Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Stunning new findings by the Musky Restoration Project Team |
| Message Subject: Stunning new findings by the Musky Restoration Project Team | |||
Bob |
| ||
| Folks, we will be soon unveiling our stunning new findings to the public. We work hard to make sure the public gets the facts, and want to make sure we have the proper documentation and references to back up our findings. We've always stated that our research documents are just the tip of the iceberg, and these new findings prove just that. You'll find the new research at www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org as soon as we can get it assembled, and we'll be available here to discuss it with you! On a related note - Our efforts to contact and work with the DNR to make Musky fishing the best it can be have not yet been answered. The Project team truly hopes that we can begin to make progress on a plan that benefits all areas of the state this spring. Thanks and stay tuned! Bob Benson Wisconsin Musky Restoration Team www.wisconsinmuskyrestoration.org Editor's Note: MuskieFIRST has acquired a copy of some of the communication between the DNR and the WMRT. We sincerly hope that the obvious rift between the WMRT and the DNR can be closed. Editing to this and other posts that do not serve that end goal might occur, but the base content and intent of every comment here will remain intact. We appreciate everyone's understanding and encourage you to watch this issue closely, as it will likely result in the average angler having a far better understanding of the efforts in Wisconsin to grow larger muskies. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| It shouldn't take very long to complete what Bob has aluded to. We have the data, just re-checking facts. In the meantime ADDITIONAL information information of, at the very least, a semi-staggering nature has just been received. Some weeks ago I requested the hatchery stocking quota sheets from the Woodruff hatchery. There was no response, for whatever reason. I then followed that up with a WFOIA (Wisconsin Freedom Of Information Act) request. That request was forwarded to Madison. After I, again, explained to the gentleman in Madison what I was after, he told me that the information was kept at the hatchery, and sent the request back there to be fulfilled. Today, just a few days later, the sheets were received. One of the constants that we have received from various DNR personal, was that they didn't want to do "cross-drainage" stocking, citing this as a primary reason to not allow "pure" Mississippi River strain muskies to be used. AGAIN, we find it to be a case of "we won't allow it" but if we do it is ok. One supervisor told me it was ok because it was within the state. We must ask, which is it? Is cross-drainage stocking ok or isn't it? When I reviewed the sheets from the Spooner hatchery (Chippewa River drainage), I found that there were 6 waters in the Wisconsin River proper (2) and its drainage lakes to be stocked with mixed stock muskies from Bone Lake on the schedule for this year. Now today, the information from the Woodruff hatchery shows the reverse is scheduled; the stocking of Woodruff hatchery muskies into many of the Chippewa River drainage lakes and river segments, and the Great Lakes drainage, and many more waters are involved! A quick and cursory look shows that at least 3 Great Lakes waters are scheduled THIS YEAR with "unspecified strain" from the Woodruff hatchery, and 13 waters in the Chippewa River drainage, INCLUDING, AS HAS BEEN THE CASE "EVERY YEAR" EXCEPT ONE IN AT LEAST THE LAST FIVE YEARS (didn't get records any further back-one year it was in a connecting lake), THE TURTLE-FLAMBEAU FLOWAGE!! The TFF, is one of the remaining "true" trophy potential lakes left in the state, which has produced bonafide muskies over 50 pounds in the past. This is simply inexcusable! Stocking these "small strain" muskies from the Woodruff hatchery into that magnificent body of water MUST STOP! The primary question that now comes to mind, is just WHO is monitoring what is going on? ANYONE?? If this is how the "experts" are managing YOUR waters, how can they expect us to trust them? They continually tell us something cannot be done, and then they go and do it themselves. Is this a case of merely watching the dollar? They have brood lakes that are KNOWN to have small strain fish, but they are close to the hatcheries and they can get in, get their eggs and get out quick and cheap, regardless of the quality of the stock. Now it appears that they are stocking to the proximity of the distance from the hatcheries as well to save bucks there too. This is WRONG, and it needs to be corrected!! At the very minimum, a "stocking moratorim" until this can get sorted out, is in order. There's more coming; stay tuned! Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Musky_Slayer |
| ||
Posts: 280 Location: Pewaukee WI | WOW. Very Sick. What will future generations say about this>? | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Still MORE! Earlier, as I was reveiwing the Woodruff hatchery sheets, I missed one that was printed on two sides. I discovered that in 2000, the Woodruff hatchery stocked 2000 muskies into the Spooner hatchery BROOD STOCK LAKE, Bone Lake! In addition, they stocked 1,014 into the Chippewa Flowage, among others!! Is it any wonder our trophy fishing has declined? It is EXACTLY as we have maintained all along. Our muskie stocks are so mixed up, and with small strain stocks to boot, that there is no way to sort it all out. Overstocking with the only known pure Mississippi River strain left, as Minnesota did, is the only sure way to fix it! It has been extremely successful there, and it can be here in Wisconsin too. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| Pal |
| ||
Posts: 665 Location: Twin Cities, MN | It has been nothing less than terrifying to read through the mutiple postings on this topic the last few days in regards to how the WI DNR has been managing the WI fishery. I am in complete agreement with Larry, quit stocking the smaller strain in the trophy lakes. If anyone from the WI department of tourism still has ears that can hear, and eyes that can read, it is topics like this that make me wonder WHY I continue to chase muskies in the state where I was born. Pal | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
| Before you go jumping to conclusions, you need to verify that those fish were indeed separate broodstock from distinctly different collections and were not stocked from fry given from one hatchery to another. Maybe this never happens but if there is trouble collecting in one area would the fingerlings been farmed out to cover missing fingerlings at the other hatchery and then returned? Also another question. Is not the woodruff hatchery dependent on WI river fish? Isn't that the drainage covered? And isn't Spooner's genetic base Couderay fish, via Bone Lake? I am confused about your claims on Lake strain and river strain fish here. The Couderay fish were Lake strain, were they not? | |||
| sorenson |
| ||
Posts: 1764 Location: Ogden, Ut | I have purposely stayed out of this for a couple of reasons. First, I do not live in (or anywhere near) Wisconsin and feel that it is really none of my business. Second, I am a professional fisheries biologist and have not felt like placing a target on myself or being labeled as just another player in some larger 'conspiracy theory' designed to undermine angling opportunity wherever I may roam. I can, however shed some light on how some things are done here and possibly lend some explanation on why there appears to be 'inconsistencies' in the stocking protocol and alleged location of source fish. We have but one brood hatchery in Utah. It not only takes eggs from different strains, but even of different species. They are then shipped out to different hatcheries for rearing. Often strains and even species are raised in ajacent raceways. The hatchery personnel have thusfar been extremely effective in keeping track of what goes where and when they go there. I have no reason to question their competency. If someone requested records from any of our hatcheries, sure they will probably find out that Bonneville Cutthroats were raised next to rainbows or brook trout. That hatchery may be responsible for providing fish for up to 3 different drainages. We even have a hatchery that raises threatened and endangered species next to tiger muskies, hybrid striped bass and smallmouths. Do they head for the same waters? Of course not. The picture may indeed be bigger than the words appearing on the page. The whole culture system is a huge logistical jigsaw puzzle that I, thankfully have no direct influence on. Twelve to 13 hatcheries providing fish to hundreds of waters all year long and all the managers have to do is request species, strain, size, numbers and timing. It seems to get done right every year. Do mistakes occur? Probably, but I doubt there's some kind of determined action designed to insure it, or a subsequent cover-up designed to conceal it. They do a pretty good job for somewhere between 9 and 14 bucks an hour. You can call the Governor on me now... K. | ||
| Muskiefool |
| ||
| Larry & Bob this is very disturbing will you be able to release these documents for review un edited so we can see for ourselves I personally do not see a problem with it maybe a $5.00 muskie stamp will sort out all the problems LOL there should be no problems posting facts if indeed they are facts thank you for your dedication to the fishery | |||
| woody |
| ||
Posts: 199 Location: Anchorage | I'm most certainly not trying to "inflame" anyone. I would just like to ask a question about this whole discussion. Wisconsin has grown big muskies and is growing them now, albeit maybe not at the rate of Minnesota. Everyone likes to catch bigger fish, but is stocking all Wisconsin waters with Minnesota strain fish in order to possibly gain a couple inches worth completely diluting the Wisconsin gene pool? Diversity is a great, important, and healthy thing, and Wisconsin's muskies are there for a reason. I enjoy traveling the country and catching fish of different strains in different places. I guess I would just be hesitant to support such a drastic shift when, although Wisconsins fisheries could always be improved, aren't in very bad shape overall. Also, I would like to remind some of the folks who like to lay it on the WDNR that the dnr is quite often the last priority of the people in Madison, who tend to give too many orders without much background knowledge. The dnr is usually the first department to have its belt tightened when money gets scarce as it is now, too. Elwood Brehmer | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| FSF,...You ask this: And isn't Spooner's genetic base Couderay fish, via Bone Lake? Good question! But before anyone answers this question I have something that needs to be said. Have you ever heard of Spider Lake in Sawyer Co.? If so you may know that it is not what I or most people would consider a trophy fishery. Why? This is why. Of the documented catches from Spider Lake only 2% exceed 45 inches, and only 0.3% exceed 50 inches. Why do I bring this up? Because it is a documented FACT that Spider Lake fish were planted into Lac Courte Oreilles by the DNR. This was done PRIOR to the DNR taking fish from LCO and putting them into Bone Lake to create our current Brood stock lake for NW WI. So now lets look at Bone lake. Of the documented catches from Bone Lake only 2% exceed 45 inches, and only 0.07% exceed 50 inches! See any similarities between Sider Lake and Bone Lake here? Nearly NO large fish! This is where our brood stock comes from people! Are they LCO fish? If not, then I must ask, why do we use them as brood stock if they DON"T GROW! If they are LCO fish, then I must ask why do we use them as brood stock if they DON"T GROW! How about Lake Wissota. Wissota gets stocked with fish from the Spooner hatchery which raises fish from Bone lake progeny. Wissota is 6,300 acres with a maximum depth of over 40 ft, tons of forage and it is part of the Chippewa River system, just like the Chippewa Flowage. Of the documented catches from Lake Wissota, only 3% exceed 45 inches and only 0.2% exceed 50 inches. Anyone see any similarities here between Spider, LCO, and Wissota? Again,....Nearly NO large fish! And the list goes on and on, lake after lake stocked with Bone Lake fish with the same miserable results. So, maybe harvest is the problem? Lets take a look at that and see. Spider Lake: 98% of all fish under 45 released. So where are the fish 45 to 50 inches? Bone Lake: 98% of all fish under 45 inches released. So where are the fish 45 to 50 inches? Lake Wissota: 99.9% of all fish under 45 inches released. So where are the fish 45 to 50 inches? News flash! There are none! By the way, did you know that the DNR has all 3 of these lakes, Spider, Bone & Wissota listed as class A waters? Yes, class A waters. Class A = Trophy waters according to our DNR folks. This is pathetic! So are they LCO fish or not? Who cares! They DO NOT GROW!.....or reproduce in nearly all our waters. Why would we or the DNR want to continue to use Bone Lake fish as brood stock? Someone , PLEASE, explain to me the benefits of continuing to use Bone Lake fish as our brood stock. EJohnson | |||
| Reef Hawg |
| ||
Posts: 3518 Location: north central wisconsin | Eric, Bob, Larry etc. This, from several members of our local Musky club without computer access have been reading these threads on my pc here in central WI: Keep up the good work!!!!!!! We/I have not seen anything any more inflamatory coming from your group, than from people in opposition to believing the facts you provide. You guys should start a message board on your web site. Edited by Reef Hawg 3/27/2005 6:12 AM | ||
| B. Hirsch |
| ||
| I have been reading, talking and thinking about this thread way too much. I was wondering about the results of different musky tournaments that have been held in both states and was wondering what the percentage of 50"+ and 40"+ fish were caught and registered in these tournaments. Without going into great time consuming detail I found some interesting numbers. Between the years of 1998-2004 the Hayward area Muskies Inc. tournament has had a total of 392 fish registered by fishermen. Out of those 392 fish, only 1 has been 50"+ (0.003%). Out of those 392, only 95 have been 40"+ (24%). Now the results of the Frank Schneider tournament held up in the Cass Lake area in 2004 (would have averaged out previous years,but could not find information) had a total of 88 fish registered with 5 over 50"+ (0.06%) and out of those 88, 88 were 40"+ which comes out to 100%(none were registered under 40" because of size limit regulations). I know numbers can be misleading, but if you look at the number of 40"+ and 50"+ fish registered in just one year from the MN tournament, you will see that they almost caught as many 40"+ fish and more 50"+ fish than the Hayward tournament did in the last 7 years! These are disturbing numbers no matter how you look at it. Even if you are not a scientist, you look at the results of all the various tournaments that are being held in the two states and you will see very similar outcomes. As mentioned earlier in one of the other posts, the state of Wisconsin's musky fishing is in crisis when it comes to bigger fish. People should be thankful that the gentlemen in the Musky Restoration group are bringing this to the attention of the DNR and fighting for the everyday musky fisherman that deserves better. Brent | |||
| B. Hirsch |
| ||
| Here are some more interesting stats from a popular "trophy" WI lake that might make you think about what the restoration group is trying to achieve. Over the past six years, 912 muskies had been caught and registered by fishermen. Out of those 912, only 341 (37%) were 40"+ and only 3 (0.003%) were 50"+. These numbers are not made up numbers. These are posted on various websites for the public to see. | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Believe me, I understand where you are coming from, and really do understand. I also know that there are a TON of dedicated, hard working DNR folks out there. What is mind boggeling to me, is that in the State Musky Committee meeting many of the "problems" noted were discussed and agreed to. Why can't someone from the DNR just step up to the plate and publically acknowledge these facts and say that things are going to change immediately, rather than let these types of wrongs and discussions go on? I'm mystified. Muskiefool: If you are referring to the stocking sheets, they are public domain and a copy can be obtained from the hatcheries. I have no way to post them here. The muskie stamp is a separate matter entirely and I won't get into that here. Woody: No one on the WMR Project Team has EVER suggested all state muskie waters be stocked with Mississippi River strain fish. We have spelled it out fully in the documents on our web site (www.WiscosinMuskyRestoration.org). Eric, Reef Hawg and B. Hirsch. Thank you for your input. Hope I have covered everything. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.Wisconsin Musky Restoration. org | |||
| AirMuskie |
| ||
| Keep up the good work Larry. I better not say anymore than that. I've had two posts deleted over this subject. I guess my words are a little too harsh for some. Hopefully this post stays on the board. Air | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve, first of all I'd object to the statement that we've done a "couple months of research". For me it's been 20 years, for Larry a lifetime. We've spent a couple of months compiling the data into a presentable form. I don't claim to know more about fisheries Biology than anyone at the DNR (including the janitor) but I think I do know quite a bit about muskies, and their history in Wisconsin. Sometime's it's not rocket science. A biologist may want to grow a Shetland Pony into a Clydesdale, that's not necessarily smarter or cheaper than just going and getting a Clydesdale. Again , I've spent a lot of time talking with the DNR and I find them ALL to be very knowlegeable, proffessional people who care about the fisheries. At the same time, none of them seemed to know that Big Spider lake Muskies had been stocked into Bone Lake. I find this troubling, and something that can be corrected. The problems we have are because everyone assumed that our broodstock is based on the true giants of Wisconsin's past. Once you realize and accept that our broodstock is based on small slow growing fish from from Big Spider Lake - it changes things - does it not? My world changed this past year when that was discovered.......but nothing changes at the DNR. The field and hatchery folks are exceptional people that are more than qualified to do their jobs, but have been given an impossible task trying to turn fish that don't grow big into a trophy fishery. We need a change in policy that starts at the top of the DNR. Our group looked long and hard for lakes within Wisconsin that were part of the Mississippi drainage that had not been stocked with these fish before looking at a more drastic solution. We expanded our search to the entire Mississippi drainage (MN and Wis) and found that there was only a single lake that had not been stocked with the smaller strains of Muskies - Leech Lake. I'd suggest that most biologists (and fisherman) agree with our thoughts on this subject. For 105 years and counting we see mixed Muskies (that are known not to grow large or reproduce) from one lake scatterred across lakes in all of our drainages. What good science is this based on? You don't need a degree in Biology to recognize this. And it should not take more than a single phone call to stop it and start doing things better. Bob | |||
| AirMuskie |
| ||
| Bob, You stated "you don't need a degree in Biology to recognize this. And it should not take more than a single phone call to stop it and start doing things better." I AGREE COMPLETELY. IT'S A MATTER OF DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. THE PROBLEM IN TRYING TO MAKE CHANGES IS THAT THERE IS ALWAYS A BUREAUCRACY TO CONTEND WITH. Air | |||
| theedz155 |
| ||
Posts: 1438 | Maybe the problem in "making the phone call" is that the people who have to deal with "the bureaucracy" had never before had to deal with "the bureaucracy". Until you walk a mile in someone elses shoes, don't assume how easy change is. At this point in time, I'm on no ones side. I am, however, starting to get P.O.'d about the simplistic attitude WMRP is taking in making a change. Not THAT is needs to be done (that is still under my review) but rather HOW it should/could/would/or is expected to be done. Change is never that easy, especially if it is something worthwhile. Ask Dr M.L. King. Ask the European Jews. Ask the Lord (especially on Easter Sunday). I do have more to say. However, because I know how my mouth tends to override my #$%^&*&, if/when I feel that I can control that tendency, I'll do so in a more PC worded response. Scott | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| For the record - Minnesota changed their stocking program overnight. The MN and Wis DNR both received a report in 1982 that told them that there were indeed two different animals that we call Muskies. One program changed that day, the other has changed nothing in 23 years since getting that study. Again, even the DNR told us that stocking mixed strain muskies into the Great Lakes & st. Croix drainages is wrong. If we focus the discussion on those two drainages - why must we study something that we all agree(DNR included) is the right thing to do? There is no cost to changing the eggs used, and we have verified the eggs are available from different sources that meet DNR criteria. Many Muskie clubs would pick up the costs of obtaining/transporting eggs if required. Doing nothing is better than doing something that is knowingly wrong. Bob Benson | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Bob or whoever may have the answer, didn’t it take until 1987 for the Mn DNR to go completely to MR musky? I thought I read that someplace in all this information. The body of work you guys put together is amazing and the powers that be should at least be reviewing all the studies and documents you have provided. Your group didn’t write these studies you just found them and are referencing them. Is this happening? I understand we want change to happen overnight, but realistically it doesn’t work that way. The first step is to get the WDNR people in charge of stocking musky to review the data, especially that 1982 Post report. Is that available on the web for viewing? If not it should be? I also believe that just because you don’t have a piece of paper hanging on the wall saying you are a biological expert, doesn’t mean you can’t think of a solution to a complex biological problem. Sometimes looking at a problem from a different perspective helps find a unique solution, or helps show the answer that is right under the experts noses, when they are two close to see it. I know this is the case in my field of engineering. If a bar stool biologist has 30+ years of on the water experience they just may know a thing or two about the fish they are pursuing. There has been a lot of round and round in these threads, but what is really being done by the DNR, they must have had some reaction to the data? Is there people there interested in the data, if so who are they? How can we help them move that curiosity up the chain of command. What do we need to do to get the ball rolling in the bureaucracy? What are the next steps we need to get done to help this project? Will the proposed musky stamp help this project? If so how do we insure it gets passed TWO WEEKS from tomorrow? Can we use the Project information to help get the stamp passed? Should we? Steve or Slammer would it be possible to invite some of the powers that be in the DNR to have a civil discussion on your Pro Board where it could be fully moderated. I think it would be a great way to have a discussion and it may not frighten them off. That way everyone gets edited before the post goes live. Thanks Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 3/27/2005 9:14 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32792 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I believe the DNR is preparing something this week. I'll see what I can find out. Mike, I agree that sometimes someone from the otuside can observe and indicate a course of action that those close might not see. In this case, that's a possibility in some places, I suppose, but not where we fish. I spoke to the management folks here a couple times before the restoration group's work went public and once after. They are moving forward on several fronts and looking very much forward to the completion of the genetics work currently undeway that is truly groundbreaking stuff. It has been reported that work is not too far from complete. I think if the very first post on the 'breath of fresh air' indicates the folks in Madison managing that water have plans in place too. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
| Mike asked: "Bob or whoever may have the answer, didn't it take until 1987 for the Mn DNR to go completely to MR musky? I thought I read that someplace in all this information." My reply: Yes, it took them some time to get all the bugs out of the change over, most primarily when to take their eggs. This fact makes that program even more amazing, as what has been done there has basically been done in an even shorter time frame. Mike wrote: "The body of work you guys put together is amazing and the powers that be should at least be reviewing all the studies and documents you have provided. Your group didn't write these studies you just found them and are referencing them. Is this happening?" My reply: Thank you, and I wish I could give you an answer. One thing that amazed us early on was the fact that neither a biologist in charge of the muskie waters in one section of the northern range nor his supervisor had seen or heard of the two studies done on two Wisconsin strains and two Minnesota strains. We attribute this to excessive work load for the most part, but the point is, that if the folks in charge aren't up on the current science, how is that affecting management? Mike writes: "I understand we want change to happen overnight, but realistically it doesn't work that way. The first step is to get the WDNR people in charge of stocking musky to review the data, especially that 1982 Post report. Is that available on the web for viewing? If not it should be?" My reply: I don't believe the Post study is on the web, but Bob can probably better answer that. There is more I could say about this, but in order to stay within Mr. Worrall's guidelines, I must pass. Suffice it to say, that this single study was enough to change Minnesota's program overnight, and today they are reaping HUGE benefits. Mike says: I also believe that just because you don't have a piece of paper hanging on the wall saying you are a biological expert, doesn't mean you can't think of a solution to a complex biological problem. Sometimes looking at a problem from a different perspective helps find a unique solution, or helps show the answer that is right under the experts noses, when they are two close to see it. I know this is the case in my field of engineering. If a bar stool biologist has 30+ years of on the water experience they just may know a thing or two about the fish they are pursuing." My reply: Mike, thank you for that. In my case, the "experience" is 50 years on the water and 45 years of collecting and researching anything I could get my hands on regarding muskies. My personal library of both popular and scientific literature is very large. I was the Research Chairman for Muskie's, Inc. at one time, and as such had much interaction with the scientific community. I have been Research Editor of Musky Hunter magazine since shortly after Joe Bucher started it. And perhaps most importantly, and a distinct advantage over our public servants, this isn't a "job" for me, it is a passion that burns 24-7. As I have pointed out before, this has been a tremendous and giant jigsaw puzzle. As much of the information we have presented, that I previously knew as individual pieces, once we put that puzzle all together in a usable form, we were totally astounded. We hoped the DNR would be as well, and take advantage of our over 2000 hours of work. Mike says: "There has been a lot of round and round in these threads, but what is really being done by the DNR, they must have had some reaction to the data? Is there people there interested in the data, if so who are they? How can we help them move that curiosity up the chain of command." My reply: Mike, as we have stated before, when we presented our findings and options at the State Musky Committee meeting in February, with some slight variations, there was general consensus to our work. Where the DNR is now, I cannot say. Mike asks: "What do we need to do to get the ball rolling in the bureaucracy?"...and What are the next steps we need to get done to help this project?" My reply: Well, there is the 'ol tried and true; contact your DNR representative, your legislator, etc. Mike asks: "Will the proposed musky stamp help this project? If so how do we insure it gets passed TWO WEEKS from tomorrow? Can we use the Project information to help get the stamp passed? Should we?" My reply: It certainly cannot hurt. NOW, STILL MORE "NEW" FINDINGS: After I finally had time to figure out an acronym, I discovered yet another interesting stocking fact from 2004. In addition to the Woodruff hatchery doing some stocking in the Spooner hatchery waters of the Chippewa River drainage, there were 17 lakes in Lincoln, ONEIDA, and Vilas county that were stocked from the Spooner hatchery mixed small strain stock into the Wisconsin River drainage waters in 2004. I know Mr. Worrall usually plays devils advocate, but this continual hatchery stock mixing across drainages, a seeming trend, leads to a logical question. Is the DNR intentionally trying to create one large homogeneous "hatchery strain" of muskies in Wisconsin, in order to close down one hatchery? Please don't take this as an accusation, rather just a simple question. If this is the plan to save additional budget dollars, the tax-payers have a right to know. Since muskie stocking was cut 50% two years ago and some are saying another 25% is in the works, it certainly makes one wonder. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | |||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| From the MDNR website: For decades, the DNR primarily stocked a strain of muskie originally from Shoepack Lake, located near International Falls. These fish were easier to obtain than muskies in other lakes and were considered the purest strain available for stocking. When Shoepack muskies failed to reach sizes anglers had hoped for, Strand and other biologists began a genetic analysis of Shoepack muskies and muskies from Leech Lake and several Wisconsin lakes to learn if muskies from different waters really are different from each other. Strand discovered that the fish were in fact genetically distinguishable, which confirmed the existence of different strains. And if muskies were indeed different, then wasn't it likely that one strain was better than another? To find out, the researchers put the different muskies in lakes and evaluated over several years how well they performed. The winner, says Strand, was the Leech Lake strain. Because the Leech Lake strain had evolved with northern pike, it was better able to compete with its cousin. Moreover, the Leech Lake strain grew to a larger size, and survived better than the other muskies. As a result of the findings, the DNR began using Leech Lake muskies for its primary stocking strain in the mid-1980s and continues to do so today. Also from the MDNR website: Larger muskies Muskie anglers are one group reaping the benefits of fisheries research, says Jack Wingate, DNR Fisheries Research Program supervisor. According to Wingate, Minnesota muskie anglers now have a far greater chance of catching a trophy-sized muskie than before the DNR switched to stocking a larger-growing genetic strain in the mid-1980s. Wingate says. “Here we had all the pieces—studies of spawning habitat,fish movement, growth, genetics—that we put together to find the best strain to stock.” In the late 1970s, Bob Strand began studying various strains of muskies used for stocking. The recently retired northwest regional fisheries supervisor learned that the Leech Lake–strain of muskie survived better and grew larger than other strains. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Interesting that the Shoepack strain was considered the purest strain available for stocking, yet when they realized that they failed to reach sizes anglers had hoped for they stopped using the shoepac strain. WI uses mixed strains that fail to reach sizes nearly all anglers hope for and is going to keep doing it. It also says that anglers now have a far greater chance of catching a trophy-sized muskie than before the DNR switched to stocking a larger-growing genetic strain. This tells me that changing to a larger growing strain is being credited for the success of MN's trophy muskie fishery. They found that the Leech Lake–strain of muskie survived better and grew larger than other strains, including WI strains. This change that MN made to its brood stock happened 20-25 years ago when anglers reported to the DNR that muskies were not reaching sizes they had hoped for. Folks, anglers in WI have been reporting this same thing to the DNR for 30 years now. The result has been NO CHANGE! Why? _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Folks, the WI DNR stocked the leech strain of muskie into a WI lake. The reason for this was,.....as is indicated in WDNR research report 175: The purpose of stocking muskellunge from Leech Lake into a Wisconsin lake was to determine if Leech Lake muskellunge could survive and successfully reproduce in a lake inhabited by northern pike. The secondary objective was to evaluate growth rates of Leech Lake muskellunge in Nancy Lake. The report later on again states: The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival, growth, and reproduction of muskellunge progeny from Leech Lake, Minnesota in a Wisconsin lake with a northern pike population. This information will be used to assess the management potential of stocking Leech Lake muskellunge in Wisconsin. Folks, remember the statement from this report that says this: "This information will be used to assess the management potential of stocking Leech Lake muskellunge in Wisconsin." So did the results of this study that are listed below meet the stated objectives of this study? You decide. Research report 175 from the Wi DNR states: · Natural reproduction of muskellunge in Nancy Lake occurred in four of six years. · Leech Lake muskellunge reproduced in Nancy Lake. · Young-of-the-year (YOY) muskellunge were collected in four of the six years sampled. · Relative density of YOY muskellunge was within the reported range for self sustaining populations in Wisconsin · Growth rate of muskellunge in Nancy Lake was above average compared to Wisconsin growth rates. · Linear growth of Nancy Lake muskellunge was faster than average growth rates reported for Wisconsin muskellunge. · Growth in Nancy Lake was faster initially than muskellunge in Leech Lake. · Nancy Lake muskellunge exceeded the growth standard for length, averaging 104%. · Growth differences between Nancy Lake muskellunge and Wisconsin muskellunge were likely underestimated. · Growth for Wisconsin muskellunge is likely slower than reported here. · When compared to the growth standard for weight, Nancy Lake muskellunge exceeded the standard at 110.6%. · Nancy Lake muskellunge attained greater lengths at age than Wisconsin muskellunge and this greater length was reflected in heavier fish at a given age. More info: · The Spooner hatchery successfully reared eggs from Leech Lake muskellunge in 1987. · The Wi DNR successfully netted and stripped eggs from Nancy Lake muskellunge in 1990. · The Spooner hatchery successfully reared eggs from Nancy Lake muskellunge in 1990. Looks to me like it was a success. Folks, if the information from this study was suppose to be used to assess the management potential of stocking Leech Lake muskellunge in Wisconsin,......then I ask this: Why were no attempts made to determine spawning location? Its stated in the report that no attempts were made to determine spawing location. Why???? If the DNR can dismiss using leech lake muskellunge for stocking in WI by saying in this report that : Muskellunge performance in Nancy Lake was difficult to assess because no muskellunge were present prior to this introduction. Hence, there was no evidence to suggest that Leech Lake muskellunge would perform better than Wisconsin muskellunge in Wisconsin waters,......then I must ask this: Why were they put in a lake with no WI muskellunge present if they really seriously were looking at the possibility of stocking Leech Lake muskellunge in Wisconsin? Why??????? Folks, by doing this, no matter what the findings were, they guaranteed themselves a reason not to change. They guaranteed themselves a reason to do more studies instead of changing. Why did the DNR go through all the work and money needed to do this study which included, netting and stripping eggs from these fish, rearing them at our hatchery, and successfully I might add, if before the study was even started they already knew they could easily dissmiss the use of the leech strain in WI by simply saying that there was no evidence to suggest they would perform better than WI strains because there were no WI strain musky present in the lake. Why???? All the evidence that is available suggests to me that they would indeed perform better. They grow to larger sizes and reproduce in WI waters. Folks, once again, its the FISH! Who here wants to see more time and money spent on studies in which before the study even gets started, the results can simply be dismissed by the DNR because it was conducted in a manner that no matter what the results indicate, when the study is completed, it provides an excuse they can rely on to dismiss the findings, change nothing, and provide yet another reason to do more studies? EJohnson | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32792 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One thing that worries me; if another 25% cut happens, there won't be any stocking of any sort of any strain. I sure hope the economy picks up. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Mike, On your reference to changing overnight. The MN DNR got the Post study in 1982. In that same year (need to check the references to be sure, I'm doing this off memory) the MN DNR changed to Wisconsin strain, while it tried to locate where Leech strain spawned. It took a while to get a handle on the Leech fish, so they stocked both Wisconsin strain and Leech strain while they worked out the bugs. Once they had both of the strains they tested them both and went with the one that grew largest and heaviest. (Leech strain.) At this point they went solely with the Leech strain. I guess the point is the Minnesota DNR identified the goal of growing large Muskies, and at every point in time they used the existing evidnce to stock the largest fish they could. At one point in time they chose Wisconsin strain (I believe due to the World Records out of Hayward, but this is speculation on my part). All scientific evidence points to the Leech or Great Lakes strain growing the largest. As far as I can tell there is no evidence that suggests different strains grow larger in different waters. Let me discuss this, because both moderators on this board as well as Biologists have said the opposite. There are two studies done in the Mississippi drainage that compared different strains in different lakes - IR 418 from MN DNR and RR 172 from Wisconsin DNR. In both of these studies the larger strain grew larger in EVERY lake. In IR 418, the Leech strain grew largest , Wisconsin 2nd, and Shoepac 3rd in both lakes. In the Wisconsin study RR 172, they compared LCO and Mud Callahan strains in 4 lakes. In all 4 lakes including Mud Callahan, the LCO strain grew larger, although only 3 inches larger than the notoriously slow growing M/C strain. It did not matter that the M?C strain was "native" - the larger genetic strain grew larger. I invite all to refer to actual studies on Muskies that indicate otherwise. Bob Benson | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32792 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I never said that, I said that fhe Wisconsin strain here grows BIG in some situations I have personal experience with. I personally have no problem leaving a system to natural reproduction or restocking from the same strain present (if necessary) that is producing 35 to 40# 52" bronze beauties. In those situations, I would prefer those fish are left alone, no added strains from Minnesota. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but some portion of an average population of Leech Lake fish in any system might not grow as well or as fast as some portion of an average population of Wisconsin strain fish when looking at the same age fish in different waters ( what I mean is a 10 year old INDIVIDUAL Leecher in Cass might not be larger than a 10 year old wisconsin strain INDIVIDUAL in Pelican, it's averages, right?) , this is a matter of looking at the total population and the mean and maximum growth within both, right? Averages, and those include things like average mean temperatures in Spring, what the fish's first year on the planet was like, total biomass and predator/prey relationships, etc. I agree everything I have seen from the Minnesota studies referred to support that the Leech lake strain can reach better top size when stocked. I'd also agree that the Minocqua and Woodruff fish can and DO get into the 50" plus trophy class size. The fish on the lake I've been working over the last few years were identified in the same manner the experimental fish in the Minnesota study were, so the fact they are stocked is not in question. It appears that this lake will be on the 'do not stock' list for some time to come, I hope the fish are protected by CPR practices, or harvest will take a large toll when added to the TAC portion set aside for spearing. It's going to get interesting with the harvest of large muskies in Minnesota inevitably rising quickly as pressure increases and the word gets out on the fish present from this initial program. As an example, look at the survival rate of all the strains in the Minnesota study. I was always impressed at the mortality of the total stocked population in any water. Imagine now that only a select few will make it to the size we want, as there will NOT be a huge number of fish left. Now harvest, say, 6 a year to anglers and 6 to spearing on one of the study lakes, as an example. If indeed the survival rates as lited are to remian constant with the study, after 6 years if 12 fish were harvested from the surviving population stocked initially, a harvest of 12 would represent 20% of that remaining year class. Such is the impact of spearing and existing harvest rates. Imagine the impact on a total population base in any particular lake here of 20 years of spearing mostly of larger females. Also, doesn't overall fertility have a direct bearing on the health of the Muskie population in any waters we might discuss? In waters that are infertile, with poor forage and poor water quality, will muskies grow as large as in waters that have a near perfect environment? Don't variables in all environmental factors in any system effect the health of the Muskie population? I have a question for anyone who fishes Cass. Some 50" plus Leechers in Cass are frequently very skinny. What is that about? Some aren't, but a good cross section are. For years, folks here when asked about Cass would say," Sure, longer fish over there, but really skinny!" Is that a forage issue, related to competition with Pike over prey, or another issue? Regarding another totally unrelated issue, what is the deal with the other predator fish in Leech, specifically walleyes? I undestand there are problems there, anyone from that area have input? | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I was going to post this, then I wasn’t but I think Steve’s question about Cass leads into it very well. So I will post it. I read through WDNR Research Report 172 last night and found it very interesting. I cut and pasted the conclusions into this post because I think they are very relavant to the discussion we have been having. If you have the time got to the link and read the entire report, if not just read the rest of this post. Thanks From WDNR Research Report 172, May 1996 Survival and Growth of Stocked Muskellunge: Effects of Genetic and Environmental Factors http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/publications/PUBL_RS_572_... Management Implications Koppelman and Philipp (1986) stress the need for genetic conservation in management of muskel-lunge. While conclusions from this study are lim-ited in scope due to sample sizes in most lakes, the case history information from Mud/Callahan Lake stands alone in demonstrating the impor-tance of stock management. Muskellunge in Mud/Callahan Lake were size limited possibly by food resources. As a result fish did not reach large sizes. When M/C progeny were stocked into other waters their growth rates improved, but length at age was still less than LCO muskel-lunge. Hence, growth (i.e., length at age for M/C and LCO muskellunge) seemed to be influenced by both environmental and genetic factors. An alternative explanation for the observed growth/size structure in Mud/Callahan and Lac Courte Oreilles would implicate angler harvest. Long-term harvest trends by anglers targeting larger fish may cause a natural adaptive shift toward earlier maturing (and slower growing) fish in Mud/Callahan Lake. A similar selective pro-cess would not be present in Lac Courte Oreilles because selection (for egg collection) is artificial (by hatchery workers) and often toward larger fish. While growth is slow, the Mud/Callahan muskel-lunge population was self-sustaining, suggesting this population has adapted to the specific condi-tions, i.e. low levels of forage or harvest conditions in Mud/Callahan Lake. Old age, slow growth populations such as the one present in Mud/Callahan require special con-sideration for management. Good growth and subsequent large size are desired traits for muskel-lunge management. Hence, even though the Mud/Callahan population is well adapted to envi-ronmental conditions in Mud/Callahan Lake, the fishery is not desirable to anglers. Management options for slow growth populations might consider special size limits that would encourage harvest of smaller individuals while offering protection to larger fish in the population. The higher survival of M/C muskellunge com-pared to LCO muskellunge is of interest, and to suggest a reason is speculative. Possibly, M/C fish are somehow behaviorly different from LCO fish, making them less vulnerable to predation. As mentioned above, the Mud/Callahan population is self-sustaining through natural reproduction, while the Lac Courte Oreilles population is sustained through stocking, and as such, artificial selection acts on the early-life history stages. Differences such as these should be looked at more in depth in future research studies. The low number of adult recaptures in most study waters probably reflects low survival at early ages. A loss of nearly 70% of the stocked fish within the first several months following release leaves few remaining fish to survive to maturity. These encounters are inherently problematic when dealing with a species that requires 5-7 years to reach maturity. In future studies that require muskellunge to reach maturity, several options are available to increase chances of capturing adequate numbers of fish. First, yearling muskellunge have been shown to have higher survival and be more cost-effective than typical fall fingerling stocking (Margenau 1992). Using yearling fish for stocking evaluations such as this one would increase the chances of more fish reaching the adult population. Second, standard fingerling stocking rates could be increased. While this option may be costly, the number of fish surviving short-term mortality may be adequate to allow assessment at adult ages. Age assessment of muskellunge using scale samples has been suspect, especially for fish > 10 years of age (Casselman 1983). This situation becomes more troublesome when dealing with slow growth populations. Recovery of tagged muskellunge in Mud/Callahan Lake after 8-9 years at large indicated fish could be nearly 20 years old and still < 30 inches. Interpretation of scale samples from these fish was nearly 5 years less than the partly known age. Nail A Pig! Mike P.S. There seems to be a problem with this thread not all the post show up all the time. When viewed through the print friendly version it seems to be better. | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | Mike, thanks for posting the link to research report 172. Does anybody have a link to the Minnesota report, IR 418? The search engines at the Wisconsin and Minnesota DNR's are not very user friendly. | ||
| sean61s |
| ||
Posts: 176 Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Bytor, Go to the MN DNR web site, then...Site Map, Publications, Fisheries, Investigational Reports, 418. Sean Murphy | ||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | Here is a link to Investigational Report 418 from the Minnesota DNR: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational... Interesting stuff | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |