|
|
| http://www.wnrmag.com/stories/2006/aug06/musky.htm |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Also linked from the MuskieFIRST Main Page. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Is 10 years really needed before any conclusions are drawn here? If, after 10 years it is decided that Leech Lake or Great Lake , etc., should be stocked in certain waters, it will be another 5-10 yrs until we see the benefits of this. In addition to the 10 year side by side study, could the WDNR not also run a few shorter term studies? Wouldn't stocking side by side 32" fish in the same body of water reveal some indication of what the 10 yr study might show, in half the time?
Sean Murphy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It would appear 10 years IS needed, that's the timeframe across the state the biologists seem to have set. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Mr.. Sworrall sir,
Your comment above brings clarity to your very biased position now, and from the very beginning, on the Genetics discussion. I can only interpret your comment above as...whatever the WDNR decides or says, is without question or debate, correct.
Sorry, but last time I checked this was a democratic society with freedom of speech, opinion, etc..
I for one, would rather have a democratic moderator on this forum.
Sean Murphy
|
|
| |
|
| Your comment above brings clarity to your very biased position now, and from the very beginning, on the Genetics discussion. I can only interpret your comment above as...whatever the WDNR decides or says, is without question or debate, correct.
Sorry, but last time I checked this was a democratic society with freedom of speech, opinion, etc..
I for one, would rather have a democratic moderator on this forum.
what in the world does "democracy" and "free speech" have to do with this?
if the scientists (actual, by god, white lab coat wearing scientists with real degrees from real universities and real years of research experience and expertise) say that studying this for ten years will give us the best possible information, then i think we should listen to their advice.
what happens if after 10 years the research shows that the Leech strain is not a good match for certain waters in WI? what happens if the DNR acted now on some people's foregone conclusions and started stocking those fish immediately, and then found out after the fact that it was a mistake?
over the past few years i've personally come to be a big fan of the MN strain fish in MN waters. however, i want the absolute best decisions made for my home WI waters and i'm willing to wait on it. yes, caution is slower, but it's the right path for something as important as this.
you're free to have whatever opinion you want, but i for one will listen to the opinion of those people who are most qualified to give one.
the internet makes everyone an "expert" but real expertise is earned in the laboratory, not at the keyboard.
Edited by lambeau 10/3/2006 10:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7039
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Maybe I'm biased too, but I like to see scientists making scientific decisions.
Edited by Slamr 10/3/2006 11:34 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's interesting to me that when folks WANT something to happen in fisheries or game management that is explained by the experts out there in the real world to be by all factual and scientific standards not sound/acceptable management practice, a position that simply restates the fact of the matter is challenged as biased. I'd assume that is because it's likely the folks taking a different position see they are not going to get what they want when they want it because those pesky experts keep getting in the way. Any statement that isn't ANTI-pesky-experts sems to be attacked as biased.
Over the last year I have read the entire scope of material out there regarding the study currently underway in Wisconsin, spoken with Fisheries managers in Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Canada, and Michigan. I have had verbal and written communication with Scientists from the WDNR, MNDNR, Trent EDU, Ministry Of Natural Resources, and others. I spoke with many esteemed scientists at the Muskie Symposium this last Spring asking very pointed and blunt questions, and didn't get ONE comment that the WDNR's program is anything but on the right track.
I was not able to find a single Fisheries Manager who feels the direction the WDNR has taken is anything but right on the money. No bias here, just a reasonable grasp of the facts as they stand today. Find me some real, documented, scientifically sound and expert-supported material to the contrary! I might mention that ALL were very sensitive to the fact there were going to be 'laymen' who would strongly disagree, but in my opinion management by public opinion is a horrible and stupid option, so I do support the scientific consensus.
If the study takes a certain timeframe to gather the necessary data from an evolving management strategy in the Wisconsin Muskie population, then that's what it takes. Bias either direction won't change the facts.
As to Democracy, you spoke your opinion, asked a question, and I did my best to answer. If you want a different answer, and you want the answer to be accurate and realistic, then you'll have to get busy and find support for whatever platform you might be forwarding that is influential enough to change things. That's exactly what Democracy is all about, unless I missed the point completely in my Civics classes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi Sean,
I see you asked " What about doing a side by side study of 32" fish". Two questions first how long would you study these two groups of musky and secondly, who is going to pay for this type of study? Do you have any idea what a study of this size using that size fish would cost? I bet you don't. How long do you think it would take to get these fish, enough of these fish to 32" to your type of study? I bet you don't.
Steve is big boy and can stand on his own two feet and does'nt need me or anyone else to explain his position. But, do us all a favor at least be man enough to accept the responses to the questions you asked.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Good response, Steve. But come on, Civics classes?
You're dating yourself again.  Actually, the school systems today should bring back Civics classes, the world of today could use them.
Kevin
Back to the original Plan. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Guys,
I asked 3 questions,
1) Is 10 years really needed before any conclusions are drawn here?
2) In addition to the 10 year side by side study, could the WDNR not also run a few shorter term studies?
3) Wouldn't stocking side by side 32" fish in the same body of water reveal some indication of what the 10 yr study might show, in half the time?
....and I made 1 statement,(rather stating the obvious).
1) If, after 10 years it is decided that Leech Lake or Great Lake , etc., should be stocked in certain waters, it will be another 5-10 yrs until we see the benefits of this.
Steve's initial reply , "It would appear 10 years IS needed, that's the timeframe across the state the biologists seem to have set.", doesn't really open the door for discussion, now does it?
From lambeau, "what happens if after 10 years the research shows that the Leech strain is not a good match for certain waters in WI? what happens if the DNR acted now on some people's foregone conclusions and started stocking those fish immediately, and then found out after the fact that it was a mistake? "
I would say that we found out it was mistake a heck of a lot sooner than 10-20 years! ( Also, if, by posting a few questions on this board automatically labels one as a self proclaimed expert, than please advise, because I never claimed to be one.)
Steve...I have never labeled the experts 'pesky', nor have I ever claimed to be as educated as they in this field. I am certainly not. But I must point out, that the very group (from the politicians on down...the ones who may not even be around at the conclusion of the 10 year study, I might add!) that helped us get here in the first place, are the same group that you expect me to put my full faith, trust, and 10 years of patience in! Why should I when past experience tells me I should not?! I do not look forward to seeing the movie, "Nancy Lake 2" in slow motion all over again, especially, since now I am hearing from a very good source, that many of the Leech Lake strain fish being used in the current study may have liver disease (correct me if I am wrong here, of course....please check with your DNR sources).
Hunter...the reason I suggested the 32" length was simply because last months MI magazine featured a story of 197 32" spotties being stocked in to White Bear Lake, MN. I asked a few questions, and you are answering me, with questions. I asked, because I do not know.
But seeing is believing....someone figured out a way to do it in White Bear...shouldn't be too difficult to get the cost.
Sean
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | When dealing with a species that may not reach sexual maturity for 4-6 years, it may be a prudent thing to run a 10 or more year study. Especially when one of the objectives is to not only evaluate growth rates, but potential for natural reproduction and recruitment. In order to assess the ability of a population to grow AND recruit, one must be able to look at subsequent generations before much of a conclusion can be drawn. It will likely take as long as 6 years before any recruited fish from the originally stocked experimental fish to become vulnerable to sampling gear. Then to assess the growth of those (if they occur at all) will take an additional few years.
To do purely a growth rate study of individual strains, it may not take 10 years, but then again, one is only evaluating the growth rate of younger fish, not the sustained rate of adults. If they make 45" in 6 years or 50" in 8 years, you may have your answer, but then again, you'd have that in the 6th or 8th year of a 10 year study too. The followup of the ability of the fish to naturally reproduce and provide siginificantly to the fishery will not be able to be ascertained in a shorter study in my opinion.
S. |
|
| |
|
| The followup of the ability of the fish to naturally reproduce and provide siginificantly to the fishery will not be able to be ascertained in a shorter study in my opinion.
pesky biologist. 
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read all the associated material on Nancy, including the data from this spring. Contact the field station responsible for the data and the work on that lake this year, and LISTEN to what they tell you, if they will even talk to you after all the abuse they took this spring. I did, and spoke to the team that studied the lake this year. Take it to heart, what you will read from the study this spring is the way it is, despite all the noise to the contrary.
In one sentence you say you never called the experts 'pesky', obviously meaning you don't overtly question them or attack their working credibility, in another just a few lines later you say they 'got us here in the first place' in a very negative statement and that you cannot 'trust them' as if 'here' is some definable destination consistent across the state and controlled and engineered by the DNR fisheries managers. Can't have it both ways.
I believe Wisconsin Muskie Anglers past and present, and out of State Muskie Anglers Past and present got us 'where we are' today, far more than any Unilateral DNR management policies past or present.
'Here' on many of the lakes I fish in Wisconsin is a pretty wonderful place. I will not get into a full blown discussion on the differences between Minnesota and Wisconsin, that's been done ad nauseum. I would direct you to the really BIG Wisconsin fish caught and officially proven to be Wisconsin fish on Mille Lacs, the 40# class fish out of Oneida County, etc. to point out that all roads do not necessarily lead where you are trying to go. Read the material by Dr. Sloss, look at the patient commentary by Dave Neuswanger ( by the way, he is relatively new to Wisconsin; he was instrumental in introducing muskies into Missouri waters and is well known across the country as a top shelf fisheries manager; he took an enormous amount of unwarranted and absolutely RUDE and childishly applied heat over the last year just TRYING to explain reality and held his professional decorum, truly a gentleman; no bias, give him a call ANYTIME, he's ready, willing, and able to talk muskies and management) read the material from the Symposium, and most of all, LISTEN to the Muskiefirst recording of Dr. Casselman's presentation there. Have you watched that video yet? It is extremely enlightening, and he is, by the way, THE authority on the matter. Here's the link, give it a listen: http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_wmv.asp?clip=479
'I would say that we found out it was mistake a heck of a lot sooner than 10-20 years! ' I'm not sure what you mean by this.
You are missing a major objective of the study underway on dozens of waters in Wisconsin; the idea is to return many of those waters to a lower density, higher quality, sustained by NR fisheries and see how they do. 200 32" muskies would't even make a dent in Pelican ALONE!!!! In 10 years statistically speaking , there would be what; 20% left? Maybe fewer? Those fish you mentioned, by the way, were raised by the Twin Cities Chapter of Muskies Inc. It wasn't cheap.
One of the biggest mistakes in interpretation of the data by layman critics, including the Minnesota work, is focusing on the first few years of the dataset and badly misintrepeting what the charts and supporting data mean to the future population; biologists mentioned that factor over and over in conversations with me last winter. You see, in longer term data, the Wisconsin Fish did VERY well when compared to Leech Lake strain. Again, look at the large specimens from Mille Lacs. The 50 to 54" fish being caught in some Wisconsin waters that are almost 100% C&R. I couldn't find a single biologist who would even begin to support the idea there IS a definitive genetics 'problem' with the Wisconsin fish as suggested strongly by a group of laymen. That assertion came from the WMRT's singular and stand alone interpretation of selective bits of the dataset, with absolutely NO support from the scientific community. The question of what fish are what as far as genetics is concerned is being studied, by Dr. Sloss. Read up on it.
I have heard a bit about some problems with the leech lake fish stock acquired this year; I suggest you contact the folks from Madison Muskies Inc who worked on that program for details.
Sorno's post says what I tried to say much more clearly. Drop him a PM to find out why he says this and from what vantage point, he's a really nice guy, is an accomplished angler and is more than willing to discuss muskies and fisheries of any description, plus, he brews his own BEER!
The study is set for the next 10 years in Wisconsin. It takes that long, plain and simple. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | This is what I do know about Nacy Lake...Nancy Lake used to be over run with stunted pike. Three Leech Lake stockings in the mid eihties. Fast forward to this year....a 54"er was killed this summer, and 4 over 50" were boated just a few weeks ago. Net controversy or not, I woud say that the Leech Lake fish in Nancy are have done just fine.
Have the big fish being boated on Mille Lacs been scientifically proven to be Wisconsin strain? Were they marked? Tagged? Have genetic studies been done on these fish, or is this a 'laymen' hypothesis?
I agree that the Musky Angler is very much responsible in getting us where we are today, by harvesting too many big fish. The reaction to "where have all the big fish gone?" was to stock. In this laymens opinion, not enough attention was given to what was actually being stocked. If you are not able to find even a single biologist who would even begin to support the idea there is a definitive genetics 'problem' with the WI fish, then why the 10 yr study? Had the stocking program of the past been carried out with more scruteny, we wouldn't need a 10 yr study to determine just what strains we have swimming in our lakes today. I also believe that I can safely state that the stocking program of the past was never driven by the goal of producing big fish to replace those that had been harvested. It this laymens opinion, it should have been, at least for the lakes that used to produce big fish. To have simply stocked those lakes with Bone Lake fish or whatever was used, was a mistake. Plain and simple. I have much respect for the pesky scientists, but we all make mistakes. I believe mistakes were made.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | sorry, I wasn't quite acurate on my last post concerning recent catches on Nancy. Another over 50" was boated last Wednesday....that makes 5 in the last few weeks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Have the big fish being boated on Mille Lacs been scientifically proven to be Wisconsin strain? Were they marked? Tagged? Have genetic studies been done on these fish, or is this a 'laymen' hypothesis?'
You need to read more. Here you go:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=28...
Read the post by Dave Neuswanger and the follow up stuff there.
The difficulty with the Nancy Lake fish was not ultimate size, there was little NR. There are now not enough fish left to even begin to consider Nancy as a possible brood stock lake; there was some hope there, but no dice. As I said, read up on it, and you'll have a better grasp of what's happened there. Listen to the Symposium tapes, too, and learn about what low density means to uper confidence limits.
'If you are not able to find even a single biologist who would even begin to support the idea there is a definitive genetics 'problem' with the WI fish, then why the 10 yr study';
Read up on that too. The ten year time frame was set not to determine genetics; that's Dr. Sloss's work which of course is going to have an impact no matter what he discovers, and that will take much less time. The ten year 'no stock' plan, is, as I said before, underway in many Wisconsin lakes to attempt to return those lakes to low density, high quality fisheries that are self sustaining. Pelican, for example, That's why Norm, Mike, and I tried so hard to get a 50" limit there, because with the naturally low NR and VERY high harvest rates the lake has experienced and would continue to experience, the current management plan scares the hell out of me.
No one of any scientific standing has determined there is one single thing wrong with Bone Lake fish, LCO fish, or fish from the Woodruff hatchery and that's in direct opposition to the position the WMRT has taken and you seem to have adopted. Those fish did pretty well in Mille Lacs, wouldn't you say? They are doing VERY well in Lake George, Rice Lake, Pelican, Moen, the Nursrery (right Lambeau?? That tiny water body put out a 54 CPR, a 53 CPR, and a 51 CPR last season, and there is no one fishing it, really. Gee, I wonder if that's why...)and a bunch of other waters where the C&R ethic has begun to show an effect. Even the Chip has had an ever increasing average since the more restrictive size limits were placed there; maybe the bull about the fish going into hiding and learning to avoid all anglers can be put to rest soon as the population and average size balances out; no one will have to pretend the fish suddenly became scholary mind freaks any more. LCO has a probable serious population problem, but that doesn't equate to a genetics problem. I just got a picture of a 50 plus from that water a couple days back, that's three I know of in the last few weeks.
Believe what you will, but please at least read what has been published and allow that ideas that Wisconsin fish are Mutts might just not have as much merit as some think. I'll look forward to Dr. Sloss's conclusions, those are not all that far off! And view that video, it's really a great piece and will assist you in understanding what the dynamics of our Wisconsin and other fisheries really are. Call Dave, too.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | If I'm not mistaken, the genetic 'strain' study and the 10-year stock performance study are two completely different things. Admittedly, I probably haven't been keeping up on the nuances of the research like I should in order to make definitive comment.
S. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 760
| Oh boy, here we go again! If there is one thing that I've learned to accept is that in my lifetime I will not be able to see what the results will be after all these studies and research. It appears that the results will past down to the next generation of anglers. I just turned 41, but with the dnr's time frame, I'll probably be near 70 by the time we see any results. At that age, and trying to stay in shape, I hope to be able to spend an eight hour day on the water still throwing big gliders! I might not be around either. Then, with a lot of pray and hope, I'll have the best partner in my boat and that's the lord himself. Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | How does 10 years translate to 29? Us Wisconsinites will be fishing the waters under study as this progresses, so things won't be that much of a mystery. Several facets going on at once, the return of many waters to the no stock list, the side by side comparisons in several waters using Leech and Wisconsin fish, and Dr. Sloss's work being three seperate but obviously connected courses of action all UNDERWAY now. Efforts to reduce harvest of large fish, efforts to reduce mortality from swallow rigged suckers, and efforts to educate anglers about proper handling and release.
Describe the DNR, please. The Team handling the Muskies in this state is comprised of some of the finest biologists out there. They are living, breathing people; be careful not to be unfairly critical based on lack of understanding of the form, function, and demands of the job.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 760
| Simple. First after the ten year study is completed, if no conclusions can be determined, add on another few years of extra research. Then the real problems begin with all the local goverment politicians who would want muskies stocked in this lake or the next. Then add the input of local businesses and resort owners. By the time that mess is sorted out add another 5-10 years. so we are at 15-20 years now. Now add another another 10-12 years for the fish to become trophy size. I support the dnr's study plan, but being a police officer, I have first hand knowledge how government works. Mr. Worrall, the biggest problem here I predict is going to be what to do with the results once they are determined. Resort owners wanting 2000 fingerlings, some local anglers not wanting muskies at all. As soon as you add input from all areas especially how muskies being stocked would effect the local economies, it will take time to determine, thats where the extra time will come from. Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Steve,
I see conclusions about Mill Lacs (a lake that has ALWAYS had muskies) being drawn based on a short stocking history and a handful of pictures. Far from a scientific appraoch, yet, some folks absolutelyu sure that WI strain fish are grwoing very big in Mill Lacs. They may be right, but cetainly haven't proved it yet.
In contrast, I see a far more scientific appraoch study on Nancy done over a 20yr period.. a lake goes from stunted pike to 50"+ muskies. Yet, most folks turn their backs on this.
I don't get it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You obviously didn't read Dave Neuswanger's post. I'll make it easy for you.
' Steve, I have been pretty busy this summer, but thought I'd share the following in an attempt to answer the lingering questions posed in this thread:
Minnesota’s Musky Stocking Program Timeline (source -- Jerry Younk, MDNR):
1982: MDNR is pressured to stop using Shoepac Lake as a source of adult broodstock for statewide hatchery production and stocking.
1982: MDNR stocks Leech Lake fish into several new lakes (no muskies previously) for use as future sources of broodstock. These include Plantaganette, Little Wolf, Elk, Owasso (not used now), Rebecca, Pleasant, and Island (used only as a back-up).
1982-1987: MDNR stocks Wisconsin-source fish in many waters, including almost 14,000 fish in Mille Lacs from 1984 through 1987, as Leech Lake fish grow and mature in broodstock lakes. Most Wisconsin fish were purchased at Kalepp’s Fish Farm, where the broodstock were taken from DNR’s Woodruff Hatchery, the Lac du Flambeau Hatchery, and several individual lakes in north central Wisconsin where 105 years of stock mixing (from LCO and other sources) is alleged by some to have created a hatchery strain of muskellunge that is no longer capable of attaining trophy size or reproducing in the presence of northern pike.
1989: MDNR starts stocking Leech Lake strain fish exclusively throughout the State of Minnesota.
1990: Final year of evaluation of strain stocking study in Lake Waconia, Minnesota. Results confirm that Leech Lake and LCO strains are superior to Shoepac fish, but neither is superior to the other (despite amateur interpretations to the contrary).
1996-1998: MDNR biologists age and tag adult muskies in 132,500-acre Mille Lacs.
1999-2005: MDNR biologists document reports of tagged fish that are caught, harvested, or found dead in Mille Lacs.
Mille Lacs Tagging Study Results (source – Rick Bruesewitz, MDNR):
As of 2005, of the 96 reported tag returns (fish found dead, harvested, or caught and released), 60 were fish stocked during 1984-1987 (Wisconsin source only – no confusing them with Leech Lake fish).
All 13 fish over 50 inches long were Wisconsin-source fish. The biggest was a female 54.9 inches long and 16 years of age. Also, 73% of fish 45-49 inches long (when caught or found dead) were stocked during 1984-1987.
In summary, one of the best trophy musky fisheries in North America since 2000 has been supported largely by Wisconsin-source fish and is only now becoming dominated by equally fine fish of the Leech Lake strain stocked since 1989. '
There you go, right from data collected by the Minnesota DNR., not what you are charging at all. Forgive me, but so far you have refused to really look into anything I've suggested, so until you do so I'll simply continue to refer you to source material and data and won't continue to discuss any of this with you until you indicate you actually have taken the time to do so. Uninformed personal opinion is just that. No one has 'turned their backs' on anything. Sheeeeeesh.
In other terms, both strains get big. Both get REALLY big. In waters where the habitat has not been destroyed and the population is allowed to hit the upper confidence mark, the Wisconsin fish also seem to hold their own with NR and really big fish.
Kdawg,
The lakes under study ARE muskie lakes now, and will be stocked again if study shows that to be needed; with the BEST strain determined by Dr. Sloss and parallel work. Take a closer look at the Muskies Inc involvement, and that of many chambers of commerce, etc, not much danger of lack of followup on this one. Defeatist attitudes can be checked at the door...it's up to us as Wisconsin sportsmen to keep close tabs on the progress of this work, and I intend to make it ALL front page news, no matter what is determined. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | "In waters where the habitat has not been destroyed and the population is allowed to hit the upper confidence mark, the Wisconsin fish also seem to hold their own with NR and really big fish."
So, I am to understand that in every example WI lake that used to put out big fish, and no longer does, that the habitat has been destroyed? Destroyed, yet still producing fish...just not big ones? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23...
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=22...
That should hold you for awhile. Call Dave Neuswanger, he'll be happy to talk to you if you can approach the conversation with a reasonable attitude and an open mind. Read the Symposium information. All of it. Listen to Casselman's presentation.
Way more complicated than one issue, but destruction of spawning habitat, overharvest of larger fish, changes in water chemistry, in some cases overstocking (numbers), degradation of the prey available to the fish, (did I say overharvest of large fish?), and much more can and will contribute to a decline in population quality and quantity. Just read, all the answers to the questions you asked are there. Been covered a thousand ways. And if the populations in some of the 'new' MN waters are not protected pretty soon, a decline there will also be inevitable. It may never again be as good over there as it is right now...
Half questions, ignoring the rest of the commentary and picking one tiny segment to argue while ignoring the answers given, personal attacks....... this is deja vu all over again.... Slamr, you were correct! |
|
| |
