Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )
Moderators: Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page]

Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Wi fish discussion
 
Message Subject: Wi fish discussion
Kirby Budrow
Posted 2/24/2021 10:12 AM (#975896 - in reply to #975887)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 2255


Location: Chisholm, MN
CincySkeez - 2/24/2021 9:03 AM

RJ_692 - 2/24/2021 7:47 AM

its always interesting to me how everyone is caught up in just size (caught a 50 syndrome). i would prefer to have local fish of whatever sort they are. I personally think it is cool to fish for the different strains. Anglers seem to have a desire to have boom lakes, not just sustainable fisheries.

i may be wrong, but i thought a lot of the really big fish early from Mille Lacs were Wisconsin fish?

One of the funnest days ive had Musky fishing was on a Shoepak lake.

You dont have to look very hard to find the realism of stocked lakes in MN. Its not just the big lakes like Vermillion and Mille Lacs in a state of peril. The heydays of MN are long since over. Do the math on a Frank Schneider tournament sometime.


I strongly agree that returning musky to their natural range, maintaining regional genetics and ensuring natural reproduction should be the goal. Sure it's fun to fish during new res syndrome but some people have trouble understanding that's neither sustainable or desirable for a fishery.


Obviously the boom is impossible to sustain, but it can be better than it is now. One problem is the money and baby muskies available for stocking are limited but we should be working to create more rearing ponds and provide money for stocking. We can easily supplement our lakes that are struggling and sustain a better fishery. The lakes have everything working against them and it's worse every year with increased pressure and less stocking. That needs to countered by more stocking.
nar160
Posted 2/24/2021 2:16 PM (#975925 - in reply to #975832)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Posts: 408


Location: MN
Kirby Budrow - 2/22/2021 6:24 PM

This is for Steve. The new reservoir syndrome is a thing and most people do not doubt that. But...in the vermilion/Mille lacs debate, which has experienced this type of syndrome, wouldn’t you think there is a way to improve on it? Yes, there is a decline that cannot be completely reversed but wouldn’t stocking MORE fish help get closer to where it once was? There is a huge difference in the stocking levels nowadays compared to what it once was. More stocking equals more fish. Simple math.


sworrall - 2/22/2021 6:55 PM

As I understand it, stocking the recommended 1 to 3 fish per acre will still not get you what we saw in the Vermilion discovery by muskie anglers. Still lots of pressure there, and a change from the current stable low-density population management will bring more. NR is not what was hoped for I think, and then there are the cost thing and management objectives. Might not meet our hopes or expectations.


Some data for comparison. Over 2003-2014 (bigger adults now aged 7-18), a total of 18,002 fingerlings were stocked in Vermilion.  That is 0.038 fish per acre per year.
sworrall
Posted 2/24/2021 2:22 PM (#975927 - in reply to #975925)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
nar160 - 2/24/2021 2:16 PM

Kirby Budrow - 2/22/2021 6:24 PM

This is for Steve. The new reservoir syndrome is a thing and most people do not doubt that. But...in the vermilion/Mille lacs debate, which has experienced this type of syndrome, wouldn’t you think there is a way to improve on it? Yes, there is a decline that cannot be completely reversed but wouldn’t stocking MORE fish help get closer to where it once was? There is a huge difference in the stocking levels nowadays compared to what it once was. More stocking equals more fish. Simple math.


sworrall - 2/22/2021 6:55 PM

As I understand it, stocking the recommended 1 to 3 fish per acre will still not get you what we saw in the Vermilion discovery by muskie anglers. Still lots of pressure there, and a change from the current stable low-density population management will bring more. NR is not what was hoped for I think, and then there are the cost thing and management objectives. Might not meet our hopes or expectations.


Some data for comparison. Over 2003-2014 (bigger adults now aged 7-18), a total of 18,002 fingerlings were stocked in Vermilion.  That is 0.038 fish per acre per year.


Recommended 1 to 3 fish per acre is not targeted to sustain a fishery at low density/high-quality status. That number is to basically create or save a crashing population or introduce new species. Vermilion is currently managed as exactly that, low density, high quality. It was built as a muskie fishery with the knowledge that's where it would end up, and as I understand it, the hope enough NR would occur to avoid regular stocking. Context is kind of important there...

And, it may be wise to look at the cost even before addressing the future benefits, which may not be what people want. What would 100000 LL extended growthers cost?
North of 8
Posted 2/24/2021 3:07 PM (#975929 - in reply to #975927)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Given the tremendous cost of raising fish to be stocked, maybe there should be a musky stamp? You would need a fishing license and then if you wished to fish musky, you would need a musky stamp, the revenue from that would be used to stock lakes. Given how expensive the sport is, I wouldn't think guys would object to a $40 or $50 stamp.
sukrchukr
Posted 2/24/2021 3:12 PM (#975930 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Location: Vilas
Id pay $50 for a stamp for muskie stocking....

Edited by sukrchukr 2/24/2021 3:13 PM
esoxaddict
Posted 2/24/2021 3:33 PM (#975934 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 8703


It sounds like a good idea. I wonder about a few things, though:

Typically a stamp is for harvest purposes. Would having a stamp encourage harvest of more legal sized fish. (I paid for my stamp, I'm gonna take my fish)

Would that discourage anglers from other states from fishing in MN? I know $50 is trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I could see a lot of people staying home over it.

North of 8
Posted 2/24/2021 3:39 PM (#975935 - in reply to #975934)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




esoxaddict - 2/24/2021 3:33 PM

It sounds like a good idea. I wonder about a few things, though:

Typically a stamp is for harvest purposes. Would having a stamp encourage harvest of more legal sized fish. (I paid for my stamp, I'm gonna take my fish)

Would that discourage anglers from other states from fishing in MN? I know $50 is trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I could see a lot of people staying home over it.



The "folks won't come" argument is the one that the hospitality industry plead when it was discussed for walleyes in WI. If you are going to travel interstate to fish, which includes gas, lodging, food, etc., would buying a stamp really stop you? $50 barely buys you a pitcher of beer, pizza and tip.
TCESOX
Posted 2/24/2021 4:50 PM (#975942 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 1168


A muskie stamp could easily backfire politically. There are anti-muskie legislators, who would love to see a muskie stamp. They would find ways to misuse data, numbers, dollars, to try to reduce or even eliminate current funding. We see only the good that could come from it, but it's a trap.
North of 8
Posted 2/24/2021 5:21 PM (#975943 - in reply to #975942)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




As with anything involving government revenues, you would need to do the groundwork ahead of time. Enlist allies in the legislature, find supporters in the business community, in particular those who would benefit. Resort owners, boat dealers, tackle shops, etc. Make sure they understand not only the potential benefits but also potential pitfalls. Wisconsin does not have the number of waterfowl hunters it once did but sales of the state duck stamp raises close to $500,000 each year. About $150,000 of that goes to Canadian pothole habitat, the rest is spent in the state to support waterfowl habitat. There may well be those in the legislature, departments, that would like to short circuit the funds. That is why you do your homework ahead of time and you also find allies in the news media who will blow the whistle on those who try to use funds for other than what it is intended. In Wisconsin for example, you would talk to Paul Smith, the long time outdoors writer for the Milwaukee Journal whose columns appear in a number of other newspapers as well. He is a life long hunter and fishermen. Big advocate for habitat development, restoration. Take a local broadcaster fishing, explain the purpose of the stamp, both from a sport perspective and economic impact. They get a story with good images from being on the water and if you do it right, may have an ally down the road.
TCESOX
Posted 2/24/2021 5:43 PM (#975945 - in reply to #975943)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 1168


North of 8 - 2/24/2021 5:21 PM

As with anything involving government revenues, you would need to do the groundwork ahead of time. Enlist allies in the legislature, find supporters in the business community, in particular those who would benefit. Resort owners, boat dealers, tackle shops, etc. Make sure they understand not only the potential benefits but also potential pitfalls. Wisconsin does not have the number of waterfowl hunters it once did but sales of the state duck stamp raises close to $500,000 each year. About $150,000 of that goes to Canadian pothole habitat, the rest is spent in the state to support waterfowl habitat. There may well be those in the legislature, departments, that would like to short circuit the funds. That is why you do your homework ahead of time and you also find allies in the news media who will blow the whistle on those who try to use funds for other than what it is intended. In Wisconsin for example, you would talk to Paul Smith, the long time outdoors writer for the Milwaukee Journal whose columns appear in a number of other newspapers as well. He is a life long hunter and fishermen. Big advocate for habitat development, restoration. Take a local broadcaster fishing, explain the purpose of the stamp, both from a sport perspective and economic impact. They get a story with good images from being on the water and if you do it right, may have an ally down the road.


This is what it would take. I can only speak to the MN side of things, and it is not my place to be much more specific, but at this time, more than one of the items above, have serious political challenges that may not be there in the somewhat near future. Along with the heavy lifting mentioned, timing is everything.
North of 8
Posted 2/24/2021 6:06 PM (#975947 - in reply to #975945)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Timing is always important, true. And involvement of participants is key. Look at the snowmobile clubs and the incredible trail system in WI. They built that step by step and big part of it was the clubs doing almost all the work. They get the leases from private land owners, they maintain all but a small portion of the trails. In return, the state funds the trail work with the trail fees snowmobilers pay. I have an old machine I use to pull my ice sled, but I buy a trail pass and pay to belong to a club because I know how important they are to the economy up here. Couple years ago I went out in early fall and helped rebuild a bridge on the trails. The club got reimbursed for our hours and the use of our tools from the fund. The state's biggest headache is the bookkeeping.
The head of the division in the DNR talked about the program on public radio recently and he called it one of the most successful partnerships in outdoor recreation the state has ever seen. And he said it all starts with the clubs and their members.
upnortdave
Posted 2/24/2021 6:26 PM (#975950 - in reply to #975947)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Posts: 668


Location: mercer wi
Stamps for out of state anglers.
$100 musky
$250 walleye
$500 for panfish
Residence NO STAMP
sworrall
Posted 2/24/2021 6:26 PM (#975951 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I remember a push for a muskie stamp many years ago, and if memory serves the DNR objected to the idea of the stamp money being restricted to stocking muskies. Better I think to get an area fish manager on the path and look to Muskies Inc. for help with stocking funds. The Chapters do an amazing job raising money for stocking.

Even that won't solve the issue of what we want to be stocked meeting the requirements of the biologist managing that water. In some cases they have rejected the assistance out of hand, simply not needing help to meet what the objectives are for that waterbody. I remember over the years several clubs assisted with stocking on Pelican.
North of 8
Posted 2/24/2021 6:33 PM (#975952 - in reply to #975951)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




sworrall - 2/24/2021 6:26 PM

I remember a push for a muskie stamp many years ago, and if memory serves the DNR objected to the idea of the stamp money being restricted to stocking muskies. Better I think to get an area fish manager on the path and look to Muskies Inc. for help with stocking funds. The Chapters do an amazing job raising money for stocking.

Even that won't solve the issue of what we want to be stocked meeting the requirements of the biologist managing that water. In some cases they have rejected the assistance out of hand, simply not needing help to meet what the objectives are for that waterbody. I remember over the years several clubs assisted with stocking on Pelican.


Again, that is why you get the DNR's bosses in the legislature on board first. And that is what the snowmobile clubs did decades ago. They went to the local state assembly reps and pitched the idea of trail fees to them, selling them on economic impact. I don't know if there is enough support from fishermen, but if the problem is money, it will have to come from those that benefit, i.e. musky fishermen and the businesses they support. And keeping the money segregated should not be an issue if it is structured like the state duck stamp. Those funds have to be used for waterfowl projects.
upnortdave
Posted 2/24/2021 6:36 PM (#975953 - in reply to #975951)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Posts: 668


Location: mercer wi
So what lake would they stock with leech fish. All of them that get stocked? Just lakes over say 1500 acres? What if the lake already produces trophy fish? Can small northern Wisconsin that area only 200 acres support at fish that eats and grown SO FAST. I'm no scientist or a PRO like most but I'm happy with what's up here. To me it seems like these spoiled, instinct gradification people expect to catch a 50 every time out.
sworrall
Posted 2/24/2021 7:10 PM (#975957 - in reply to #975952)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
North of 8 - 2/24/2021 6:33 PM

sworrall - 2/24/2021 6:26 PM

I remember a push for a muskie stamp many years ago, and if memory serves the DNR objected to the idea of the stamp money being restricted to stocking muskies. Better I think to get an area fish manager on the path and look to Muskies Inc. for help with stocking funds. The Chapters do an amazing job raising money for stocking.

Even that won't solve the issue of what we want to be stocked meeting the requirements of the biologist managing that water. In some cases they have rejected the assistance out of hand, simply not needing help to meet what the objectives are for that waterbody. I remember over the years several clubs assisted with stocking on Pelican.


Again, that is why you get the DNR's bosses in the legislature on board first. And that is what the snowmobile clubs did decades ago. They went to the local state assembly reps and pitched the idea of trail fees to them, selling them on economic impact. I don't know if there is enough support from fishermen, but if the problem is money, it will have to come from those that benefit, i.e. musky fishermen and the businesses they support. And keeping the money segregated should not be an issue if it is structured like the state duck stamp. Those funds have to be used for waterfowl projects.


I'm pretty sure that was how it was approached, maybe someone else who remembers this better than I can clarify.
MartinTD
Posted 2/25/2021 7:22 AM (#975978 - in reply to #975953)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 1129


Location: NorthCentral WI
upnortdave - 2/24/2021 6:36 PM

So what lake would they stock with leech fish. All of them that get stocked? Just lakes over say 1500 acres? What if the lake already produces trophy fish? Can small northern Wisconsin that area only 200 acres support at fish that eats and grown SO FAST. I'm no scientist or a PRO like most but I'm happy with what's up here. To me it seems like these spoiled, instinct gradification people expect to catch a 50 every time out.


I am happy with the fisheries in Wisconsin too but there's no reason to get butt hurt over a discussion on continuous improvement. If Nancy Lake was only 750 acres and was a success than why would you say "just lakes over 1500 acres?" I would think if they even considered stocking LLS again they would be in "new" lakes if you will based on what they had said about the WIDNR not wanting to mix genetic strains. Another valid point that Larry made was why would we strip eggs from small fish? With that method you really have no idea if you're getting quality size fish. That seems like common sense. And as far as the podcast in general, I honestly think Lee and Robbie are just trying to have a discussion about it. They were not targeting the DNR by any means. If anything Pete and Larry were a little more opinionated on that front but maybe rightfully so to a degree. They obviously have more experience dealing with the DNR than me or 95% of people on this forum I'd guess. Point being is I don't see what the uproar is all about. There's no need to get defensive when we all want the best fisheries possible. Maybe the DNR should be doing more to insure high quality genetics for stocked fish? It seems private industry is always better at continually improving processes more so than anything government run. I don't know enough about it personally but it sure sounds like the Kallen (sp?) fish farm referenced was doing the right things. Either way it is an interesting topic for discussion.
RJ_692
Posted 2/25/2021 8:40 AM (#975983 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Posts: 357


Thought this was interesting, quoted from an article i read yesterday on Melton Hill Reservoir

"Initially, TWRA tried to grow its own stocking-size muskies by stripping eggs and sperm from local fish obtained by electro-shocking and hatching the fertilized eggs at one of their local hatcheries, but that didn’t work out because of limited hatchery capacity.

“This year, the lake received 3,200 8- to 12-inches muskies from a Kentucky state hatchery, which has been our primary source for many years,” said Mike Smith, the long-time manager of the agency’s Eagle Bend hatchery near Clinton, Tenn.

“This Ohio sub-species tops out around 45 pounds while the Wisconsin sub-species is known to grow as large as 60 pounds,” Smith said.

“Last year, we obtained the Wisconsin sub-species from an Indiana state hatchery, and next year we plan to purchase more of that sub-species from an Iowa state hatchery. We shoot for around 1,500 stockers each year.”

https://www.carolinasportsman.com/content/souths-best-muskie-lake/
true tiger tamer
Posted 2/25/2021 9:18 AM (#975989 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Posts: 343


Melton Hill has received spotted muskies in the past, I've caught a few. Most of the biggest muskies I'm aware of were spotted fish. I've heard the spotted fish were Leechers, others have said they were Great Lakes. Melton Hill is a special case as it has warm water for fast growth but also has a cool water refuge when the water is hot so fish don't burn out as fast as most southern fish, so they can live longer. Unfortunately there are a lot of muskie haters in the area, and many fish are also killed by meat and trophy fishermen. I'm sure the Wisconsin fish will do okay, but in my opinion spotted fish would likely be a better choice.
Slamr
Posted 2/25/2021 9:34 AM (#975993 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 6995


Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs
Uh oh....someone poked the (Steve Worrall) bear. This is top 4 topics on M1st that get him allllllll riled up.
sworrall
Posted 2/25/2021 9:42 AM (#975994 - in reply to #975978)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
MartinTD - 2/25/2021 7:22 AM

upnortdave - 2/24/2021 6:36 PM

So what lake would they stock with leech fish. All of them that get stocked? Just lakes over say 1500 acres? What if the lake already produces trophy fish? Can small northern Wisconsin that area only 200 acres support at fish that eats and grown SO FAST. I'm no scientist or a PRO like most but I'm happy with what's up here. To me it seems like these spoiled, instinct gradification people expect to catch a 50 every time out.


I am happy with the fisheries in Wisconsin too but there's no reason to get butt hurt over a discussion on continuous improvement. If Nancy Lake was only 750 acres and was a success than why would you say "just lakes over 1500 acres?" I would think if they even considered stocking LLS again they would be in "new" lakes if you will based on what they had said about the WIDNR not wanting to mix genetic strains. Another valid point that Larry made was why would we strip eggs from small fish? With that method you really have no idea if you're getting quality size fish. That seems like common sense. And as far as the podcast in general, I honestly think Lee and Robbie are just trying to have a discussion about it. They were not targeting the DNR by any means. If anything Pete and Larry were a little more opinionated on that front but maybe rightfully so to a degree. They obviously have more experience dealing with the DNR than me or 95% of people on this forum I'd guess. Point being is I don't see what the uproar is all about. There's no need to get defensive when we all want the best fisheries possible. Maybe the DNR should be doing more to insure high quality genetics for stocked fish? It seems private industry is always better at continually improving processes more so than anything government run. I don't know enough about it personally but it sure sounds like the Kallen (sp?) fish farm referenced was doing the right things. Either way it is an interesting topic for discussion.


This was dealt with in incredible detail here years ago, with the involvement of the best minds in muskie management from the US and Canada, Larry at his very best as a historian, and a few radicals on both sides who made somewhat of a mess denigrating the scientists in the program and defending same. We eventually made true headway almost healing the wide rift created between the DNR and the 'it's the fish' movement, and LL fish are now stocked in put and take fisheries across the southern part of Wisconsin. How do I know there was a rift? I took a ton of heat from both sides and did extensive interviews and had long conversations with both. Both sides were convinced I was biased heavily for the other. Dave N was the DNR contact point, and eventually, the vitriol got so bad he was asked not to post here anymore. Is THAT how we get change, by attempting to get it by accusation, abuse, insult, insinuation, and bad behavior? As a neutral journalist attempting to moderate the battle my experience says no, and once that receded, we actually got somewhere. Nancy Lake was an initial study, and I believe the supposedly low ending numbers and apparent poor NR (take what you will from the data and arguments from both sides) and the information from the Minnesota team on Mille Lacs growth of WI strain fish at the time settled that in the management community. The question of genetics in the HUGE argument over a Hayward area lake and much more was settled with the results of Dr. Sloss's team's independent study, which was generated by the debate. A new process was put into place to improve the process and in the end, the fishing. Muskies Inc Chapters became involved and still are. There's rumbling that we may end up with spots in some watersheds in the North yet. SO the way to respond to all of this is to start right back at the beginning, fire up both sides as if nothing happened....

I knew #*^@ well it would surface here and start the uninformed shouting all over again. It seems a lot have forgotten most of this or were never aware of the progression and as a result don't have context, but OFM has not. Who's 'butt-hurt'? I'm certainly not, but I am quite aware of what 'FAKE NEWS!!' titles do in the media. I found somewhere in the middle were the facts, and that's not going to change.
MartinTD
Posted 2/25/2021 10:03 AM (#975996 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 1129


Location: NorthCentral WI
LOL. The butt hurt comment was direct response to the "spoiled, instant gratification" comment quoted where in reality that couldn't be further from the truth. But I do think the podcast makes valid points regarding tourism and WI anglers traveling to other states in search of "big fish." Aside from that I think you're correct with your statement that "a lot have forgotten most of this or were never aware of the progression and as a result don't have context, but OFM has not." I for one admit I was never aware of the progression as you said so I found the podcast rather interesting. I was surprised by the backlash they received mainly on FB by a lot of people when in my opinion they (Today's Angler) were just bringing light to the situation for a lot of us. It is obviously a complex issue and it would be cool to see a rebuttal from Jordan Weeks or another member of the WIDNR on a subsequent podcast. I am honestly pretty neutral on the whole issue but find it an interesting topic that I hadn't really seen discussed, at least anytime recently. Larry and Pete on the other hand seem to have some pretty strong opinions and again it would be interesting to see those countered by the DNR.

Edited by MartinTD 2/25/2021 10:07 AM
sworrall
Posted 2/25/2021 10:06 AM (#975997 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
I personally hope they dodge that bullet this time and just continue to give us more access to spotted muskies.
upnortdave
Posted 2/25/2021 11:34 AM (#976003 - in reply to #975978)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Posts: 668


Location: mercer wi
MartinTD - 2/25/2021 7:22 AM

upnortdave - 2/24/2021 6:36 PM

So what lake would they stock with leech fish. All of them that get stocked? Just lakes over say 1500 acres? What if the lake already produces trophy fish? Can small northern Wisconsin that area only 200 acres support at fish that eats and grown SO FAST. I'm no scientist or a PRO like most but I'm happy with what's up here. To me it seems like these spoiled, instinct gradification people expect to catch a 50 every time out.


I am happy with the fisheries in Wisconsin too but there's no reason to get butt hurt over a discussion on continuous improvement. If Nancy Lake was only 750 acres and was a success than why would you say "just lakes over 1500 acres?" I would think if they even considered stocking LLS again they would be in "new" lakes if you will based on what they had said about the WIDNR not wanting to mix genetic strains. Another valid point that Larry made was why would we strip eggs from small fish? With that method you really have no idea if you're getting quality size fish. That seems like common sense. And as far as the podcast in general, I honestly think Lee and Robbie are just trying to have a discussion about it. They were not targeting the DNR by any means. If anything Pete and Larry were a little more opinionated on that front but maybe rightfully so to a degree. They obviously have more experience dealing with the DNR than me or 95% of people on this forum I'd guess. Point being is I don't see what the uproar is all about. There's no need to get defensive when we all want the best fisheries possible. Maybe the DNR should be doing more to insure high quality genetics for stocked fish? It seems private industry is always better at continually improving processes more so than anything government run. I don't know enough about it personally but it sure sounds like the Kallen (sp?) fish farm referenced was doing the right things. Either way it is an interesting topic for discussion.

Not butt hurt at all. Just wondering what the Pros would suggest. The 1500 acre comment was just a general comment. Where I live I'm surrounded by small lakes, could they support a fishery that has shown the leech fish eat a lot more the compared to native fish. My comment about the inStent gradifaction angler is that talking to some they expect to catch a 50 every time out. Which in my opinion kind of takes away from the true hunt. Got friend that fish GB and have caught a large # of 50 but all say it's nothing compared to the hunt for a northern Wisconsin 50.
sworrall
Posted 2/26/2021 10:22 AM (#976053 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
The beginning. If you are truly interested in this, read the entire thing, please. This transfers into many other threads as it progresses.

https://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=19...
esoxaddict
Posted 2/26/2021 10:48 AM (#976055 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 8703


What I have read is that a "balanced" ecosystem (lot of factors at work here - water chemistry, types of forage, etc.) will support a population of .5 adult fish/acre. So for a 1,000 acre lake, you're looking at 500 fish total. Presuming you've got all the year classes covered evenly (you wouldn't) and a musky lives 20 years on average (to make the math easy) you're left with 25 fish of any given age for every 1,000 acres of water.

In order for a fish to get to "trophy" size, one of two things has to happen: In mature fishery, there simply can't be too many of them. You've have umpteen years of smaller fish behind them competing for the same forage, habitat, spawning areas, etc. In a new fishery, those first few year classes have the whole ecosystem to themselves. No predators, no competition except each other...

Going back to the .5 fish/acre for a moment - in an emerging fishery, the majority of fish are going to be the same size, right? And at some point, they're all going to be big. Woohoo! But that can't last for obvious reasons.

Sooo what do we do? You get limited returns by simply stocking more fish. Apex predators gotta eat, and the more you have, the less there is to eat.

Seems to me standard practice of stocking X number of fish every year or every 2 years is only diminishing the overall quality of the fishery. If its big fish we want you have to "make room" for them. Wouldn't it make more sense to stock a lot of fish all at once and then wait 5-6 years before stocking any more? Take next years hatch and do the same in the lake down the street, and so on. Eventually, you'd have the kind of fisheries we saw in MN about 10 years ago happening all over the place at all different times.

Larry Ramsell
Posted 2/26/2021 11:42 AM (#976058 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Posts: 1275


Location: Hayward, Wisconsin
All: Just back from 3 days of traveling and trying to catch up on this thread. I have a few comments and some clarifications:

On 2/22, Steve Worral referred to Mille Lacs and Vermilion as though they were not native muskie lakes. That is incorrect. Both have always had muskies (I have pictures, stories and and articles that prove this). However, although both were "native" muskie lakes, they had very small (or in the case of Mille Lacs, non-existent) populations and were not considered viable muskie fisheries.

To clarify a point about the first stockings in Mille Lacs being Wisconsin strain muskies, that is true, BUT they were Kalepp Fish Farm fish, not Wisconsin DNR hatchery raised fish. This was and is often never mentioned.

I agree with those that refer to "pressure" being a huge factor. More reason to have more waters available to spread out the pressure.

As far as MONEY, I submit that it is out there! Muskie's, Inc., The Wisconsin Musky Clubs Alliance, The Hugh Becker Foundation, etc., etc. ASK if it would happen!

IA Austin referred to the Iowa fish. I can assure you that since the 1960's, when the original Great Lakes Musky Club was involved, there were muskie strains stocked in Okoboji from all over the US!! However, Iowa takes fish from lakes to the hatchery to spawn and have had some giants and I'd imagine those are the ones they get the majority of eggs from.

RJ_692 referred also to Mille Lacs and the Kalepp Fish Farm fish. There were indeed some ML giants caught from there from those stockings. Kalepp had 25 brood stock lakes to pick from, with genes from several WI locations, including the Hatchery at the Winter Dam on the Upper Chippewa River from 1939 to 1942. But know also that Kalepp had a "pet" 57 inch female that supplied the majority of their eggs! When LL fish began being stocked, Kalepp fish were discontinued. Hybrids from these two strains have been found in genetic testing.

Mr. Worrall again on 2/24 mentioned the WI DNR and raising LL fish. The Spooner hatchery has indeed done so. One of the three stocking done in Nancy Lake was done with fish raised from eggs they took there and raised in the Hatchery and restocked them in Nancy Lake. Also, they DID prove that even though Nancy was not a native muskie lake, there WAS natural reproduction of the Leech Lake strain muskie there. And DOZENS AND DOZENS of 50" plus muskies caught there since proves it worked. A 55 inch, 42 pounder was caught there just a few years ago.

And of course, the Wild Rose Hatchery on the eastern side of WI is dedicated to raising Great Lakes strain muskies and the DNR has created a number of new GL brood stock lakes for getting GL strain eggs to raise and stock.

In conclusion, I agree with Mr. Worrall that is counter productive to alienate the DNR and will contain myself in the future, however, it would be nice if "studies" weren't used in a biased and slanted manner to support a position by those that have "ink" by the barrel available to them without fear of contradiction...I support OPEN debate on these matters.

I also can see no harm in stocking fish that grow big and fast in non-native muskie waters, but waters in the Northern muskie range, or those native lakes that MUST be stocked to maintain a viable, fishable population.

Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/26/2021 11:48 AM
North of 8
Posted 2/26/2021 12:03 PM (#976059 - in reply to #976058)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion




Larry, do you think that the gradually warming waters will impact the muskie population the way it appears to be impacting walleye populations? Thinking of the Lake Minocqua/Lake Tomahawk body of water where there has been a ban on walleye harvest for six years. The latest survey showed little, if any, natural reproduction. No solid answers, but some scientists suspect it is a result of gradually warming water. Don't know if musky reproduction is impacted by warming water.
sworrall
Posted 2/26/2021 1:56 PM (#976077 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: Re: Wi fish discussion





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
On 2/22, Steve Worral referred to Mille Lacs and Vermilion as though they were not native muskie lakes. That is incorrect. Both have always had muskies (I have pictures, stories and articles that prove this). However, although both were "native" muskie lakes, they had very small (or in the case of Mille Lacs, non-existent) populations and were not considered viable muskie fisheries.

In context, that was for the new reservoir syndrome that was nothing short of spectacular in both, and was clarified as such in a later post.

What's the population of LL fish in Nacny now, is there a viable fishery for spots there still? Think that may be stocked in the future with Great Lakes strain if we can keep the train going that direction?

My partner Zach worked Vermilion as an intern, I believe, during his college years. he mentioned no knowledge of a fishable population there at all back then. I'm quite aware of historical evidence of lots of waters holding big fish that didn't seem to hold a fishable population, I think Enterprize may be an example considering the giants speared illegally there by Gabby Ball and company (one was supposedly over 50# on the grocers scale) and a few 35# class fish caught there by me, the McBrides, and Jimmy Cairnes in the 70's. Then came the pressure, and the fishing declined.

I remember clearly when Moccasin was stocked 30 some years ago, it was a bonanza for action and fish to 42". I am not sure of the strain, but they were beautifully marked. Nothing seems to do well in there for growth anymore, it also used to kick out 14" to 16" crappies and it's hard to get a keeper in there now...pressure.

For a while in the 60's and 70's, Post Lake kicked out 50s fairly regularly for a couple Elcho locals. Might have been from very early stocking or what Larry calls 'milk can, don't know, (wolf river) but I personally saw several out of there in the mid 70's that were 35# class or better. I wouldn't fish there at all for muskies these days.
DWags
Posted 2/26/2021 4:09 PM (#976090 - in reply to #975738)
Subject: RE: Wi fish discussion




Posts: 53


Leechers stocked by me personally. Small 40 acre lake pan fish forage base. Central Illinois. Doing great.
Jump to page : 1 2 3
Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)