|
|
| Well while the DNR and the anglers in WI continue to ask questions and gather data until they are blue in the face. Here in Minnesota a simple change has created a fishery that puts WI to shame. Keep asking questions and doing studies WI anglers and then come to MN when you are ready to catch a 50".
Some peolpe like MUTTS as pets but apparently WI anglers like them in there musky lakes. LOL. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | DJS,
That is not a fair picture of what is happening in Wisconsin. We have Lake St. Claire fish in the Bay of Green Bay that were introduced at about the same time the Leech fish were in most Minnesota waters producing some really big fish now, the same fish were introduced in Winnebago and walleye anglers are catching them trolling cranks, introductions of Leech Lake strain in the Madison Chain and perhaps Petenwell, a series of lakes and systems with good natural reproduction and excellent growth rates put on a do not stock list to ensure potential as size limits have been scratched and clawed upward through the CC process on many waters. Average size IS increasing on most, and an ongoing assessment of a number of Muskie waters is in about the middle of the process.
Wisconsin has a bit of a different scenario than Minnesota did in the early 80's, as we already for decades had established and successful Muskie waters here that are, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, producing some very nice fish. These systems have already experienced the heavy harvest and tremendous pressure over 50 years or more that is part of the 'discovery' process your 'newer' MN waters have really just begun to experience. Since the early 80's, many have been speared in the winter and during the normal spring harvest time, kill rigs were very popular here...you get the idea, I hope.
I clearly remember the first few nice fish caught off Mille Lacs, and Mr. Bentley's success on low 40" specimens back not all that long ago. Cass had a reputation of skinny, long fish, and Leech a reputation of being VERY tough and having a narrow window of opportunity. Al Maas, Ted Gwinn, Murph, and a few others pioneered the Muskie guiding over there on Leech, and IMHO helped raise awareness of those systems.
I'll point out once again that the total number of fish reaching the 50" mark from any year class is quite small. Pressure, harvest, and unitentional angling related mortality will reach the almost inevitable level as more folks show up there in search of an 'easy' 50. I think the CPR ethic in MN is stronger because of the development of the fishery at the same time CPR was being popularized, but I'd still like to see larger size limits there.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Dave I want to see if I have your answer to the Mississippi Walleye question correct.
The Mississippi River designation that is being give to walleye in the stocking reports means that the eggs and milt have come from waters in the Mississippi river drainage basin IN WISCONSIN. Which includes the upper Wisconsin River and Chippewa River, correct? So if eggs where taken from fish on LCO and stocked back into LCO they would be called Mississippi River Walleye. Fish taken from Winnebago would be called Lake Michigan Walleye.
Do I have that right? If I do that clears a bunch up for me regarding the management practices of the two species.
Thank you very much Dave for taking the time to respond to these internet ramblings, and keep up the good work.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, you asked in a previous post Why has stocking been halted on Pelican Lake in WI. As far as I know stocking has been halted on Pelican lake because the Lake association petitioned the DNR to stop stocking because the Musky where eating all the walleye and perch. Purely political, with no biological foundation. This was done before the no stock list was developed, however it is now on the list, I don’t know if it is there for political or biological reasons.
Nail A Pig!
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
I checked into that, and from what I can find out Pelican is on the list now mostly as a result of the fact natural reproduction is good there. Pelican is actually considered a numbers lake, by it's classification. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | DJS,
Here's a 'mutt' from a year class stocked in a smaller local lake. I have two like this one from there in my rig the last two years, and know of two others from last year that were CPR. I emailed a gentleman who caught this fish 4 or 5 years earlier when she was low 40" class, so the growth was very good indeed. The release shot is a fish from a tiny ( I can fish the entire lake in a couple hours) lake here with almost non existant forage, but a good population of muskies that are usually skinny as a result. This is the second fish from that water of that quality in my rig in two years.
Attachments
----------------
 IMAG0004.JPG (82KB - 404 downloads)
IMAG0035.JPG (104KB - 280 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| You've got it exactly right, Mike. Our database SAYS "strain," but a more accurate term in most cases would be "source." In most cases, when we record the sources of stocked fish in our database, we don't know if we're actually dealing with a discrete "strain" with proven genetic characteristics that set them apart from other strains. There are a few exceptions, but in most cases our designation of "strain" is simply a shorthand way to keep track of the general source of broodstock used to produce the young fish being stocked. It's our way of moving away from major inter-basin stock transfers and beginning to allow coadaptation to occur within watersheds and even individual waters over a long period of time. Gotta start sometime 
Because the Upper Wisconsin and Upper Chippewa river basins both drain into the Mississippi River, we use the term "Mississippi strain" to refer to young walleye whose parents came from that large general area IN Wisconsin. Broodstock may be from LCO or lakes near Woodruff. All are called "Mississippi strain" walleyes in the database. I hope this clarifies some things for you and others who care about understanding this issue. Thanks for your support. |
|
| |
|
| Hello Paul,
Thanks for your support. I'll try to answer your questions here:
PAUL: "Has the degradation of the spawning area on the lake [speaking of Musky Bay in Lac Courte Oreilles] contributed to the decline of the number of muskies?"
DAVE: Paul, the nutrient enrichment of Musky Bay may have had direct adverse impacts on muskellunge reproduction at LCO. However, the decline in musky recruitment (survival to a size likely to contribute eventually to the fishery -- 20 inches or so) also is likely to be related to predation on young muskies by a burgeoning population of northern pike, which may actually have been favored over muskellunge by the habitat changes in Musky Bay. This indirect mechanism is our current hypothesis, though nothing has been proven conclusively.
PAUL: "I have heard that no natural reproduction occurs on LCO anymore. Is this true?"
DAVE: DNR crews have failed to document any natural reproduction (survival to first fall) of muskellunge in LCO since the early 1970s. So if there has been any natural reproduction, it has been VERY minor. The fact that you caught 2 hybrids (crosses between northern pike and muskellunge) last summer provides additional evidence that northern pike are significant in this ecosystem. Probably over 95% of all muskellunge in LCO today are fish that have been stocked as fall fingerlings by WDNR on an alternate-year basis at a rate of 2,500 large fingerlings per stocking. That's 0.5 fish per acre every other year. I'm not sure what it will take to turn this lake around in favor of muskies, but I have to believe a "shot in the arm" of 500 healthy, 28"-38" genetically compatible fish from Butternut Lake, if so proven, would be a way to start.
Glad to hear you think the habitat overall is improving in LCO. That certainly would help.
On a personal note, I'm interested to see that you live in Munster, Indiana. I grew up in Lansing, Illinois, just across the state line from you, and I worked at a grocery store on Ridge Road in Munster as a high school student. Gotta wonder if we've ever crossed paths!
Take care, and thanks again for your support.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Dave,
I saw by the reports, that 14 muskies were speared from LCO this year, and I'm guessing it has been similar in years past. Is there any chance this would have an adverse affect on the muskie population? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Another question for Dave:
if Northern Pike are eating the present strain of muskies in LCO, will changing the strain of fish that are stocked in LCO, change the amount of predation of these young fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 620
Location: Seymour, WI | Dave N. Thanks for taking the time to answer some of our questions here. I'm very interested in your reports about LCO. I fish LCO several times a yr. I usually see a couple muskies each time out, but I have a hard time getting them to strike. I know there are lots pike out there. I was catching 2-3 pike per hr while muskie fishing last yr.
The low muskie density you site on LCO is amazing to me. I checked the DNR stocking numbers for LCO since 1996 and 8012 fingerling muskies and 1.2 million musky fry have been stocked there since 1996. Are all of these fish getting eaten by pike before they can reach adult size? I was really hoping the 50" size limit on LCO would improve the musky fishery there but it sounds like now it's the pike not the fishermen are not releasing their catch?
Thanks for the input
Grass,
Chris Grassel |
|
| |
|
| Another question for Dave:
I understand there were very few muskies caught in the nets on LCO, but what was the average size?
thanks,
Bob |
|
| |
|
| Slamr, you asked (I'll take the liberty to paraphrase) if an annual spearing harvest of 14 muskies could prevent us from achieving sport fishing goals and objectives for muskellunge at 5,000-acre Lac Courte Oreilles. My answer clearly is "No." However, THOSE 14 fish are the ones that get speared in the OFF-reservation portion of LCO and reported accurately to creel clerks at the public boat landings. The OTHER half of the lake lies WITHIN the Lac Courte Oreilles Indian Reservation. I am told that a significant amount of spearing effort occurs there in the spring -- all undocumented. (The courts did not address this.) Effort and harvest during the winter spearfishery also is undocumented. It's not what we KNOW that concerns me. It's what we DON'T know -- about genetics, population density, tribal harvest, angler harvest, and incidental mortality associated with C&R -- that concerns me. We need more and better information in all these areas in order to analyze the situation correctly and make good management decisions in the best interest of all stakeholders. See my response to "Musky Man" (#147001) on this subject also. Thanks.
Dave |
|
| |
|
| Bob, you asked for an average size of muskies captured in fykenets this spring at LCO. Honestly, it's not worth reporting an average length for 5 fish. I'll let you know if and when we're lucky enough to capture about 30 fish. That would be a statistically relevant sample size. Thanks for your patience. |
|
| |
|
| GRASS asked: "The low muskie density you site on LCO is amazing to me. I checked the DNR stocking numbers for LCO since 1996 and 8012 fingerling muskies and 1.2 million musky fry have been stocked there since 1996. Are all of these fish getting eaten by pike before they can reach adult size?"
DAVE: Grass, I still am not CERTAIN that LCO musky density is low. I said that all the arrows are pointing in that direction at this time. Let's not lose sight of our uncertainty. But I can still try to answer your question about musky fry and fingerling mortality. First, forget about the fry stockings. Survival of stocked musky fry is so low that we cannot begin to measure it. If we stocked 8,012 musky fingerlings since 1996 (I'll trust your figure because I have not calculated that total myself), and our most optimistic estimate is that there are only 1,000 adult muskies in LCO (0.2 per acre), then obviously SOMEthing is causing the death of most of those fall-stocked 10- to 12-inch muskies during their first year or two in the lake. Is it predation by northern pike? Probably some. Is it predation by adult muskellunge? Probably some. Is it disease? Possibly some. Is it mortality associated with the inability of some stocked fish to find enough of the right size prey to provide the energy reserves needed to sustain them through a long, cold winter in a new, wild environment? Probably some. Which mortality factor is most significant? We are not sure, and it would be VERY expensive to find out. I wish I could provide a more definitive answer, but beware of anyone who claims to know more |
|
| |
|
| Slamr asked: "If Northern Pike are eating the present strain of muskies in LCO, will changing the strain of fish that are stocked in LCO, change the amount of predation of these young fish?"
DAVE: No, but introducing a new strain of muskellunge probably would result in hybridization between existing fish and the newly introduced fish. If these strains of fish differed enough, genetically, and if the new strain were stocked repeatedly, we could experience what the population geneticists call "outbreeding depression." (Not enough time to fully explain that process here and now.) If that happened, subsequent generations of fish would be less fit to survive, grow, and reproduce than EITHER of the parental stocks. Not worth the risk, in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8
| Dave, Thanks for being with us. I do love to fish your area-having done so for 45 years. Could you briefly provide fish/acre & trophy potential info on the Chip.,Round and Grindstone.Also,have any more fish been netted this week on LCO?Could you let us know the largest netted so far on LCO? Thanks, John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8
| Hi! Dave, John again. The WMRP team website-on the homepage- Goal #1 suggests "to "select" for large strain eggs".I am sure they mean from the largest fish available from the existing stock now in our waters. Why is this not possible? I have been told by some pretty experienced folks this is not the policy. Thanks again, John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'll take a whack at that one. Collection of spawn needs to be from a crosssection of the brood population, not just selected large fish, to ensure diversity. Using a single or even several individuals exclusively for roe collection would not be wise because those individual fish might pass on a propensity for growth or other trait at the expense of other traits, like disease resistance, that ensure the viability and health of the overall muskie population.
There is an underlying assumption in the document you mention that the muskies selected for brood stock are inferior, small growing fish that will not grow to anything near trophy size, and that any large fish in those stocked and brood systems are surviving large growing genetic 'piggy banks' from the past. That assumption is one of the items I find that is debated by those managing the fisheries here and elsewhere.
If I'm incorrect I'm sure someone will let me know! |
|
| |
|
| Question for Dave,
Thanks for the excellent reply's!
My question is about the benefit's of stocking fry.When fry are planted into the water system are they dumped randomly or are they put into a spawning- nursery area?Another way of putting it is, if these waters show natural reproduction or if a strain is being introduced that does have good natural reproduction wouldn't it be logical to put them in known spawning areas or habitat similar so the fish can IMPRINT?
Taking it a step further and this may not be possible,but if a screened pen of some sort could be constucted to keep predation out untill they get big enough to be on their own,then of course they will have to be fed some how! |
|
| |
|
| If taking eggs from only large fish does not ensure diversity, then can't the same be said for taking eggs from only smaller fish? Especially if your taking eggs from fish from the exact same lake, in the exact same spot on that lake, at the same water temps, year after year? I would think you would be getting the exact same fish in the nets in many cases year after year. If this is not the case, and they are getting different fish from year to year then why wouldn't you expect the same thing if you target large fish also?
Another concern. There is something that just bothers me about the fact that the broodstock lake that has been selected for egg taking for our hatcheries does not produce hardly any large fish, is not a self sustaining fishery, and requires stocking to maintain a population. Then we use those eggs to raise fish and stock them all over WI. Doesn't seem right to me. I can't see any good reason for using Bone Lake as our broodstock lake. It seems to me that Bone Lake has been selected as our Broodstock lake for no other reason other than the DNR knows they can go in there and in just a few days get all the eggs they need for the hatchery for the year. In other words, its cheap. Ever heard of the sayings "you get what you pay for" or "nothing good ever comes easy"? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Several comments, Eric.
1) The brood lake is of course 'exactly the same lake'. That's a given.
2) Muskies spawn at the same time ( pretty much) every year, that's a given
3) I've actually worked a fyke net a couple times. My son does every year. During studies, fin clips or other markers are used to determine recapture over the time the nets are in. It's really rare that all the same fish are caught in total every day, much less every year.
Again, your underlying assumption here is that the fish in Bone are slow growing and will not get big. There's a few arguments about that IN Bone Lake onsite from folks who fish it and catch nice muskies. I believe what the biologists think has been covered already. I also believe that the brood stocks/lakes are under assessment as announced by the DNR quite some time back, as well.
The last couple comments are pretty negative, let's try to keep the conversation on a level of mutual respect. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1295
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I have comments to the following posts:
"Dave Neuswanger
Posted 5/16/2005 4:20 PM (#147179 - in reply to #147031)
Subject: RE: WMRT questions for the DNR
Hello Paul,
Thanks for your support. I'll try to answer your questions here:
PAUL: "Has the degradation of the spawning area on the lake [speaking of Musky Bay in Lac Courte Oreilles] contributed to the decline of the number of muskies?"
DAVE: Paul, the nutrient enrichment of Musky Bay may have had direct adverse impacts on muskellunge reproduction at LCO. However, the decline in musky recruitment (survival to a size likely to contribute eventually to the fishery -- 20 inches or so) also is likely to be related to predation on young muskies by a burgeoning population of northern pike, which may actually have been favored over muskellunge by the habitat changes in Musky Bay. This indirect mechanism is our current hypothesis, though nothing has been proven conclusively."
QUESTION: Didn't a fairly recent study determine that northern pike did NOT have an impact on the musky fishery in LCO? Allow me to quote: "...Recruitment of stocked fish did decline during the early 1970's, but this was because no muskellunge were stocked between 1966 and 1970. Second, Johnson (1981) incicated that the number of naturally reproduced muskellunge recovered from each year class from 1958-78 (a measure of recruitment) also did not decline, even though northern pike population increased by a factor of 3-4.....Thus, the decline in muskellunge numbers from this study and Johnson (1981) may be due to reduced muskellunge stocking rather than increased northern pike population size..." (Technical Bulletin #160 by John Lyons and Terry Margenau 1986). Has this thinking changed?
"PAUL: "I have heard that no natural reproduction occurs on LCO anymore. Is this true?"
DAVE: DNR crews have failed to document any natural reproduction (survival to first fall) of muskellunge in LCO since the early 1970s. So if there has been any natural reproduction, it has been VERY minor. The fact that you caught 2 hybrids (crosses between northern pike and muskellunge) last summer provides additional evidence that northern pike are significant in this ecosystem. Probably over 95% of all muskellunge in LCO today are fish that have been stocked as fall fingerlings by WDNR on an alternate-year basis at a rate of 2,500 large fingerlings per stocking. That's 0.5 fish per acre every other year. I'm not sure what it will take to turn this lake around in favor of muskies, but I have to believe a "shot in the arm" of 500 healthy, 28"-38" genetically compatible fish from Butternut Lake, if so proven, would be a way to start."
QUESTIONs: How did you determine that "probably over 95% of all muskellunge in LCO today are fish that have been stocked as fall fingerlings by WDNR? I concur, but what do you base that on? If you aren't sure what it will take to turn LCO around, how is putting 500 adult fish known not to grow large going to help, especially when most of them are from the same hatchery system that currently stocks the mentioned huge numbers in LCO that do not reproduce nor grow big?
"Dave Neuswanger
Posted 5/17/2005 5:41 PM (#147352 - in reply to #147346)
Subject: RE: WMRT questions for the DNR
Bob, you asked for an average size of muskies captured in fykenets this spring at LCO. Honestly, it's not worth reporting an average length for 5 fish. I'll let you know if and when we're lucky enough to capture about 30 fish. That would be a statistically relevant sample size. Thanks for your patience."
QUESTION: Should this be intrepreted to mean there were no large fish in the nets?
"Dave Neuswanger
Posted 5/17/2005 6:01 PM (#147355 - in reply to #147342)
Subject: RE: WMRT questions for the DNR
GRASS asked: "The low muskie density you site on LCO is amazing to me. I checked the DNR stocking numbers for LCO since 1996 and 8012 fingerling muskies and 1.2 million musky fry have been stocked there since 1996. Are all of these fish getting eaten by pike before they can reach adult size?"
DAVE: Grass, I still am not CERTAIN that LCO musky density is low. I said that all the arrows are pointing in that direction at this time. Let's not lose sight of our uncertainty. But I can still try to answer your question about musky fry and fingerling mortality. First, forget about the fry stockings. Survival of stocked musky fry is so low that we cannot begin to measure it. If we stocked 8,012 musky fingerlings since 1996 (I'll trust your figure because I have not calculated that total myself), and our most optimistic estimate is that there are only 1,000 adult muskies in LCO (0.2 per acre), then obviously SOMEthing is causing the death of most of those fall-stocked 10- to 12-inch muskies during their first year or two in the lake. Is it predation by northern pike? Probably some. Is it predation by adult muskellunge? Probably some. Is it disease? Possibly some. Is it mortality associated with the inability of some stocked fish to find enough of the right size prey to provide the energy reserves needed to sustain them through a long, cold winter in a new, wild environment? Probably some. Which mortality factor is most significant? We are not sure, and it would be VERY expensive to find out. I wish I could provide a more definitive answer, but beware of anyone who claims to know more."
QUESTION: You state that "and our most optimistic estimate is that there are only 1,000 adult muskies in LCO (0.2 per acre)". When did this change? The lake biologist has maintained that LCO is the most studied musky lake in the world, and his adult population figures have ALWAYS been under 500 and as low as 250 over the past 30+ years. Why is this number now "magically" increased more than two-fold? Is there NEW data to support these new numbers?
Also, you state; "then obviously SOMEthing is causing the death of most of those fall-stocked 10- to 12-inch muskies during their first year or two in the lake. Is it predation by northern pike? Probably some. Is it predation by adult muskellunge? Probably some. Is it disease? Possibly some. Is it mortality associated with the inability of some stocked fish to find enough of the right size prey to provide the energy reserves needed to sustain them through a long, cold winter in a new, wild environment? Probably some. Which mortality factor is most significant? We are not sure, and it would be VERY expensive to find out. I wish I could provide a more definitive answer, but beware of anyone who claims to know more."
Can it be inferred that we will never know the answers to these questions due to "expense?" And isn't a "workable hypothesis" better than throwing ones hands in the air and saying we can't know due to cost, so we will do NOTHING but transfer more small fish into LCO??
"Dave Neuswanger
Posted 5/17/2005 6:20 PM (#147357 - in reply to #147184)
Subject: RE: WMRT questions for the DNR
Slamr asked: "If Northern Pike are eating the present strain of muskies in LCO, will changing the strain of fish that are stocked in LCO, change the amount of predation of these young fish?"
DAVE: No, but introducing a new strain of muskellunge probably would result in hybridization between existing fish and the newly introduced fish. If these strains of fish differed enough, genetically, and if the new strain were stocked repeatedly, we could experience what the population geneticists call "outbreeding depression." (Not enough time to fully explain that process here and now.) If that happened, subsequent generations of fish would be less fit to survive, grow, and reproduce than EITHER of the parental stocks. Not worth the risk, in my opinion."
QUESTIONs: Has your hybridization "hypothesis" been proven? The overstocking of Leech Lake fish in MN where others "locally adapted" small growing fish had been stocked for over 70 years has worked just fine and no hybridization noted.
And what about this potential for "outbreeding depression" you keep referring to. IF, as you stated above, the population in LCO is over 95% STOCKED (mixed) fish that do NOT reproduce and do NOT grow big, how can it be harmful to introduce a "different" population from what is currently being stocked and NOT working?
IF, and I stress the IF, there IS a SMALL remnant population (2%?) of ORIGINAL LCO stock with large growth potential left in LCO (and we believe there may be), would it not be in the best interest of LCO to TRY and isolate those fish (only attainable by genetic testing of EVERY fish there, OR taking eggs from ONLY the remaing few LARGE fish there)? YES, I agree genetic diversity would be small, but isn't small better than "flushing" what is left there rather than to make SOME attempt to save them since natural reproduction isn't doing much more than keeping a FEW present there?????
Another consideration; since all stocking into LCO from 1899 to 1938 were from the Woodruff Hatchery in the Wisconsin River drainage, could it not be that the big fish that appeared in LCO in the 30's, 40's and 50's came from that source? Indeed more "food for thought."
Respectfully submitted,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyResotration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 5/18/2005 4:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32914
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) The Pike population is not the same level as it was in 1986.That was nearly 20 years ago. Read Mr. Neuswanger's post again, he qualifies the pike statements carefully, which you subsequently ignore and then argumentatively post an out of date, probably no longer applicable stat. Just a personal observation on that comment.
2)They captured 5 fish, Larry. That isn't a statistically significant number regardless of the size of those fish. I think that's what was said.
3) The 'known to be' comments you post are not proven out, and are center to a large portion of the debate today. The Butternut fish were to be tested genetically to assure compatibility, which should answer your question, even though it will not change your mind on the 'small strain' theory you forward. This also lends to the comment about whether outbreeding depression risks have been proven. That is a very odd question for you to ask. I think the WMRT has used that data enough to attempt to prove out some ideas you have, supporting the concept, and then when it suits, questions the validity of the scientific basis in fact. You have provided your own answer to that question, one cannot have things both ways.
4) Tell you what, as a personal suggestion let's see the WMRT step up and offer to use some of what seems to be umnlimited time and some considerable influence to assist an underfunded agency in raising funding for the study you suggest needs be done on LCO to determine the causes exactly of the low density of muskies that MAY exist there. Or maybe cease acting against the effort to test those fish and those from Butternut at least, allowing the DNR to see if those fish are indeed compatible. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7068
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | "IF, and I stress the IF, there IS a SMALL remnant population (2%?) of ORIGINAL LCO stock with large growth potential left in LCO (and we believe there may be), would it not be in the best interest of LCO to TRY and isolate those fish (only attainable by genetic testing of EVERY fish there, OR taking eggs from ONLY the remaing few LARGE fish there)? YES, I agree genetic diversity would be small, but isn't small better than "flushing" what is left there rather than to make SOME attempt to save them since natural reproduction isn't doing much more than keeping a FEW present there?????"
Great idea Larry, except that:
a. you say no more study is necessary, and this involves a large amount of study (cant have it both ways Larry)
b. where is the MONEY going to come from? this question has been asked of the WRMT a number of times on this board, and your group has give NO answers to this. If you know what the DNR should be doing, shouldnt you also know how to impliment these changes?
c. do YOU, or anyone know the exact DNA makeup of a BIG GROWING FISH, versus the others that you say shouldnt be there? and having found that out from each and every fish (which probably would need to be done in a Lab, just a guess), how could you then go back to THAT fish, or that group of fish, to then strip them for their eggs/milt?
Its a great idea, but like all the WRMT ideas, they are:
-unfounded by current research.
-not supported by any visible/vocal CURRENT fisheries biologist or expert in fish genetics.
-unrealistic in scope
-ignores any and all facotrs outside of genetics as non-relavent.
-unfunded
Edited by Slamr 5/18/2005 10:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Munster, IN | Steve,
You make excellent points.
My question to Larry is in regard to the following:
3) The 'known to be' comments you post are not proven out, and are center to a large portion of the debate today.
The Butternut fish were to be tested genetically to assure compatibility, which should answer your question, even though it will not change your mind on the 'small strain' theory you forwardHow "small"( actually I mean big) does the small strain grow to? How pertenant is your data that supports the "small strain" theory to this situation on LCO?
I think Steve's # 4) suggestion is a great idea and should be acted upon by your group as soon as possible.
Paul
PS- Larry, Do you know how and why northerns were introduced into LCO? Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | In my OPINION I don’t need a bunch of references from Dave when he is answering our questions in this forum, we are basically asking for his opinion and if he has to back up every word of his opinions posted on this site with reference material there isn’t a chance in hell he will answer our questions.
If he is laying out management decisions to the legislature or natural resources board then yes references should be supplied, but that is not the case on this forum.
Larry you ask some good questions and I think we need to accept that if somebody like Dave is going to answer them HERE we need to accept that it is personal opinion based on information he or she has, just as we form our own opinions based on what we know, or think we may know.
Two questions you ask that I would like to know more about are the Out breeding questions as they relate to the Mn situation and the Genetic Diversity and how it relates to taking eggs from bigger fish? I have heard these responses from three different DNR representatives.
If I had to guess the Out Breeding questing isn’t answered yet in MN because it’s only been one generation or so. Is this a concern that the MN DNR has for future generations of ski or is their plan to continue stocking and not worry about creating natural reproducing systems? Because if that is the case out breeding would not be an issue, because stock can be controlled every year. Where the long-term goal is naturally reproducing systems I can see Out Breeding as being a major concern.
Regarding Genetic Diversity, I understand that taking eggs from only one or two big fish year after year could cause problems, but what about a bigger cross section of fish including both big and small fish in many different years. Is it true that the average size fish now being used is under 34 inches? If so, is it true that this issue is being looked into? Could funding assistance from groups like Muskies Inc. help defer the costs associted with trying to get a bigger sample of eggs from big and small fish, not just the first fish into the nets, during egg taking process?
Thanks everyone for providing a great discussion.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8
| Steve -thanks! There is little doubt in my mind that you do know quite a bit more about "this" than I do-seriously.My background , experiences and appreciation of this wonderful sport, however, draw me here when I should go fishing. I live in N.W. Wis., love it here and appreciate all it has to offer.I have had very limited time fishing here each year until I retired early(probably too early-financially,at least)11 years ago. Not a very good fisheman but absolutely love doing it.Steve,I love fishing over big fish!That was certainly a very big fish in the recent photo.We all know they are rare-a real trophy!I have never been lucky(good?) enough to get one like that in Wis. I want more of them here at home! I believe we should only stock fish here at home that will get that big. I do believe we should breed the BEST fish available. We have mixed our "stock" here for at least 75 years ! Now we are going to(hopefully) start a project that will tell us what we have. I ABSOLUTELY hope we don't decide we have the same fish here as we are stocking now-continue the same! You seem to have many experts available-that is good. I certainly hope they consider 75 years of stocking history in their determinations. Much I do not know but try to continue learning. Have we bred race horses, clysdales and ponys over the last 75 breeding seasons? Do we have 2 of anything? Do we need to address breeding principles?--seems like it. Good breeders-dogs,race horses,etc...know what they want and choose the best they have to get there. My first 6 hours in a different state we had a 50"er in the boat-a much larger one exploding on my globe! It is not always easy(very seldom-of course),but you seem to feel you are on big fish always.They all seem to get big. Breeding? How about lake "x" here-I have heard several explainations-none add up to my experience.They all seemed to get big. Your big fish photo shows that fish can and do get big in a small, non-forage lake. Here at home we have very many capable lakes-large and good forage.Would" Shaq." be a small man if he grew up in a small house? Does the other state not have good fisheries people too? Are they happy with their results after 20 years? These are my questions and they are still with me? I appreciate the efforts of the guys that are not giving up on this issue. I do appreciate your side too. Reply only if you feel it is necessary-we will see where things go-John |
|
| |
|
| OK. As much as I hate the idea of waiting for more studies to be done before the possibility of change exists for WI's muskie broodstock selection, I have an idea for a study that just might be able to end this small fish - large fish debate once and for all as well as answer many other questions. But first you need to have a commitment from the DNR up front that upon completion of the study they will use the strain of fish that grew the largest as broodstock for NW WI lakes. You also need a commitment that broodstock lakes will be established with the strain that grew the largest. Without commitments like this up front, and like so many studies done before, this study will most likely result in no change in the broodstock being used for stocking in NW WI and will result in wanting to do even more studies as we have come so use to seeing over the years.
The study: First you strip eggs and milt from Butternut fish. Then raise them to fingerling size. Take 250 of these Butternut strain fingerlings, 250 of the Bone Lake strain fingerlings, and 250 of the MS or LL strain fingerlings and fin clip or tag each strain differently so you can identify one from the other. You stock them all into LCO, a WI lake, at the same time. You now have the makings of an experiment or study that will answer many of the questions and/or arguments coming from all sides. Since they are all stocked into LCO, which is a lake that must be stocked to maintain a population, there is no risk of screwing up a self-sustaining population. And since there are no waters that have a natural self-sustaining population connected to LCO, you have no risk of screwing up any other waters. Now, stock them and lets see which one grows the largest and then use them as broodstock.
Since all these fish were stocked into the same lake at the same time under the exact same conditions, you now have a study being done where all things are equal. You have a large lake. You have a deep lake. You have a 50” minimum length limit to protect them all to at least that size. You have all the forage and the right type of forage supposedly needed to produce large fish assuming that forage is indeed the key or one of the keys to producing large fish. There are northern pike present in the lake so we will be able to tell which one survives better with this situation to deal with. They are all subject to the exact same amount of fishing pressure, harvest by either angling or spear, and mortality after release. They are all in a lake that used to produce very large fish so possibly one of these strains will do that again. You see which one grows the largest after say 6 or 7 years. You now have your winner. You now use the winner as broodstock for stocking in NW WI.
You have now just done a study that is really no different than what the MDNR already did nearly 25 years ago when choosing its broodstock except that this study, unlike the studies done in MN in the early 80’s, was done in WI. This eliminates the argument that since those studies done in the 80’s were done in MN, you can’t use the findings from those studies to select a strain for using in WI.
This study should answer most of the theories on what it takes to produce large fish. Regardless of strain, the biggest fish wins. I know what strain I would bet my money on.
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
How about a compromise: The WMRP funds the genetic sample of Butternut fish and Dave Neuswanger allows Leech Lake Muskies to be stocked in LCO for the next 10 years? That would be working together.....or is it the DNR way or the highway. (To Minnesota)
The WMRP wishes to focus our time and efforts on fundraising, and working with the WDNR on efforts that are PROVEN to grow large Muskies. (See Minnesota, Nancy Lake, Long Lake and Green Bay projects). We would also like to assist with money and manpower to assist in procuring enough Large Male and female muskies each spring to ensure enough genetic diversity (this has not proven to work, but at least it's different than our current DNR plan which has proven not to work). We have let the WDNR and the state Muskie Committe know that we want to help, and are still awaiting word on how we can go about it. I'll remind all of you again that we spent months trying to work with the WDNR offerring money and manpower before any of you heard of us. Our offer still stands, and we re eager to end the bickering.
I believe I can speak for the rest of the WMRP in stating that we have no interest in funding any studies of small fish like those in Butternut Lake. The people on Butternut don't want the fish taken out and the people on LCO don't want them in LCO. We've studied and bred small muskies in Wisconsin for 50 years with one exception (Nancy Lake). We would love to lead a fundraising effort to stock Leech lake strain Muskies in LCO - a lake with no known natural reproduction in years. I still do not understand the danger of outbreeding depression in LCO when there is no natural reproduction. If the worst thing that happens is we establish a reproducing population of large growing Leech Lake strain muskies in LCO, I say let's get on with it, because nothing else has worked there. Why keep flushing 2500 fingerlings from the same source into LCO if they are not working. Doing the same things will only yield the same results. Wouldn't stocking fish with different reproductive habits make sense? The people of NW Wisconsin have made their feelings known what they would like to do, I'd like to ask why the WDNR is not being called to task for not working with the people who want to try something different on a lake that is truly failing? The people want to do it, are willing to pay for it on this one lake - What Is Wrong With That?
My research indicates that most self-sustaining populations of large fish have females averaging in excess of 45 inches with males averaging over 38 inches and that very few smaller fish contribute to the population.
We should be modeling our fisheries and brood stock with specific goals in mind. The best way to create a population like this is to use brood stock from a lake that has a naturally reproducing population of large muskies.
As to the questions related to the necessary funding of any changes to the current system, please be specific in your questions. If we are replacing Bone Lake fingerlings with LL fingerlings, the only additional costs are procuring the eggs and we simply switch the eggs at the hatchery. We've researched the cost of doing this and funding is available to the WMRP. We await word from the WDNR that this is acceptable. We'd like to see a brood lake established this fall, so that we can become self-sufficient in our egg taking over time. If you have more questions on funding I'd like to answer them. The best solution is for anglers and the DNR to work together to keep everyone's costs down. We all need to find a way to work together, not just fund the continued studies of small muskies with the single minded aproach of protecting a hatchery strain of fish.
There is no reason we can't try some of these things this year. We want to help......
Thanks,
Bob Benson
|
|
| |
