halted on many of those waters." Ramsell: We never said it wasn't. We did say however, that if a native muskie water MUST be stocked, using inferior hatchery fish isn't the proper thing to do. Likewise for non-native waters IF, as stated by the DNR, muskies are to be "managed as a trophy fishery." Worrall: "I am aware of the context and content of the works I posted links for, and hope that everyone interested in this subject will read that material and source documents carefully, so they may see the basis of the debate. I didn't just decide to look this material up, most I read some time ago out of interest in the fish. In other words, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either, but I'm still just a layman. Rhetorical indeed, that is exactly what I was shooting for, and you can choose to 'proceed' under whatever pretense you choose, but I rrespectfully request you choose your words more carefully so as not ot potentially create a misunderstanding or diminish the desire others might have to enter this conversation." Ramsell: We too wish and hope that everyone interested, especially the DNR, would read and/or re-read the vast amount of references that we cited in our work. Only in that manner can one begin to fully understand the vast complexity of this matter. Picking and choosing which part of our findings that is responded to, while completely ignoring the rest to date, is an unacceptable tactic by the DNR. Why haven't they answered the hard question regarding stocking/mixing, especially in the Great Lakes?? Worrall: "In some cases I strongly disagree with the tendency to 'group' allegations and accusations in with concepts ( albeit potentially absolutely correct, still at this point conceptually based) that are presented as concrete fact." Ramsell: You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and have this forum to so express them. We respect that and have no problem with you, the DNR or anyone else questioning anything we proffer. We are totally confident in our information, knowledge and back-up data, and will not dodge ANY questions put forth. Worrall: "If indeed statements made apply to some waters in the NW of Wisconsin and may not apply Statewide, that should be carefully verbalized, should it not?" Ramsell: I tried to be careful to do just that very thing in the last post and so noted on more than one occasion. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/15/2005 8:19 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Ramsell: This"new genetic" science can only tell what is in a lake. It cannot tell what was there first nor if a strain has been eliminated, nor whether or not is was a native muskie lake. Dr. Sloss' lab was developed to do genetic testing for the WDNR. Budget cuts created a problem. Scientists must study and Professor's need work for their students. Studying bullheads in New Mexico was not what was desired. ' The statement I received from the DNR regarding the genetic work being during a phone call done is this: " We are very excited about the work being done in the labratory. The scientists would be doing genetic research in that lab no matter, and we are delighted to have them working on Wisconsin's Muskie as we continue to address the state wide program." I am also excited about this work. The results will do exactly as described in the recent statement, and will provide additional critical information about our muskies here in Wisconsin, perhaps helping to end much of the debate here. I feel it is not acceptable to insinuate this is 'busy work', or in any other way attempt to diminish the effort. I didn't see anywhere that the object of current study was to identify what was in our lakes over 100 years ago. What WILL be available is a considerable new knowledge base about the very fish you identify as the ones we want to stock, their availability HERE in Wisconsin to our crews who are responsible for collection of roe, and identification of the best possible fish to stock. The DNR statement clearly addresses that. All who read the studies and conversations between the scientists state to state and here in Wisconsin will repeatedly read about the very serious need for caution when considering actions such are being demanded by the Restoration group. Guys, I didn't say you dodge questions. I said and I believe the DNR said that much of the Restoration group material is studied opinion collected by concerned anglers, and until proven out will continue to be just that. Whether one likes it or not, that is the situation. I personally will continue to believe that the scientists working on these issues here in Wisconsin are doing so in the best interest of the fishery, and they've stated as much. I also believe that the Restoration group has accelerated that process, which is a good thing. I don't think there is any conspiracy here in Wisconsin's Muskie program past or present. I do note the tone and delivery of almost every single release the Restoration group has published has at the very least insinuated that there is. You and the DNR disagree on what to do, you based on your data, and they on theirs. Again, I suspect the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle, and I am willing to allow our scientists to do the work necessary to prove that. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thanks for all the great replies and more information. Here’s some more info I have been thinking about. I think it is very important to look at the Eastern half of the State compared to the Western half of the state, and I am starting to under stand Larry’s higher concern I believe the Eastern half may be in far worse shape than what we have over here. The following are some of the reasons I came to this conclusion. First thing that comes to mind is the lakes over there that are continually stocked and have a 50” size limit. The only lake that I could find that showed any significant improvement was Namekagon when sampled before the 50” limit the average size was 38” a couple of years ago it when sampled it was around 43”. After I think 9 years shouldn’t a lot more really big fish be showing up if they had to potential to grow that big. It will be interesting to see what happens on the Chip. In the East we only have Clear at 50” and Trout and Little Saint at 45” other wise there are some with 40 and most with 34’. Trout and Clear have had the 45 for as long as the 50” lakes in the west. I would be nice to protect some more of our trophy waters in the west but we saw how that went three years ago. The second item that would lead me to this conclusion is the WDNR stocking suspension list in the Musky Management Update. There are 13 lakes from the western half of the state on that list, with none of them recognized trophy waters. The largest lake on the list is Nancy at 772 acres and the EF Chippewa River (Blaisdel, Hunter, Barker) at 804 acres and the Flambeau River(big falls) at 1240 acres. Side Note: Isn’t it interesting that Nancy is the lake that was stocked with MR fish back in the 80s. There are 28 lakes from the eastern half of the lake with a few recognized trophy waters including; Tomahawk Chain, Pelican, Plum, Rhinelander Flowage (Boom). I noticed the three lakes with the trophy limits are not on this list. Boy I would really like to see a 50” limit on the lakes listed above that have had stocking suspended. If they are naturally reproducing let them grow. Anyway, interesting information I think. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Response from Mr. Painter from the messageboard: C.Painter Posted 4/14/2005 1:23 PM (#143131 - in reply to #142872) Subject: RE: WI DNR news-Biologists reviewing musky management... Posts: 577 Location: Madtown, WI (63.80.251.75) Larry- An interesting perspective...you have come to a fair conclusion based on the info you have....not saying its right or wrong...definately good food for thought. Hopefully the DNR will take the temperature factor into consideration when they look into the whole picture on stocking and determine whether or not its critical. On the surface it sounds like there is probably something there. Cory | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) Worrall: "The statement also somewhat disregards natural reproduction and the age/size structure available in those waters. It also seems to conflict with success stocking those same fish in waters that are for all intents and purposes 'put and take', and having a good representative sample reach 50" or more." Ramsell: "Natural reproduction" that is NOT happening to any degree, and certainly far from sufficient to maintain that fishery, hence the continued stocking of high numbers of hatchery fish, is certainly not "disregarding" anything. Age/size structure has been discussed before, for both hatchery lakes as well as other waters. Temporal overlap during egg taking easily accounts for some larger fish showing up. Years of fast warming could find a fairly significant number of the larger strain (which produce up to 4 times the number of eggs) contributing to that years production, and the explanation of some large fish showing up and being caught, and yes, "lucky" lakes get a good number of the large strain eggs during those years. "Conflict?" I don't think so. 2) Worrall: "It also would directly conflict with the idea that the lake I have mentioned here in my area got it's stocked fish from some lucky collection of natural larger muskies, because that, by this premise would not be probable in several year classes as present in that lake, especially since the roe is taken from a handful of local lakes here every year." Ramsell: This discussion has been primarily about the Spooner hatchery and the lakes in NW Wisconsin. It is entirely possible that egg taking from the Woodruff hatchery is being done at higher water temps and some of the mixed large strain fish are contributing to fisheries in eastern Wisconsin. Information from there for recent years has been scarce. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, let's look at 1. My suggestion that the statement somewhat disregards Natural Reproduction wasn't intended to only deal with waters where that is occuring. Your answer that it is NOT occuring and the insinuation that it WILL not, leads one possible question I was placing there. A) If no natural reproduction is taking place, ("Natural reproduction" that is NOT happening to any degree, and certainly far from sufficient to maintain that fishery") then the stocking results will be basically put and take. The inference of your statement is that these fish do not reproduce successfully, no matter where they are stocked. If that is so, then these fish will provide angling opportunity until they die, and then that's that, right? ( there is the opening Don P needs for his slot proposal) Therefore, the inferior 'strains' you are discussing should not propagate, will not crossbreed with other stocks natural or introduced if they cannot even reproduce within thier classification, and are no threat other than competition to those fish that ARE reproducing in waters across the State, which supports the move to cease stocking in those waters. Is that a fair statement? Therefore, if the DNR genetic work undeway identifies the Wisconsin source of fish that ARE reproducing and are not 'mixed' so as to ruin the fish's ability to grow as you discuss ( in other words, are the fish you describe as the 'large strain' we have here in Oneida County), and are, by your commentary the then proper fish to strip and stock, and those fish are stocked in the waters they came from (Wisconsin) would that not be what almost every study I have read suggests would be the best for our management program here? The fish I am referring to are living happily in lakes around here. I have seen them reach low to mid 50" class, and they are heavy of body and healthy as can be. I know of a couple relatively recently that reached mid fifty inch class. There is a group of lakes in Wisconsin in which stocking was halted some time ago where there is sustainable natural reproduction. I think the reasons behind the move are several, but one focus was potential overstocking, which caused in theory depression of growth and overall quality. This move was undertaken to improve trophy opportunity on those waters. Is that a fair statement? If indeed Pelican, for example, will hold it's own against the harvest there, then the stocked fish should be gone in a few years, leaving the fishing as it was when I first fished the lake. Density was fairly low ( Most muskie anglers called Pelican the Dead Sea) but quality was high. However, those natural river based muskies that existed there RARELY got to 54", almost NEVER exceeded 40#, and have been there from the start. I think that is the result of the environment, not the fish. Those same fish in the Wisconsin River do better, enough better to allow Roger Sabota to soundly beat my heaviest and longest fish from Pelican almost every year with a trophy from Boom Lake. Your last statement might suggest that if spawn was collected later in warmer waters in the NW part of the state the fish spawning later would provide better genetic attributes toward large size. If there are no large fish IN NW Wisconsin brood lakes and those fish available CANNOT get big, and the strain used there is as bad as you say it is, then wouldn't that point be potentially moot? Do larger Leech Lake females spawn in warmer water than the mature, but younger females in Leech Lake? I honestly don't know, so can anyone provide data for that? Also, I was making a clear reference to the Leech Lake strain's propensity to spawn deeper and later, and asking if that has been indicated in any strain located in Wisconsin. If it has, I cannot find the reference in the literature, hence the question and the comment that it will be interesting to see what the WI Dnr comes up with there. My personal observation on waters here, and those of friends who actually work those waters for the DNR during the spawn is that the Muskie population here seem to spawn wholesale in a timeframe and water temp that doesn't seem to be indicative of size of the female. In other words, when the muskies in Pelican are spawning, I see under 40" and over 50" females spawning at the same time. Since that spawning timeframe is a few days most years, I cannot see how the premise that the big fish wait until later will apply, as later most Springs is a couple days, unless the water turns cold again due to weather, which effects ALL the spawning fish. This is an interesting idea, Larry, and I will be interested to see if a later, big fish stripping will be available here. "Ramsell: This is great for the non-native muskie waters of the southern portion of the state, but it will only serve to further damage Tourism in the northern native range of Wisconsin on top of what damage has already been done by our loss to Minnesota. " More like Central Wisconsin, and in the case of one system dead level exactly the same distance North as our fair city of Rhinelander, considered the 'North Woods' here, not 'southern'. Are there other possible waters IN the Northwoods that might qualify for stocking of Leech Lake or Lake St Claire fish under the current system? I think Mike is looking into that here. Mike: 'First thing that comes to mind is the lakes over there that are continually stocked and have a 50” size limit. The only lake that I could find that showed any significant improvement was Namekagon when sampled before the 50” limit the average size was 38” a couple of years ago it when sampled it was around 43”. After I think 9 years shouldn’t a lot more really big fish be showing up if they had to potential to grow that big. It will be interesting to see what happens on the Chip.' The answer to that is complicated and has to do with recruitment, year class availability and much more. Again, look at the number of surviving fish in the Minnesota closed to fishing 4 strain experiment after only 6 years, and what was proposed to be surviving after 10 or more. Also, keep in mind it's a average you are looking at (and it increased 5" in 9 years), not 'top end' of the fish there. It took over 20 years to get many Minnesota Waters where they are now with not as much pressure as many Hayward area and other N Wisconsin lakes, and protecting the big fish in the waters of Minnesota should be paramount. Does Namekagon get any spearing pressure, by the way? I haven't looked that up, perhaps you already know. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Guy's - where did you get the data on Namekagon? I have not been able to locate it. I'd love to see the raw data instead of just averages. And something for everyone: (Steve, you seem to be talking with the DNR on a regular basis, maybe you can help) The biggest thing that frustrates me is that we all can't seem to get real answers from the DNR. We get fed useless thing like - "we use wild fish in our hatcheries". I'm sure we'd all benefit from having the DNR give us direct answers to the following questions(I'm sure there are many more): 1. Does the DNR acknowledge that Big Spider Lake Muskies were stocked into Bone and LCO in 1956 as indicated in WDNR TB 49? 2. Does the WDNR Recognize that the strain in Big Spider Lake and Mud Callahan exhibit inferior growth potential? 3. Will the DNR be using Great Lakes Strain Muskies in all great Lakes drainages by 2005 or 2006? If not what strains are acceptable to mix within the great lakes drainage? 4. Knowing that Minnesota stocks the St. Croix drainage with Mississippi strain muskies and that the Wisconsin lakes that are part of this drainage are not native Muskie lakes, what strain of Muskies will be used in this drainage in 2005 and 2006? Is the DNR concerned about outbreeding depression in the St. Croix river drainage? 5. If it is an acceptable DNR practice to mix strains in the Great Lakes and St. Croix drainages, is it acceptable to mix strains in the Chippewa and Wisconsin River drainages? 6. If Leech strain Muskies are found to grow larger than the Wisconsin strains in Monona, Wissota and Petenwell, will Leech strain be used in other parts of the state? If not, Why? If not, why should anglers in other areas consider these studies "progress"? 7. Why were no changes made after the 1982, and 1996 genetic studies, and why will this new study be different? 8. If the new genetic study finds that almost all of the lakes in NW Wisconsin are comprised of fish thatt are genetically the same as fish in Bone lake, what changes will be made in the Brood stock program of NW Wisconsin? 9. While the DNR is planning to allow MI clubs to stock Leech strain fish in the South and Central parts of Wisconsin(Monona Petenwell & Wissota), and the East side of the state is receiving Great Lakes fish in many waters (Green Bay, Winnebago, etc) what do the good folks of NW Wisconsin have to look forward to in 2005 and 2006 in terms of change in the Muskie program? I would like to put my effort and financial support behind the DNR and the new "plan". I need answers to some basic questions before I can do this. I would appreciate anyone's help in getting answers to these questions. I spent 39 years as a blind follower in support of the WDNR, now I want to know what is going on. At least I know they are using WILD FISH. (I'd prefer big Domestic Muskies myself - anyone have any? I'm OK with cloning large Muskies too, for the record) And Steve - I'd like to see what your answers would be to the questions above. Just curious..... Regards Bob Benson (I missed you guys the last couple weeks, I love the debate on whether the water temp was 48 or 52 in may of 1971 - LOL I read every word!!!!. I love the details as much as you guy's, but big basic questions need to be addressed) | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall: I will make a fairly brief and simple reply to your complex post. With rare exception there is no natural reproduction in the non-native muskie lakes in NW Wisconsin, and since most are in the St. Croix river drainage, there is absolutely NO reason not to stock Mississippi River strain fish in those lakes to compliment Minnesota's restoration of that strain in the St. Croix River. In the natural native muskie lakes in the Chippewa River drainage, I did not say there was no natural reproduction, rather insufficient natural reproduction to sustain/maintain the fishery in most trophy class lakes there. They did ok before man's intervention which was "at least" by 1933. Why not thereafter? Is it due to the "mixing?" I also did not say there were no native large strain fish left. There is, but very few and getting fewer. Selective egg taking is the ONLY way to save them, with the exception of stocking "pure" native Mississippi River large strain fish in them! Why are these options not being considered? Mr. Worrall: As Bob has indicated, it appears you have an open line to the DNR. To add to the list of questions he made for you to get answers to, that have not been forthcoming to date, add the above about "selective egg taking from the 'remnant' large strain fish", and also add the following: 1) How does the DNR justify stocking the 2500 mixed stock from Bone Lake (Mississippi River drainage) into Lake Superior (GREAT LAKES drainage) just last fall? 2) Why are Chippewa River drainage waters on the Woodruff hatchery stocking list for 2005, and Wisconsin River drainage waters on the Spooner hatchery stocking list for 2005? 3) Why, if the Woodruff hatchery is rearing Great Lakes strain muskies scheduled for stocking into four GL drainage waters, is there seven additional Great Lakes drainage waters scheduled from there to receive "Unspecified strain" muskies? A final note (or question if you will). Will the proposed genetic testing "isolate" the "original native large strain muskies" (not created "mixes" or the small Big Spider Lake strain) in the upper Chippewa basin lakes, especially LCO and the Chippewa flowage and compare "those" to the Mississippi River strain? Based on the 1982 genetic study, there certainly "used" to be some genetic compatibility between the two and if found to be the same (we have contended from the start that they were "historically" the same fish), it could certainly speed up Restoration by using the only known pure Mississippi River strain fish left! We have literally beaten the rest to death, how about some answers to the "hard" questions please? Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/16/2005 6:15 PM | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |