Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air.... |  |
| Message Subject: Wisconsin DNR and muskies...a breath of fresh air.... | |||
EJohnson |
| ||
| Troy I think this would be a great question for our DNR to answer or provide an opinion on. Please everyone, this is not meant to be taking a shot at our DNR, so please, don't take it that way. It's just a great question. EJohnson | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Actually, I think an even better question for our DNR would be: What strain of muskie should be stocked in the St. Louis river being that it is a great lakes drainage water and the fact that it is stocked with the miss strain by MN? Again, not a shot at our DNR here. Just a very good question. | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Mr Worrall, You took a shot at the Milwaukee MI club above for supporting our project without any discussion. Please let them speak for themselves in the future. I had provided the Milwaukee club with our documentation prior to the meeting you attended. The Milwaukee club was gracious enough to invite me to their board meeting this past Tuesday and also invited me to speak to their club before their award ceremony. It was a great meeting and I really enjoyed being with them. Once again I did not find anyone who disagreed with our ideas. I'd look forward to going back down there in the future and spending more time with them if the opportunity arises(and if I am invited). I told them as I tell everyone, we do not ask for or want blind support. We want people to read and know the facts so that they can make up their own mind. I'd like all to know - I have nothing to gain from this and ask for nothing in return. I just want better fishing for all the people of Wisconsin (Including myself and my family). I'd much rather be sharpening hooks or playing with my children than going through what I have been through the last few months. Someone must do it and I have appreciated the fantastic support from across the state. It is because of all the kind words and people that have told me they are counting on us that gives me the energy to see this through. We are taking a hard look at how we are operating and are making every effort to find a solution that suits all parties. We shall see if that helps us move forward. Cooperation and working together is a two way street. You may question my(our) methods, but please do not question my intent. Thanks, Bob Benson | |||
| C.Painter |
| ||
Posts: 1245 Location: Madtown, WI | Bob I don't think Steve was taking a shot at the Milwaukee club at all. My interpretation of what he said was the club was all in favor, wholeheartedly, of the overall theme of the group....Better top end fish.....The club, according to Steve, supported that theme...without really understanding fully what it all entailed. At least that was my take. Cory | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Troy (Bytor): First, thank you for posting with your name. Far too many folks like to take shots anon. hiding behind a "board name." You ask: I would appreciate your opinion on whether Mississippi strain fish should be put in the St. Louis river? My reply: I tried to cover that a bit yesterday, but since most of my posts have been fairly long, things tend to get lost. My answer is no, I don't think the Mississippi River strain fish should be put into the St. Louis river, but it is a far better choice than Wisconsin's mixed small strain. The MR strain is at least compatible with the multiple spawning Great Lakes strain and has the same large growth capability. Minnesota stocked 304 Wisconsin strain fish into the St. Louis River in 1990, but every stocking since (1994; 1995; 1997; 2001 and 2002-latest record information available) has been Leech Lake (Mississippi River strain). Wisconsin stocked 2,500 small Wisconsin strain in St. Louis Harbor just last fall. You then had: "It is my understanding that you WILL be getting Leech Lake fish, but as we have pointed out, this will do nothing for the native muskie range in the northern one-third of the state nor its related tourism industry." My reply: I believe this is merely a quote from my last post to you and am not sure what the intent of you putting it in your post was. Your then wrote: "I think the first bodies of waters to do this on should be the larger river systems. The Chippewa Flowage would be an excellent choice." My reply: We are not ready to go quite that far yet. While the Chip is on the regular stocking schedule (2500 scheduled for this fall) the question should be asked if it is really necessary. Certainly we want the current small strain stocking there discontinued, as does Chip Resorter's. We felt, and it was our first option presented to the DNR, that the Chip, LCO and Grindstone, in the Spooner hatchery district, would be great places to do some selective egg taking; i.e. from females over 52 inches and males over 45 inches. While still no guarantee that they would be "pure" larger native strain fish, the odds are in their favor. However, there still is the possibility of them not being pure; e.g. 7/8's, and could contain recessive small strain genes. The general consensus to date there is a stocking "moratorium," rather than continued stocking of small strain muskies! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Cory is correct. Bob is not. I'm a paid in full bonified for real member of that club. No one is suggesting Bob has anything to gain, either, other than a better future for muskies in Wisconsin if you are right. As I have said before, I hope you are. As I said before, I will question everything I see the need, and expect that you will answer, that's what debate is about, and I expect nothing less from you. I will also ask the same questions of the fisheries biologists from every muskie state in this country. I bet I find out exactly what I suspected; there's a middle ground of truth out there somewhere. By the way, sir, I never have questioned your intent. I questioned your qualifications to determine what is best for our state Muskie management, that you should expect. I questioned your methodology, that you should expect. I questioned and continue to question your conclusions based on what you admit to be months, not years of study, you should expect that. I asked, and will continue to ask, questions that need to be injected into this discussion, and asked for explanations to actual circumstances, in Lakes in Wisconsin, that seem to refute your base line conclusions; you should expect that. Some folks getting all ruffled up because the expected actually occurs is something I should have expected. My mistake, but absolutely no apologies here; this is open and fair debate about an issue I'm JUST as passionante about as you or Larry, involving an industry I have worked within for my entire adult life. Don't you doubt MY intentions either, sir, what facts there are will stand, what is not will not. I have no personal problems with or objections to anyone here. None at all. I spent a 1 hour and 45 minute conversation with the fisheries manager here at Cave Run today. Interesting stuff. All native fish, every one, all taken from native river stock from the river in which they are native since the Ice Age. I watched on as he Pointed out the rivers and streams the fish have inhabited siince the Ice Age ended, with great interest. All stockings here are from fish with excellent natural reproduction in the waters in which they live. The Cave is an impoundment, similar to some of the Mississippi river impoundments. Not a SINGLE young of the year muskie has ever been found in Cave Run, not one. NO natural reproduction. Also, the fish grow very quickly (UNBELIEVABLE!!), up to a maximum reported size of about 54". An estimated 10% ever reach that size, but they reach that size in 10 YEARS or less. I looked at the study data sheet from this gentleman's paper he's preparing for the Muskie Symposium this Fall. I also talked to a very highly respected guide and Pro here today who is from Minnesota. He reports that many of the big fish caught in Mille Lacs this last fall were without any doubt in his mind Wisconsin strain fish. Again, anecdotal, but from this fellow, I have to lend serious consideration to his assessment. Interesting stuff! | ||
| MuskieFIRST |
| ||
Posts: 507 | Mr Ramsell, This board does not require registration, and never will. MuskieFIRST provides a free information and news service to our user base, and is open to anyone willing to follow our protocol and stay within posting permissions. NO post will be allowed to remain here that breaks those permissions. Anonymous posts are perfectly OK; in fact the majority of the traffic here is from Guest users. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| From Mr. Worrall: "I spent a 1 hour and 45 minute conversation with the fisheries manager here at Cave Run today. Interesting stuff. All native fish, every one, all taken from native river stock from the river in which they are native since the Ice Age. I watched on as he Pointed out the rivers and streams the fish have inhabited since the Ice Age ended, with great interest. All stockings here are from fish with excellent natural reproduction in the waters in which they live. The Cave is an impoundment, similar to some of the Mississippi river impoundments. Not a SINGLE young of the year muskie has ever been found in Cave Run, not one. NO natural reproduction. Also, the fish grow very quickly (UNBELIEVABLE!!), up to a maximum reported size of about 54". An estimated 10% ever reach that size, but they reach that size in 10 YEARS or less. I looked at the study data sheet from this gentleman's paper he's preparing for the Muskie Symposium this Fall." My reply: Was there any discussion as to "WHY" there was no natural reproduction in Cave Run? OBVIOUSLY there had to be natural reproduction in the Licking River and other rivers of KY before Cave Run was created and the Minor Clark hatchery was built. Was the stream poisoning of Kentucky discussed by the coal mines? Trying to compare an impoundment in KY to the ones here in Wisconsin, especially with the pollution situation, is a bit of a stretch. Mr. Worrall continues: "I also talked to a very highly respected guide and Pro here today who is from Minnesota. He reports that many of the big fish caught in Mille Lacs this last fall were without any doubt in his mind Wisconsin strain fish. Again, anecdotal, but from this fellow, I have to lend serious consideration to his assessment. Interesting stuff!" My reply: Very interesting indeed. We base almost all of our premises on science and logical conclusion, and you continue to put in "anecdotal" information that cannot be proven, including your continued use of Lake X, where you expect us to give you solid conclusion based on only what you want us to know. Hardly fair. I would again ask, if you are indeed satisfied with the availability of trophy size muskies in Wisconsin, why do you go to Canada? Have you caught anything even close in Wisconsin to the 56 incher you caught in Wabigoon? That is happening more and more frequently right now in Minnesota...it can happen in Wisconsin too. From MuskieFIRST: "Mr Ramsell, This board does not require registration, and never will. MuskieFIRST provides a free information and news service to our user base, and is open to anyone willing to follow our protocol and stay within posting permissions. NO post will be allowed to remain here that breaks those permissions. Anonymous posts are perfectly OK; in fact the majority of the traffic here is from Guest users." My reply: That is just fine, and I was not suggesting that registration be required. I only commented because it is nice to know you are talking to someone that has enough conviction to post his name. I have no problem with how you run your site. Mr. Worrall runs a tight but fair ship. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Ramsell, I fish Wabigoon because I have seen (Anecdotal) the ONE there. I have fished Minnesota too, but do not vacation there. Right now, I feel the maximum potential has been reached in most of the waters there for the avrage top end fish except Mille Lacs. Just my opinion, but a 55# fish in Minnesota is a very very large fish indeed. On the Goon, I (just my opinion) after looking at all the available data, I think a heavier fish is quite possible, up to that ONE I seek. As to the Kentucky issue, yes. We talked about the waters here too. The water that is in the Cave comes from and goes to waters where the fish reproduce, obviously. Water quality isn't the issue, it's probably habitat. Plenty of high quality food, no Pike, and a very comprehensive stocking program from fish grown and planted in a hatchery right there by the Cave. I posted that information because it was interesting in context to this discussion. Here is a body of water that is stocked with the muskies that have been here naturally since the very beginning, and there is no natural reproduction. Also, the fish grow to as much as 50" in 9 years. Larry, I know what I have experienced. I spoke with the fisheries manager in charge of Lake X. He agreed with me that the netting and boomshock data gathered shows that some very big fish are present, and that he is certain these fish were stocked. I looked at every single piece of data available for the management of that water, and I caught a 40# fish there a year ago, and have seen others and caught them close to that size, as have friends of mine. Now this might be anecdotal to you because it's me typing when I should be fishing, but it certainly isn't to me. The point I was making is pretty important, and obvious. There are exceptions to the 'rules' you have established unilaterally, and I'd like to undestand the dynamic that creates those exceptions better. Time to hit the water. Rain and cold, but better than snow!! | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve, Glad you see it our way. Pure Large strain Muskies can and should reach 50 inches in 10 years. This happens in Ky with High densities and possibly the Highest harvest rate in the nation (anecdotal). Let's remove Harvest and densities from the discussion. It's the fish!!!! Bob | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lots to consider!! | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, I guess it's necessary to get the rest of the story: The average lifespan of the Muskies here, every one a natural riverene pure strain fish, is 10 years. Very few live past 10. They don't reproduce in Cave Run Lake. At the oldest, a few MIGHT reach 13, the average age of a 52" fish on Pelican Lake in Wisconsin. So now the anglers at the Cave are faced with a dilema. Many here want a 40" limit. According to what I saw yesterday, the average fish at 10 years old isn't much larger that that, although a percentage, just like ANY muskie population, reaches maximum size, which apperars to be in the low 50's. SO a 50" fish and for that matter most of the low 40" class fish here is in ALL probability dead in a year or there about, and doesn't spawn. That brings harvest centrally into this equasion, and will fuel a debate here about the 40" size limit proposal. So many details. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve, Let's get back to Wisconsin. I sat down with a WISCONSIN biologist a while back. It seems that only 6 % of our adult muskies make it past age 10. And when they do it's not real pretty. At age 15 they average 39.6 inches. These are the numbers for NW wisconsin lakes circa 2002. I'm staring at it right now. first individual lake I see has 78 fish sampled with only 2 over 41.5 inches. Want more? the lake has above average growth rates for 7 of the 12 year classes and cisco are available. Lot's of issues - yes. One of them is the fish. Bob | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32934 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, To my point: The same strain fish can perform completely differently in some systems or areas than in others. Argue that all you want, but you're dead wrong if you insist environmental factors and angler or traditional harvest have nothing to do with success of recruitment, growth rates, maximum potential, and about a thousand other variables. Leech strain in Ilinois, for example. We aren't sure what will happen with ANY stocking venture using a different strain, or what the interaction will be. The restoration group describes two interactions that directly conflict. You can postulate, you can guess, and you can hope, and that's what we'll be doing as we embark on the experimental stocking programs in the hopper right now. I'm all for that program, which will probably happen no matter what you or I do. I'm also all for an expansion of that program perhaps with some of the restoration groups agenda considered, but in a form that can be carefully monitored and totally accepted by our fisheries personnel. I think you are a great guy, I honestly do. I have heard nothing but good about your focus and desire. That doesn't mean I have to accept the Restoration group as those best suited to manage the Muskie program in Wisconsin. At best, you represent a citizens advisory, and then only if you successfully present your work and get it accepted by the scientific community in it's entirety. I represent an opportunity to obtain strong editorial support, but when I do my job and ask for confirmation, explanation of facts that seem to refute your claims, or otherwise place portions of your material under scrutiny, I end up receiving a batch of barely disguised insults. If things were so simple as 'It's The Fish!", and the claims this group has made across the board were entirely with merit, then the Kentucky model would be impossible, and the Muskies in wisconsin would be 39" and ancient. If our fish die at 10 on the average, and a 39" fish is 15 years old on the average, and the average carrying density of a Class A muskie lake in Wisconsin is 1 legal fish per acre, why are there so many 40 to 48" fish in many Wisconsin lakes and rivers? They are ALL anomolies?? Are you talking the whole state, or just generalizing? Now, if recruitment to adult is 6% to 10% of the total stocking and or natural reproduction depending on what size fish were stocked, what fish were abvailable that would prey upon thos fish and how many YOY hatched from natural reproduction under those same circumstances, then that makes more sense. That's a well known factoid, that only a small percentage of YOY mukies make it to adult age. Say it the way you did, and it sounds like a disaster. Stock 2800, have 280 make to to adult maximum for each fish, that's not too bad. In your example, what happens to the fish that don't make it to 10 years old? In the Cave example for all practical purposes almost ALL the fish are DEAD at 13. Almost ALL. Bob, I do NOT disagree with you some of our lakes and rivers have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. So do our fisheries folks, I believe. I do not disagree that a possible cure may be the Leech Lake strain or the like. I also do not blindly accept that the Leech Lake strain WILL be a cure all across the state. I don't agree that ALL the Muskie waters in the state are shot, no big muskies, the sky is falling and we must act NOW on the recommendation of a group of (even well intentioned) laymen, tossing aside the current plans and agenda of the scientific community in charge of management here today in favor of a resolution that might or might not even be, in it's current form, realistically applicable. I've seen, over my thirty year career many 'We're right, look over there, we know what you don't, just believe it because we say it's so and can prove it' stuff before. Sometimes the claims are correct and are made up of breakthrough stuff. Sometimes not. What one looks for from my position is credibility, reasonable and respectful communication at all levels, presentation of the facts, corraboration by experts on all sides of the issues, acceptance of questions and challenges, and professionalism in the overall delivery of the platform or idea to the public and the agencies addressed. Let's continue this conversation, and see where it all heads! Many thanks to everyone involved in this thread for keeping it civil!! | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |