Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 5 [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 | |||
Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7010 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Folks, it IS the FISH. Genetic studies will not change that. Larry, You said your group has done "many months of reading" up on the subject, and now you're ready to tell the DNR the changes they need to make. The DNR wants to actually SCIENTIFICALLY STUDY the subject, find out new, focused research in order to guide their decision making. How can you be against that? Not to be too blunt, but if you really think that the DNR is going to make changes based soley upon your recommendations that come from the studying of past research (especially when some of that research comes from the MI Lunge log: at tool, but definitely not one that can be used in a scientific study) you're deluding yourself. No government agency anywhere is going to work that way. You're talking about making wholesale changes to a program that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, to think that the DNR is going to turn on a dime because the WRMP says they should is a bit delusional. You say that the MN DNR did this, and if that is so, then so be it. Face it, the WI. DNR isnt the MN DNR. Right or wrong, the DNR is going to put scientific study the theories that you propose. Saying that something is so because you read X# of studies from the past, and because of what you've seen, what others say, and what you believe just is NOT going to be enough to persuade the DNR or any other government agency that you would choose to lobby in this way. I could say that Holocaust didnt happen, or Elvis is still alive, or that Bigfoot exits, and that aliens landed at Roswell, NM. in 1947 too, because I read alot of material that said these things did or didnt occur. Does that necessarily make them so, well I can say that they did because I read that they did, but it really doesnt make it so. You're doing basically the same thing here, and now you're saying that a LARGE amount of money should be spent differently because you believe it should be. Being against further study into the problem just doesnt make sense, it only shows that you folks believe that you're right, and there is no debate on your findings. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1277 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall: Your ramblings and hypothesis serve only to "muddy the water and make some quantum leaps to claims we have not made. We NEVER "inferred" that BSL and LCO fish were intentionally crossed. There is more than one DNR Study that talks about the 1956 stocking of BSL fish into BOTH LCO and Bone Lake in 1956, yet the DNR still will not acknowledge it. One I have readily at hand is Technical Bulletin #49 by DNR Research Scientist Leon Johnson, page 14 paragraph 2. All of our references are listed in our Addendum to our first Restoration document and presented at the state musky committee meeting in February and can be found on our website. Also, your assumption that it would take 14 years for a second year class is incorrect. Once the first year class is mature (far less than seven years as you indicated), that class is again able to spawn EVERY YEAR thereafter! Same study referenced above, page 15 2nd full paragraph, it states that; "Some males in all lakes (BSL, LCO and Bone) were mature at age IV (4)....The smallest mature male was 19.5 inches long and the smallest mature female was 22.0, both from Big Spider Lake." It was "7 years" before they reached LEGAL LENGTH (then 30"), not maturity! And in FACT, (page 14 table 10) 24% of the BSL females WERE MATURE at age IV (4)!! That's 1960 by my calculation, and available for spawing EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER until death, by which time the first year class progeny will have also spawned several times! Enough. Your WMRT "glass half empty" and DNR "glass half full" is wearing thin. You seem to be somewhat confused with the data. Our documents synopsize the findings, the references will get you to the full details. Your invoking the "laws of probablity" based on your hypothesis is but a weak attempt to discredit what we have worked far longer than you to find. And again, the genetic study will only confirm what is there and has been "created." And un-intentional "cross-breeding" will likely be a part of that. As for the lakes south of the native range that will get LL fish, it will do nothing to restore the fisheries in the tourism dependant north. Slamr: Why more studies? The DNR did little or nothing with past studies. And now some are trying to discredit the ones that support our position. Why? This will be my last post until we are ready (soon) to post our response to the DNR's April 12 release. Along with that will be a considerable list of questions (more than above) that have to date still not been answered. Until then... Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/19/2005 6:47 PM | ||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Mr, Johnson Larrys last post perfectly illustrates my point about the WMRP I don't like what you said MR. Sworall so I'm taking my ball and going home. This is not the way to handle things on a public forum and yet Larry and Bob continue make your organization look really bad, with the childish chest thumping that they continue to display. You folks need to stop and regroup. Thanks Dave Edited by Hunter4 4/20/2005 6:14 AM | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Larry I hope you continue to post there are still lots of questions I have and though the last few post have been confusing I think nuggets can still be gleaned from them. I liked Steve’s idea of trying to keep politics out of it, but he feels one way, you feel one way and that is the nature of politics. There are lots of questions on the table and I agree it doesn’t pay to belabor them but I will add a few more with some additional comment. I hope both you and Steve can find time to answer with your opinions. First the research being done by Mr. Sloss sounds very fascinating and could have profound affects throughout Wisconsin. It is important to continue doing research as science evolves. Yes there are lots of studies already done, but new studies using new technology can only help get a better understanding of the big picture. Steve once you post your article describing Mr. Sloss’s, (is it Mr. Dr.?) work I think you should see if he would participate in a question answer discussion on your Pro Board where it could be fully moderated. 1st Group of question: From what you know Steve will it be possible for Mr. Sloss to determine if some of our big fish from the past are closely related to the Leech Lake, Mississippi River fish. There is a 60” musky that was found dead on Lac Vieux Desert in 1984 hanging on the wall in a restaurant in Land O’ Lakes, I would love to no how the genes relate. If they closely resembled MR fish from Leech Lake could this open the gate to stock MR fish in the entire Wisconsin River Basin. How about existing fish, could the DNR net your lake X and take samples to be classified? Can anglers take samples to be classified? Will the new genetics show if there has been cross breeding? If these type of questions can be answered the study is awesome and will serve to clarify many questions. There of course will still be some. I believe however that there is enough data already available to come to some conclusions. Such as Great Lakes fish should be stocked into direct Great Lakes systems, and considering MN is stocking the St. Croix with MR fish Wisconsin should do the same or not stock at all. I also believe it would be a good P.R. move for the DNR to allow the stocking of MR fish in a couple of test waters in the Headwaters and Upper Chippewa Basins. The Central and Southern part of the state are getting some of these fish, why not spread some good will. Petenwell is part of the Wisconsin River and has had Musky in it since before any dams where built. Is that correct? It has currently been rebuilt after much pollution, also the Madison chain currently has a very healthy musky population. I will try to find answers to why those bodies of water are being targeted, but no similar waters in the northern part of the state make the cut. There are many waters that have musky population that are sustained though heavy stocking. I would think any of these waters could potential be a target. I will try to find answers on this. One more questions for the WMRT. I know the long answer is on your website but short term what will make you happy. I guess I have lost focus on what you are after in say the 2005 season. Other than stopping the stocking of any but MR into the St. Croix and GL fish into Superior. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32803 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I re-read the paragraph you mention, and it doesn't mention any stocking or introduction of BSL fish into Bone, nor does any graph from the report. The report mentions in print and graphically: "Muskies from LCO stocked in LCO Muskies from BSL stocked in LCO Muskies From BSL stocked in BSL Muskies other lakes stocked in BSL" All other references I see are referring to fish in LCO from LCO, fish in Bone from Bone, and fish in BSL from BSL. A paragraph from that same paper says: "Rates of growth seem to be closely related to the age of which muskellunge in each of the three lakes mature. In Big Spider Lake where Muskies exhibited slow growth maturity was delayed several years after the onset of maturity in Bone Lake Muskellunge. Some males in all lakes were mature spawners at age 3 and some females were mature at age 5 (refer to Table 10, no mention of ANY BSL stocking in Bone). In Bone Lake, more males were mature at 3 and more females at 4 than any other lake." It was the second sentence that I was trying to get at. I applied a figure to 'several years' I thought I had seen elsewhere in the report of 3 to 4, but may have seen that elsewhere. I don't know what the reference means by 'several years' in the BSL sentense in the context it is printed. It does say in Bone Lake all male fish were mature by 4 and all females by 5 which should indicate year classes from Bone Lake fish would be earlier, stronger because of the number of mature fish, and would compete with the BSL fish at last partially on that basis. The smallest study male at maturity was a 19.5" BSL fish and smallest female at maturity was 22", also a BSL fish. I stand corrected. Now, on the issue of a reproductive class available for stripping that might have genetic charactistics from crossbreeding would be approximately 8 years later, not 14, at 24% of the females from the initial stocking of BSL fish in 1956. Since I could not find a reference to BSL fish being stocked in Bone, and still can't from the Technical Bulletin #49 by DNR Research Scientist Leon Johnson, I was looking in my last post at how those genetics would end up in Bone Lake, as the WMRT says. It's evident that the Bone Lake stock was from LCO, and that LCO mature fish were stripped and that spawn used to raise the fish stocked into Bone. If the study tracks the fish in Bone from 1957 (Figure 10, page 14) as they reached 1 year of age, then there have been some misconceptions from the beginning about BSL and Bone fish. If the fish in Bone, as described by the study, were derived from stocks in LCO, there is no way there were any mature BSL fish available to be stripped from LCO at that time, as Bob claims here: 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. ' End of Bob's previous post-------- Now he's in a literal sense correct by the timeline of this study, but the inference is that the LCO fish stocked in Bone could have been BSL strain. The report says 'Even the muskies spawned from Bone Lake in later years were from this strain ( LCO) because the initial intorductions had been from LCO.' The report then goes on to describe the BSL '56 fish stocked in BSL and LCO, and effect on the LCO data later, graphically depicting those fish and where they were studied. No mentioon of BSL in Bone. It would be 1960 before the first percentage of BSL fish in LCO would be viable. "And again, the genetic study will only confirm what is there and has been "created." And un-intentional "cross-breeding" will likely be a part of that." Now to the Wisconsin fish the WMRT said in earlier discussions we should selectively strip and breed. There are several references to this in the genetics thread begin about here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread--view.asp?tid=1... which lead into the 'stunning' thread. -- The WMRT is recanting that and saying the only way to gain ground is to introduce Leech Lake fish over in the NW and GL fish here in my area? Are you now saying existing stocks of what you claimed before to be superior fish do NOT exist in any of our Wisconsin waters and those fish can't be identified as genetically superior, stripped and reared in brood lakes proving the WMRT correct? Darn it, guys, I have questions. There's no reason to get crabby when I ask them. You posted this stuff and called it 'stunning', I am reacting by asking you to prove it. So knock off the insults and prove it, and all will be well! You expected that a bunch of guys could simply walk in, slam their collective fist on the table, make a couple statements and everyone would bow to the East? I sure wouldn't have expected YOU accept that sort of thing from ME if the tables were turned here. In other words, stand behind your work, answer questions and challenges when offered, and let the test of science and time prove this out. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32803 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, The short answer to your questions from what I understand about the new genetic study proposed is yes! I would love to see the fish in Lake X looked at scientifically, and see if those fish match fish from the Great Lakes basins across the Muskie's range ( meaning the ENTIRE natural range of the muskie) to any degree, and if they match the OTHER big fish here, like those in Boom, the flowage in Tomahawk, Two Sisters, Pelican, and other lakes associated with the Pelican River drainage. It only takes a very small amount of material to get what is needed, so your big fish mount idea would work. I will ask the Professors at the University at Point if they are interested in providing an interview, asap. Tomorrow I'm off to work the road a bit and cover the PWT on the Fox Chain, so this will have to wait until next week. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1277 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | "Hunter4: "Mr, Johnson Larrys last post perfectly illustrates my point about the WMRP I don't like what you said MR. Sworall so I'm taking my ball and going home. This is not the way to handle things on a public forum and yet Larry and Bob continue make your organization look really bad, with the childish chest thumping that they continue to display. You folks need to stop and regroup. Thanks Dave" Hunter4 (Dave): I did not say I was going away, just that I would not post further until we had completed our reply to the DNR. That is now done and I'm back. "MRoberts Larry I hope you continue to post there are still lots of questions I have and though the last few post have been confusing I think nuggets can still be gleaned from them. I liked Steve's idea of trying to keep politics out of it, but he feels one way, you feel one way and that is the nature of politics. There are lots of questions on the table and I agree it doesn't pay to belabor them but I will add a few more with some additional comment. I hope both you and Steve can find time to answer with your opinions." Mike: As noted above, my absence was temporary. Mike: "First the research being done by MR. Sloss sounds very fascinating and could have profound affects throughout Wisconsin. It is important to continue doing research as science evolves. Yes there are lots of studies already done, but new studies using new technology can only help get a better understanding of the big picture." My reply: Mike, new science is great, but current science should not be ignored. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Dr. Sloss' "new science" still can ONLY show what is currently present. As an example of what I am saying, let me relate to you what we were told by a MN Research Scientist regarding the genetic study done in MN in 1996. Due to the "samples obtained" by the study group, some of the NATIVE Mississippi River strain lakes that had been overstocked by Shoepac strain fish for over 30 years, put those lakes in the Shoepac genetic grouping. This again, was because THAT IS WHAT WAS SAMPLED and was most prevalent in the sampling. This new genetic sampling proposal will do exactly the same thing with the Wisconsin stocks that have been created and mixed, as well as stocked into native-natural muskie lakes in Wisconsin over the past 130 years! Mike: "There is a 60" musky that was found dead on Lac Vieux Desert in 1984 hanging on the wall in a restaurant in Land O' Lakes, I would love to no how the genes relate. If they closely resembled MR fish from Leech Lake could this open the gate to stock MR fish in the entire Wisconsin River Basin." My reply: Mike, I too would love to know the answer to that question. Now it is my turn to "muddy the water." It is entirely possible, that LVD has/had both Mississippi River strain muskies as well as Great Lakes strain muskies in it WAY back in time, due to the possible ingress there during the retreat of the last glacier. By the way, LVD did/does? drain into both the Mississippi River via the Wisconsin, AND Lake Superior via the connecting waterway to the north. Mike: "Can anglers take samples to be classified? Will the new genetics show if there has been cross breeding?" My reply: Mike, anglers can take scale samples, but they have to be taken properly. Dr. Sloss will have to answer you latter question, but I should think it possible. Mike: "If these type of questions can be answered the study is awesome and will serve to clarify many questions. There of course will still be some." My reply: As stated by DNR Fisheries Supervisor, Dave Neuswanger, those "some" will be the most important, growth and reproduction, and NO this genetic study WILL NOT answer them. Mike: "I believe however that there is enough data already available to come to some conclusions. Such as Great Lakes fish should be stocked into direct Great Lakes systems, and considering MN is stocking the St. Croix with MR fish Wisconsin should do the same or not stock at all." My reply: Mike, thank you for again making our points in this regard. One would think that it is a "no brainer." Mike: "I also believe it would be a good P.R. move for the DNR to allow the stocking of MR fish in a couple of test waters in the Headwaters and Upper Chippewa Basins. The Central and Southern part of the state are getting some of these fish, why not spread some good will." My reply: Mike, we concur. The other option so far dismissed, is selective egg taking from large native fish. This was dismissed by Dr. Sloss without even knowing how many could be captured. We believe that there are still enough remnant native large strain fish left to assure genetic diversity, I "assume" his only concern as a "genetic conservationist." Mike: "Petenwell is part of the Wisconsin River and has had Musky in it since before any dams where built. Is that correct? It has currently been rebuilt after much pollution, also the Madison chain currently has a very healthy musky population. I will try to find answers to why those bodies of water are being targeted, but no similar waters in the northern part of the state make the cut. There are many waters that have musky population that are sustained though heavy stocking. I would think any of these waters could potential be a target. I will try to find answers on this." Mike: You perseverance is to be lauded. Those waters are being targeted because the DNR has basically said that since they are not considered native waters in need of protection and MUST be stocked, they will allow the Clubs to stock them with whatever strain they wish to purchase. Mike: "One more questions for the WMRT. I know the long answer is on your web site but short term what will make you happy. I guess I have lost focus on what you are after in say the 2005 season. Other than stopping the stocking of any but MR into the St. Croix and GL fish into Superior." My (our) reply: Doing the RIGHT things with regard to stocking. You have named two of the most important, both of which have yet to be responded to by DNR decision makers. We also would like to see immediate action with regard to the brood stock situation. In lakes that MUST be stocked, there is NO REASON not to use fish that grow big and fast, either by using the only known pure stock of Mississippi River muskies left, or via selective egg taking. The native muskie range, PARTICULARLY in the NW part of the state is losing tourism at an alarming rate! Further studies will only further decimate the muskie populations of trophy potential fish and further damage tourism. sworrall: "I re-read the paragraph you mention, and it doesn't mention any stocking or introduction of BSL fish into Bone, nor does any graph from the report. The report mentions in print and graphically: "Muskies from LCO stocked in LCO Muskies from BSL stocked in LCO Muskies From BSL stocked in BSL Muskies other lakes stocked in BSL" All other references I see are referring to fish in LCO from LCO, fish in Bone from Bone, and fish in BSL from BSL." My reply: Again we get into "interpretation." Rather then go there, I again refer you to my 1976 phone conservation with Leon Johnson that was documented and presented to the Special Muskie's, Inc. Board Meeting on February 12, 1977: "We have fish in Lac Court Oreilles today from the 1956 stocking (of Big Spider Lake strain muskellunge) that are 19 years old and are 35 inches long maximum. Although limited growth is attained, these fish are our longest lived fish. These Spider Lake fish were also stocked in Bone Lake in 1956 and have exhibited slow growth there also." Worrall: "Now to the Wisconsin fish the WMRT said in earlier discussions we should selectively strip and breed. There are several references to this in the genetics thread begin about here: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread--view.asp?tid=1... which lead into the 'stunning' thread. -- The WMRT is recanting that and saying the only way to gain ground is to introduce Leech Lake fish over in the NW and GL fish here in my area? Are you now saying existing stocks of what you claimed before to be superior fish do NOT exist in any of our Wisconsin waters and those fish can't be identified as genetically superior, stripped and reared in brood lakes proving the WMRT correct?" My reply: I have answered this in my response to Mike above. Worrall: "Darn it, guys, I have questions. There's no reason to get crabby when I ask them. You posted this stuff and called it 'stunning', I am reacting by asking you to prove it. So knock off the insults and prove it, and all will be well!" My reply: We welcome your questions. What is unwelcome is your constant "defense" of the DNR and like the DNR, not responding to the "hard" questions. Also, we don't mind being questioned, but when our facts are "changed" and your hypothesis gets interjected, it does, as I previously indicated, "muddy the water." Also, we now know, after about a dozen or more posts from you about it, that you are "happy" with the situation in your part of the state, but yet for more and bigger fish you will still go to Wabigoon and Minnesota. Are the tourism folks in your part of the state happy with the DNR proposals? How about the muskie fishermen in Eagle River or the Presque Isle area. Are they happy? We HAVE constantly proved and stand by what we wrote in our Project documents. Worrall: "You expected that a bunch of guys could simply walk in, slam their collective fist on the table, make a couple statements and everyone would bow to the East? I sure wouldn't have expected YOU accept that sort of thing from ME if the tables were turned here. In other words, stand behind your work, answer questions and challenges when offered, and let the test of science and time prove this out." My reply: We did NOT do what you suggest. As we have stated many times, we worked "behind the scenes" for several months with the DNR and were rebuffed. We expect NO ONE to "bow to the East." We simply have identified some serious problems with muskie propagation in Wisconsin and would like to see them corrected. Is that too much to ask? There is no need to wait another 11 years for more studies that still won't answer the most important questions. It really IS rather simple to fix. Why try and make it complicated? Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | I want to get something cleared up that I think Steve may have confused. Steve you state you think the WMRTs goal is to “…introduce Leech Lake fish over in the NW and GL fish here in my area?” I will let those guys deal with the perceived shift of thought from sorting out our existing big fish and trying to rear them. I do believe that from everything I have seen the goal is MR fish in the Mississippi River Drainage and Great lakes fish in the Great Lakes drainage. If you look at the drainage maps I posted you can see that all the Wisconsin Headwaters Drainage Basin is part of the Mississippi River Drainage basin. I would agree with the WDNR and say it doesn’t make biological sense to stock GL fish in to waters of the Wisconsin River Drainage basin. However Leech Lake’s pure Mississippi River fish could be a totally different argument, especially if the genetics shows significant similarities between the big fish from the Wisconsin Drainage Basin and Leech Lake fish. The benefit of using Leech Lake fish is they are pure Mississippi River fish untouched by mans unintentional interbreeding which may have happened though out Wisconsin over the last 100+ years. For example lets say the genetics show the two fish are significantly similar, but there will still be differences. The differences could be attributed to all the stocking and mixing throughout Wisconsin. If they are close enough it may be easier to go back to the pure fish. Doesn’t it seem likely that fish in the Upper Wisconsin would develop similarly to fish in the Upper Mississippi. While waiting for the new genetic data I think it would make since for the DNR to try and selectively harvest eggs from only big Wisconsin fish. If they only have to do it for a couple of years while waiting for the study, I don’t think it would cause some of the problems some people brought up on the genetics thread regarding this. It may turn out it’s best for the Wisconsin fishery to continue doing this, it may not but we wont be farther behind. The genetics should be able to answer those questions, correct? If cost is an issue for this then that is what should have been addressed immediately by private clubs help pay for the extra cost. My guess is, it is already to late to affect this in 2005, but we should start working on it for next year. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32803 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I misread one of the statements about what fish were suggested where, Mike, sorry. One of my posts was tongue in cheek. This one: 'Let's find out where they are and use them since it wouldn't be proper to use MR fish in the waters in my area. I will have to travel to fish for Leech Lake fish no matter what, but only have to travel a mile to fish for a decent shot at a 50" plus and 40# class muskie from right here in Wisconsin.' ---was a reaction to Ave's comment to you, and those of other managers about introducing Leech Lake fish in Oneida county lakes that are part of the Natural Range. Sorry for the confusion. I still don't see where there were any BSL fish listed as stocked in Bone. The graphs from the referenced study tracked fish from introduction to the end of the study and didn't once mention BSL slow growth fish in Bone as was mentioned in LCO. Sorry, I just don't see the reference, 1970's phone call conversations aside. Larry referred to that study as concrete evidence that BSL fish were stocked in Bone, and I asked him to point out where that was referenced. I wasn't 'muddying the waters', I was asking for clarification and reference, page and paragraph, page and graphic illustration. I am really sorry the WMRT finds questioning and direct debate offensive, that is what is their failing, IMHO. If one looks at most of my statements here, one will actually find support for the effort, and a true desire to reach a based in fact middle ground all can embrace. Larry, 'My reply: We welcome your questions. What is unwelcome is your constant "defense" of the DNR and like the DNR, not responding to the "hard" questions. Also, we don't mind being questioned, but when our facts are "changed" and your hypothesis gets interjected, it does, as I previously indicated, "muddy the water." Also, we now know, after about a dozen or more posts from you about it, that you are "happy" with the situation in your part of the state, but yet for more and bigger fish you will still go to Wabigoon and Minnesota. Are the tourism folks in your part of the state happy with the DNR proposals? How about the muskie fishermen in Eagle River or the Presque Isle area. Are they happy? We HAVE constantly proved and stand by what we wrote in our Project documents' Unwelcome. Sheesh. No worries, I respond to hard questions, and will continue to as I get the facts from the experts. Those would be biologists, scientists, genetics experts, fisheries managers; you know, those guys. I fish Wisconsin waters all year, and vacation on Wabigoon. I'm not there for more, or bigger, I'm there for the ONE. I don't fish Minnesota much at all, in fact I haven't in......two years, I think, and then I was there for a couple days. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1277 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall: With meetings, etc. I haven't had time to dig further regarding the stocking of BSL fish in Bone Lake. Are you "dismissing" my phone conservation with Leon Johnson? I didn't find your questioning "offensive", just that it had been explained before. If you choose to read something different into the study statement, that is your prerogative. I didn't manufacture the phone conversation with Leon Johnson. It was, again, documented and was tape recorded in 1977. Since I have it handy, let's go back again to the statement in TB #49 (I know it is not included in the graphs there, as that study didn't get specifically into that aspect. However, I believe the statement: "Essentially, the known-age muskellunge in the three lakes (LCO, Bone, Big Spider) were derived from Lac Court Oreilles brood fish. Even muskellunge spawned from BONE LAKE in later years were from this strain, because the initial introductions had been from Lac Court Oreilles. THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OCCURRED IN 1956 WHEN MOST OF THE FINGERLINGS STOCKED WERE DERIVED FROM A SLOW-GROWING POPULATION OF MUSKELLUNGE FROM BIG SPIDER LAKE." The sentence preceding that last sentence in the quote refers directly to Bone Lake ONLY. That, combined with my phone conversation with Leon Johnson leaves NO doubt that BSL fish WERE stocked into Bone Lake (and LCO along with many other lakes). When time permits, I will search for additional supporting data. I did not mean to infer that you fish much in Minnesota, but in one of your earlier posts you commented you would likely go to Minnesota this year. Don't blame you. Along with the three weeks I spent in Canada last year, I made four trips to Minnesota totaling about 10 days. The reason? Big fish and LOTS of them! I had the time to do these things because I lost 30 guide days last year due to clients NOT returning to fish with me in Wisconsin because, as they told me, they were going to Minnesota, where they too could catch BIG fish and LOTS of them!! Don't blame them either. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32803 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My point, Larry, was that the study followed the stocking of those BSL fish, and accounted for them in LCO clearly. If they were planted in Bone, then there would have been 'slow growth' data there too, as the study tracked Bone Lake fish from 56 on. There isn't. Just obeserving what I read there. No, I'm not discounting your phone call, but scientific conclusions based on a research project shouldn't be supported by a phone conversation comment that isn't supported in the published work. It's entirely possible that the statement was made, and the fish stocked as suggested, but I can't find anything out there that confirms that. If I we do find supporting evidence, the next step is to conclude what happened after 1956. Was there inbreeding of those and the LCO fish? Did the growth rate of those fish with combined genetics change? What fish exhibited dominance in what genetic traits in the 'new' strain? Since the BSL fish didn't grow in LCO either, and the LCO based Bone Lake fish seem to be currently growing at rates listed in the 50's and 60's during that study paralleling the mentioned resarch documents, what does that mean? | ||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Waded through all these pages today and have to admit it is a confusing format to try and read multiple he said, he said, they said postings. Have to ask Larry and Bob if your goal is more about being right or about bringing change. To me, you guys epitomize the old saw, "cutting off your nose to spite your face". How on earth is any one going to react to your contentious, accusatory, demanding style in any way shape or form, other than defensively? Basically you come out and accuse the WI DNR, which even on a current basis offers MORE and varied waters than any other state to pursue the musky bight, you accuse them of missmanagement and negligence. Then you try and bring it to a personal level by accusing them of deceit, a cover up, and continuing missmanagement because they don't immediately jump up and bend to YOUR opinions(opinions in many cases, too rarely are we talking fact here). It appears to this interested observer that you hope to achieve your goals using a confrontational style, ambush tactics and putting out monkey boy editorials from some of your accolytes, publicly accusing and then throwing in some half truths to help churn the mix. So, what's the deal, you trying to be right or actually attain your goals? I am confused. If Larry and Bob are unable to come across in any manner other than the hostile pissing match style, which thus far seems to be the main directive for change, I would suggest you find a mild mannered front man that can push forward, represent your viewpoint with a great deal more tact, present your research, and PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS, because at this point in time, I believe you two are doing as much to damage the musky fishery as you are to help it. The long term implications of an ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE DNR is extremely distasteful to me, and think it would be to many others who pursue musky on a regular and religious/mystic basis. I see too many groups out there willing to close boat landings, "No More Muskys", Condo builders, lake associations, walleye fisherman, other needs for funding, manpower squeezes, etc., that can adversely affect our sport in short order. I DON'T WANT THE DNR TO TAKE THEIR BALL AND GO HOME AND FOR YOU GUYS TO GO AROUND GLOATING ABOUT HOW RIGHT YOU WERE ABOUT ALL THIS, with the net result being 10 years down the road a musky resource which has deteriorated from what it is now(best in the last 50 years in my opinion). I have not viewed any of the data sources you guys reference. I have the highest respect and gratitude for Larry for some of the work he has done in the past in terms of documentation of the historical fishery, but some of the assumptions listed here are really tentative. May be correct but there is still no definitive research to back them up. Do we need research? Yes. Do we have it? Some. Do we want to go off half cocked? Not me. Lots of stuff like "riverine/lacustrine" makes a good and interesting, perhaps thought provoking article, but is it scientific fact or conjecture? I think that native genetic stocks are extremely interesting in terms of fish and not just musky, down here they are trying to establish the river run walleye strain that once roamed the Cumberland River, and even down to the minnow strains, it is interesting stuff if you like fish in general. But supposing something and knowing something are two completely different entities and the difference could be described as how we got to this point. So all in all, would prefer you guys used a carrot rather than a stick in your ongoing interaction with anyone from the DNR. Perhaps you should simply hand your research off to them and drum up another group to work with them for ongoing changes. May not be the way you anticipated going forward but I can't help but think your faces and your rhetoric are beginning to work against your goals. Edited by firstsixfeet 4/21/2005 10:17 AM | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | here, here .... well said .... great ideas without a good delivery equals the current state and a detrimental future for cooperation. i hear so much from the condo/lake associations, walleye fisherman etc ... and they spend a whole lot more money than the musky fishing community when it's all said and done. if we are represented negatively, you might as well buy a jetski and join the people who will win in the end. i'll never forget the best advice i got as a young engineer (a long time ago) .... "you're an incredibly smart kid .... just don't beat the crap out of people with it!" | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| firstsixfeet.....you came late to the game. It did not start out like this. The Restoration group went to the DNR , behind the scenes, showed them what they had found, much of it from DNR research and records. Along the way there have been posts by people who have not read the stuff on the website....link is in one of these threads. Others have taken bits and pieces to back up their stance. Had the DNR gone along with or taken the Restoration people seriously, or perhaps asked for some time to review the material, this might have happened differently. When a government agency just dismisses you without seriously looking at info taken from their own research and records....you have to call 'em on it. Or continue to accept whatever they feel you deserve. Look at the material on their site, read it several times. Some of it is from records over 100 years old, lots of material, LOTS of it. Some of it is from recent research. Very confusing, which is why it is so easy to cloud the issue with lots of verbage. Just check out the info, closely, several times....it ain't easy but if you look at it with an open mind, you might find it interesting. | |||
| Snookers |
| ||
| I think it isnt the stuff they have at the website, which I agree is hard to read its the conclusions they have. Read the couple posts from Dave Neuswanger on the genetics posts and the posts other guys put there I think they're supporters or members of the WMRT. These guys might be wrong with some of the stuff they are trying to make the DNR do, and they arent listening coutresly to anyone else unless that person agrees with them. | |||
| firstsixfeet |
| ||
Posts: 2361 | Guest - 4/22/2005 7:41 AM firstsixfeet.....you came late to the game. It did not start out like this. The Restoration group went to the DNR , behind the scenes, showed them what they had found, much of it from DNR research and records. Along the way there have been posts by people who have not read the stuff on the website....link is in one of these threads. Others have taken bits and pieces to back up their stance. Had the DNR gone along with or taken the Restoration people seriously, or perhaps asked for some time to review the material, this might have happened differently. When a government agency just dismisses you without seriously looking at info taken from their own research and records....you have to call 'em on it. Or continue to accept whatever they feel you deserve. Look at the material on their site, read it several times. Some of it is from records over 100 years old, lots of material, LOTS of it. Some of it is from recent research. Very confusing, which is why it is so easy to cloud the issue with lots of verbage. Just check out the info, closely, several times....it ain't easy but if you look at it with an open mind, you might find it interesting. Oh, I don't think I came late to the game. Their problem is not THEIR RESEARCH, or their hypothetical conclusions, nor the historical record, it is their inability to find a path of cooperation. It is their inability to understand blunt force trauma, and that such things may cause unanticipated negative outcomes. | ||
| Bob |
| ||
| Folks, let me try to explain some of the frustration which may explain why our tone is sometimes perceived as a problem. The number one thing the WMRT wants is change for the better in our trophy muskie fishing. From our first meeting with the DNR in Madison back in January, the response we got from the DNR is essentially that it's hopeless. "Our lakes are too small, there is too much fishing pressure, harvest, etc. We have to lower our expectations...." That kind of thinking is what started the "tone" we get called to task for. Some may think being quiet and peaceful works, but let's see what that has gotten us since 1982? 50 inch size limits on 3 lakes? WOW! Sometimes the squeaky wheels get the grease. The WMRT feels that Wisconsin can beat Minnesota at the trophy Muskie game and we want to start now. We won't get there by doing the same things the same way. I sincerely hope the DNR proves me wrong on everything I feel on this subject as it would mean they turn the fishery around based on it's current brood stock. BUT WHAT IF THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE? I'd really like to back off and let the DNR do their thing, but apparently we are going into another year of the same old things. This is what I have a problem with. There are so many things that could have gotten done this year to get this turned around one year earlier, but instead we are doing next to nothing. This is what get's me riled up. I'd feel a lot better if the DNR would tell us what their plans are....not just state they are doing a genetic study, but let us know what they will do if they find that the mount of Myrl Mcfaul's fish tests out strikingly similar to a Leech strain Muskie? Will they switch over to Leech strain? or study it more? If they are doing the study now, what are they studying? Did they net Muskies? How many? How big? Can we tell anything we ant to know without studying big fish? These are not difficult questions to answer. Why should someone who lives in NW Wisconsin care about stocking Leech Muskies in Monona? In NW Wisconsin, we found that stocking MS strain Muskies into a lake in the St. Croix drainage resulted in Muskies growing faster than Wisconsin strain in Wisconsin and faster than Leech strain in Leech Lake - why can't we use that data to change the brood stock in a drainage where Wisconsin strain fish are not native? This is what is maddening. Personally, I'm very frustrated by the lack of communication from the Wisconsin DNR - but they told us in February "we'll let you know something in August". They are being true to their word. Not speaking for the rest of the team, but what will make me happy is when the DNR creates a drainage based plan that will give people across the state a chance at big fish no matter who is right(or wrong) on the subject. Simply stocking Great Lakes Muskies in the Great Lakes drainage and Mississippi strain in the St Croix while pursuing side by side studies in the Central and Southern parts of the states would be a great start and suggest to me that theDNR is serious about doing something. I'm particularly excited about the prospects for Petenwell, a lake that is bigger than all but 5 or six of the Minnesota lakes while having arguably better forage and likely better growth rates being just a bit further south. It's also a lake that has been stocked as long as Lake Vermilion without producing any numbers of truly large Muskies - likely because of the strain planted(IMHO).I'd love to see the DNRmake a concerted effort there to try and make a trophy Muskie lake using the Mississippi river strain. I'd like to see them stock 7500 MS strain fish per year in this large lake and forgo the side by side studies. We should have a handle on growth rates of our existing strain there and side by sides should not be necessary. This is something I would applaud, and the central location makes it accessible to all the people of Wisconsin. This would be progress. Allowing a Musky club in that area to stock 100 Leech strain muskies into a 20,000 acre lake is not what I call progress. They clearly won't be able to do it alone without significant DNR assistance. I do support them 100% however and applaud their efforts. Why is it that no one asks about the tone of the DNR? Why do they not provide answers to all of us? Why when area Muskie anglers ask to use a different Muskie strain in area lakes up north do they deny it? Why are they not being friendly and working with the people? I can't wait to get behind the DNR and support them but I must ask - support what? The silence is deafening and maddening. Bob Benson | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Steve and Larry, It sure would be nice if the DNR would comment on the Big Spider Lake fish being stcoked into Bone Lake. In my opinion looking through the studies and the documented communication (from 1977) is that all 3 lakes were part of the study and all three lakes received the same fish throughout the study (incliding bsl fish in 1956). The graphs that Steve refers to were done to investigate cause for the slow growth and exceptional survival of the 1956 BSL year class in LCO, BONE and Big Spider Lake. They tried fin clipping the fish to see if they could reproduce the slow growth, and then they also did side by sides in BSL. I find it very interesting that when they took fish from other lakes (Bone and LCO?) and planted them back in BSL that they grew at the exact same rate as BSL fish!!! Seems like proof they were netting and breeding those fish in the hatchery. (I'm comparing the squares in Figure 7). there are less years in Big Spider lake tests because they sought out a reason for slow growth afte realizing they weren't growing elsewhere. In all likelihood every lake in NW Wisconsin that was stocked in 1956 received Big Spider lake Muskies. (I'd like the DNR to comment on that also.) Since LCO was still a brood lake, these BSL fish undoubtedly left LCO to be stocked all over the state in later years in any case. As for these fish not surviving and reproducing - here are some things to think about: 1. The Big spider lake fish are part of the same drainage as the Tiger cat and Mud Callahan lakes that also have these small Muskies. 2. When planted in the same lakes with the LCO strain these Smaller Muskies showed significantly better survival than LCO strain Muskies. In fact Wisconsin DNR biologist Leon Johnson called the survival of the small strain "exceptional" in LCO. See also RR 172 where WDNR biologists studied and documented this in the 1980's. To be clear - they survived (performed according to WDNR) better than LCO strain in LCO. 3. This strain is very good at reproducing - M/C Tigercat and Spider lake seldom(probably never) need stocking. (Is this because they are "pure strain"?) 4. Once in these lakes they would show better survival, be subject to less harvest and (theoretically) be better at reproducing. All of these things would make them MORE LIKELY to be netted and used for hatchery Brood stock. This would also make them more likely to survive, reproduce and resist harvest in all the other lakes and rivers they are stocked into. As for one stocking of these fish not having any effect on the Muskies of these waters, I'll go for the one stocking of known large growing Muskies everywhere in the state while we wait for the genetic studies to be completed. Bob | |||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1277 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Additional “Stunning Findings.”: While doing additional research regarding the stocking of Big Spider Lake muskies into Bone Lake in addition to the two references already present, I came up with several new and interesting pieces of information. No “mixing” indeed! Pure “wild stock” yes, but cross-mixing between drainage’s was (and still is) a common practice. According to Johnson (1981), Lac Court Oreilles was stocked annually from 1933 to 1966, and again from 1971 to the date of this research paper. According to Oehmcke (1989), stocking records for the Woodruff hatchery prior to 1938 were poor, as fish were distributed by train in milk cans for indiscriminate stocking at every station and “whistle stop” and no one was required to sign for them, hence no record of where they were stocked. Since Johnson noted that Lac Court Oreilles had been stocked every year since 1933, the muskies of unknown origin had to come from the lakes of the Wisconsin River drainage and the Woodruff hatchery from 1933 thru 1938! In 1939, muskellunge propagation began at the Spooner hatchery (Johnson 1958). Since Bone Lake has “been managed for muskellunge since 1935.” (Cornelius & Margenau 1999), if there were any stockings into Bone Lake in 1935 thru 1938, they would have had to have come from direct transfers of netted fish from Lac Court Oreilles (there is no “direct” mention of the Bone Lake population being established this way in any literature we have reviewed to date. Johnson did say in TB #49 that the initial “introductions” in Bone Lake were from LCO). After the initial stocking, Bone Lake could have also received muskies from Wisconsin River drainage stock via the Woodruff hatchery as well. Due to the poor stocking records of that period, we will likely never know. What we do know though, is that the LCO stock was NOT pure in 1935, and if fish were netted from LCO for stocking into Bone, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of those fish were fish of the Wisconsin River drainage after “at least” two years of stocking LCO from the Woodruff Hatchery! Of course that is not the only time Wisconsin River drainage muskies were stocked into LCO, or Bone Lake for that matter. And conversely, Chippewa River drainage muskies into Wisconsin River drainage waters, INCLUDING some Big Spider Lake strain muskies on three different occasions (1958, 1961, 1963). We now know that the small growing Big Spider Lake strain of muskies have unfortunately been stocked into NE Wisconsin waters as well. Proof? Allow me to quote Oehmcke (1989): “Intermittent mortalities of muskellunge fry besieged the old Woodruff Hatchery between years of good musky production from 1950 to 1964 (actually 1943 to 1964, i.e., 1943, 1948, 1958, 1961 and 1963). This necessitated THE TRANSFER OF BACK-UP FRY AND EGGS FROM SPOONER to assure a continuing production from Woodruff ponds. Conversely, several bad years at Spooner REQUIRED TRANSFERS OF WOODRUFF SURPLUSES (to Spooner).” From 1941 to 1964, over 2 million fingerling muskies were stocked from the Woodruff hatchery, plus 43,000 twelve inch yearlings that were stocked in NATIVE musky waters in Oneida, Price (Chippewa River drainage) and Vilas Counties that had been overrun by northern pike! In the Epilogue of his book, Oehmcke (1989) is dismayed by the degredation of the northern lakes, and feels that stocking is far more important now than it was in 1900. Perhaps it is best to quote directly: “Fortuitously, the initial mission - stocking - perceived by the early fish commissioners, is of higher priority today than it was in 1900. Present day anglers would have slim pickings were it not for that early decision and for the DNR’s current fish planting program.” We are indeed fortunate that the catch and release ethic took hold in the latter 1900's, especially with the 50% reduction in muskellunge stocking due to budget cuts in 2004, and more cuts may be forthcoming! We feel strongly that the current state of our brood stock MUST be corrected IMMEDIATELY! To return to the “glory days,” the Wisconsin DNR “decision makers” must acknowledge that over 100 years of stock “mixing” has indeed created a statewide “hatchery strain” of muskies. Only “selective egg taking” from remnant large growth potential native stocks, or an immediate switch to the only known pure stock of large strain muskies left in existence, the Mississippi River strain, can return Wisconsin to its rightful place in the muskie world. We MUST begin NOW. Wisconsin Musky Tourism and future trophy muskie fishing depends on it!! I’m off to continue the search for the truth, and newly found information will result in future additional “stunning findings,” including additional information on "two animals"/strains, etc. Muskie regards, Larry Ramsell Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org References: Johnson, L.D. 1958. Pond Culture of Muskellunge In Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin Number 17 Johnson, L.D., S. Nels Editor. 1971. Growth of Known-Age Muskellunge in Wisconsin and Validation of Age and Growth Determination Methods. Technical Bulletin Number 49 Johnson, L.D. 1981. Comparison of muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) populations in a stocked lake and unstocked lake in Wisconsin with notes on the occurrance of northern pike (Esox lucius). Fisheries Research Report 110. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin Oehmcke, A. 1989. The Woodruff Hatchery Story Cornelius, R.R., T.L. Margenau. 1999. Effects of Length Limits on Muskellunge in Bone Lake, Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:300-308, 1999 | ||
| Muskiebum |
| ||
| Larry, This may sound a bit overwelming but you should really write a historical book. Showing pictures and locations of different haterchies and watersheds to allow the layman to understand. I applaud your effort on Muskiefirst, but getting rebuttles from people with no facts, is annoying to say the least, and not informing the majority. Just a thought | |||
| Fish-n-Freak |
| ||
Posts: 259 Location: Alexandria, MN | I can't believe the WDNR would say that they can't compete with the BIG lakes in MN. Here is a list of well known lakes that provide a "REAL" shot at a trophy muskie in MN; Lake Name Size (acres) Cedar -------------- 169 Beers --------------- 195 Phalen -------------- 198 Elmo ---------------- 206 (current state record holder for Hybrid) Eagle --------------- 291 (documented catch in 2003 @ 46" and 2004 @48" - same fish) Harriet -------------- 335 Owasso ------------- 384 Calhoun ------------ 401 (former holder of the state record Hybrid) Clear --------------- 424 French -------------- 816 Independence ----- 844 Bald Eagle ---------- 1268 Lobster -------------- 1308 Little Boy ------------ 1372 Shamineau ---------- 1626 Forest --------------- 2251 White Bear --------- 2416 Total size about 15,000 acres of water. These are mostly lakes that are full of panfish and bullheads. MN created a fishery where people can catch a trophy in the cities or the north woods. You can spend your time on a big deep clear lake or a small green pond and still contact trophy fish. The stocking of Hybrids and Pure MS Strain (from Leech) into smaller lakes closer to the cities has opened the world of Muskie Fishing to more people and taken the heat off the "premier" lakes up north. Now people don't have to wait in line for their turn at the weed bed or get in line to troll with others. MN has found that the MS Strain of fish grows and reproduces in every type of lake they are stocked into. The arguement that Wisconsin doesn't have Leech, MilleLacs, Cass and Vermillion to work with is BS! Compare your 400 +/-acre lakes to what MN has. The MS Strain worked in Lake Nancy and they will work across the Mississippi River Drainage. Please take another look at the WMRP ideas and keep an open mind. They are not asking the WDNR to start dumping MSStrain in every lake across the state. These fish are the same ones that were in a big part of NW Wisconsin and should be brought back. I have 20+ years of Muskie fishing in MN, I have gone to school for Wildlife and Fisheries Management. MN spent the time and money to learn the differences between Showpac, Wisconsin and MS Strains. They made their choice and it seems to be a good one. These fish are proven to grow in Iowa and Illinois, so I would think the lakes of Wisconsin would prove a huge success! Good Fishing! Steve Sedesky | ||
| EJohnson |
| ||
| Fish-N-Freak Thanks for the post. Nice to hear from someone else who realizes what we have been saying all along, which is that MS fish grow large in all size lakes with all types of forage. We have not and do not compare the number of trophy fish from large lakes in MN to small lakes in WI as the DNR claims we have. This is simply NOT TRUE and its a shame they do this. Maybe we should ask the WI and MN DNR's if they would be willing to provide netting and shocking survey results on waters of equal size from each state to compare and show the differences between the two in numbers of large muskies. | |||
| Musky Man, |
| ||
| Thank you Steve Sedesky, Thank's for going to bat for us! We've had too many people trying to be politically correct on this subject and all it did was create more useless questions.It's one thing to be politically correct and another to be just correct. Hopefully some good old fashion Common Sense will prevail! The term [ Layman] was being used way too much, when a person did their homework presented it professionally and then was shot down because that wasn't his profession. I'm neither an Astronomer,Engineer or Psychologist-I know the Earth is round,theirs a sun and moon, I can put a gas grill together as long as I have a manual and for sure I must be crazy, fishing for the mighty Musky. , | |||
| JWB475 |
| ||
Posts: 80 | Does someone have the Cliff's Notes for this topic, or better yet, can I get it on tape so I can listen to it on my way to work in the morning? I can't keep up with the WMRT threads on this board... | ||
| Matt D |
| ||
| Sorry if I am only rehashing old issues and comments here. Much of this has probably been said before, so please stop reading as soon as my comments become redundant. I'm not a regular poster. I'm an avid musky guy, but pretty much a bystander and only occasional frequenter of the muskie boards. But I guess I am starting to get a bit tired of hearing over and over and over again how much greater MN is to WI. The proof that MN is much better than WI has to be gleaned from comparing lakes of similar size and forage capabilities. With that said, as I understand it, the WMRP has supposedly provided "irrefutable" proof that the genetics of MN are superior to WI. This has been "proven" basically through past Muskies Inc records as well as "genetic research" and "conclusions" by persons not possessing a scientific background or similar qualifications. Moreover, much of the genetic research and theory, upon which these conclusions are based, has been widely dismissed by the scientific community...(you know, those obviously crazy, ignorant people who have Ph.D. behind their names and do actual scientific research for a living). Sorry, but this so-called "proof" from the Muskies Inc records is anecdotal at best, and is subject to many different interpretations. For instance and to illustrate, according to the MI records, in 2000 to 2004 there were 34 muskies caught out of Wildcat lake in Vilas County, WI. With Big Kitten, the lake is approx 400 acres. Only 6 fish caught in 2004. Meanwhile, during this same timeframe, there were 343 fish reported out of Independence in MN, an 800 acre lake. Huge difference!! Right? Conclusion: Independence is "irrefutably" a far, far better action lake than Wildcat. In fact, it is more than 10 times the better action lake than Wildcat. It's obvious that this is not proper conclusion to draw. Anyone who has been to Wildcat knows that it is pretty tough to beat as an action lake. And it’s obvious that there are numerous other explanations and conclusions to draw from this basic, number-of-fish-reported, data. Is Independence a better action lake? Maybe. But is that conclusion "irrefutable"? Of course not. Want a more likely and logical conclusion? From 2000 to 2004, more muskies inc members are fishing and/or reporting from Independence than Wildcat. Sorry folks, but the comparisons and conclusions from 50" fish coming out of any specific MN waters as compared to WI waters, from muskies inc data, are subject to the EXACT SAME logical shortcomings. There are numerous plausible explanations as to why more 50" fish have been reported to Muskies Inc. from MN versus WI during the past several years. Genetics certainly is one of those plausible explanations. But so is fishing pressure. So is percentage of harvested trophy fish. So is percentage of muskies inc members targeting MN waters versus WI. So is tribal spearing. So are forage differences. Perhaps the more sophisticated anglers are targeting MN, leading to better results. Perhaps an increased flocking of muskie guides to MN waters has lead to better numbers. Etc., etc., and so on, and so on. I am not saying that the WMRP is necessarily wrong with their conclusions. They may actually be right. The problem is that the data and research that they are using is nowhere near "conclusive" and "irrefutable". And therefore, I have grown very tired and actually quite cynical of the "holier than thou", "we are all right" and "the WDNR is all wrong", stance being taken. It's really a shame, since if presented in a more tactful manner, their ideas could create a much more meaningful and productive discourse. As the WDNR has indicated, there are a myriad of contributing factors that affect growth and quantity of trophy fish in any given lake. WDNR efforts are now underway to evaluate this genetic issue. So, obviously the WDNR believes that genetics could be contributing factor. I applaud the WMRP for pushing their ideas, but the condescending attitude and over-reliance on flawed data leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.... Matt DeVos [email protected] | |||
| Bob |
| ||
| Matt, Let us not forget that the Minnesota DNR studied the Leech Lake strain and Wisconsin strain Muskies in the same lakes and the Leech strain grew larger and faster. These guy's have PHd's behind their names too. Did I mention the WDNR found that Leech Lake muskies grew faster than Wisconsin(LCO) muskies in Wisconsin. The Leech strain also grew faster in Wisconsin than Leech strain in Leech Lake. This study was done by the Wisconsin DNR. The WMRP didn't create these studies that were done. The studies have done by biologists over and over. We just want the WDNR to act on what has been studied. We've spent the last 70 years studying small muskies, we need to start stocking some big ones. My opinion is NO MORE STUDIES until we start acting on the studies that have already been done. If it was only Muskies Inc. data, I'd say we'd have to study it. The MN DNR BIOLOGISTS PROVED IT WORK. WISCONSIN DNR BIOLOGISTS HAVE PROVED IT WORKS in Green Bay and Lake Nancy. Why do they keep ignoring it everywhere else? We aren't saying their studies are wrong ! We are saying their studies are right! Wisconsin DNR RR175 states Leech fish grow faster than LCO fish in Wisconsin - They DID THE STUDY, now use it. Do they want bigger muskies or not? Every study creates 10 new studies. Do Somethining Now. Why wait? Bob Benson | |||
| Hunter4 |
| ||
Posts: 720 | Hi Bob, Who is going to pay for the changes that the WRMP wants to start? Thanks Dave | ||
| DJS |
| ||
| Graet post Fish-n-Freak, I couldn't agree more. I caught my first muskie 20 years ago in Crab lake in Northern Vilas County and have fished that lake a ton since then being my parents own a cabin on the lake. I can say this, after living in Minnetonka the last ten years and fishing the city lakes hard, if someone goes to Vilas county in search of a trophy muskie rather than fish in the Minneapolis metro they are a fool!!!!!!!!! There may be other reasons to fish in the area but putting the odds in your favor for catching a trophy is not one of them. | |||
| veha44 |
| ||
Posts: 4 | to take this a step further I can't believe the WDNR would say that they can't compete with the BIG lakes in MN. Here is a list of well known lakes that provide a "REAL" shot at a trophy muskie in MN; Lake Name Size (acres) Cedar -------------- 169 Beers --------------- 195 Phalen -------------- 198 Elmo ---------------- 206 (current state record holder for Hybrid) Eagle --------------- 291 (puts out at least 4 lower 50's each year lost 2 personally and saw the pics of 4 last year alone also was originally stocked with the shoepack strain Harriet -------------- 335 puts out many upper 40 low 50's every year Owasso ------------- 384 Calhoun ------------ 401 (saw 2 last year in the high 40's maybe 50 in my two trips and saw a guy club a 52" thinking he had the new state record tiger.) Clear --------------- 424 French -------------- 816 Independence ----- 844 lots of 50" class fish in here someone catches one in the metro musky tournamen almost every year Bald Eagle ---------- 1268 see independence Lobster -------------- 1308 shhh no fish in here!!! Little Boy ------------ 1372 a good buddy fished it last year for the first time and lost two 48" class fish on a jackpot Shamineau ---------- 1626 see lobster lake Forest --------------- 2251 one of the best early season lakes in the state. ill bet 4 fish 50" and larger get caught this June White Bear --------- 2416 just an awesome fishery Crystal---------------under 100 acres personally have caught tigers to 44" they seem to average about 38" know of a 48" fish taken was told about a 50" lake has tons of Small panfish, goldfish, carp and pike in there for forage. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32803 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You gents MISSED the entire point in your zeal to prove a point, the subject was total surface area AND several very large lakes and impoundments in Minnesota. Before you go off, read that reference again from the DNR, please. We do compete in many small waters here. I know of LOTS of small lakes over here putting out 45 to 54" fish pretty regular, one was a 56 not too long ago. I got a 40# class fish myself, and another in the mid thirties, and a friend of mine a low 30# class fish recently, all off small water that was stocked. THESE WERE STOCKED FISH!!!!!!! I know what a recent survey showed on a couple small lakes over here, and all I can say is WOW, I need to spend more time on that water. Sheesh. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 5 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |