Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] 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 -> WMRT questions for the DNR |  |
| Message Subject: WMRT questions for the DNR | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32914 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guys, It is unaminous from every source I contacted, the idea of selective breeding using only large fish from the brood lake /lakes or any source is considered very unwise, even if you use several large fish. It is possible that the big fish selected might forward a trait toward larger growth, while sacrificing successful reproduction, might genetically favor growth while not properly defending against disease; you get the picture. Using a few females and a few males (which would certainly provide enough material) could negatively effect the future populations in ways we have not even considered. Obtaining material from a cross section of the brood population is best, from what I understand. I oversimplify tremendously. I don't think you will find many scientists working in the field of esocid genetics that would support the idea because of the entire genetic diversity argument. Here's a discussion on genetic diversity: http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m12158/latest/ And another: http://genetics.nbii.gov/GeneticDiversity.html 'Say eggs are taken from 4 35 inchers some carrying big genes some not, all young have the same chance to survive genes are passed on equally. Say eggs are taken from 3 35 inchers and one 52 incher. Using the DNR average numbers the 35 inchers combined produce 66,000 eggs, the 52 incher produces 180,000 eggs. Which fish passes on the most genes to survival? ' The answer to that question isn't necessarily in the number of eggs produced, it's in the traits passed on for survival in that ecosystem by both parents. The 4- 35" fish may pass on better survival characteristics allowing the future muskies there to grow older without disease, and reach trophy size for example, or for that matter, vice versa, we just don't know. Hence the diversity argument. Also, when considering many of the populations of muskies across the range, it isn't necessarlily always the younger, faster growing fish that are desirable, it may be slower growth fish reaching older age that create the next world record. If I remember the details correctly, some of the Ontario big fish were old indeed, including some of the pigs on the Goon. What I'm saying again is I feel there is no easy, simple, just -do -it fix to the Wisconsin Muskie 'Question'. I still firmly believe that the problems we have here in our fishery are more related to mortality provided by angling pressure, spearing, and single hook sucker fishing, perhaps overstocking in some instances on some waters, the age of the overall stocked population and the dynamics one might assign to the generational influences. In individual cases, unique systemic anomolies, not widespread 'small strain', will determine future management plans from the DNR. I feel that the management plans for reaching our trophy Muskie potential need to be implemented for trophy muskie waters carefully, selectively, and with publically acceptable long term goal oriented management. Raising the size limits on waters that will support that is key. Reducing delayed mortality from sucker rigs is key. Adjusting goals and expectations for the inevitable spearing harvest is key. There's more, lots more, and most of it has already been covered here. My point is this isn't politics, it's science. This is, IMHO, a process---not an event. Another link to a wealth of information: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/pubs/Esocid_bibliog.pdf | ||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| Extremely well said, Steve. You are living proof that an intelligent person not trained specifically in fishery biology or genetics can still grasp the important concepts with accuracy. You have demonstrated that a willingness to consult with, ask tough questions of, and truly listen to subject experts can produce a level of understanding that may generate public support for sound policy. Because we in DNR do not have time to do it all, I greatly appreciate and laud your efforts to understand and clearly communicate these complex issues on your web forum. Thanks for your dedication to musky conservation. | |||
| ChadG |
| ||
Posts: 440 | I am going to respectfully disagree with the idea that taking eggs from only big fish may produce weaker fish. It totally contradicts the basic laws of nature. Only the strongest survive in the wild and nature shows no favoritism; they would not get big being weak or disease prone. A big fish has a proven record of survival and growth. I would think it to be only advantagous to tap into that proven track record when possible. Sure you can get strong small fish but why? I will agree that the rate of harvest be it by spear or angler has really hampered the state of Wisconsin. I think some patience should be shown, the Pastika's catalog has some very nice pictures from the year of 2004, Hayward area fish. We may be on the verge of what people want. The benifits of catch and release may just be showing its rewards. I find it a shame that the pollution of Musky Bay on LCO isn't stopped. Probably won't be anymore pictures of 60" plus fish coming from the body of water. | ||
| DJS |
| ||
| Guys we are talking alot about things the MN DNr and the WMRT have already agreed upon. The question is really why is the WDR continuing to stock slow growing muskies in lakes that have little or no natural reproduction in the first place. It simply doesn't make any sense. Can a musky stocked in WI get as big as a Leech lake strain fish? Absolutely? But, facts say it won't because it will have to live for 30 years instead of the 10-15 years it takes a Leech Lake strain to get to and above the 50" mark. The Nancy lake study tells the whole story. The WI DNR is like the alcoholic who refuses to believe he has a problem because he still gets to work on time and hasn't gotten fired yet! | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| I have read a lot about comparing lake size on these posts. I have read about forage type. I have read about catch and release. I have read about spearing, and on and on and on. Why don't we just stock some more musky lakes in WI with the Leech strain and see what happens. What is the WI DNR afraid of? The Leech Strain isn't going to result in smaller muskies. I have also read Worrall saying this is a process not an event. Give me a break!!! The event startegy put the MN fishery light years ahead of the WI fishery and counting. The whole lake by lake by lake management startegy is never going to happen in these tight economic times so let's stop discussing it. STOCK LEECH LAKE STRAIN MUSKIES AND HOLD ON TO YOUR ROD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Many of the big fish are removed from our systems by harvest. (Often used argument that our genetics are fine it’s the harvest) Most of the small fish are left in our systems because of catch and release. (Often used argument on why some lakes appear stunted) Therefore lakes that do have natural reproduction get the same genetic diversity that our current stocking practices produce. Many eggs from small to medium sized fish and a few eggs from big fish. What do you know in Wisconsin we have many adult fish in the small to medium sized range and few big fish. “If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got!” D.P. Here’s an idea in the stocking process don’t take eggs from only big fish or only small fish, take eggs from fish in the same percentages as they would end up in a lake in naturaly. See if it makes a difference, it really is a cheap experiment. For one reason or another nature has dictated that it’s a good thing for big fish to have more eggs than a small fish. Having eggs harvested from females with an average size of 33 ½ inches (if that is correct) doesn’t seem very genetically diverse to me. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| jlong |
| ||
Posts: 1938 Location: Black Creek, WI | Here is an idea. How about all you guys seeking superior genetics in Wisconsin take a look a the Great Lakes Spotted Program that is gaining some major momentum. Just look at the numbers of fish recently stocked in the Winnebago and Green Bay Systems. The Wisconsin DNR is currently doing what you ask (stocking superior genetics).... just not quite in YOUR desired location. Perhaps we should be debating whether the Great Lakes Spotted is superior to the Leech Lake Strain??? Perhaps the pressure this massive system will recieve in the next few years will REDUCE the pressure currently experienced in northern WI... and maybe... just maybe... we will see what impact "pressure" has had in the northwoods? Oh yeah... and perhaps you guys forgot about those giant pigs from the Bay... that were the "regular" flavor of genetics from the "early" stockings? Just goes to show that the "diluted" genetics concept may not quite hold as much water as you all would like to believe... and the lack of pressure, massive forage base, and infinite locations to hide (increased survival?) had something to do with it? This post isn't long enough... so I thought I'd stir the pot a little to get things going (heh heh). jlong | ||
| DJS |
| ||
| Jlong give me a break. Fish from the Bay are getting huge because the system is huge. I would expect you to realize that Leech Strain get huge in, for example, the Minneapolis Metro regardless of the size of the system or the pressure applied or the forage present. Frankly, your arguement is weak at best. Again, look at the studies. | |||
| nwild |
| ||
Posts: 1996 Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | DJS Actually JLong's argument is right on target. If the fish genetically does not have the right "stuff" to get big they won't, even if they are in a ocean of cisco. But they DID get BIG in an unpressured system with a bunch of forage. If this is the case it is not genetics we need to look at but something else entirely. | ||
| JBENSON |
| ||
Posts: 8 | jlong, I suggest that all visitors to this site visit or re-vist the WMRP site at wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org.Realize that the WMRP is a small group of Wis. musky fishermen working against great odds to improve all our "trophy" opportunities here at home.Reference to the Great Lakes strain is covered on the homepage along with the Missisippi River strain.This should NOT be a Wis. vs Minn. issue-it IS a Wisconsin issue.It(Leech) is not an imported Minn. fish,it is as close to the original Wis(Mississippi River) fish as we are likely to find today.We need to stop stocking the "hatchery" fish that has evolved over the past 70 years.The Mississippi River and Great Lakes strains are the fish of choice-grow fast and reach giant size.Let's all work together to get this done!Also,we might all go back and re-read Mr.Neuswanger's long post.I did several times and got more angry each time.There is a job to do! Thanks! John | ||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7068 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | What strain of fish are the fish in Georgian Bay, the Ottawa, and north of the border in Ontario waters such as LOTWs, Lac Seul, Eagle, etc. etc.? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32914 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | JBENSON, This also isn't an angler against the DNR issue, and it will not be sold that way by the WMRT here. It IS a discussion of selective interpretation of data and layman based determination of the facts VS that of working scientists, and there's where you hit the wall. Tremendous odds? That's overblown politics. The court of public opinion is very fickle, sir, if I were you I'd use great caution not to try to try this case there before all the facts are presented. If you are wrong, and Mr. Sloss's work and other efforts undeway will tell us that, I would rather find that out BEFORE radical, unpredictable, and possibly damaging changes are implemented. I ask you, how do you know the Leech Lake fish are genetically closest to original Wisconsin stocks? This strain has been listed as 'pure' by the WMRT, what information difinitively lists this as a pure strain? DJS, Genetic propensity to grow large will NOT mean that fish will be successful in every system it is stocked into. Nor will that strain necessarily remain as it was introduced if there is breeding interaction between the strain already in place and the introduced fish, in fact the results could be disastrous. The place to stock Leech Lake fish is EXACTLY where they ARE being introduced for the very reasons listed in posts from DNR folks here. There are numerous small lakes here in Wisconsin producing fish up to the low to mid 50" class RIGHT NOW. I know of one angler here onsite who has several over 50" in the last two seasons from very(and I mean VERY) small waters in Vilas and Oneida, from stocked waters. So give ME a break, the fish here are obviously capable of reaching trophy size and no matter how much one wishes that little pesky detail wouldn't come up, the facts are the facts. And I repeat, even the WMRT clearly states we should not stock Leech fish in the Great Lakes basin, so the waters Mike and I have discussed wouldn't be eligible anyway. Bay of Green Bay and Winnebago were stocked with fish from Lake St. Claire. I would ask anyone who wishes to make this a simple, black an white issue call the area fisheries folks and ask questions, lots of questions. The answers may not be what you wish to hear, but certainly are supported by the scientific community across the range of the Muskie. Someone PLEASE tell me why I should discount the opinion of fisheries biologists, scientists, and genetics experts regarding the Muskie population in Wisconsin and the WMRT platform? Because a group of anglers says so? I don't think that ALL the WMRT ideas should be dismissed out of hand, but I also have not been able to find any scientific support for the suggested course of action they present. A request to the WMRT; get a panel of genetics experts and a panel of working fisheries biologists together who support your platform. Have them publish what they feel should be done, sign on to your platform, and lets see the scientists discuss this pro/con. | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Hi Steve, I have a question and its this. Does the Wmrt say anywhere on this thread how they think we should pay for the changes they are demanding the WDNR to implement? Thanks Dave | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32914 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hunter4, No. They insist this is easy, cheap, and simple. I am currently looking in to some efforts they may have influenced on the financial front regarding Mr. Sloss's work and other genetic study work including the proposed trnasfer of Butternut fish into LCO. | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Hi Steve, I've posted this before and I'm not trying to kiss your fanny, but I wish people like yourself were the ones working with the WDNR rather than (well you know who I'm talking about). While there are some very pressing questions we need to present to the DNR. I feel very strongly that these folks deserve our respect and paitents. You sir, have demostrated the kind of tact that the WMRT should have shown from the being. Thanks for your hard work and dedication Steve. Please continue to keep us informed and aware of any changes or advancements. Thanks Dave | ||
| JBENSON |
| ||
Posts: 8 | Mr.Worrell Sir;Apparently somewhere in my post I gave the impression that I encouraged an"angler against the DNR"issue.My APPOLOGY!!!!All I meant to say was that the WMRP website did mention inclusion of the Great Lakes strain as a good choice for consideration by the DNR.This was in confirmation to a suggestion in the post by jlong.I certainly hope also that I did not encourage a "website against the WMRP" issue. I do believe also,sir,that the upcoming 2 year study to be conducted by Dr. Sloss was a result of earlier meetings between the WDNR and WMRP team.I am sure you will correct me on this if you know more.I have many good friends with the WDNR and consider it an outstanding organization!Also,I am not a WMRP,er.Obviously you made that assumption by my name.A friend and believer-yes.Please,when you state that I am "selling" a WMRP issue "against the DNR"on your website(here) I do not believe that issue exists.Hopefully the DNR and all fishermen will continue to work together on all issues.Thank you, John Benson | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32914 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | John, No, I made the assumptions from the content of your post. It's pretty easy to misunderstand a person's intent in written form; your post wasn't diffucult to misinterpret. Thank you for clarifying your position. Please, everyone, remember, the DNR was a couple years into a comprehensive rethinking and study of the Muskie fishery here before the WMRT was formed. Something you should know. Mr. Neuswanger's statements about the resource are widely supported by the scientific community. Becoming angry because one finds the educated answer to one's position indicates one is misguided or incorrect is not constructive, and follows the direction by platform of the WMRT to date. Also, please keep in mind the WMRT has not handled the PR very well with the folks from the DNR at times, causing some reaction, as one might expect. I am aware of at least two instances where the WMRT has at least been an influence to stifle further study, and at least one where the influence they exerted was possibly detrimental to the very thing they so loudly support, Wisconsin Tourism. I'm sorry, but the ends do NOT justify the means in this case, too few are even confident what that end might be. Do I support looking into and asking questions about the current management? Yes. Do I support the WMRT in that work, reasonably presented? Yes. Do I respect the dedication and hard work? Yes. If the study as it's completed ( I have great faith it will be) indicates they are to a degree correct, which everyone admits could be possible to a much smaller degree than one is led to believe by the WMRT's position and published documents, that's great; if they are proven wrong to a degree, which from what I've seen is far more likely, it will be much easier to communicate about the points they score along the way from a position of moderation. My point is, and will always be, that proof is paramount to any management changes BEFORE they are blindly implemented under the direction, order, or even threats of three well intentioned anglers. | ||
| JBENSON |
| ||
Posts: 8 | Thanks Steve Could you elaborate on the current re-thinking and study that the DNR is now involved in? I was not aware of it.I believe all would be interested.Also,are you aware of any points in the future Dr.Sloss study in addition to determining genetic specifics? John | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32914 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Briefly, yes. The DNR began a study a few years back anticipated to continue with changes made as they are needed for about a total of ten years. As a result, many lakes have been placed on the do not stock list, in others stocking will continue, boom shock, creel, and fyke netting studies are underway, and new population estimate work is also underway. This work also will help us move toward a larger limit through our convoluted Wisconsin process on waters where trophy potential is strong, and natural reproduction is satisfactory. Lakes that are determined to be overpopulated will receive special attention, and those in need of stronger data will be carefully examined. That's a portion, will update later. | ||
| JBENSON |
| ||
Posts: 8 | Steve-On an earlier post you asked me how I knew the Leech Lake strain fish was the nearest to the "original" Wisconsin fish.Probably should not have been said by me-as much as I love this musky info stuff and would love to know-does anybody?How many "original" Wis.fish were there? Anyhow,this goes back several years to the Minn. Musky show.A Minnesota DNR booth person explained to a small group of us that after their(Minn.)study in which they chose the best fish for their purposes they decided to use fish from Leech Lake as that was a natural muskie lake and had no stocking of fish either from Shopak Lake or Wisconsin strain.I believe- but am not certain of course- that only fish from Leech were put into their brood stock lakes hopefully keeping the strain pure.Help me here if you know more and again-I am certainly NOT! a spokesperson for the WMRP team and this is not info from them.Also,I should have said western Wisconson as both (w/Leech)share the same drainage.I don't believe there are any pure strain Wis. fish. Thanks , John P.S. WMRP team site=wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32914 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think anyone has proven any purity of strain in the Leech Lake fish as of yet, at least I haven't seen where that strain is any more 'pure' than those in Oneida County. Yes, the MN DNR used the fish they thought best suited for their waters. Our DNR is doing exactly the same thing, plus introducing Lake St. Claire fish into some waters, and allowing Leech strain in others. You said to many unanswered questions, ask them, OK? "To nasty?"---- No idea what you mean here. What's the problem? Ask the biologists and geneticists. All I have spoken with disagree with many of the assumptions made on the WMRT website, and do not support the wholesale actions recommended. What is this, an advertising campaign? These folks have taken liberty with the data selectively and without sufficient regard to repeated cautions by the scientific community. When questioned by the folks who actually have a lifetime study and a few degrees about the conclusions they have drawn, and the weaknesses of those conclusions are pointed out, the response so far has been less than what should be expected from a group claiming to have all the answers. The WRMT uses the data assembled by some of the best scientific minds in the field past and present selectively to try and influence management to their liking, and then ignores critical commentary and corrections by the very folks one might choose for a peer review panel for any current work. I asked you to call the folks that manage our muskies here in Wisconsin and ask them the questions you raise here. Did you do that? Please define a 'pure' strain. As I understand it, no strain either in Canada or the US, has been definitively designated as 'pure' from the original Muskies that were in our waters after the ice age. Would not 'native' be a better term? I think that has been a point of confusion so far. What is the difference between the purity of the Shoepac fish and the Leech Lake fish? What was the mechanism that was causal to the adaptation the Shoepac fish exhibit, and the unique adaptation the Leech Lake fish exhibit? Are the Leech Lake fish the same fish genetically as those further down the drainage? Are the Lake St. Claire muskies the same genetically as the fish in Pelican that reach 54"? How about the stocked fish in Lake George that reach 52" in what anyone would consider a reasonable timeframe? What strain are those? How about the big fish in the stocked small lakes across the North Central area, what strain are those? What fish should we stock in Pelican? What strain is IN Pelican, and why do all the fish, stocked and naturally reproducing, exhibit similar and acceptable trophy growth potential, up to the mid 50" class? Should we stock ANY in Pelican? It's currently on the do not stock list. Why? Why is the same strain of fish growing very large in one lake in Oneida County, and not another, of nearly the same acreage? If a strain of muskie indicates by test data and creel, harvest and CPR to be capable of reaching trophy size easily in a system, should we toss that strain, stop all stocking of that strain, and replace it? Why would ANYONE resist the use of tremendous advances in the genetics field of study over the last few years that would potentially answer these questions difinitively? Answer Slamr's questions, and tell me what strian is in many Ontario waters, tell me what fish are in the Ottawa and Georgian Bay, what strain? What is the dynamic that describes the current state of the fishery in many MN waters, RE: the relatively 'new' population of muskies reaching maximum potential, and what has happened in fisheries that have initially matured under intense fishing pressure like that which is certain to occur on some MN waters? What are the long term effects on a population of fish in this circumstance? Ask those questions, study them, use Google, call your area biologist, call those who are considered to be the best in the field, and THEN post there are to many unanswered questions. By doing so, you make my point exactly. Waves on the water make the wind blow, you know. Let's ask a panel of scientists supporting the WMRT platform to debate those who advise caution, instead of a bunch of amatures like us bandying back and forth. Let's ask the WMRT to stop dabbling in influence peddling and perhaps underhanded politics, and address this issue as it should be addressed. Let's look at each person's history(expert AND WRMT personnel), what they believed about Muskie management, biology, and genetics and why, when and what they had to say as a historical and actual record.. | ||
| JBENSON |
| ||
Posts: 8 | Hi Steve-nice post!Hey-I am a slow 1-finger typist and just when I complete a reply-I lose it! Hate to ask you this but...what's my problem?Steve-this may not be silly;but I think it is!Is that OK!My last post respectfully answered a question from you and you jumped all over me-why? This will absolutely be my last post and only to again try to answer your questions to me.You do have my e-mail if you choose.Telephone too;or Ill buy lunch.Pure!Guess I should have said "un-mixed".I do have a strong engineering background(retired)-but obvious to you,only an interest in fisheries.I am a little suprised your experts support continued mixing of stocks throughout the state-do they feel that is no problem?Do they support moving 100 adult fish from Butternut to the LCO fishery?Is it important to know the size of these 100 fish?Steve-this is an honest question-not a challenge-or may I NEVER catch another muskie!Please don't jump all over me again.Would it be possible to have one of these folks come on and explain this issue?I do-of course-know the WMRP team and support the goals to have more trophy muskies in our state.The WMRP is/has only asked for the state to re-visit it's own stocking program and consider the successes seen in several other states.I am very optimistic this will happen soon.Once again- Thanks, John --- Sorry-did not answer your "nasty" quesion.Please refer back to my last post and this is my opinion only:I felt that they knew that unless they stirred the pot a bit something they felt strongly about was being dismissed by "politics".They had very strong support from too many people(some experts) to just give up.Much support came from within the DNR.Again Steve,this is my opinion only-Ido feel it is absolutely true. Thanks | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32914 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't 'jump all over' you, I answered your post with my opinions (strong as they are, and influenced in tone by recent developments) and information I have gathered. I was asking you about the 'too nasty' remark, no idea what you mean there. As to the Butternut fish, they would be tested genetically first to assure compatability and fin clipped or tagged for identification later as part of an ongoing assessemnt of LCO. I spoke with the fisheries folks over there about this project just a few days ago. The genetic testing and some of the LCO survey work WAS going to be financially supported by an group over there, but because of lobbying by some folks, that support has reportedly been recinded. Too bad, I hope there is an opportunity to reconsider. Perhaps I can help there, I sure intend to do what I can as well as support the work Mr. Sloss has planned. The questions I posted to you were intended to encourage you to carefully examine all the information before drawing any conclusions. As a retired engineer, I am sure you would find it a bit unsetteling if someone who has absolutely no educational background and no professional working experience in your field of expertise was to gather a group of three and demand that all engineering on a critical, long term project be halted, a complete mind set change implemented, and a new set of plans implemented because they want it so, based on thier interpretation of engineering stats and documents from projects throughout history. If, sir, that was the scenario, and you, as a working expert saw weaknesses in that proposal, observed flaws in the logic and in the application of data; would you point them out? Please sir, look at this logically. The DNR fisheries folks are not dismissing the WMRT out of hand, they are being legitimately critical of some of the conclusions the WMRT has drawn based not on politics, but on science. As I have repeatedly said, some of the points made by the WMRT are well taken by everyone. Some are not. There NEEDS to be dabate on this issue so ALL the facts may be aired, and I appreciate your doing so. The absolutely obvious attempt to 'ramrod' the issue has failed to date, so now reasonable debate should be the next move. I hope it is. There will be several documents posted here in the next few weeks as I continue to gather information about current activity from everyone concerned. As far as losing the reply, I would say it's either your computer ot your internet connection, is Airstream a dial-up? I'd like to help you with this issue if I can. | ||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| Steve, thanks for answering Mr. Benson's question about the Butternut Lake - LCO transfer proposal. As usual, you have interpreted and explained that situation accurately. Allow me to elaborate just a bit for the benefit of Mr. Benson and other readers of your forum. Shortly after I arrived in Hayward in August 2002 to supervise fishery management in the 6-county Upper Chippewa Basin, Sawyer County biologist Frank Pratt and I met with several prominent members of the musky fishing community, including guys like Pete Maina, Bruce Shumway, and Mike Persson (President of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc.). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss concerns about the perceived dramatic decline in musky density at 5,000-acre Lac Courte Oreilles. It was and still is a perplexing situation, because 7 DNR musky population estimates over a 30-year period have resulted in the conclusion that adult musky density has changed very little over time, averaging about 0.2 per acre (1 adult fish in every 5 acres). This is a bit on the low side of average, but not bad. However, these musky fishing experts -- some virtual legends -- were telling us that they simply are not catching or even SEEING muskies like they once encountered at LCO. They have tried to adjust their fishing tactics on the chance that these muskies have started behaving differently under high fishing pressure, but nothing seemed to work. These top-of-the-line anglers were frustrated that we (DNR) seemed unaware of the perceived decline. Now any biologist worth his salt knows that fish population estimates can be wrong if certain statistical assumptions about the distribution of marked and unmarked fish are violated. The bigger the lake, the greater the risk that such assumptions may be violated. LCO is a pretty big lake for purposes of estimating fish density. We had to admit that something could be wrong with our musky population estimates there. The steady 0.2 per acre estimate might simply be an artifact of some systematic bias in our methods. Alternatively, our estimates could be correct, and the fish have simply changed their distribution and behavior patterns so dramatically that even excellent anglers are not encountering them. Bottom line is, we did not know. What do you do when you don't know? You seek to understand. The first thing we needed was some documented evidence that musky fishing quality was as poor as our experts had claimed. Frank and I worked with Mike Persson and Art Malin from the local chapter of Muskies, Inc. to develop a volunteer angler diary form that would allow Hayward area anglers to record their fishing effort for, encounters with, and catches of muskellunge in various waters. We hired a young Northland College graduate to create a nifty relational database that would allow us to store the data and summarize the results. With Mike's and Art's assistance in rounding up local cooperators, these volunteers logged almost 1,000 hours fishing for muskies at Lac Courte Oreilles in 2004. Their reported catch rate was abysmally low. On average, it took over 90 hours for these cooperators to catch a musky at LCO in 2004. That got our attention, considering that the average lake in Wisconsin produces one musky every 25 hours of directed fishing effort. This spring the Hayward DNR fish team of Frank Pratt, Russ Warwick, and Joe Drabek have been braving the unseasonably cool weather to make a special effort to capture muskies at LCO for purposes of genetic stock characterization. Last week, they captured only 5 fish in 40 overnight fyke-net sets! Fyke-net capture rates are not reliable indexes of musky density. But when the capture rates are extremely low or extremely high, it tells us something. Our capture rates were extremely low last week. And we perceive that northern pike have become increasingly abundant due to improved conditions for survival of their young in a weedy, nutrient-enriched Musky Bay. At this point, we cannot be absolutely certain that musky density has plummeted at Lac Courte Oreilles. But all the arrows are pointing in that direction. Enter our conditional proposal to transfer over-abundant muskellunge from 1,000-acre Butternut Lake in Price County to Lac Courte Oreilles. Butternut has 1.0 adult musky per acre -- enough to adversely affect their condition and growth rate compared with years when there were fewer muskies there. We also have concerns about the effects of high musky density on other members of the fish community at Butternut. So we asked ourselves, why not transfer 500 28- to 38-inch muskies from Butternut to LCO if they are free of disease and can pass genetic compatibility tests? Why not mark all these fish in the proposed year of transfer (spring 2006), then follow up with a fyke-netting survey at LCO in spring 2007 in order to examine the recapture ratio of marked fish and obtain a good population estimate? With that many marked fish in the lake, the population estimate should be excellent, answering definitively our question about musky density at LCO. It might also improve musky fishing in the short term to instantly add 0.1 fish per acre at LCO. Transferred muskies might just start eating what we perceive to be over-abundant northern pike there, too. I should reiterate that all this is conditional on testing the Butternut fish for disease (a 20-fish sample already taken this spring), and then trying to capture enough muskies in Butternut (48 so far) and LCO (5 so far) to test for genetic compatibility in Dr. Brian Sloss' lab using microsatellite DNA analysis. We would like to compare the DNA of 50 fish from each lake before making any decisions. If our sample size at LCO is too small, or if results show that Butternut and LCO muskies differ too much in genetic composition, I personally will not allow the project to proceed. Enter the WMRT. When he got wind of this proposal, Larry Ramsell informed me that we (DNR) would NOT be implementing this project, period. I was shocked by his arrogance, and I have been unable to understand his thought process. Apparently he feared that we would be endangering the genetic stock of muskies at LCO, which he has been claiming for months is already ruined. (Incidentally, that is HIGHLY unlikely.) And apparently he has no interest in learning whether state-of-the-art testing will reveal genetic similarity or divergence between the two populations in question. Apparently he is willing to simply assume, without testing, that LCO fish are ruined and that adding Butternut Lake fish will make matters even worse. Something tells me he would be delighted to see us stock Leech Lake strain fish, which clearly are of a different stock and pose a real risk of outbreeding depression. Again, his thought process eludes me. Ordinarily I would not be too concerned with the rather contradictory concerns of one angler working against his fellows in the community who wish to better understand and improve a musky fishery. But in this case, Mr. Ramsell has had time to wage a misinformation campaign that has resulted in several local entities writing letters to DNR to urge us not to transfer muskies from Butternut Lake to LCO. To our local friends and supporters in the musky fishing community, I urge you not to worry. I will be providing accurate information about this proposal in the coming months, and I expect to obtain a large measure of support before all the chips fall. It may turn out to be a lot of "to do" about nothing if I personally determine that the Butternut and LCO stocks are genetically incompatible. But I will appreciate everyone's patience and support in helping us to understand and solve this interesting problem. Dave | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32914 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Neuswanger, Thanks for the update, sir. As an aside, I met with an Arkansas Game and Fish fisheries biologist this week on Bull Shoals during the In Fisherman Professional Walleye trail event there. He's wishing they had more muskies in the state. They have now captured hybrids that are 38" from a recent program in some waters, and have hopes of an expanding program. The walleye fishery is indeed impressive, it took nearly 50 pounds to win, three day 5 fish limit. Only one problem for this Yankee, it was 90 DEGREES down there in the afternoon. I near melted covering the event. Interesting links: http://walleye.outdoorsfirst.com/leaderboard/llb.asp?t=390 http://walleye.outdoorsfirst.com/ By the way John, I can't type either, I was fishing and hunting during High School typing back in about 1968 instead of practicing. One of my greatest regrets. I'll take you up on that lunch, but I'll buy this one; expect an email soon! | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Dave, I have a few questions for you. If you get the time someday to post answers here that would be appreciated. There has been 4,900,430 Mississippi strain walleye fry and 4,308 Mississippi strain walleye fingerlings stocked into LCO between 2002 & 2003. There has also been Mississippi strain walleyes recently stocked into many other NW WI muskie waters. Why is it ok to stock the Mississippi strain walleyes into LCO but not Mississippi strain muskies? Other than the species of fish, whats the difference? Same questions as above in regards to the other muskie waters that the Mississippi strain walleyes are being stocked into? Why did the DNR start recently stocking the Mississippi strain walleyes into many NW WI waters in the first place? Thanks in advance. | |||
| Musky M an |
| ||
| Dave, When Frank Pratt and yourself met with these prominent musky anglers from Hayward about the decline of fish in LCO,was their mention of the severe tribal spearing taking place in Musky Bay through the ice just before and during that time? Were these studies of Butternut strain vs LCO strain fish transplant plans before or after the WMRP Report? | |||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| Good question, Eric. First, there is no genetically distinct and well-defined "Mississippi strain" walleye to my knowledge. Biologists and propagationists may use that term to distinguish fish originating in our large Mississippi River basin from, say, those in the Lake Superior or Hudson Bay drainage basins. But most walleyes in the Midwest, and to some extent nationwide, have a diverse genome based upon decades of indiscriminate mixing. Even more than muskellunge, walleyes have been moved from basin to basin and state to state in such an unregulated way for so long that there may be very few stocks left that have remained reproductively isolated from other stocks to the extent that they may still possess coadapted gene complexes that confer upon them maximum fitness in their waters of origin. Over time, the potentially adverse effects of such unregulated mixing might be reversable. That's why biologists all over the country are starting to be more careful not to introduce fish originating from widely differing environments into important walleye waters where the potential exists for coadaptation to resume in existing stocks. Over a period of centuries, walleye stocks in Lake Superior (and its tributaries up to the first barrier), Lake Michigan (and its tribs...) and other major systems, if not perpetually bombarded with genes from other locations, may actually develop unique genetic characteristics that confer improved "fitness" upon those populations -- characteristics that may make them better able to reproduce, grow, and survive to reproduce themselves. One thing we must realize is that walleye did not exist in most lakes in NW Wisconsin before we humans decided to spread them around. They clearly existed in the major river basins, but it's only in the last century or so that we introduced walleyes into lakes where muskellunge and bass had somehow become established naturally without our help. Therefore, it could be argued that there are few, if any, coadapted gene complexes among walleye in those lakes where they were introduced by man. But to be honest, we don't know exactly how long it takes for coadaptation to occur, because the phenomenon can occur in a couple different ways. We usually think of coadapted gene complexes arising as a result of selective environmental pressures (extrinsic factors). Presumably these take time to exert their influence -- hundreds or even thousands of years. But they also can arise as a result of the complex processes that occur when spawning fish exchange genetic material to make new little fish (intrinsic factors). This process could, by sheer luck, result in improved fitness for a particular group of offspring almost overnight. If those offspring out-survive and out-reproduce their cohorts who did not get the lucky combination of genes, a coadapted gene complex may form and be perpetuated. I guess the bottom line is this... Walleyes can be viewed somewhat differently than muskellunge, depending upon the water of course, because most of our isolated inland lakes did not have walleyes to begin with. Does this mean we carelessly stock walleyes from, say, Lake of the Woods into Lac Courte Oreilles? No. But any walleyes originating from anywhere in northern Wisconsin outside the Great Lakes system should be just fine based upon what we know today. I may eat my words in 20 years, but that's science and I will welcome improved understanding as it develops. The IDEAL situation would be to allow nature to take its course in our better walleye waters where natural reproduction is usually sufficient, possibly resulting in the formation of coadapted gene complexes in those waters over the next 100 to 1,000 years. But preventing short-term crashes in walleye density via stocking may be more important to Wisconsin anglers than allowing the fitness advantages of coadaptation to run its natural, long-term course. I predict this will make for healthy debate for some time to come. You also asked about Mississippi strain muskies. I know the terminology can be and has been confusing, but we all need to realize that fish from Leech Lake, Minnesota are just that -- fish from Leech Lake, Minnesota. Some folks seem to believe that just because these fish arose within the huge watershed boundary of the Mississippi River that they are characteristic of all muskies in the basin. Not true. These fish may have had time to develop their own coadapted gene complex in Leech Lake. Some of the early genetic studies suggest they are different, and the work proposed by Dr. Brian Sloss should greatly advance our understanding of just how different they are from, say, the muskellunge native to Lac Courte Oreilles. I hope I have answered these politely posed questions to your satisfaction, Eric. | |||
| Dave Neuswanger |
| ||
| Musky Man, Concerns WERE expressed by our local musky fishing experts about the spearing of muskellunge in Lac Courte Oreilles. I do not know if the tribal harvest occurs to a degree that prevents trophy musky angling goals from being achieved, but I am troubled by the absence of documentation of that harvest, whether it is large or small. I will be working with our tribal neighbors to learn of THEIR goals, and to see if we can find enough mutual interest to start documenting what is being harvested by the various stakeholders. We must understand the system before we can manage it effectively, but we must also be very respectful of the ancestral rights of these people to engage in the harvest of these fish in this manner. To answer your second question, the Butternut-LCO transfer idea was conceived long before the WMRT produced their report and began promoting their agenda. We have been concerned about musky density at LCO since our meeting with local fishing experts in fall 2002. And we developed a formal Fishery Management Plan for Butternut Lake after a stakeholder meeting in spring of 2004 identified stakeholder interests in reducing musky density and improving musky size structure at Butternut. | |||
| PFLesox |
| ||
Location: Munster, IN | Dave, Keep up the good work. I have been fishing LCO for over 40 years and have seen the ups and downs. Has the degredation of the spawning area on the lake contributed to the decline of the number of muskies? I have heard that no natural reproduciton occours on LCO anymore. Is this true? Some type of reproduction must be taking place becasue I caught 2 hybrid muskies last summer. One thing that I have noticed in the last 2 years is that the weed growth in the main lake area has improved tremendously. I know for a number of years many of the cabbage weeds had been diasappearing. It is starting to look like it used too. Musky Bay also seems to be improving slowly. I am really hoping the two fish will be compatable so you can go ahead with your plans. Good luck and you do have supporters backing you. Thanks, Paul | ||
| 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 © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |