|
|
| There is a question of what proof exists that there is a genetic problem. Valid question... I would say, based on past stocking history there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that, at the very least, the genetic strain currently being stocked should be called into question. The fact that Spider and Callahan lakes were used in the past calls into question the genetics of any stocked musky population. The EXTREME rarity of Bone Lake 50"ers.... maybe 2 or 3 documented fish over the last 40 YEARS... calls into question the growth potential of that brood source. And lets not forget that Bone lake was once the recipient of stocked fish that originated from Spider and Callahan eggs. And there are historic examples of Spider lake fish that were stocked into LCO that did not grow to trophy size, in fact they were lucky to get to 35 inches (Genetics or Ecological... I say Genetics). I agree that there are other dynamics at work, however I don't think it would be reasonable to push genetics to the "bottom of the list" as Dave suggested. And Dave, my condolences on your loss. I personally know five people who have done tours (and thankfully made it back okay) in Iraq/Afgahn. The people that put their lives on the line for our freedoms don't receive near the due that is owed to them.
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | I think we need to have some patience...population densities, environment, maximum growth potentials(Dr. Casselman), harvest all have a lot to do how big our fish get.
Fifty inch fish have been rare on Bone....Bone has a dense population and a lot of fish get harvested.
Dr. Sloss's work will tell us if we have a genetic problem...patience.
I found Dr. Cassleman's lecture from the symposium fascinating....Every body of water has a different maximum growth potential.
Our fish here in Madison seem to top off at 47"-48"...We will see soon enough if the LL fish do any better.
Why do the same fish in Southeastern Wisconsin get over 50"? ...environment?? And the fish in Madison don't.
Monk I totally agree that Bone lake fish should not be going into the Chip. Shouldn't we be putting river fish in there?
Dave, thanks for your input. I appreciate it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | This topic has been awesome, though it is traveling a little off point, but still very worth while discussion in my mind.
Bytor you bring up a very good Point.
“Our fish here in Madison seem to top off at 47"-48"...We will see soon enough if the LL fish do any better. Why do the same fish in Southeastern Wisconsin get over 50"?”
The first question I would ask is do the muskys stocked in the Milwaukee area come from the same hatchery as the Madison fish. I am pretty sure the Mad Town fish come from the Spooner Hatchery, if the Milwaukee fish also come from the Spooner hatchery I would say that is pretty good evidence there is not a genetic problem. If the Milwaukee fish come from a different hatchery it leaves open the possibility. Does anyone know?
I know a number of very good anglers who fish the Mad chain regularly and can’t top that 47”-48” range. There doesn’t seem to be a forage problem out there even on the smaller lakes so I don’t think that is holding the upper limit down. Also the guys I know who fish the Pete regularly, have been saying the same thing about the top sizes there. Again I believe these are Spooner fish.
I really hope Dr. Sloss’s work can sort this all out. I still haven’t heard exactly what his research will tell us from a practical standpoint. Steve is this something you have the answer to. IF the bone lake gene pool (thus the Spooner Hatchery gene pool) has been polluted with a small growing strain of musky similar to the Mn. Schopac strain will the research be able to quantify that and isolate it. So it can be fixed.
Dave I can completely relate to the story of your wife’s Uncle, as I leave for Milwaukee in a couple of hours to attend the funeral of my Great Uncle, who was more like a grandfather to me growing up. They sound like the same type of individual. Thank you for sharing your story.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| MRoberts,
Here are a couple of related thoughts that I have had on some of the same issues. I live in West Central WI and we have never until this year been given the option to purchase fish from any fish farms to supplement the stocking in our area. Since there are no fish farms in our drainage (Chippewa River Drainage as set by WDNR) and no fish farms using stocks from our drainage, WDNR considered any purchase would bring in fish not from our drainage and thus would not be allowed. We have relied on Spooner Hatchery fish for as long as I have been around. Lakes here are much as Bytor describes. We have plenty of fish available but fish above 47” are extremely rare.
Other parts of the state have been allowed to purchase WI Strain fish from both the MN Fish Farm and Kalleps (sp) fish farm. In talking with Lloyd Kallep I was told that he has his own brood stock of unmixed WI strain fish that are very large. He said “many fish well in excess of 50 inches” I have often wondered if the offspring of these fish may be the larger fish showing up with greater regularity in other areas of the state.
I hope Brian Sloss can get genetic samples from these brood fish to see how they compare to our hatchery stocks.
Fred J
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| MROBERTS asked the following question:
"The first question I would ask is do the muskys stocked in the Milwaukee area come from the same hatchery as the Madison fish. I am pretty sure the Mad Town fish come from the Spooner Hatchery, if the Milwaukee fish also come from the Spooner hatchery I would say that is pretty good evidence there is not a genetic problem. If the Milwaukee fish come from a different hatchery it leaves open the possibility. Does anyone know?"
DAVE: Here's what I know, Mike. Muskellunge reared at the Spooner hatchery to fall fingerling size were stocked directly into Pewaukee in 1989 (2,230 fish) and 1990 (1,033 fish). Before and after those years, the source of fingerlings stocked into Pewaukee would require a great deal of time to trace. According to Hatchery Manager Gary Lindenberger, small fingerlings hatched and started in Spooner often were transferred to other facilities in the state (particularly west-central ponds, but occasionally cooperative rearing ponds elsewhere in the state, including the Southeast District) for grow-out to stocking size. So fall fingerlings stocked before 1989 and after 1990 that are now showing up as 50-inch fish in Pewaukee MAY have been reared to small fingerling size in Spooner but were reared to fall fingerling size elsewhere before being stocked into Pewaukee. There ALSO is a chance that even the small fingerlings originating from Spooner came from fry provided by the Woodruff hatchery. There ALSO is a chance that anything stocked directly by the Woodruff hatchery may have originated as fry at the Spooner hatchery. In the past, these facilities occasionally exchanged fry in order to meet production quotas, but all came from wild broodstock captured in lakes in the native range of muskellunge in Wisconsin. So as you can see, I cannot make any conclusive statements about the ultimate origin of today's 50-inch fish in Pewaukee, other than to say that any 50-inch-plus fish stocked in 1989 or 1990 were reared to fall fingerling size at Spooner.
Some (2001) or all (2002 and 2003) of the more recent stockings of Pewaukee are known to have come from the Spooner hatchery also, but obviously these young fish would not yet be the 50-inchers we are talking about here.
Interestingly, there were northern pike/muskie hybrids (tiger muskies) stocked into Pewaukee in 1983 (3,500), 1984 (1,280), and in 1989 (1,000) along with the 2,230 purebreds from Spooner in 1989. I do not know where the tiger muskies were created and reared. Are any of our readers catching any big tiger muskies in Pewaukee?
|
|
| |
|
| If I am not mistaken I seem to rember that the Milwaukee Chapter of MI also suplimmented the stocking of Pewuakee with fingerlings purchased from fish farms. I don't know what years, how many or where they were purchased from. Hopefully someone from that chapter has that information and can shed more light on the origins of the fish in Pewuakee.
Fred J |
|
| |
|
| Have not said much on this subject but had to relate this info.
Found some interesting info on LCO the other night thought some of you might be interested in.
Many of you might remember the years from 85 to 90 on LCO. Those years myself as well as many other pretty well known musky guides had some great years on LCO for big fish. There were definately a lot more of those biggies in there then from what we saw and caught. However, by the time we got to the early to mid 90s things started to go seriously downhill on that lake as far as catching that size fish!
Well here's the interesting part. One of the fish I remember catching in 86 that was over 50 inches also was a fin clipped fish and at the time research sugested that the fish was 15 years old and that would put the stocking time at 1971. Well through some research I found that in 71 and a few other years in the very early 70s a good portion of the eggs gathered for the Spooner hatchery came from several sources including the Big Chip. In 71 about a third of the eggs came from the Chip and those fish went everywhere, including LCO.
Now as we got into the mid 70s and on all the eggs were taken from LCO and BONE.
Were all those big fish from 85 to the early 90s from those Chip flowage eggs???? Once the stocking went to all Bone and LCO eggs by the mid 70s would that not coincide with the same time frame that the bigger fish started getting hard to come bY?
JUST THOUGHT SOME MIGHT BE INTRESTED
I know it's not science but I found it a very interesting coincidence and string of events.
John H. Myhre
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Fred J - 12/1/2005 11:55 AM
If I am not mistaken I seem to rember that the Milwaukee Chapter of MI also suplimmented the stocking of Pewuakee with fingerlings purchased from fish farms. I don't know what years, how many or where they were purchased from. Hopefully someone from that chapter has that information and can shed more light on the origins of the fish in Pewuakee.
Fred J
Fred, the records in WDNR's stocking database do not indicate any such private stockings, but that does not necessarily mean they did not occur. I have found that a few stockings from entirely private sources have occurred elsewhere that did not get entered into the fish stocking database, though DNR biologists are encouraged to enter ALL stockings into the database regardless of fish origin. In some cases, the biologists themselves may not have been informed. In other cases, it just slipped through the cracks amid the general overflow of work. Like you, I would like to know if Pewaukee received any unrecorded stockings. Is it possible that the Milwaukee Chapter's contribution was for the cost of feeding Spooner-supplied small fingerlings to stocking size (10-12 inches) in cooperative rearing ponds in the Southeast Region, rather than the direct purchase of fall fingerlings from some private source? Either way, it would be interesting to know... |
|
| |
|
| Dave N,
Here is an email I received from a Muskies Inc member in regards to stockings in Pewaukee outside of the WDNR hatcheries. Looks like they ran a co-op pond with the DNR but had to get egg elsewhere during the Tommy Thompson Hatchery renovation.
>>>“Those are the 1995 year class.....1800 fish stocked. The spooner hatchery was under construction....and we were not able to get fry, thats what we were told at the time....So we bought 3000 fry from the MN muskie farm and got 1800 fish. Mark Mickelson was our club pond manager and he can verify the stocking. All were left anal fin clipped.....and the survial rate on those were fantastic.....I swear in Aug of 1999, every other fish I caught( total of 48 that month) were from the year class with the left anal fin clip...and the fin clipped ones were all 32" at 4 years old.
I remember that DNR from Eagle who assisted in the stocking....saying this was the "best" batch of fish he has every see us raise....
The next year we got fry from Spooner.....pond production....was only 800 or so.
Those fish were 10 years old this summer....and I believe..(dont quote me)...but I knew of 6- 50-52" muskies coming out of Pewaukee this year. Thats a 2700 acre lake with a 34" size limit..tons of preasure and boating traffic...not bad.
We also bought some Wisconsin strain 18-20" 2 year fish in the fall of 1998 or so and put 400 of them in Okauchee...and those came from the MN muskie farm. Okauchee is now back in action and kicking our some really nice fish.”<<<<<
It would be nice to get some samples from the large fish in Pewaukee to Brian Sloss to verify if indeed these are geneticly the same of different fish that our normal stocked fish.
Fred J
|
|
| |
|
| Very interesting info Fred. This should definitely get to Dr. Sloss (maybe Steve can send this along). Wouldn't it be extremely ironic that Minnesotta may have a fast, large growing Wisconsin strain!
I do believe that there is a wisconsin strain out there (possibly hidding in waters like the Chip) that has the genes to get big quick. But as recently documented by the WMRP, the mixing of strains and stocks over the last 100 years may make the identification and rearing of that strain next to impossible.
As heated as this debate has been, I really feel that we are on the verge of breaking this issue wide open. And the people who love to fish in Wisconsin (count me in that number) are the ones that are going to benefit. The state deserves nothing but the best, and hopefully we can find the "right" fish to make it the best musky fishing destination in the country. |
|
| |
|
| Monk,
That's exactly what I have been thinking for a while. Maybe those old pure WI strain genes are available but not where you would think to look at first. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Fred, this seems like really good background information that could be important to our interpretation of current status in Pewaukee. Please ask your friend with the Milwaukee Chapter to contact his local fish manager and share this information first-hand. (I would do it, but I would hate for important information to get lost in the translation.) It's likely that my colleagues in Southeast Region already know all about this, but it was not evident to me based upon a quick review of our online fish stocking database records.
Just curious... Do you know if the six 50-52" fish that came to your attention this summer exhibit any residual evidence of the left pelvic (you said anal, but I assume you meant pelvic) fin clip given to the MN fish stocked in 1995? Does anyone know if they had the classic silvery spotted appearance of Leech Lake strain fish, versus the more brassy/bronze barred or unmarked appearance of most Wisconsin-source fish? Photos might be interesting...
Thanks for looking into this and sharing what you found... |
|
| |
|
| In many cases you simply can not determine by the appearance of the fish if it was a leech lake strain or another strain like the traditional WI strain especially in larger fish such as these 50"-52" fish being asked about. I have many pictures of some large leech lake strain and WI strain fish that can certainly prove this. In some cases you can definitely tell the difference, but I have many pics in which no one yet has been able to tell me which strain they are simply by looking at them. They could easily be passed off as either a leech lake strain or a WI strain.
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
| Dave N.
You Wrote: "Just curious... Do you know if the six 50-52" fish that came to your attention this summer exhibit any residual evidence of the left pelvic (you said anal, but I assume you meant pelvic) fin clip given to the MN fish stocked in 1995? Does anyone know if they had the classic silvery spotted appearance of Leech Lake strain fish, versus the more brassy/bronze barred or unmarked appearance of most Wisconsin-source fish? Photos might be interesting... "
My response: I did not personally know of these six fish until I received the email. I can ask him if he knows of any evidence of the fin clips. I do know though however that in many instances clipped fins do regenerate and can be difficult to notice by most anglers. Any definite clips would prove very interesting though. I also have not seen any pictures but will see if they are available. Even if the fish exibit the coloration we normally expect to see in WI strain fish I think it would be unwise to assume they are WI fish on that point only. I have fished a couple of MN fisheries that only contain Leech Lake fish and there was much varation in thier coloration from the extremely spotted to a more mottled to something that looks like a WI fish. Coloration alone is also not a definate indicator of thier origin. I will see if I can get any more information.
Fred J |
|
| |
|
| Dave N,
Point of clarification:
The fry from the MN farm that were purchased and raised by the club I believe to be WI strain. I know the MN farm sells WI strain and believe that was what was used. Don't want to give the impression that Leech fish were used. I don't think that was the case.
Fred J |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Great stuff on Pewaukee, guys. In my opionin there is nothing wrong with the envirnment in Monona and it should be kicking out fish over 50 inches.3000 acres, plenty of forage and lots of deep water.
I find John Myre's comments on the Chip fish stocked in LCO very interesting.
Observations of a fisherman: I have been fishing the Chip for twenty years and there are some beasts in there....but the truly big fish are not barred fish....they look more like the huge fish Justain Gaige caught out of the Wisconsin River this year...More and more barred fish are showing up on the Chip...Boners in my opinion. What do the fish look like in the local rivers...barred or golden/brown fish without bars? I have not fished in the rivers but I here reports of some monsters coming out of them.
Couldn't and shouldn't we selectivly take eggs from the fish without the bars? I agree with the Monk that putting Bone lake fish in the Chip is a very bad thing. Couldn't we take eggs from the nonbarred fish and create a new brood lake.
Steve aren't the fish in your lake X colored like the fish I am talking about? Aren't they reproducing and coexisting with Northern Pike?
It is my opinion that we have our own large, fast growing strain right under our noses. Will Dr. Sloss be analyzing any of these golden/brownish fish?
Maybe the LCO could be brought back to life with these Chip fish. We wouldn't be crossing any drainages and we would be getting larger fish. Sounds to me that this fish farm in Minnesota might have a large, fast growing Wisconsin strain already isolated for us. Dr. Sloss should analyze these fish, also.
Ramblings of a fisherman
Edited by Bytor 12/3/2005 7:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bytor,
No, actually the fish in my 230 acre lake and my 500 acre lake X examples are barred. Both lakes are experiencing NR, and both are loaded with Pike. The 230 acre lake has only been stocked twice with a strain that has repeatedly been called 'small and slow growing' or 'mixed' or 'mutts'. That lake is totally self sustaining and has some incredible year classes and some fish that will stop your heart, too. Ask Lambeau, he probably won't tell you the name of the lake, but he had one on there that was very large. I know of two released there last year in the low 50" class, very heavy fish.
Fish in a very similar system, the Moen, used to get that big, 50's were caught there. One rarely sees a 50 there now. The stocking of those waters appears to be the same fish from Woodruff, and I dug around pretty well. The difference? Moen got a ton of pressure for awhile and experienced quite a bit of large fish harvest over the last 15 years. The other two lakes are off the radar screen, get almost no pressure, and are fished these days by a few CPR only anglers for the most part. Both Moen and the 500 acre Lake X get speared. I have two friends who caught 48" fish out of Moens, so maybe with the lighter angling pressure there now they are getting a chance to grow.
Here's some excerpts from a recent WMRP document about those fish:
1943 The Woodruff Hatchery had a total egg failure and eggs for stocking quotas were
obtained from the Spooner Hatchery (Chippewa River drainage) and were raised at Woodruff and stocked into lakes in the Wisconsin River drainage. This was the first of five different years of TOTAL egg failure at Woodruff (1943, 1948, 1958, 1961 & 1963) and eggs from Spooner were used! Source: The Woodruff Hatchery Story.
1947 - Data from Moose Lake Improvement Association: 3000 muskellunge fingerlings stocked in Moose Lake in Sawyer County.
1948 This was the second year of total egg failure at Woodruff and eggs were used from the Spooner Hatchery for stocking in the Wisconsin River drainage. Hatchery egg taking and stocking records prior to 1948, are to date, unavailable, if they even still exist. Prior to 1938, there were few or no records kept of where muskellunge were stocked and few extant records of where eggs were taken from have been found.---------
Those fish didn't hurt the trpohy potential in the Wisconsin from what I can tell. Lake Tomahawk has produced very large fish throughout history.
Another exceprt:
'The Woodruff Hatchery again obtained eggs from lakes in both the Wisconsin and Chippewa River drainages.
Egg taking data:
Spooner Hatchery
Grindstone Lake 18.467 quarts
Big Spider Lake* 10.875 " NOTE: 15.34% of total quarts taken**
Lac Court Oreilles 41.562 "
TOTAL 70.904 Quarts taken
*Determined (by WDNR study) to be a "small-growth" strain of muskellunge.
**By actual egg count, Big Spider Lake contributed OVER 25.7% of eggs used!
Woodruff Hatchery
Squirrel Lake 13.25 quarts
Pokegama Lake 14.125 " *Chippewa River drainage
Irving Lake 10.063 "
Muskellunge 17.875 "
Lac du Flambeau 7.125 " *Chippewa River drainage
TOTAL 62.438 Quarts taken'---
'1958 - 1958 was the third year for total egg failure at the Woodruff Hatchery and once again eggs were obtained from the Spooner Hatchery (Chippewa River drainage) and raised at Woodruff and stocked into Wisconsin River drainage waters.'---
'
1961 - In 1961, the Woodruff Hatchery again took eggs from a Chippewa River drainage lake. According to the Woodruff Hatchery Story, Woodruff raised 5 tons of muskellunge from 1961 to 1964.'---
'2000 - A review of the Woodruff hatchery sheets, discovered that in 2000, the Woodruff hatchery stocked 2000 muskies into the Spooner hatchery BROOD STOCK LAKE, Bone Lake. In addition, they stocked 1,014 into the Chippewa Flowage, among others.'---
I think the point they are trying to prove is that the Spooner fish and Woodruff fish are now as one statement reflects, a hatchery created strain.
So why is it that a heavily stocked lake ( Pelican) continues to kick out good numbers of 50" fish and has consistently since I began fishing it in 1974? Why is it George does too, from stockings in the 80's and 90's? Why does that little gem of a 230 acre lake produce 52" fish that are nearly 40#? Why do some lakes stocked with muskies from the same years from Woodruff not put out fish the quality of the Wisconsin River Boom Lake flowage, Pelican, George, and a couple other Lake X waters here? Same fish. I don't know.
The lakes I have mentioned were stocked in:
230 acre lake, 1972 and 1976, total 800
George was stocked 13 times from 1972 to date, with 7534 fish mostly 11" in length. Both George and little lake X were stocked in '72.
Pelican was stocked 17 times since '72 with 33.826 fingerlings and one stocking of 100000 fry. '72 and '76 fish were stoked in Pelican also, same as little lake X.
Tomahawk was stocked 27 times since 1972 with 1,934,037 fry and fingerlings. Obviously, the number of fingerlings was WAY smaller than the number of fry.
Moen was stocked 6 times with 3820 Muskies. Stocking dates coincided with little lake X one year, and followed 1 year later for another stocking, both from Woodruff.
Spider Lake, a favorite of mine for action, almost never puts out a large fish. It was stocked in 1975 with 100 fish. Good numbers there, too. My son did get one that was 46, I think. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| Steve, thanks for sharing observations of large muskellunge in your area that are likely the direct products or progeny of fish reared in the Wisconsin hatchery system. It continues to amaze me that these fish are categorically labeled as "mutts" or "runts" by Larry Ramsell and his faithful followers, with the clear implication that most have been genetically compromised to such an extent that they lack any realistic chance of achieving trophy size under the right conditions of environment, prey availability, and angler catch/harvest pressure.
I have a couple observations to share also. I am attaching a few photos of Butternut Lake (Price County) muskies caught by fishing buddies of Senior WDNR Fish Biologist Skip Sommerfeldt who lives on the lake. Most of these robust, trophy-size fish were caught in the early 1990s when musky density was still low enough (less than 0.5 fish per acre) to allow some of those present to achieve their biological potential for large size. The length of each fish and its date of catch are implicit in the file name for each photo. The adult muskellunge population of Butternut Lake is comprised of an unknown mix of native fish and those supplementally stocked for decades from the Wisconsin hatchery system. If these fish were going to be genetically compromised with respect to ultimate size attainment by the 100 years of within-state source mixing well-documented by Mr. Ramsell (and acknowledged by me before the WMRP Team ever went to Madison to plead their case), then I would think these fat 50-inch beauties at Butternut would not have existed in the early 1990s. Not surprisingly, we stopped seeing many trophy muskies in Butternut as adult density doubled to 1.0 per acre in 2003 (high natural recruitment of muskellunge despite a concurrent doubling of northern pike electrofishing capture rate), adult condition factor declined, and adult growth rate declined.
So here we have a lake in the heart of Wisconsin musky country, Butternut Lake in northern Price County, that has a rich tradition of producing trophy muskellunge despite all the supplemental stocking of Wisconsin hatchery "mutts" right up until the time (mid 1990s) when adult density simply became too high to feed all the hungry mouths. (I think we DID make a mistake by stocking too many fish. We quit doing so in 1999.) These fish have consistently demonstrated natural reproduction and recruitment in the presence of a significant population of northern pike (see photos in earlier post). And yet, when we proposed to "thin the garden" so to speak and move some of these fine Butternut Lake fish to Lac Courte Oreilles (pending a determination of genetic compatibility) where more adult muskies are desired by anglers and needed to eat northern pike, we were ridiculed and chastised for proposing to stock "mutts" into a lake that our critics claim is already ruined (not true, but that's their claim); and we are told we should stock an exotic strain that can recruit successfully in the presence of northern pike, as if the Butternut Lake fish have not been doing so all along. We are also told that we "have no plan" to deal with northern pike, and yet I can think of nothing better to do with EXCESSIVE northern pike than to feed them to hungry muskies. The resistance to trying this plan defies all logic, but probably is necessary for those who have staked their reputations on the notion that in-state source mixing has ruined Wisconsin stocks genetically and that only fish from Leech Lake, Minnesota can save the day.
I will be roundly criticized for bringing these truths forward. So be it. The day I stop telling the truth in order to avoid uncomfortable situations will be the day I retire; and that day is nowhere on the horizon. Steve, I will attach the photos after posting and assume you'll place them here. Thank you, sir!
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward
(Butternut 48-Inch Musky 6-91.jpg)
(Butternut 48-Inch Musky 7-91.jpg)
(Butternut 50-Inch Musky 10-92.jpg)
(Butternut 50-Inch Musky 11-93.jpg)
(Butternut 50-Inch Musky 11-93 (2).jpg)
(Butternut 53-Inch Musky 9-89.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Butternut 48-Inch Musky 6-91.jpg (22KB - 576 downloads)
Butternut 48-Inch Musky 7-91.jpg (21KB - 529 downloads)
Butternut 50-Inch Musky 10-92.jpg (36KB - 625 downloads)
Butternut 50-Inch Musky 11-93.jpg (36KB - 498 downloads)
Butternut 50-Inch Musky 11-93 (2).jpg (65KB - 464 downloads)
Butternut 53-Inch Musky 9-89.jpg (28KB - 585 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Dave,
I have to take exception to a statement you made in your last post.
Your statement: >>>>The resistance to trying this plan defies all logic, but probably is necessary for those who have staked their reputations on the notion that in-state source mixing has ruined Wisconsin stocks genetically and that only fish from Leech Lake, Minnesota can save the day. >>>>
Fish from Leech Lake are one of thier suggestions but not the only one as you made it seem. They also, and as thier first option, was to harvest eggs for propagation from only large fish. They have also stated that if a non- mixed source of large growing fish can be found that those fish be used as a source of broodstock. Larry has also given some ideas where to look for some large fish for eggs here in WI.
To make the statement you did above is not quite telling the whole story in my opinion.
As to the genetics of our fish being altered by previous stockings.......Brian Sloss will hopefully be able to answer that question for all of us. The mixing of fish from all over the state cannot be disputed, only the results of such mixing.
Have not yet been able to obtain any more info on the Pewaukee fish but the search continues. Hopefully someone from the Milw. Chapter can shed more light.
Fred J |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | fred J,
The idea of collecting roe from only 'large fish' has been rejected out of hand for reasons already discussed about a dozen times on this forum, I think that one is defintitey out.
Plenty of reasons, including diversity, difficulty and cost of trying to execute what you suggest, etc. It's been discussed in detail, I think, last winter.
OK, let's say you suggest that from Pelican. Or The Chip. What is the difference between the 40" females, 34" females, and 50" females from that water genetically? |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
The difference is at least from a 50" female you KNOW that the off-spring at LEAST has a chance of getting "the big gene". But if you get eggs from a 34" or 40" female... BECAUSE OF THE STOCK MIXING DOCUMENTED... we DON'T know if the off-spring are going to get "the big gene".
Dave,
In response to this, "And yet, when we proposed to "thin the garden" so to speak and move some of these fine Butternut Lake fish to Lac Courte Oreilles (pending a determination of genetic compatibility) where more adult muskies are desired by anglers and needed to eat northern pike, we were ridiculed and chastised for proposing to stock "mutts" into a lake that our critics claim is already ruined (not true, but that's their claim); and we are told we should stock an exotic strain that can recruit successfully in the presence of northern pike, as if the Butternut Lake fish have not been doing so all along."
Sorry Dave, we don't want "adult" muskies, we want TROPHY muskies! And please define how "Exotic" a MS strain musky is compared to say the other "exotic" species have been planted in Sawyer county lakes? Shall we open up that history box? Stocking a MS strain musky is in LCO is no more harmful than say... brown trout? |
|
| |
|
| Dave
Those are some nice fish in those pictures. I have a few questions though. What makes you so sure those fish were stocked from a hatchery? Do you believe they are from Bone Lake broodstock? Is it possible that the fish in these pictures did not come from any hatchery at all? Could the fish in the pics be remnant large fish that were always there? If they did in fact come from a hatchery then which eggs taken from which lake are they from? Could they be the result of eggs that were used 4 years in a row from the Chippewa Flowage in 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 and the fingerlings that were then stocked back into Butternut? 21% of the total eggs used from 1969 thru 1972 came from the Chippewa Flowage and 3,550 fingerlings were stocked into Butternut at the same time. Most of the eggs used just before and just after this time were taken from Bone Lake. The timing that these fish were caught at these sizes would be about right for these fish to be from the 1969-1972 stockings which would included eggs taken from the Chippewa Flowage. Coincidence? Or could those fish be the result of eggs that were used from the many other lakes during this same time? Like Butternut lake itself? Or Grindstone lake? Or Big Moon lake? Or The Flambeau Flowage? Or LCO? Or Cedar lake? I would include Spider lake and Bone lake in this variety of possibilities since they were also used for eggs during this time but because neither of them have any sort of history of ever producing large fish I think its safe to rule them out at least. So that leaves at least 8 possibilities. But then there is the possibility of them being from two different strains of fish that were stocked in Butternut earlier and spawned together. And which two strains would those have been? Now we have to look even further back into stocking records and add even more possibilities. So which one of these many possibilities is responsible for these large fish? My best guess is they are not hatchery fish at all. My next best guess is they were from raised from eggs taken from the Chippewa Flowage between 1969 & 1972. Is your best guess that they came from a hatchery? If so, then which eggs from which lake do you think they are from? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| MuskyMonk - 12/3/2005 11:46 PM
Steve,
The difference is at least from a 50" female you KNOW that the off-spring at LEAST has a chance of getting "the big gene". But if you get eggs from a 34" or 40" female... BECAUSE OF THE STOCK MIXING DOCUMENTED... we DON'T know if the off-spring are going to get "the big gene".
Dave,
In response to this, "And yet, when we proposed to "thin the garden" so to speak and move some of these fine Butternut Lake fish to Lac Courte Oreilles (pending a determination of genetic compatibility) where more adult muskies are desired by anglers and needed to eat northern pike, we were ridiculed and chastised for proposing to stock "mutts" into a lake that our critics claim is already ruined (not true, but that's their claim); and we are told we should stock an exotic strain that can recruit successfully in the presence of northern pike, as if the Butternut Lake fish have not been doing so all along."
Sorry Dave, we don't want "adult" muskies, we want TROPHY muskies! And please define how "Exotic" a MS strain musky is compared to say the other "exotic" species have been planted in Sawyer county lakes? Shall we open up that history box? Stocking a MS strain musky is in LCO is no more harmful than say... brown trout?
Monk, there seems to be widespread misunderstanding about the existence and/or influence of a "the big gene" as you put it. At a two-day continuing education workshop sponsored by the American Fisheries Society a few months ago, Dr. Sloss (one of the instructors) told me there are probably 10-15 genes in the muskellunge genome that interactively code for protein production in a way that influences growth rate and ultimate size potential. Angler confusion is understandable, because past genetic studies have sought to differentiate populations by measuring the frequency of occurrence of different forms of just a handful of genes that code for the production of certain enzymes, none of which are KNOWN to have anything to do with growth rate or ultimate size attainment. If muskies in the sampled population were growing slowly, it was then assumed by some that the handful of genes examined somehow PROVED this was a "small growth" strain. It's just not that simple.
Dr. Sloss, Dr. Moyer (the other instructor from Oregon State University) and every other fish geneticist in the country strongly advocate that the first priority of selecting wild broodstock should be to maximize genetic diversity. That means taking good numbers of many sizes of fish from many lakes over a period of time that spans the spawning period. (This is what the Wisconsin DNR is gearing up to do next spring, at Dr. Sloss' recommendation.) Why the focus on genetic diversity rather than simply size? If we use only the biggest fish available, it's possible that those individuals could lack an allele (one form of a gene) that might allow some individuals in the population to adapt to future changes in environmental conditions such as climate, habitat, or newly introduced disease organisms. There was a large die-off (disease mechanism unknown) of muskellunge last year in the Thousand Islands Region of the Upper St. Lawrence River. Things like this happen. We want our musky populations to have the greatest possible chance to adapt and thrive under changing conditions, so genetic diversity must take priority over domestication (managing for one or more traits like size that we find to be immediately gratifying).
You also said you want TROPHY muskies in LCO. So do the stakeholders in our summer 2005 visioning session for LCO. So do anglers polled in other surveys. That's why our upcoming fishery management plan for LCO will contain objectives for density (0.2-0.3 adult muskellunge per acre) and size structure (5-10% of those captured in spring fyke net samples to exceed 50 inches in length) that reflect those trophy fishery aspirations. Prominent members of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. were AT the visioning session for LCO and helped us to SELECT those objectives. So I think I know what is desired. Now we (DNR) have to try to make it happen. Step #1 will be to try to tip the balance of the esocid community in favor or muskellunge over northern pike. Since we don't have a magic bullet to make northern pike go away, we think our best chance is to stock something that will eat them, in addition to providing a much-desired boost in muskellunge catch rate at LCO until recruitment (artificial or preferably natural) can be restored to a level that will sustain the adult density objective.
How exotic are Leech Lake strain fish to the Upper Chippewa Basin? Well, they are not here now. They were never here as far as we know. I think that classifies them as an exotic strain. A great fish, to be sure, but not one endemic to the area for which I am responsible.
Regarding opening up the "history box" on brown trout at Round Lake, be my guest. But you probably are unaware of the most recent history. We also met with Round Lake fishery stakeholders last summer and heard two things that will be reflected in the upcoming fishery management plan for Round Lake. First, we heard that very few people care about or want brown trout in Round Lake. Second, we heard that stakeholders in that fishery WANT more of a musky fishery there. In the past, it was the squawking of a handful of vocal opponents of muskellunge that forced the Sawyer County biologist to de-emphasize muskellunge there and seek to find some alternative to capitalize on the productive potential of Round Lake. As it turns out, we need to quit responding to small numbers of squeaking wheels and respond more to the desires of an informed majority whenever it is ecologically possible and desirable to do so. In the future, brown trout will not be stocked into Round Lake, and we will be doubling the stocking of muskellunge. I find it sadly ironic that I have been harshly criticized by the WMRP Team and their supporters for initiating this "touchy feely" process to involve local stakeholders in the planning of local fisheries, when in fact that very process is leading us to an increased emphasis on muskellunge management. Maybe time will reveal the sincerity and wisdom of our actions. I sure hope so.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Sorry Dave, we don't want "adult" muskies, we want TROPHY muskies! And please define how "Exotic" a MS strain musky is compared to say the other "exotic" species have been planted in Sawyer county lakes? Shall we open up that history box? Stocking a MS strain musky is in LCO is no more harmful than say... brown trout?'
It was extremely focused public pressure form a few that instigated stocking trout in Round. There wasn't a native population of Brown Trout there, right? The WMRP is requesting and in fact several muskie clubs and groups have begun stocking Leech Lake fish in waters with no native muskie population, and the DNR is stocking several waters in the St. Croix as well. What's the difference? Mr. Ramsell has stated his group DO NOT WANT LL fish in lakes where there IS a self sustaining native muskie population( I have multiple emails stating that). Am I missing something here? I also strongly suggest you watch the Dr. Casselman video, did you do that yet? It is an incredibly educational piece and will assist you in getting some of the issues clarified.
'The difference is at least from a 50" female you KNOW that the off-spring at LEAST has a chance of getting "the big gene". But if you get eggs from a 34" or 40" female... BECAUSE OF THE STOCK MIXING DOCUMENTED... we DON'T know if the off-spring are going to get "the big gene".'
That is indicative of the type of 'just do it our way' commentary that makes this discussion difficult at times. Your argument sounds reasonable if one knows or cares little about the reality of the situation, but Daves answer is the same I got from biologists here in NC WI, from Madison, from Ontario, Illinois, and Kentucky. I think he covered that one pretty well, and the recent WIDNR report on the direction of the management program did as well.
OK, now it's stock mixing that is the sword held high as one charges down the street. I made a couple points and asked a couple questions a bit back, how about taking a shot at those?
EO,
That is the same argument that Larry hit me with last winter (after openly accusing me of making the information up) when I pointed out that the muskies in my area (proven by the research done by the WMRP to be mixed to the point of not being able to compete with pike, grow large, or reproduce) seem to compete with pike populations well, grow VERY large, and do so in lakes where the population was and is introduced and maintained by stocking with stock swown by the new document released this week to be 'mixed'; yet do much poorer in other waters. Come ON guys, how COULD that be?
'Remnant muskies', etc, doesn't explain large fish at the numbers the confidence levels discussed at the symposium and in all the research documents I have read suggest from each year class in some waters, and very few or none in others. Dr. Casselamn's presentation explains it nicely, and he's about as good a source of information as one might be able to get.
Have you watched the Casselman video yet? We have alot more on the way, good stuff you will find very interesting.
The server holding the necessary information is down right now. As soon as I can access it again, I'll list what's there and refer to the recent document supplied by Mr. Ramsell.
|
|
| |
|
| (off topic)
i was going to print this thread out and re-read it top-to-bottom today while watching football...but even the "printer friendly" version would be 70 pages long. i guess i'll stare at the monitor instead! |
|
| |
|
|
Dave,
You made the following statement a couple of posts above in regards to the decline of trophy muskie in Butternut.
>>>>>Not surprisingly, we stopped seeing many trophy muskies in Butternut as adult density doubled to 1.0 per acre in 2003 (high natural recruitment of muskellunge despite a concurrent doubling of northern pike electrofishing capture rate), adult condition factor declined, and adult growth rate declined. <<<<<<
Then 5 post later (your next post) you state the following in regards LCO.
>>>>>Step #1 will be to try to tip the balance of the esocid community in favor or muskellunge over northern pike. Since we don't have a magic bullet to make northern pike go away, we think our best chance is to stock something that will eat them, in addition to providing a much-desired boost in muskellunge catch rate at LCO until recruitment (artificial or preferably natural) can be restored to a level that will sustain the adult density objective. <<<<<
This would lead me to believe that the muskies in Butternut were not able to have an impact on the pike pouplation in Butternut. Both the pike and muskie populations doubled. What would make us believe that those same muskies when placed in LCO will have an impact on the pike population?
Fred J |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What do you suppose the Pike population might have done with no muskie competition in Butternut? Do you disagree with several folks who claimed just a bit back there were very LOW numbers of Pike in Butternut? What you said in your last statement isn't logical. Also, please keep comments you select to question, no matter the source, in context. It's a known fact muskies eat pike, and another that pike have invaded LCO. The introduction from Butternut would add adult fish in numbers that should have a negative impact on the pike in LCO and a positive impact on angling success. What is your suggestion to assist in accomplishing the objectives mentioned? |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I am sorry if you take exception to my post. It is not an excersize in fingerpointing, not imflammatory, contains no vulgar language and was pertinant to the discussion. Those two statements seem to conterdict themselves and I was only asking for a better explanation.
I would assume that the pike population in Butternut would have been larger without a muskie population. But I am still not confidant that Muskies are very capable of controlling pike populations. I don't agree or disagree with the folks who claimed there was a small population of pike in Butternut, I have no idea of the pike population therefore I cannot comment. I feel my comment is logical. Muskies in the Chip have also been unable to keep the pike numbers under control. (This I feel I can comment on as I fished the Chip extensively for over 20 years until this last year). I don't see where I used those statements out of context. They are direct quotes with directions to where they were taken from. If you disagree then we will have to agree to disagree. Your last question I will leave unanswered. I don't have a suggestion, only trying to be fully informed on the plans that have been suggested.
I sincerely wish that Dr. Sloss's work was now complete so we could all have a better understanding of all of the impacts. I too am sick of all the back and forth on these issues.
Fred j |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I apolgize if it seemed that way, I didn't 'take exception' to the questions, I simply couldn't figure out where you were going with them. The comments you copied and pasted from Mr. Neuswanger had direct explanations attached in the posts they were pulled from. Monk's response was out of context and looking to start an argument. It was the combined flurry of that activity from EJ and Monk that caused my reaction. I could go point by point to indicate how badly, by whom, and with which agenda this conversation has been steered in directions not the original point at all, but everyone here can see that easily enough. After all, this discussion was about Nancy Lake, right?
The context of the first quote was simply that populations of both increased (as an answer by Mr. Neuswanger to direct comments that pike were NOT an issue in Butternut), no insinuation that one totally dominated or controlled the other, and the context was that the Butternut fish displayed NR despite a population of pike there, which again was challenged.
I don't think that there was any indication in the second comment that the LCO pike population would be 'controlled' by muskies, just that an introduction of adult muskies might help tip the balance. Obviously, there would be 500 more adult muskies than before the transfer.
I'm not at all tired of the discussion; I feel it's constructive, and am pleased with the current atmosphere allowing for a reasonable exchange. I intend to keep it that way, even if I seem a bit overbearing at times.
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Point taken. No hard feelings on my part at all.
Upon further thought I do have a suggestion on controlling pike populations espically in lakes where they have been introduced, not native and are a problem. How about making pike fishing more apealing on those waters by establishing a no minimum size and no bag limit.
I don't know if this is even feasible, but it may be a good, low cost option to persue. I know in my area of the state icefishing for pike with tip-ups is a very popular sport. If these lakes were promoted to ice fisherman it may work. Not being an icefisherman myself I don't know if that scenario would be incentive enough to get enough pike fisherman harvesting fish to make a difference or not. What do you think the concensus of the icefisherman would be? Would this affect thier choices as to where they would fish? Would it be possible for them to harvest enough pike?
Fred J |
|
| |
