sworrall - 11/1/2004 2:26 PM

Bob,
Thanks for the answers. OK, let me get this straight.

1) You are suggesting that Wisconsin strips spawn only from 'young' fish of trophy stature. Is that correct?
Reply - Close. I'd say fish that are above the typical growth curve. I'm stting the bar at 50" and 10 years old. 55inchers of any age will be milked. Realistically, I'd suggest starting immediately, no females under 45" be milked, and no males under 37". This should be done whether or not we have a new brood stock lake, but the 45" and 37" size are too small for the "super brood lake".

2) You suggest we have a brood lake to do this from. How does the state accomplish that? What lake? Where do the fish come from to stock this lake or does this lake already exist? What about the muskies already IN that lake, wouldn't they interbreed if we are to 'create' the strain were looking for? Which hatchery would raise the fish?

Reply: We have many lakes to choose from. Over here I like the Chetek chain and Long Lake north of here. Both lakes with no muskies - or virtually none. This is probably the biggest hurdle - politically. I think we should choose alake with very few or no muskies. The fish will come from BIG Muskies netted from Grindstone Lake, Chippewa Flowage, LCO, Wisconsin River, Pelican Lake, etc. I will accept DNR input if they don't want to cross fish from the Chippewa and Wisconsin river drainages. We will use the same hatchery as we are using now for the bone lake fish. Same in NE Wisconsin if we have to divide it by drainage.

3) You are stating that a 1 in 3 kill ratio of the biggest fish caught by angling from any particular lake will cause accelerated evolution?
From small Lakes - Yes without a doubt. From large lakes - Yes with only a little doubt. If we do have 99% release, the harvest rate on fish with good Genes is 33 Times higher than the fish with small genes. MY ANSWER TO THIS IS YES!!!!!!

4) You feel that with the budget the DNR has today they could radically alter the muskie stocking program, and that the idea would be accepted by the CC and the area fish managers? That stripping spawn from one lake would give the state enough muskies to stock at the rate they do currently?

Reply: If the DNR is catching large fish today, I don't feel there will be any add'l cost. Personally I feel they are not catching large fish today. For that reason they will need to tweak their current netting program and this will be the only change in costs. I feel that they will need larger nets. I also believe MI clubs will band together and build/buy these nets if requested. I believe that they will need to net different lakes than Bone -but they already net lakes like Grindstone etc. already. If they need assistance in checking nets, I suggest they ask MI clubs for assistance. There will be no change in costs after eggs/milt are gathered. NONE. My understandin is that the biggest cost is raising the fish not netting them.

4) You feel Leech Lake strain would be successful anywhere they are stocked and grow to trophy sizes? Same applies to Wisconsin strains that grow fast and get big? Didn't some Illinois waters get stocked with that strain and the project failed? I remember something about that, any insight form someone familiar with what happened there?

Reply I'd prefer to stay out of the strain discussion - Let me say that if we are taking eggs from 37" Leech fish that are the same age as 37" Wisconsin fish, I believe they will end up at the same size. The 5 year old 47.5 inch fish was grown in Illinois and was from Leech stock. I thinl it would be easier to take Leech or Great Lakes fish, but I think we can achieve the same results - and eventually better by singling out the largets fish of ANY strain.

4) You feel that forage, water quality, chemistry, and all the other environmental factors that make up the waters you would have the fish stocked in would not effect maximum size or growth rates? Or are you saying that all things equal no matter how infertile the system, that one strain from Northern Wisconsin will out do another and grow to trophy size?

Reply - I feel that forage and the environmental factors are secondary to genetics. I believe that a fish with 55" genes will grow to 57" in Mille LACs with unlimited forage and 53" in the Tiger cat Flowage where food is sparse. These fish will differ more in weight than in length. If you believe the World records, I'd say that Wisconsin is the best strain. If you don't believe the records, I still say there were way more 52" plus fish in the old days. I'm saying I don't care - we'll get bigger fish either way.

5) You do not think that offspring from 50" fish would all reach 50". I stand corrected. How much of an effect would your plan actually have on the lake's total population assuming stockings of perhaps 1 fish per acre every other year that are added to the naturally reproducing population already in place? How would they differ? Should those fish that are not 'superior' and do NOT reach trophy size from the stocked fish be allowed to breed, and how would that be checked? How much a percentage of the adults stocked reaching trophy size is acceptable?

Reply - this will depend on the natural reproduction in the individual lakes. You credit a lot of your big fish to DNR stocking. I truly believe thaat you will be catching, more big fish in 6 years. I truly believe that 10 years after we start this I will never need to fish in Minnesota again. We cannot control breeding other than in our "brood lake".
I believe 100% of the female muskie that is stocked from the eggs of a 10 year old 50 inch female will reach 50 inches by age 20 - regardless of where we stock them. This should be our goal.


6) Are you suggesting that all fish are aged before stripping them for spawn?

reply: If it is possible - yes. absolutely. If not we need to focus on the largest fish. I could ramble on about Isolating, the fat and stupid genes too, but that is best done over a few beers.

7) Are you going to answer the continuous question that I asked:
Why does the same stocked fish, from the same lake, stripped during the same spring, raised at the same hatchery, grow to 50" in one lake, and only low 40" class in others?

reply) tough question. It'd be easier if we had no big fish in WI, but we do. Too many variables to say for sure, but with better fish stocked you will be asking why they grow to 57" in one lake and only low 50" in the other.

8) Where are the biggest, fastest growing fish in Wisconsin? What lakes should we use for stripping spawn? What strain are these fish, and how do they differ genetically from fish in 'other' areas? Shoepac aside, that one is out of the discussion for obvious reasons and is a Minnesota strain anyway.

Reply) I've seen evidence of large fast growing fish in the Chip (the "Jaws" were from a 58" fish that was around 15 years old. if I remember right). Certainly the 50" lakes in Haywardare good places to start. The Wisconsin river stands out as well.

9) How many muskies do you suppose the Wisconsin DNR stocks per year?

Reply) don't know. But I don't think we need more muskies. Just Bigger Muskies. Minnesota and Ontario need bigger Muskies too. I'll state this again- places like Eagle Lake, LOTW, Wabigoon and Lac Seul had the biggest harvest of the biggest Muskies in the early days - and the biggest fish never came back(to the extent they were there before harvest. I know some people like to say that all the big fish from the old days were "bogus". I'm starting to be convinced that this is not the case.
Back on the topic - I'm seeing no change here in the numbers of fish stocked - the only change is the fish we take the eggs from. If we have budget issues (and I'm sure we do) all this becomes more important, not less. Bigger fish are better breeders(Uh-Oh that's a whole different can of worms) and stocking better fish will let us rely less on stocking.

OK, that will do for questions for now.

Answers:
We BOTH agree with some Wisconsin fisheries folks that there should be lakes in Wisconsin that are trophy only or at least managed for trophy fish. I'd like to see 54", but we couldn't pass FIFTY on LIMITED water, for cripes sake. I won't ignore the social and political reality here, and I'm baffled why you think you can. THE 50" PROPOSAL CAN PASS, but it will take a temendous amount of PR work.

Reply) The political troubles are why we should pursue selective breeding - no one will care if we change how we get our eggs.

The Wisconsin State budget stinks. Money is really tight. What I was saying and am saying is that your proposal for a new brood stock lake if one follows the parameters you laid out from the beginning for management practices of 'trophy only' muskies would cost extra money. I have contacted three biologists from the state and will report back with what I'm told.

Reply) Please provide details on costs. I can't deal with "It would cost too much." That's what drew the "BS" remark. Finding the Brood stock lake is the hardest thing.

FSF said it well. Re-read his post, it's pretty well presented, in my opinion.

I'll go back and look.

No problem with the BS comment, but your answers didn't explain why my ideas were BS, they simply offered a different perspective with little information as to how it would be executed and attain what you are looking for. I'll refrain from calling your ideas BS if you will refrain from caling mine BS, deal?
;)

sworrall - 11/1/2004 8:25 PM

"Now I have a question for you. If the limit is set at 50" on that lake after you introduce your super strain fish, wouldn't BOTH fish contribute equally and perhaps forever to the pool? if the limit ISN'T set at 50" or better, and accelerated evolution is in play as you feel it is, wouldn't the introduction of a class of fish that ENCOURAGES harvest make the problem worse?Does natural selection always favor the biggest, fastest growing critter?"


Steve - I Won't be able to get to everything but:

Steve - it was actually you that lead me to believe we could age fish in the field. If we can't, let's just use big fish. I still believe we can age fish in the field.

I'm glad to see we won't need new nets - I'm stating there will be no additional costs. I see questions, but if we are using the same hatcheries and producing the same number of fish (I'm ok with less fish) there should be no additional costs. We will use these fish everywhere. there is no reason not to.

When we stock muskies taken from large fish they will be able to breed with the "smaller muskies" that are in that lake - that is true. I believe we are just evening the playing field because small muskies are harvested less than big ones. More big fish will likely encourage more harvest. Let's get more big fish as we work on the harvest issues - I'm sure we are both OK with that.

I will say that if the DNR believes there is an overabundance of Muskies in any given lake, I feel they should have a maximum size limit and encourage harvest of fish in the 30-40 inch range. The BIG FISH MUST STAY. In some lakes - I would like to see a "genetic cleansing" of small fish. This may be going off the deep end, and would not be something I'd reccomend unless the selective breeding concept is proven to work in the field. Then I think it should be expanded to other species as well as possibly removing small unwanted breeders.