Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Nancy Lake Discussion |
| Message Subject: Nancy Lake Discussion | |||
EJohnson |
| ||
| I'm afraid once again you have it wrong Steve. You say: "Mr. Ramsell has stated his group DO NOT WANT LL fish in lakes where there IS a native muskie population( I have multiple emails stating that)." Steve, why did you leave out the most important word in that statement and once again try to change what we have said? The word you left out was SELF-SUSTAINING!! We have never said that LL fish should be stocked in any waters with any SELF-SUSTAINING populations. There is a difference you know. But nice try. We have said that there would be no harm in stocking any waters that require stocking to maintain a musky population and where there is no chance of muskies making thier way into any other waters from that water that do not require stocking. LCO is an example of this. There is no self-sustaining population in LCO and it requires stocking. All waters that muskies could possibly make it into from LCO also require stocking. Please stick to the truth from now on. | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| From the MN DNR website: "Efforts to stock muskies to control stunted panfish populations generally have failed. Muskies seem as ill-suited to the task as do northern pike. When muskies were introduced to one Wisconsin lake, the number of yellow perch increased while their size decreased. Muskie actually appeared to contribute to the problem they were thought to correct. In another Wisconsin experiment, muskies were stocked in a lake filled with runty bluegill. Though the muskie fattened up quickly, the bluegill population showed no effect." And we are suppose to believe that muskies will be able to do this with pike? Apparently we are suppose to believe that Butternut muskies will prefer eating LCO pike to Butternut pike? This defies all logic to me. I wonder if they will prefer eating LCO pike to LCO ciscoes as well? Can anyone give me just one documented example proving muskies were able to reduce or control pike populations anywhere? | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| "Monk's response was out of context and looking to start an argument." Sorry to burst your bubble Steve, but that wasn't the intention for my post. Starting an argument on a message board is about as productive as banging my head against a wall. The point of my last post was this: 1. Tell me how you can determine if when you get eggs from SMALL muskies, the resulting muskies will grow big? Especially when the history of a lake stocking is in question. 2. The goal for LCO is to produce trophy muskies. Other than showing me decade old pictures of fish once in butternut, how can the current butternut stock attain that size. Again, show me the proof that this will be the result (since that seems like a common question in this debate). 3. I don't quite understand the use of the word "exotic". I understand Dave's explanation.... but the fish can be classified as a MS strain fish and the Chippewa River is a drainage of the MS. 4. I brought up the brown trout example as an instance in which our DNR made a decision to stock a true "exotic" fish. Not trying to start an argument, just provide my opinion. But I do commend you on highlighting the Stocking Timeline published by the WMRP. In my line of work, facts tend to lend to the best decisions. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJohnson, I am truly sorry I left out the term. I've changed the original comment. Someone run over your pet turtle today? No one said the muskies will 'control' the pike population, the idea is they definitely will help. Mr. Neuswanger, am I correct there? No one ever insinuated or said the muskies were to be stocked with pike predation as a primary goal; it's likely to be an 'added benefit'. Comparing efforts to stock muskies to control a stunted panfish population (many times those efforts involved hybrid muskie stocking, by the way) to the statement that adding 500 adult muskies to LCO would perhaps help tip the balance back in favor of the Muskies is apples/oranges, and not what was intended. An unrealistic comparison and another classic change of context, IMHO. FredJ, Ice anglers definitely do take a large number of pike from waters where tip up fishing is popular. Might be one way to help! Monk, Read your own post again. One might pose questions in a less agressive manner if you don't want folks to interpret them as I did, 'bursting bubbles' notwithstanding. And very simply put, perish the idea of only stripping 'large' muskies, that's been covered to death and has been clearly answered why that is a really bad idea and might not get you what you want at all. You read the answer, if you don't like that answer find me another fisheries biologist who will disagree with it. I'm ALL about listening to the scientific backing behind what you've proposed, the benefits those scientists supporting the idea list, and why they differ so much from the main stream fisheries folks on the issue. If there is sound management practice and good science supporting taking spawn only from large individuals, I'd support the concept. So far, I've seen none, and it's been covered ALOT. I beleive that your second issue was also addressed. I'd do it again, but that's a waste of my time, you didn't even consider the explanation offered the first time. The answer to your brood stock selection question was provided in this thread and several others, and the plan under Dr. Sloss's recommendation is going to be implemented as mentioned. The use of the term 'exotic' should be self explanatory. It was also addressed in that post. Here's the quote: "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." Not much confusion there, I don't think. Yes, I know, neither were Brown Trout. Here's what I said: "It was extremely focused public pressure from 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?" | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Neuswanger mentioned the density he would like to see at .2 to .3 adult muskies per acre in his above post. As I understand it, the angler diary reports and other indicators ,ay show a very low current density. The proposed introduction would represent about .09993, or about .33 to .5 of the desired density. I'll leave it to Mr. Neuswanger to correct my math, but I think I'm close, so there should be plenty of 'room' for the proposed introduction. | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| "One might pose questions in a less agressive manner if you don't want folks to interpret them as I did" That was the point of my second post, not to ask the questions again. I read AND understood your answers.... don't nec. agree with them... but appreciate your time nonetheless. And I wanted to clarify that the POINT of my post was not to start an arguement. I'M NOT OUT HERE TO START AN ARGUEMENT!!! But that in a nutshell is the Catch-22 with message boards. Brings people together to communicate... but yet in way, they still don't. I'm sure if we were sitting across from each other this entire discussion would last 20 minutes instead the what.... 3 weeks? On to a response to your comment... "It was extremely focused public pressure from 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?" My response: There is an economic impact in the potential stocking of the MS strain. There is a tradition to recapture (mainly in NW WI) by stocking the MS strain. That isn't the case with brown trout. That's the difference. And if stocking MS strain fish in non-native waters, creating ultimately has a positive economic impact and restores a trophy tradition to badly needed areas.... then I'm for it. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk, Cool, on the 'no argument' thing. We will disagree on the Leech Lake fish until I can find a couple good biologists and scientists who think introduction of LL fish in LCO and surrounding waters is a good idea. By the way, my feelings on this have been called lots of things, including bias. Nope, not bias, just what I've been able to glean from studying the subject best of my ability, which I admit is 'only what it is'. I have repeatedly asked the folks supporting LL fish in LCO, etc, to get an opposing scientific position presented by a few fisheries biologists. SO far, nada. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Fred J - 12/4/2005 10:51 AM 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 Fred, allow me to tell a story for the sake of illustration. Once upon a time there was a 1,000-acre body of water named Mutt Lake. DNR biologists documented an average of 500 adult muskies in Mutt Lake over a 10-year period, and at the same time they were able to capture 3 northern pike per hour of electrofishing (indicating a significant presence, but probably low density of pike if they had been able to perform an actual population estimate). Then conditions changed for muskies and pike for various reasons. The number of muskies doubled to 1,000 during the most recent decade. Concurrently, DNR biologists found themselves capturing 6 northern pike per hour of electrofishing compared with just 3 during the previous decade (still probably just low-moderate density, but a doubling nonetheless in what they were able to measure). Enter the hapless DNR fishery management supervisor (that would be me). He is confronted with skepticism about the presence of northern pike in Mutt Lake by an angler who has fished for muskies but never caught a pike there. The hapless DNR guy is confronted because the presence of northern pike is inconsistent with an idea heavily promoted by this angler and his friends that the muskies in Mutt Lake are not only runts (cannot grow big due to previous source mixing in the state's hatchery system) but also are unable to reproduce and recruit successfully in lakes with northern pike, like the Good Muskies of the West. The hapless DNR guy is now uncertain what to do, because he knows that muskies got big (over 50 inches) in Mutt Lake until they became too numerous to grow well, and that they reproduced and recruited excessively, despite a likely increase in the low-density northern pike population as reflected by a doubling in their electrofishing capture rate. In the absence of a better idea, he decides to share what he knows about this situation, hoping that all the good anglers he serves will see that some common generalizations about size attainment and recruitment may be unfounded. But as luck would have it, the good anglers do not want to hear this contradictory evidence. If it were true, much of what they have been aggressively asserting over the past few months would come into question, and that would be uncomfortable for them. And so, the hapless DNR guy (who should have been able to predict this, but often is naively optimistic about people) hears no acknowledgment from his angling friends that things may not be as simple as they seem. Instead, the subject is changed to a question regarding the likely ineffectiveness of these muskellunge in controlling northern pike if some of the surplus numbers in Mutt Lake were moved to nearby Super Mutt Lake with hopes of establishing such dominance there. The DNR guy is perplexed again, because the muskies in Mutt Lake never failed to maintain dominance over pike. Yet because the electrofishing capture rate of pike doubled concurrently with a doubling in muskellunge density, it is now postulated by his angling friends that these muskies are unlikely to be useful in establishing fish community balance in Super Mutt Lake. The DNR guy realizes that he is looking at the key element in this isssue -- the ratio of muskies to pike, rather than their absolute number, which is difficult to measure accurately anyway. But he is unsure how to help others understand. The hapless DNR guy knows that pike eat muskies and muskies eat pike. He does not know if Super Mutt Lake can ever have enough muskies to suppress the pike population to the point where muskies can once again recruit there naturally, as they did before pike appeared. But he figures it's worth a try, especially since better ideas are in short supply. He is encouraged by one kind angler's suggestion that a promotion of pike harvest in Super Mutt Lake may be in order -- perhaps in the form of an ice-fishing contest. This sounds like a good idea worthy of incorporating into the lake's developing fishery management plan. But for now, the DNR guy has a source of muskies (Mutt Lake) that have demonstrated their ability to grow large and recruit in the presence of pike; and he will try to use them to help establish fish community balance if they turn out to be genetically compatiple with the muskies in Super Mutt Lake. Our story ends with the hapless DNR guy making one final attempt at his keyboard to bring these ideas together, so that the good people he serves might one day understand and support what he is trying to do on their behalf. He remains cautiously optimistic. He will never learn. | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Fair enough Steve, like I said before, no sense in arguing on the internet.... RARELY is anyone ever convinced their position is wrong due a post from another. Just my personal observation. And like I said before, I'm sure if we met somewhere and talked about this face to face, we would chat about this for about 30 minutes, shake hands and be on our way. Clarification though, I understand the idea of taking eggs from a differing range of muskies. However, Due to Dr. Sloss' initial recommendations to the DNR, it looks like over recent years, the DNR was not doing this. And more than likely we were getting eggs from only smaller fish. I'd like to see how many 50"+ females were netted over the last 10-15 years? Probably not many. I'm not a proponent of only getting big fish for stocking.... but there should be some in the sample. That was more to the point of my initial response to your "What's the difference between 34"-40" fish and 50"+". Especially when you throw "genetically" into the mix. Because like the Chip, there is a DISTINCT possiblity that there are fast, large growth strains and small, slow growth strains currently co-existing in that lake. And without real-time genetic testing, we wouldn't know what that 38"er is.... genetically. But if there is a 54" flopping in the net, then there is a fairly decent shot that one has the "Right Stuff". And as for the potential of the Butternut muskies... pictures from 12-16 years ago is not conclusive to me. In fact, there may be a possibility that John Myre's experience on LCO in which he related the capture of a 50"+ fish that was tied to a stocking originating from the Chip may have been similiar to these captures. Those fish that were documented from 1989-1993. Butternut was the recepient of over 2,500 fingerling between 1971 and 1972. During those two years, 23 of 69 quarts of eggs (33%) were taken from the Chip. Could it be a possibility that the progeny of those eggs ended up as the pictures being touted as proof of large growth? It would put those fish at 18-22 years old... very well could be? Subsequently, Butternut lake was stocked with the Bone/LCO fish that hasn't had the greatest success. So can we conclusively say that the lack of growth is based on increased populations. I don't know... and we don't know. What I would like to see is the genetic testing comaparing a fat 52"er from the Chip vs. the 34" fish from Butternut. If you can show me THOSE two fish are similar, then I would be for the transfer. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Dave, You cracked me up, sir; great way to get your points across to us all. I sincerly hope the hapless DNR guy never does learn, and keeps trying very hard to serve us fishermen who so frequently know little to nothing about the subject matter we are trying to understand. I feel it is not only a great deal that the hapless DNR guy WANTS us to understand, but that he is willing to break the mold somewhat despite numerous and unrelenting naysayers, and post answers to the friendly anglers' questions here on the MuskieFIRST biology and research board. Many of us appreciate the conversation more than you will ever know. It's never easy for a public official to intentionally place the crosshairs of the Public Know Little gun on the old forehead(especially when there is no mandate or job description that demands it), but like your sessions with stakeholders trying to determine direction based on what is wanted and what is needed your communication with us all here is in my very humble opinion a refreshing and VERY positive step in good DNR public relations and solid involvement for the area stakeholders in potential management goal determination and future strategy for your area's waters. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
The DNR guy realizes that he is looking at the key element in this isssue -- the ratio of muskies to pike, rather than their absolute number, which is difficult to measure accurately anyway. But he is unsure how to help others understand. hmmm...i'll choose to see the humor in your response, Dave, and not interpret as "dumbing-down"...i was a bit put off at first though - and i'm prone to see things YOUR way. so: help me to understand WHY the ratio of pike:muskies is a key issue at hand in helping muskies achieve more of their potential size. i understand it in relation to successful reproduction (more babies, less eaters), but i don't understand how it relates to trophy potential for muskies. | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | LAMBEAU: help me to understand WHY the ratio of pike:muskies is a key issue at hand in helping muskies achieve more of their potential size. i understand it in relation to successful reproduction (more babies, less eaters), but i don't understand how it relates to trophy potential for muskies. DAVE: First of all, Mike, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on the use of humor. Just trying to lighten things up a bit here. Those of us who love muskies shouldn't be squabbling so vehemently among ourselves... To address your question about trophy potential, our logic is this: LCO probably can support only "so many" pounds of esocid biomass before the esocids themselves suffer (poor condition and reduced growth rate) or other members of the fish community suffer (e.g., yellow perch size distribution is known to be adversely affected by high numbers of hungry adult esocids). If we can all agree that there is a theoretical carrying capacity for esocids that has some basis in reality, then our idea is very simply to begin displacing northern pike biomass with muskellunge biomass. Encouraging angler harvest of pike, as suggested by Fred J, is one promising way to begin reducing northern pike biomass. Another strategy is to transfer adult muskellunge from a lake where their carrying capacity has been exceeded, and hope that they will eat some small and mid-size northern pike while anglers are harvesting more of the bigger pike but releasing the muskies. (It would help if EVERYONE stopped using swallow rigs with suckers.) Another strategy may be to enlist the aid of our tribal partners in harvesting more northern pike by their traditional methods while voluntarily giving the muskies a breather until esocid community dominance shifts. We have not approached them about that yet, but a meeting is being planned where that subject will be on the agenda. Another strategy may be to construct some artificial substrates that will ensure musky egg hatching success in a traditional spawning area (Musky Bay) where habitat deterioration may have compromised one major source of natural musky reproduction within the lake. There are other habitat strategies that may facilitate musky RECRUITMENT as well. Taking all of these strategies together, it is not unreasonable to me that we might be able to shift esocid community biomass from pike to musky while staying within the overall carrying capacity (whatever that may be) of the lake for these top piscivores. Do we KNOW it will work? No, but I have tried many things in my career that have never been done before, and some of them worked, like establishing one of the best musky fisheries in the lower Midwest in a 530-acre reservoir in northeastern Missouri where many people felt we were trying to do the impossible. Sometimes we must take calculated risks. This is one we are willing to take, though I must remind everyone that negative results of genetic compatibility testing could still scrap the entire transfer project, in which case we would be more reliant on the other strategies mentioned. Mike, please let me know if this answers your question. Bottom line is this: Muskies can and do get huge in LCO. (There just aren't enough of them.) Muskies used to get huge in Butternut before there were too many of them. If we can find the right number of human predators and adult muskies to assume dominance over pike without overrunning available sources of prey for muskies in LCO, we may just be able to accomplish the aforementioned objectives of 0.2-0.3 adult musky per acre with 5-10% of all 20-inch-and-larger muskies over 50 inches long. It's a balancing act, to be sure. That's fishery management. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| that's an understandable and incredibly good answer, actually! thanks so much for your time here in educating and discussing, we all know you don't have to do so and appreciate the fact that you are. one follow up question: what controls will you put in place to make sure that you don't exceed the esocid carrying capacity of the lake? my understanding is that your goal is to shift the balance in favor of muskies by adding fish, while at the same time keeping the total esocid (pike + muskie) density relatively low to avoid a Butternut situation. is the current density low enough that 500 adults muskies might push the esocid balance without impacting the predator/prey balance as well? you mentioned the fact that LCO can probably only carry so many pounds of esocids and still produce big fish. thanks again! Edited by lambeau 12/5/2005 2:33 PM | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| One last question for Dave. Is then our objective for trophy lakes '0.2-0.3 adult musky per acre with 5-10% of all 20-inch-and-larger muskies over 50 inches long'? If that is the trophy management goal, I'll support that. But then that got me thinking about the Chip... my favorite body of water. 15,000 acres, .3 adults per acre gives us 4,500 adult musky. Lets say in a given year, 15% are caught. Thats 675 adult musky caught. If we want a goal of 5-10% of fish over 50", and if we are conservative, thats 33 fish over 50" that should be caught out of the Chip on a yearly basis. This last year I know of one caught in June, one in August and another in the tournament in September. Thats three that I have knowledge of and I'm sure there probably is a few other fish caught that might not have been reported. So lets say 6 or 7 total.... maybe. What are we to make of this? The forage is there, the habitat is there, I think the Chip fish still reproduce and recruit somewhat. There are plenty of good fisherman on that lake to land those fish IF they are there. I tend to think that if we were to see those numbers of 50's coming out of the Chip (30 to 40 fish, minimum) we would probably know about it. Just something to chew on in terms of what might be the potential cause. I know that tribe does spear the Chip. I know that some people may still do single hook musky, although they may be using circles. But is that enough to limit the upper end to the point where we see only three (maybe seven) 50"+ fish caught during the season? | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Sorry, that was my post, another brain cramp. | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | LAMBEAU: one follow up question: what controls will you put in place to make sure that you don't exceed the esocid carrying capacity of the lake? my understanding is that your goal is to shift the balance in favor of muskies by adding fish, while at the same time keeping the total esocid (pike + muskie) density relatively low to avoid a Butternut situation. is the current density low enough that 500 adults muskies might push the esocid balance without impacting the predator/prey balance as well? you mentioned the fact that LCO can probably only carry so many pounds of esocids and still produce big fish. DAVE: Mike, because we don't know how to estimate carrying capacity exactly, we will have to "play it by ear" by monitoring the growth rate and condition factor (relative plumpness) of fish after the prospective transfer. But I have some reason to believe that, at least initially, we will be nowhere near carrying capacity for muskellunge at LCO. The last actual musky population estimate conducted in LCO by the DNR Treaty Assessment Unit in 2000 suggested that adult musky density was only .05 per acre (1 per 20 acres). That's quite low in comparison with most musky waters. Support for this assessment exists in the form of 2000/2001 creel survey data and 2004 volunteer angler diary data. In the 2000/2001 creel survey, interviewed anglers targeting muskellunge caught a musky every 67 hours (compared with the Wisconsin statewide average of 25 hours). In the 2004 angler diary project, participants caught a musky every 76 hours of directed effort. All these observations lead us to believe that muskellunge density is relatively low at LCO -- certainly lower than desired. If there are only 250 adult muskies in LCO currently (.05 per acre), and if we are actually able to move as many as 500 adults (0.1 per acre) from Butternut Lake to LCO, then the total adult musky density may increase to 750 fish (0.15 per acre) in LCO. That still falls short of the 0.2-0.3 adult fish per acre that we believe (professional judgment) a lake like LCO can support and is the objective we agreed to strive for in our meeting with local stakeholders. So the question then becomes, how many northern pike are out there, potentially occupying the niche that muskies would otherwise fill. The WDNR Treaty Assessment survey in 2000 suggested there were 2-4 northern pike per acre that averaged 23 inches long (moderate density). In the 2000-2001 creel survey, it took the average pike angler only 2.3 hours to catch a northern pike, which also averaged 23 inches long -- corroborating an assessment of moderate density. In LCO, even a moderate density of northern pike seems to be too many for muskies to achieve their desired potential in the fishery. So, it's a calculated risk, but we think a combination of adding some adult muskies and harvesting more northern pike, combined with doing some habitat work, could tip the balance in favor of muskellunge and help us to achieve musky fishing objectives. Obviously I cannot go into the rationale for each management decision in this kind of detail, but hopefully this example provides a window through which you, Mike, and other interested anglers can view the thought process that leads to some of our proposed actions. Thanks for your interest and support. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
Obviously I cannot go into the rationale for each management decision in this kind of detail, but hopefully this example provides a window through which you, Mike, and other interested anglers can view the thought process that leads to some of our proposed actions. compelling. from one state employe to another, thanks for taking the time. my own work for the state is highly specialized, greatly misrepresented in the media, and hugely misunderstood by the public. and if i were asked to justify the decisions i make in how i do my job on a daily basis i would simply laugh and say, "because i know what i'm doing and you don't." it's fair of us to ask our fisheries people to explain things to us, but also understandable that you've got limited time in which to do so and lots of other more/equally important work to be doing. thanks for going above and beyond in describing your approach. agree or disagree, people can't say you haven't been open about your management. you comport yourself as a true professional and are a great example of why WI needs to trust the professionals to manage the resource. | |||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| My question stands for Dave. Is the prescribed 'trophy' goal for LCO applicable to the Chip. And if so, how would you rate its performance against that standard given the number (or lack thereof) of 50"+ ers that lake has given up in recent years. Are we on target with the Chip or do actions need to be taken there as well. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | When was the size limit raised to 45" on the Chip? | ||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | Can't say that I saw a lot of humor in any of it. LCO fish are way, way, way down and the spawning habitat has been dramatically reduced. Edited by lakesuperiorkid 12/6/2005 12:08 AM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | In response to LAMBEAU's last post: Wow, Mike. Every once in awhile someone says something that makes the communication efforts seem worthwhile. My wife is a busy teacher, but I asked her to take a moment to read your posts, just so she could see that the personal time I spend here is not always in vain. (Fortunately for me, she is a musky angler too!) Thanks for your kind words of encouragement. I'm curious to know what you do for the State, but I don't expect you to announce it here. Send me a PM or an e-mail sometime and let me know, if you're so inclined. Edited by Dave N 12/6/2005 6:25 AM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | lakesuperiorkid - 12/6/2005 12:14 AM It reads good but for someone who posted that there has been only one event of mixed stocking in Wisconsin, I have to ask what you do know. The Time Line from DNR material says something entirely different than what you gave people at the Visioning sessions. I know this is DNR employess talking to each other. Past that, I doubt you can really go any further. Mr. Turnbull, your assertion here that I have ever "posted" or even THOUGHT that there has been "only one event of mixed stocking in Wisconsin" is nothing short of absurd. I sat down with Larry Ramsell over lunch at Louie's Landing on Moose Lake BEFORE he and his WMRP friends ever went to Madison to plead their case. In that meeting, I acknowledged that in-state source mixing had occurred; I expressed my appreciation to Mr. Ramsell for his volunteer efforts to bring all that information together; I even told him that his initiative probably moved the DNR along the road to improved broodstock handling faster than we would have moved without his prompting. I also told him that his compilation of historical stocking records would be helpful to Dr. Sloss in interpreting the results of his ongoing muskellunge genetics study. Finally, I told him that neither I nor my colleagues nor any fishery scientist in North America could conclude at this time that in-state source mixing had compromised the ability of Wisconsin hatchery-reared muskellunge to grow large or reproduce successfully. He has continued to push for action beyond the limits that science can support, and so this issue continues to elicit public debate. It's not about acknowledgment of source mixing. It's about INTERPRETATION of the IMPACT of that mixing. I have said this many times in various posts here and elsewhere. What Frank Pratt distributed at the Sawyer County lake fishery visioning sessions last summer was labeled as a SYNOPSIS of past and current fishery management. According to my dictionary, a SYNOPSIS is "a brief or condensed statement giving a general view of some subject." We had neither the time nor the intent to distribute a comprehensive stocking history or management plan at those sessions; we were there to DEVELOP a plan. One important element in that process is to review recent fish population data and fishery management activities so that participants can see "where we are" before discussing "where we are going." Mr. Turnbull, in the future, if you want to know what I have written or said, please read it directly or ask me; don't take the word of my critics. If you want to know what is happening at our visioning sessions, come participate in them and help us to determine the future of our fisheries, rather than taking wild potshots at the process from the sidelines. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MuskieFIRST |
| ||
Posts: 507 | Gentlemen, It would appear that we have some new folks visiting and commenting, so it might be a good idea to briefly cover the rules of discussion here. Please allow us to state them for everyone's benefit, so we no longer have to sidetrack into defensive allignments, and instead spend our time and effort in carrying on good conversation and creating good information flow. No personal vendettas, attacks, or bashing. Please do not make wildly speculative comments that insinuate, lead to, suggest, or indicate a vendetta, attack, or bash. Do not call anyone names. Take caution not to speculate negatively in a manner that might be considered a poorly veiled personal attack, or a facet of a personal vendetta. In more simple terms, if you think your comment might be over the edge, it probably is. This protocol, gentlemen, isn't 'bias' toward any idea, information, organization, or event. It is a simple, easy to understand set of rules that should allow for and in fact ENCOURAGE reasonabe conversation and exchange of ideas and information. This has been our policy since we published our first page. OutdoorsFIRST Media is a full time, fully staffed media company, and we take our position in this industry and our responsibility to our visitors seriously. There will be no virtual bar room fights here. Thanks to all for an excellent and continuing conversation! | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Steve, 2003.... However, angler harvest isn't nearly the issue it is on the Chip as say in the 70's and early 80's. But if you talk to those that have fished the lake over the past 30-40 years, the consensus is that there are fewer "super fish" (i.e. in excess of 52") now than back then. I would venture to say the release rate on the Chip is probably around 97-98%. So using my completely arbitrary catch number of 675, if three percent of kept fish fall into the range of 45-49", you still are talking an overall number of 20 muskies kept. Is that enough to limit the upper end to a point of no returns beyond 50"? If the Chip is performing to a trophy goal of a 5-10% 50" population, then there should be 200-400 50"ers there to be caught. And like I said before, there are good fisherman there to catch them. So to see a virtual handful in a given year lends me to think we are underperforming on the lake in some how. Is genetics an issue? I don't know. Is ultimate escoid carrying capacity an issue? I don't know. Has something ecological changed to cause fewer big fish? I don't know. Is combined angler harvest (single hook fatalities and tribal spearing included) the reason? I don't know. Thats why I ask the question. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Monk, I don't either, but I have commented that it's a probable mix of some or all of the above. I have heard remarks from some of the anglers over there that they have seen improvements in overall size, have you heard any comments along those lines or is that possibly wishful thinking? If the largest fish in the Chip, overall, are mid 50" class, that would represent a very small number of supertankers as a percentage of the total population as discussed in Dr. Casselman's symposium presentation, that's for sure. Harvest, especially in some areas here in Wisconsin, has been shifting over the last decade to limited harvest, and mostly the larger/largest fish. I wonder if the process of convincing the anglers to let those hawgs go and get a replica made is not yet reflected in surviving and as a result captured and released big fish there? Add winter spearing, which is largely unreported, spring spearing, and plain old mortality from handling and it's amazing any fish reach supertanker size at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought that about a 10% capture- by- angler rate of the population of the largest fish in any system in any one year is pretty good, I'll have to look into that more. I should be able to use angler diary and creel data to get a general idea, I suppose. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | MuskyMonk - 12/5/2005 9:33 PM My question stands for Dave. Is the prescribed 'trophy' goal for LCO applicable to the Chip. And if so, how would you rate its performance against that standard given the number (or lack thereof) of 50"+ ers that lake has given up in recent years. Are we on target with the Chip or do actions need to be taken there as well. Monk, the goal and objectives for the Chippewa Flowage musky population are somewhat different than those for LCO. Here's what we developed at the visioning session on June 17, 2005. Members of the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. were in attendance: GOAL: A musky population of moderate-high density with a moderate proportion of memorable-size fish and a low proportion of trophy-size fish. OBJECTIVES (specific, measurable parameters that are based upon early spring fyke netting): Density: 0.3 TO 0.4 adult muskellunge per acre (slightly higher than LCO) Size Structure: RSD-42 = 30-40% and RSD-50 = 3-5% (slightly lower than LCO) RSD means Relative Stock Density, and in the case of muskellunge is the proportion of all fish greater than or equal to 20 inches long that are also over the stated lengths of 42 (memorable size) and 50 (trophy size) inches. These objectives reflect local stakeholder and midwestern angler desires for a significant trophy aspect to the Chippewa Flowage musky fishery. The only species more important to Chippewa Flowage stakeholders than muskellunge were walleye and black crappie. Monk, I wish I had a better answer for the second part of your question, regarding where we are now in relation to where we want to be. The 15,300-acre Chippewa Flowage has several distinct lake basins (west side) and tributary streams (east side) that make this one of the most interesting but difficult waters to sample anywhere. The effort required to make an accurate mark-recapture population estimate here is monumental and currently is scheduled by our region-wide Treaty Assessment Unit to occur only once every 12-13 years. Ultimately, we need to find a way to INDEX musky density here by using less intensive sampling procedures on a more frequent basis. The short answer to your question is that we don't have much information about current status, but now we at least have clear objectives. Anecdotal information is always difficult to interpret, but in 2004 the Sawyer County Record published photographs of 10 muskellunge reported to be over 50 inches long by the anglers/guides who submitted those photos. I have no idea what that says about the actual proportion of fish over 50 inches long, except that there obviously are some. The Pro Muskie Tournament Trail had an excellent event on the Flowage in 2005, but fishing may have been uncharacteristically good that weekend. Many anglers believe that the size distribution of muskies caught in the Chippewa Flowage has improved considerably over the past 10-20 years (from mostly 30s to lots of 40s), but they believe top-end fish are more difficult to find. We know there are some huge fish out there -- potential record-breakers, but those are rare beasts. Details about what we know and what we still need to learn will appear in the Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan this winter. I'd better get cracking on it... Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MuskyMonk |
| ||
| Thanks for the response Dave . I agree that its a difficult lake to census, there is a lot of dead water and active areas come and go on a yearly basis. Plus with the new crib program, fish may be using different areas of the lake. One thing I look back to was the tagging program that took place in from I believe '79 to '86. If memory serves me, I think on order of 1,600 fish were tagged and subsequent recaptures tracked during that timeframe and beyond. Could something like this be initiated again? Might go hand in hand with Dr. Sloss' genetic study. And I would assume Dr. Sloss will be sampling Chip fish (especially a few of the big girls). Just running the numbers again, and thats what I do, I'm a numbers guy.... the low end population of 50"s would be 90 (15,000 x .3 fish/acre x .02 50" population). And our high end population of 50"s would be 300 (15,000 x .4 fish/acre x .05 50" population), that would put an average 50"'s population at about 195-200. If we go with Steve's 10% capture rate of upper echelon fish, then we may expect to see about 20 on an average year. Obviously less in a poor year, more in a good year. And if in 2004 fisherman boated 10 during a good year and say 5/6 this year (not so good), then I would say we may be opperating a bit under the low end range. I do agree with you on the potential of the Chip. My Dad and I have, sadly, lost some big fish out there (40++ pounders). And you don't have to talk long to those that have fished that lake to realize that 5-6 footers have existed. Love to see one of those get plucked for genetic testing  On a side note, will the Chip Management Plan include ideas on how to contain the millfoil out there. Its getting to a point I can't throw to many of my favorite spots. | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Monk, thanks for sharing your personal experiences and insights on the Flowage. You asked, "On a side note, will the Chip Management Plan include ideas on how to contain the millfoil out there? Its getting to a point I can't throw to many of my favorite spots." DAVE: We are aware of the milfoil problem. It seems to be particularly obnoxious on the east side, and it is forcing people, including me, to change presentations. Where once I could gurgle a hawg wobbler across the top of places like Pete's Bar at night, I now have to fish elsewhere at night or work the edges and pockets with different lures by the light of day. As you know, Eurasian watermilfoil has a nasty habit of growing to and across the surface, making surface lure presentations impossible in areas where surface fishing over the tops of cabbage beds was once possible (and fun). Because aquatic plants are an integral part of the habitat affecting fish populations, I know that our fishery management plan will address the issue. However, I am not optimistic that Eurasian watermilfoil can ever be reduced significantly in the Chippewa Flowage without using the "nuclear option" of dramatic drawdown that almost guarantees a severe winterkill of fish in parts of the lake, as occurred (but was little publicized) in 1995. Even severe fluctuation in water level (with all the inherent risk of winterkill) offers no guarantee of milfoil eradication. Because this will be a complex issue from both an ecological and socio-political standpoint, I am seriously considering contracting an outstanding retired fisheries professor from Virginia Polytechnic Institute who now lives in our area to provide us with an analysis of the situation and perhaps even assist with water level negotiations with Xcel Energy. He has great experience doing research on hydropower projects, and he speaks the language of power company executives. If we do contract for his services, it will be to develop a holistic recommendation for water level management that identifies the best possible regime for all species of importance -- walleye, black crappie, muskellunge, and bluegill being foremost on that list, in that order. What this means for milfoil remains to be seen. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Supervisor, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 12/6/2005 4:04 PM | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| I have 1 question for Dave N. and 1 question for Steve W. Question for Dave N. Do you believe that there are any muskie strains in NW WI in which none of the muskies from these particular strains have the potential to grow to 50" regardless of what lake we put them in and the amount or type of forage available? If yes, what strains are they and/or what lakes do they now or did they at one time exist in? Question for Steve W. Have I broken any of your rules of conduct in this post? Thanks | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | EJohnson, Nope! | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |