Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> NW WI Muskie Stocking |  |
| Message Subject: NW WI Muskie Stocking | |||
Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve So what did you find out? Is the DNR planning on using Butternut as a brood stock lake this year or not? One more thing. Quite a few months ago someone asked you if you knew anything about the DNR using sick or diseased leech strain fish in the DNR side by side strain evaluation studies. You said you would find out and post that info here also. You still have not posted what you found out. Why? This site is suppose to be the #1 source for muskie information. If this is true it should include all muskie information whether its positive or negative information. Whether its good news or bad news, we all deserve to know whats going on with our muskie fisheries. Certainly you would agree with that. You said you would get the answers and let us all know. So could please post what you found out so everyone is well informed and aware of what is going on? Thanks | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
One more thing. Quite a few months ago someone asked you if you knew anything about the DNR using sick or diseased leech strain fish in the DNR side by side strain evaluation studies. You said you would find out and post that info here also. You still have not posted what you found out. Why? the DNR is not using sick/diseased LL fish in the side-by-side study. they did have significant problems with the LL strain fish they were raising - making them unusable for this year's study. that's a subtle difference (not using them because they're sick vs using sick fish), and one that i'm quite sure you're very aware of, Lockjaw, since you're involved in Muskies Inc and the Muskie team meetings with the DNR where that information has been broadly disseminated. the way you present it suggests that the DNR is purposefully using sick fish to predetermine the outcome when in reality they did the right thing by deciding not to use them. why would you present it in that particular (inaccurate) fashion? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As soon as I have the information from the WI DNR agencies I will present it exactly as it's presented to me. | ||
| Crazy Panda |
| ||
Posts: 5 | Lockjaw - 3/13/2007 2:22 PM Steve So what did you find out? Is the DNR planning on using Butternut as a brood stock lake this year or not? One more thing. Quite a few months ago someone asked you if you knew anything about the DNR using sick or diseased leech strain fish in the DNR side by side strain evaluation studies. You said you would find out and post that info here also. You still have not posted what you found out. Why? This site is suppose to be the #1 source for muskie information. If this is true it should include all muskie information whether its positive or negative information. Whether its good news or bad news, we all deserve to know whats going on with our muskie fisheries. Certainly you would agree with that. You said you would get the answers and let us all know. So could please post what you found out so everyone is well informed and aware of what is going on? Thanks Did you call them? It seems as though you have some personal problem with Muskies first, which is pretty obvious by your very snotty yet condescending tone, so why would you even care what Sworrall communicates here? I've just started posting here, but looked through some old threads on past pages here, and found you've been a pretty harsh critic of the WI DNR, Steve Worrall and Muskiefirst. I dont know what business you work in for your income, but generally if you want someone to do something for you, at least in the circles that the rest of us work in, you ask nicely. Without the crappy attitude. You draw more bees with honey. At least thats what the mama bear always told me. Panda | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Lambeau Someone else had asked this question many months ago and Steve said he would check on it and post what he found out here. That never happened. You can check back thru old threads and find this somewhere in one of them. If I did not word the question exactly the same as this person originally did months ago I'm sorry. But thats how I remember it being asked. I could be wrong. As far as me being involved with the muskie comittee team meetings and knowing what you suggest I know, that is not true. I attended one, and only one, muskie comittee meeting ever in my life. It was the very first one the DNR had ever held which was in Feb of 05. You are wrong about something else here too. You say the the fish were "unusable for this years study" and that this is something that was "broadly disseminated" by the DNR at the muskie comittee meetings and I knew about it? Well thats news to me and should be to everyone, including the DNR. I'm not sure how you would even know this, if its even true, because it has never once been mentioned in any of the muskie comittee meeting notes, ever and I have never heard this anywhere from anyone. And even if this is true and you knew about it, then why didn't the #1 source for muskie information bother to mention this here before now? The most recent meeting notes from the meeting held on 8/2/06 does not mention the the fish as being "unusable" or the study being put on hold because of sick or diseased LL fish. Check it for yourself and see. The notes from that meeting indicate the study was still a go. There has not been another muskie comittee meeting held since that one until about a week ago when I heard that supposedly the study was just now called off because of the recent issues with VHS disease. Those meeting notes are not up on the DNR site yet so I can't verify this for sure. So here is another question then. Did the DNR stock any LL fish in any of the lakes that were designated by the DNR to be used as study lakes? According to the last meeting notes the plan was to stock any surviving LL fish in to fewer study lakes than they were planning on using if the number of LL fish that survived in the hatchery was too few to stock all the study lakes. There has never been anything mentioned that no LL fish were stocked in any of the study lakes or that the study was called off due to sick, diseased, or "unusable" LL fish. Below is a copy of the section from the meeting notes that talks about this. Show me where it says the study is off because of sick, diseased, or "unusable" LL fish, or that no LL fish were going to be stocked in any of the study lakes, because I don't see it. I'll read through it again right now. Muskellunge Standing Team Meeting - Draft Notes August 2, 2006 – Kemp Natural Resources Station 1. Update on LL rearing - Gary Lindenberger provided an update on status of LL fish in the Spooner Hatchery. Apparently, the fish are not consuming the volume of forage that he would expect at this developmental stage, which means that they either had poor survival and are low in numbers or are small for their age, or both. There is no way to predict how many will be available for stocking in fall, but Gary thinks that there should be enough for the St. Croix Basin study lakes, and perhaps one other lake. The biologists for the 4 study lakes will get together and try to prioritize which lake will get the fish if there is a shortage. It was decided that if there is a shortage, it would be better to try to put the full complement of fish into fewer lakes (rather than a small portion of the quota in each lake), due to the anticipated difficulty recovering fish later in time. Well I still don't see where it says anything about the study being off because of "unusable" LL fish, do you? If in fact the study was called off due to "unusable" LL fish then you must have better sources of info than I do and you should be sharing that info with the rest of us. As far as I know, the surviving LL fish were stocked into study lakes and the study was still on until just recently due to concerns of VHS disease. If I'm wrong please tell me where you got your information and why the #1 source for muskie information failed to inform us of this. Thanks Edited by Lockjaw 3/14/2007 12:15 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Lockjaw, You didn't read lambeau's post very well. Where did he say the work was called off, or that no fish were used? Read it again. | ||
| Lockjaw |
| ||
Posts: 147 Location: WI - Land of small muskies and big jawbones | Steve You guys must want to play word games with me. Here is what he said. "the DNR is not using sick/diseased LL fish in the side-by-side study. they did have significant problems with the LL strain fish they were raising - making them unusable for this year's study" Ask 100 people to read that statement. Then ask them this. Is this statement saying LL fish were or were not used for this years study? It says they had problems with THE LL fish making THEM unusable for this years study. It doesn't say they had problems with SOME LL fish making them unusable. It doesn't say some, and it doesn't say none, so what does that leave you with? You see what I'm saying? So what are the answers? Were any LL fish stocked in any of the study lakes? Was the study going on before the VHS issue came about recently? All I'm asking for is simple yes or no answers to these questions without a getting an education in grammar. Is that possible here? Thanks | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| the problems i'm referring to are NOT related to VHS, that's a separate issue which is understandably complicating the ability to get replacement fish for independent club studies from out of state. to clarify: the problems are related to something else, making the necessary numbers of fish unusable. i don't know whether or not _all_ of the fish were unusable, or whether or not any of the study lakes got any LL strain fish. i do know that it's been significantly hampered for this year, but that "sick" fish are not being used in order to torpedo the study results as you imply. and don't split hairs Lockjaw, i may be wrong on whether or not you personally have attended all the meetings, but "you" (WMRP) have been attending and fully informed, as have "you" (First Wisconsin Muskies Inc) since you're running your own independent LL strain study in Wissota similar to what CCMI is doing in the Yahara chain. you (FWMI) stocked LL fish in fall of '05 in L.Wissota that you bought out of state, so did CCMI. we were supposed to get fish from the DNR this year but could not because they were unusable as mentioned above and we couldn't buy any from out of state due to the rules in place as a result of VHS. did "you" (FWMI) get fish from the DNR this year or were you unable to because of the problems with the fish that you ask about above? (indicating that you'd know full well what happened). you and your brother are both board members, and Bob Benson is a regional VP and member of your club...i take that fact as something which says you would be informed on an issue involving an ongoing stocking study your club is involved in. Edited by lambeau 3/14/2007 6:26 AM | |||
| Bytor |
| ||
Location: The Yahara Chain | "Did the DNR stock any LL fish in any of the lakes that were designated by the DNR to be used as study lakes? " Lake Monona received 65 fish last fall, a far cry from the 900 we were supposed to receive. I have no idea what the other lakes received. Lockjaw what happened on Wissota? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The DNR is indeed going to use Butternut as a source this year; as one of 5 lakes in rotation over 5 years. I just got off the phone with Dave Neuswanger. There is a DNR meeting scheduled tomorrow to firm up functionality, and plans will be made to move ahead as soon as is possible. The fish in Butternut meet the criteria recommended by Dr. Sloss almost perfectly; good availability for acquiring several females and three males for each, excellent track record of natural reproduction despite competition by Northern Pike, and the base population has proven the ability to reach lengths over 50". According to the DNR based ongoing observation and Dr' Sloss's work, the decline in ultimate size observed there over the last decade isn't 'genetically based', its a result of overpopulation due to continued stocking while the population did very well with natural reproduction. In short, there are too many fish in that system, partly because of DNR overstocking in the past. Plans are underway to move some of the population, but target waters have not yet been released. I asked Mr. Neuswanger to explain again what the findings Dr. Sloss's lab released last fall meant to the lakes into which the Butternut fish would be stocked. The fish in Butternut were not found to be in ANY way genetically 'deficient' or deficient in ANY manner during the testing last year. This is important to understand, and is probably going to be the most abused piece of information in the inevitable discussion to follow. A comparison was done between the Butternut fish and LCO fish because of a desire to move up to 500 adult fish from Butternut to LCO. The tested fish were found to be significantly 'different' across 13 microsatellite markers. This doesn't in ANY way reflect any actual and functional difference between the populations, to the contrary; it is very possible the fish are completely compatible. A decision was made not to transfer as many as 500 adult fish into LCO as a result, a decision that probably would have been made had the source been the Chippewa Flowage or Grindstone. Why? The total population of adult fish in LCO is very low at this time. 'Flooding'(nearly doubling) that population with 250 to 500 ADULT fish that have excellent NR track record MIGHT have had a totally undetermined detrimental effect on the existing population, and was deemed not the responsible thing to do. Stocking fingerlings from Butternut, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. Let's, for discussion's sake, say 500 large fingerlings were planted in any body of water. After year one, muskie fisheries biologists and published studies indicate that about 200 would remain. During the next 4 years, as the fish mature and reach spawning age, an average 31% per year will perish, leaving fewer than 50 adults to interact. The impact even on LCO would be within the guidelines suggested and encouraged by the DNR and Dr. Sloss. Dr. Sloss has indicated that diversity is key to the DNR stocking initiative, so a new source will be used every year. Mr. Neuswanger again stated there is no contraindication at ALL for using Butternut as a brood source this season other than the inevitable 'layman' or armchair biologist's misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the data/facts. MuskieFIRST will be conducting a radio interview with Mr. Neuswanger early next week so he may clarify this story and answer any lingering questions. I'm sure Dave will assist in clarifying any items discussed here, correcting anything in need, and offering actual fact to consider when looking at this as 'big picture'. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| malone |
| ||
Posts: 31 | I am a little confused and have some questions about Butternut Lake. If this lake is "over populated" as the result of over stocking and strong natural reproduction wouldn't some of the fish tested match Bone Lake or was Butternut stocked from a different population? Will they be able to tell the difference between the naturally reproducing fish that compete well with pike versus the stocked fish that have caused the overpopulation when they take eggs? Dr Sloss recommends using populations that have strong natural reproduction for our brood lakes. Is it a good idea to use a lake that has been stocked to the point of being overpopulated? I don't see how they can tell if they are getting eggs from the stocked population versus the natural population. Same could be said about the Chip, since I think it has been stocked, but I don't think it is believed to be overpopulated. Thanks, Jason Malone | ||
| Troyz. |
| ||
Posts: 734 Location: Watertown, MN | Little Confused?????????? 1-If Butternut fish are pure and have such succesful reproduction, why would they have stocked the lake in the first place? 2-If Butternut's fish 13 markers don't match LCO/Grindstone, why introduce a non-native fish(stocking butternut fry) into those lakes and ruin the genetic make-up of the big fish from LCO?Grindstone? 3-Why not put 250-500 adult Butternut fish in LCO if your going to stock LCO with the fish with Butternut eggs. In a few years they will there, and overtake the adult LCO/Grindstone native fish, and dilute the genetic integrity of the lake. 4-How will the females be selected for the harvest of eggs. Will there be a size distribution guidline? 5-Are Kaleb Hatchery fish in the rotation of one of the 5 egg providers. 6-How many documented 50" fish are there from Butternut? Troyz | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | According to the DNR the general population of Butternut muskies is reproducing very well. The lake has not been stocked since 1999, and then only 500 were introduced. Given accepted science, the stocking from that year would provide approximately 8 remaining adults which would be in the low 40" class or better depending on gender under the conditions there. Remember, there is nothing at all indicating stocks from other waters will not reproduce and grow to 50" or better under the balanced conditions needed. Any insistence there is ANY contraindication stems from the badly abused data by detractors who regularly ignore the science the fisheries biologists must live by. It's not only unlikely, but probably impossible that the genetics will differ from the fish that were reaching upper 40's to 50" in the 90's before overcrowding/competition became an issue and the muskies available in Butternut now. Those 50" fish were reproducing, and the genetics are there. Get the population down with a slot limit and some potential moving of some of the population elsewhere, and the Butternut Muskie's upper confidence potential should be realized again. Think about it, if fish were taken from Bone or Butternut or the Chip or ANYWHERE else and were successfully hatched and raised, what does that say about the viability of the eggs and the fish's ability to reproduce? This is too complicated an issue to answer in a few sentences. Dave has done a great job in other threads, read up! Keep in mind also that NO difference was seen in the LCO testing last year between fish caught there decades past and the 2006 sampling. In other words, no 'hatchery strain' seems to exist. That was the ENTIRE basis of the data manipulations by laymen over the last two years which has been proven to be nothing but speculation. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 1) Butternut has been stocked since 1972. What does 'pure' mean? According to the top fisheries biologists in the world, there isn't a definition of a 'pure' muskie strain. The only place I have seen that term used is in layman's conversations. All have evolved throughout time and continue to evolve to meet the conditions in each body of water from whence they come, and many have interacted with other populations over thousands of years as conditions and man caused populations to encounter each other. 2) As was reported, the markers do NOT necessarily indicate any real functional differences. Those fish probably originally came from LCO and other brood source waters, just like the Bone Lake fish. It is entirely possible that the genetic testing may indicate no real functional differences between any of the native stocks in Wisconsin. Literally, the fish in Butternut and LCO are both Native populations. The only non native stocking going on is Great Lakes strain in Green Bay and Winnebago, and Leech Lake in some test waters, if we can raise some healthy fish and get past the VHS caused ban. 3) Not true. Read the report I did with Dave again. Adding 500 ADULT fish was deemed an unwise thing to do in a lake where density is so low that addition of that number of adult fish from Butternut might have a negative effect on the existing adult population. Care will be taken to not 'flood' that population with muskies from ANY other source. If 500 11" muskies were stocked from Butternut into LCO this spring, by the time they reached adult size and were going to spawn for the first time there would be about 47 left. Add 500 adults, and there will be approximately 148left in that same timeframe, and they will have been interacting as adults the ENTIRE TIME. 4) Read the extensive information Dave supplied last year. Short answer is yes. 5) Dr. Sloss recommended using 5 sources over 5 years from diverse waters in that area. Not a hatchery using a limited genetic stock, that's exactly the opposite of what was recommended. 6) For quite some time there were regular trophy muskies reported caught and mostly harvested ( back then CPR was just getting a foothold) from Butternut, that also was discussed quite a bit last spring. 7) You may want to also investigate the list of lakes and reservoirs that have been listed 'no stocking' since 1999. Many of the low density, moderate NR waters have been removed entirely from the stocking lists. Pelican is an example. The DNR has been working on improving the overall potential of the muskie population since that time, much to the contrary of what some would lead you to believe. | ||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | I'll take a stab at this. First, however, it was good to see that the Chief River land purchase went ahead and maybe more habitat work will be done on the Flowage. It was long overdue but that part of the purchased river frontage was prime spawning habitat. Good to see it happen finally. This reads like one person wants to micro-manage a lake genetically when the accepted plan is first of all genetic diveristy, which keeps the overall musky population for the long-term goals of maintaining the fishery. To do that, Mr. Sloss suggested the rotation and it makes prefect sense. If you micro-manage you end up without the diversity to use fish in region to maintain the genetics. You could end up inbreeding. The other thing is out-breeding which would be bringing in a distant genetic stock and bearing the results. You see this in trout and salmon and it's a real threat. I'd guess that means some small fish and some big fish. It actually helps management if you have diversity and right now there appears to be little difference between these musky as a result no problem rotationg them. The decision appears to be the elevated end results of adults by using them over stocking fry that would be less and it reads more suited to what LCO needs right now. As a result, they are not going to use them in LCO. Sounds fine to me. Just about every living creature uses diversity, whether it is mamals dispersing by the means of males relocating to find females it all ends up with the same necessary result, genetic diversity. I cannot speak of documented fish from Butternut from a study but stop down around Radisson and take a long at the 50+ plus mounts on the wall at the business across from the gas station. I'd say it has some big fish in it from that perspective. Both sides have seem to slug this one out. But what is apparently happening now is going to continue if not aid in long-term musky populations. We got the science part now let's give it a try. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | If the 2003 Musky Management Plan is still being used as a stocking guideline, LCO will receive 2500 tier I fish and 19 tier II fish in 2007, don’t ask me the difference in on and two but I would guess tier II fish are older when stocked. Butternut lake was stocked as follows over the last 25 years: 1982 – 1000 fish 1983 – 1512 fish 1984 – 2000 fish 1985 – 2500 fish 1986 – 2000 fish 1987 – 3000 fish 1988 – 2000 fish 1989 – 1000 fish 1990 – 1000 fish 1991 – 2000 fish 1993 - 2000 fish 1995 – 2000 fish 1999 – 500 fish Now I don’t know when they started using Bone Lake fish only, but with stocking numbers like that I still don’t understand why they are using Butternut as a source this year. Maybe it can be explained biologically, but why in the world politically would that decision be made especially considering the fact that they stopped the adult transfer. I understand 500 adults have a greater impact. But if they stock 2500 fish into LCO there will be over 300 of those fish left in 5 years (using 60% mortality the first year and 30% every year after that) In five years those fish will be reproducing, (IF stocked fish can reproduce in LCO, which from the genetic testing seems unlikely to me.) I just don’t see the difference why not make the transfer, unless LCO isn’t going to be stocked this year. Anyway I really just don’t understand it. Unless it’s one of those political thing which aren’t meant to be understood. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike, I think what I reported from Dave Neuswanger covered most of your comments. He indicated that LCO is going to be cared for and NO 'flooding' of that very limited population will occur. Pick up the phone and call him instead of questioning 'politics' if you have any questions. During our conversation, Mr. Neuswanger assured me that management by proxy, especially THAT proxy, will not happen. According to Dave the selection was purely biological. A reminder, there is not ANY indication that there is ANY problem with either Bone OR Butternut fish INCLUDING compatibility. Dr. Sloss has not indicated there IS any 'problem' with Bone Lake fish,( remember the source of the original Bone Lake fish?) I believe if I read all this correctly he has suggested that selection of waters to gather roe be diversified. As another observation, you used only a portion of the math. If one places 500 ADULT fish in LCO, that integration is immediate and was determined by Dr. Sloss to be unwise. If the number of fingerlings you mention were stocked, the integration would be at least 5 years off and would be diversified by further stockings from other systems. By the way, there is limited NR in LCO, and I believe Dave mentioned that the excellent natural reproduction with Northern Pike competition exhibited by the Butternut fish was one of the factors in the decision. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Steve, I'll extract one small segment of your excellent post here: STEVE: MuskieFIRST will be conducting a radio interview with Mr. Neuswanger early next week so he may clarify this story and answer any lingering questions. I'm sure Dave will assist in clarifying any items discussed here, correcting anything in need, and offering actual fact to consider when looking at this as 'big picture'. DAVE: I'll look forward to our interview, Steve, but I want your readers to know that you summarized the facts and our (WDNR) rationale for using Butternut Lake as a source of broodstock as accurately and clearly as anyone could have done. There is NOTHING in need of correction in your summary. We had a productive operational planning meeting this morning in Park Falls, and so we are ready to start capturing fish at Butternut for a Veterinary Health Assessment as soon as the ice retreats. Because there is SO much happening right now (just completed the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage Fishery Management Plan, working on the Chippewa Flowage Plan, revamping our baseline monitoring program for the next biennium budget, and hiring a replacement Fish Technician at Park Falls), and because there is so much ABOUT to happen in the field, I won't have time to address individual questions here. So we'll do our best to cover the topic thoroughly during the radio interview. If I can elaborate on some of your summary points in order to clarify or confirm them for some folks, then I will be happy to do so. In the meantime, thanks for your responsible journalism. It allows me to stay focused on the important tasks at hand. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve->>>I think what I reported from Dave Neuswanger covered most of your comments. He indicated that LCO is going to be cared for and NO 'flooding' of that very limited population will occur. Makes sense if the adult population estimate is currently only 250 adult fish. 500 adults could cause problems. However there is a 5000 acre lake with a 50” sizelimit that has had approximately 35,000 fingerling muskies stocked since 1987. There should be more than 250 adult fish in the lake after that level of stocking, maybe it’s time for a flooding but that’s a different topic already covered. Steve->>>Pick up the phone and call him instead of questioning 'politics' if you have any questions. First, I’m not going to pick up the phone and call Dave at 6:00pm at night, that’s why we have this wonderful new media to air all the laundry and get all the answers. Second you missed my point on the politics, I was not saying they picked Butternut because of politics, I was trying to say it was politicly a bad decision to pick Butternut. There has to be a few other lakes out there that wouldn’t have caused such public out cries from the arm chair biologists. Which I am proud to be one of. I will concede it’s probably not an issue biologically your and Dave’s explanation makes sense to me. But you have to admit there could have been a better choice considering the recent testing of the Butternut fish, I agree nothing in the testing says there is anything wrong with the fish, but perception matters! And the LCO transfer was halted because of genetic differences and now those same fish are being used to supply the NW part of the state with all its fingerlings. In something this public, PERCEPTION REALLY matters. A lake right down the road could have the same exact fish as Butternut and this issue would have never been made, because those fish weren’t just tested and rejected for LCO. I hope that makes sense. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't miss your point at all! I just think allowing 'pressure', not based on biology or sound management, but what might be better 'accepted' and easily understood by laymen, is the WORST way for our DNR Muskie Team to approach muskie management here in Wisconsin. The Butternut fish were tested for transfer of up to 500 adults into LCO specifically, not diversified stocking. I believe I made the point that it is highly probable that by that criteria, there may be no sources that would have passed that test in this early stage of the testing by Dr. Sloss's lab. It's entirely possible that when that work is done it will be determined that there is no real functional difference at all in the native populations in Wisconsin, we will see. But if our DNR used that criteria to eliminate lakes for brood stock right now, we may end up with none. Spade a spade, what's bothering you is that people who do NOT understand or don't care to understand the difference will raise hell and cause 'trouble'. They would anyway, so what's the difference? Those fish are PERFECT by the DNR's and Dr. Sloss's requirements as brood stock in the 5 year rotation. The transfer of 500 adults is an entirely different matter, as discussed. Remember, that water experiences pressure from far more than hook and line angling. The density there has been determined to be very low, at least that is what I saw reported here last year. I guess I don't understand why we wouldn't support the use of Butternut fish this spring once understanding the biology is accomplished. In other words, it's my opinion the DNR should manage our fisheries using real science and functionality, not public pressure from the fringe. Wouldn't you agree that a lake 'down the road' stocked since 1972 would likely have had fish stocked from the same sources? This road takes us only one place; back to the original 'bad science' of the layman's platform so widely covered the last two years. There's no way that ground needs to be covered again here. I can bet you Dave would have no problem talking to you after 6, Mike. He's a pretty dedicated guy, and really enjoys talking Muskie stocking fact. | ||
| malone |
| ||
Posts: 31 | Professor Worrall, "people who do NOT understand " Please enlighten me with your biology credentials. You scold visitors to your website who put down others, but do it yourself, what do you call that..........hypocrite. Using your math of 8 fish per 500 stocked surviving in Butternut and the stocking record provided in this thread, since 1987 that would result in 184 of the stocked fish surviving over the last 20 years. This is on the high side and I imagine using the actual survival percentages for the older stockings the number would be lower. Did the survival of 184 stocked fish over the last 20 years cause Butternut to become overpopulated? Why not transfer 50 adult fish to LCO now if it will be stocked with Butternut fish anyway and you state 47 will survive to reproduce. This would help LCO now and since you state: "As was reported, the markers do NOT necessarily indicate any real functional differences. Those fish probably originally came from LCO and other brood source waters, just like the Bone Lake fish. It is entirely possible that the genetic testing may indicate no real functional differences between any of the native stocks in Wisconsin." How well did those three match up so far? Is Dr. Sloss's study designed to determine functional differences? To do this would mean he knows what the genes code for that he is comparing. If not none of us can say what the difference really means. "Wouldn't you agree that a lake 'down the road' stocked since 1972 would likely have had fish stocked from the same sources?" Yes, how well did the genetics match? Butternut seems to have been in better shape in the past, but that does not matter, what matters is its current state when it is going to be used as a brood source. I think a lake with fewer issues could have been chosen. Jason Malone Edited by malone 3/16/2007 5:48 AM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | MIKE ROBERTS SAID: I will concede it’s probably not an issue biologically your and Dave’s explanation makes sense to me. But you have to admit there could have been a better choice considering the recent testing of the Butternut fish, I agree nothing in the testing says there is anything wrong with the fish, but perception matters! And the LCO transfer was halted because of genetic differences and now those same fish are being used to supply the NW part of the state with all its fingerlings. In something this public, PERCEPTION REALLY matters. A lake right down the road could have the same exact fish as Butternut and this issue would have never been made, because those fish weren’t just tested and rejected for LCO. DAVE: Mike, what most folks don't realize is that we are having difficulty locating lakes that meet all of Dr. Sloss' recommended criteria for inclusion in a five-year broodsource rotation in NW Wisconsin. Your "lake right down the road" does not exist. There may not BE five good ones in NW Wisconsin, mostly because so many of our lakes have been stocked enough that we cannot be assured the adults we capture were natural recruits. So when we find a lake that meets the criteria, we must use it. Misperceptions notwithstanding, Butternut is perfect. It routinely produced beautiful fish over 50 inches long (we have many photos) until the early 1990s when overpopulation caused condition factor, growth rate, and size structure to decline; so we know the genetic potential is there. It has enough muskies to conduct the high number of matings required under the new genetic diversity protocols (17-26 females annually, each mated with 3 different males). It has high natural reproduction (little stocking since 1995 and none since 1999), even in the presence of a northern pike population. I could argue that Butternut is a better source than the Chippewa Flowage, which we used last year, simply because there is a greater likelihood the fish we use as broodstock from Butternut were not stocked themselves. I agree with you that perception is important, or I would not be here explaining our decision. But please grant me the leeway to do what is right even if some people don't understand the reason. You afford the same courtesy to your surgeon and your auto mechanic when they are working with their tools. As for the recent comments of young Mr. Malone, I don't know if he intends to use his bachelor's degree in biology from UWSP to get into graduate school and eventually become a professional fishery biologist. But if he does, he will soon come to appreciate the difference between ranting amateurs espousing wild theories and responsible journalists accurately reporting the results of interviews with professional biologists. Mr. Worrall is the latter, of course, and should be afforded the respect he deserves. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 3/16/2007 5:51 AM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I had intended to stay out of this, but one glaring point comes to mind that I just cannot ignore. It has to do with the following partial post by Steve: "3) Not true. Read the report I did with Dave again. Adding 500 ADULT fish was deemed an unwise thing to do in a lake where density is so low that addition of that number of adult fish from Butternut might have a negative effect on the existing adult population. Care will be taken to not 'flood' that population with muskies from ANY other source. If 500 11" muskies were stocked from Butternut into LCO this spring, by the time they reached adult size and were going to spawn for the first time there would be about 47 left. Add 500 adults, and there will be approximately 148left in that same timeframe, and they will have been interacting as adults the ENTIRE TIME." We continually get blasted as "armchair biologists" and told that we should leave the important decisions up to the "trained Scientists" paid to do their job. If this is so, just why is it that Dave, one of those "trained Scientists" was the very person that wrote the "grant request" to accomplish the adult transfer of muskies from Butternut to LCO in the first place? One might also question, why do our "trained Scientists" have to pay one-quarter of a MILLION dollars of taxpayer money for someone else to tell them what to do? What are we paying them for? And if, after all the smoke clears it is found that Wisconsin muskie genetics ARE similar enough to use to manage as a single "unit," then why all the fuss about using a "pure" (yes Steve PURE...Leech Lake has NEVER been stocked) strain of muskies from an area that USED to be PART of Wisconsin in the mid 1800's connected to the SAME drainage as all native Wisconsin muskie waters? Have those fish been or are going to be genetically tested too? As I pointed out in a recent Musky Hunter magazine, our WDNR is backing themselves into a corner...either they will end up having to take eggs from each NATIVE lake that "needs" stocking and stock the resulting fish back into only that NATIVE lake, or they are going to continue to "mix" gene pools. There is simply no getting around that...and the lakes that fit Sloss' criteria here in NW Wisconsin, for the most part, are small fish lakes. It was mentioned at the Musky Committee meeting that it would be Butternut this year OR the Tiger Cat Flowage. Wouldn't that be great? Take eggs from a lake with a 28" size limit that has NEVER been known to be a "producer" of the caliber of muskies that today's angler desire! There ARE far better options available in the upper Chippewa River Basin for taking eggs, but for some unknown reason, they refuse to consider them. A few come immediately to mind; The Chippewa River below the Winter dam and Flambeau Lake on the Lac du Flambeau chain (yes, it is part of the Chippewa River drainage) and known to produce trophy muskies. And why not LCO itself? Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/16/2007 6:09 AM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | I really don't have time for this, but the risks of allowing some of the following statements to stand as fact outweigh the consequences of delaying the work I had hoped to accomplish today on the Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan... LARRY RAMSELL: We continually get blasted as "armchair biologists" and told that we should leave the important decisions up to the "trained Scientists" paid to do their job. If this is so, just why is it that Dave, one of those "trained Scientists" was the very person that wrote the "grant request" to accomplish the adult transfer of muskies from Butternut to LCO in the first place? DAVE: There was never any grant request. This was simply a CONDITIONAL item on our "to do" list. Anyone can go back to previous threads and see that I have consistently reported our plan to move adult fish from Butternut to LCO if, and only if, the genetic analysis conducted by Dr. Sloss revealed no statistically significant differences between adult muskellunge in those populations. When we learned the fish were different to a statistically significant degree at the 13 microsatellite locations examined, I personally cancelled our plan to move adult fish from Butternut to LCO. Dr. Sloss and I agreed that the populations may not be functionally different, but the statistical differences warranted a cautious approach until we can determine whether functional differences exist. LARRY RAMSELL: One might also question, why do our "trained Scientists" have to pay one-quarter of a MILLION dollars of taxpayer money for someone else to tell them what to do? What are we paying them for? DAVE: Unlike some people, we (the "trained scientists") do not presume to know everything there is to know about complex aquatic ecosystems and biological processes. Like family practice doctors, we must refer to specialists on occasions when the subject becomes highly specialized. Entire books have been written about fish population genetics by people who specialize in the field. I think most anglers would encourage me to consult with such people, rather than guess at the right management approach based upon only a couple college courses in the specialized subject area. The value of my training, in this case, has been to allow me to understand the fundamental nature of the problem and then ask the right questions of the specialists. LARRY RAMSELL: It was mentioned at the Musky Committee meeting that it would be Butternut this year OR the Tiger Cat Flowage. Wouldn't that be great? Take eggs from a lake with a 28" size limit that has NEVER been known to be a "producer" of the caliber of muskies that today's angler desire! DAVE: I was not at the Musky Committee meeting, but I can assure our readers that neither I nor our Northern Region Fish Supervisor, Steve AveLallemant, have ever recommended that the Tiger Cat Flowage be used as a source of hatchery broodstock. It does not meet all the criteria recommended by Dr. Sloss. If Steve and I don't endorse this, it won't happen. For those who wish to grease their keyboards for another round of second-guessing, Blaisdell Lake on the East Fork Chippewa River is probably our next choice for collecting broodstock for the Spooner Hatchery in spring of 2008. But we are going to Butternut this year. LARRY RAMSELL: There ARE far better options available in the upper Chippewa River Basin for taking eggs, but for some unknown reason, they refuse to consider them. A few come immediately to mind; The Chippewa River below the Winter dam and Flambeau Lake on the Lac du Flambeau chain (yes, it is part of the Chippewa River drainage) and known to produce trophy muskies. And why not LCO itself? DAVE: It is doubtful that fish from the Chippewa River below the Winter Dam are any different, genetically, than fish from the Chippewa Flowage itself, because so many fish pass through the dam. At my urging, we used the Chippewa Flowage as our source of broodstock for the Spooner Hatchery last year. So we will not go back to that source for five years if we follow Dr. Sloss' recommended protocol for ensuring system-wide diversity. I don't know Flambeau Lake well enough to comment about that (outside my work area). LCO would be good if we knew the fish were reproducing naturally (one of Dr. Sloss' criteria). The jury is out on that one, currently. (We don't see young fish in fall electrofishing surveys, but genetic continuity over the past half-century SUGGESTS -- does not prove -- there may be some natural recruitment occurring beneath our level of detection.) If the strategies in our LCO Fishery Management Plan are effective in restoring measurable natural recruitment, then LCO could become an excellent source. A couple weeks ago I asked the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. if they were willing to help us with a pike reduction project at LCO this spring. I have not heard back yet... Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dave: Your comment: "There was never any grant request. This was simply a CONDITIONAL item on our "to do" list." leaves me scratching my head. It was in YOUR office where you personally handed me "that" grant request to read that you were working on at the time. My memory isn't that bad! Also, your comment: "When we learned the fish were different to a statistically significant degree at the 13 microsatellite locations examined, I personally cancelled our plan to move adult fish from Butternut to LCO. Dr. Sloss and I agreed that the populations may not be functionally different, but the statistical differences warranted a cautious approach until we can determine whether functional differences exist." still begs the question: If the "statistical differences warrented a cautious approach.." why then should not that same "caution" apply to the taking of eggs from the Butternut population for stocking EVERYWHERE in the Upper Chippewa River Basin this year, including LCO, Grindstone and the Chippewa Flowage??? I would think that it would be prudent to "investigate" the possibility of using Flambeau Lake as an alternative instead of using Butternut. It is also interesting to note that at that Musky Committee meeting, Dr. Sloss was not in favor of taking eggs from Butternut this year as it had been stocked 8 years ago, and eggs would likely be taken from the adult fish resulting from that stocking. Could it be that it is really all about $$$$, since the plan is to remove adult fish from Butternut can be accomplished "at the same time" as the spawn taking in Butternut, more so than a "real" consideration of the right thing to do, and save the manpower costs of a second netting operation this year? Edited by Larry Ramsell 3/16/2007 7:38 AM | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | I'll try one more post, but this is it. At some point, requests for clarification deteriorate into antagonism, and I certainly don't have time to respond to the latter. LARRY RAMSELL: Your comment: "There was never any grant request. This was simply a CONDITIONAL item on our "to do" list." leaves me scratching my head. It was in YOUR office where you personally handed me "that" grant request to read that you were working on at the time. My memory isn't that bad! DAVE: At the age of 52 now, I am increasingly disappointed in my own memory! That's why I write everything down. In this case, I think we have a simple misunderstanding. I showed Mr. Ramsell a short internal work-planning project write-up (less than a page) -- something we must do for most activities that require significant time or expense. When I see the phrase "grant request," I think of significant written proposals seeking funding from outside entities, like some Federal agency, a fishing club like Muskies, Inc., or a private foundation like Fish America Foundation. There was no such "grant request." So I think we can chalk that one up to a simple misunderstanding of terms. LARRY RAMSELL: Also, your comment: "When we learned the fish were different to a statistically significant degree at the 13 microsatellite locations examined, I personally cancelled our plan to move adult fish from Butternut to LCO. Dr. Sloss and I agreed that the populations may not be functionally different, but the statistical differences warranted a cautious approach until we can determine whether functional differences exist." still begs the question: "If the "statistical differences warrented a cautious approach.." why then should not that same "caution" apply to the taking of eggs from the Butternut population for stocking EVERYWHERE in the Upper Chippewa River Basin this year, including LCO, Grindstone and the Chippewa Flowage??? I would think that it would be prudent to "investigate" the possibility of using Flambeau Lake as an alternative instead of using Butternut. DAVE: There is a big difference in risk between doubling the adult population of a lake like LCO by adding reproductively active and genetically different adults that will begin spawning immediately upon stocking, and stocking fingerlings that will probably undergo 61% mortality their first year and 30% mortality every year thereafter until they reach sexual maturity. We already have reason to believe that past fingerling stockings into LCO (from various sources, as you have pointed out repeatedly) have not altered the genetic stock structure of that population over the past 50 years. So it seems the risk of altering LCO genetics by stocking FINGERLING fish from Butternut is relatively low. I'm just not willing to risk flooding LCO with different (not bad, just different) adults at a time when we are taking steps to determine if measurable natural recruitment can be restored at LCO. I assume the fish that evolved there are the fish most likely to perform reproductively if we can improve spawning habitat and decrease pike density. LARRY RAMSELL: Could it be that it is really all about $$$$, since the plan is to remove adult fish from Butternut can be accomplished "at the same time" as the spawn taking in Butternut, more so than a "real" consideration of the right thing to do, and save the manpower costs of a second netting operation this year? DAVE: Nope, it couldn't. Rather than questioning our sincere motives and best judgment, why not tell me what the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. can do to help process fish if we are able to remove a few thousand northern pike from Musky Bay this spring? We (DNR) have a plan and are prepared to do our part. Will local musky anglers step up to help, or not? Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'll leave the exchange between Larry and Dave alone, I think that is self explanatory. Malone, it's against our posting permissions to call another person here a name, but now and again it's left in place for editorial content's sake. This is one of those times. First, I'm not a professor. Yes, I did receive enough biology schooling to be dangerous, and no, I've never represented myself as anything but one of the armchair biologists Mike and I were discussing. I am a trained journalist, so I do check my facts against at least three sources, always making sure if I state something as reported fact, it meets the acid test. You take my comments out of context. Mike wasn't as worried by his own admission that the fish from Butternut would not be acceptable as he was about political fallout. THAT I know quite a bit about. I thought I stated pretty clearly that in my opinion managing our fisheries based on what a very small segment of the angling public in all probability erroneously believes is a bad idea. I choose to believe the scientists and the biologists. You may choose to believe anyone you like. That's not the issue. The issue is the insistence from a small group of people that they can and will bully the rest of us, INCLUDING the afore mentioned scientists and biologists, into doing what they want based on nothing more than their personal beliefs. I of course have no problem with some folks not understanding the details of this subject. I have taken the time to study the details and speak to those who are responsible for the work, and believe I have a pretty good grasp on it. I would hope this forum allows for some level of that same understanding to be passed on to the public. I would be far more open to the accusation you made if I didn't do exactly that. It's obvious that some folks might not understand the difference in the impact on LCO of adding 500 adults VS stocking one year there from Butternut source fingerlings. The rest of what I said was nearly a quote from the DNR Team Leader over there, so if you wish to question the facts presented by that office, pick up the phone and call. That's not condescending or putting anyone down to suggest one check with the experts, it's what one should do if one feels the need to understand the expert's position or questions the reporting of same. I suggested Mike do that because I know him, and am familiar with his propensity to check with the fisheries biologists for information whenever the need arises. I spoke with a couple biologists about the proposed transfer last year, and familiarized myself with the data and the function of what would be needed if that came to pass. MuskieFIRST even offered to run a fund raiser and pay for the lion's share of the transfer cost; we asked how much, and made the offer. As far as the math issues go: I'm sure you are aware that each year class stocked follow the basic formula of 60% loss first year and 30% loss every year after. I spoke only to the one example of a single year class of 500 fish stocked, and extrapolated that out to it's conclusion without considering NR. If indeed the percentage of population lost to angling, spearing, and natural causes drops drastically after the fish reach a certain age, I'd stand corrected by whatever math the experts suggest be used. Of course, if as Mr. Neuswanger states excellent NR is occurring and 13,500 muskies have been stocked there in the last 20 years, the only conclusion one can reach is that the NR and combined stocking coupled with a new CPR ethic resulted in the population being what it is today. What conclusion would you have me draw? Perhaps the adaptability and survival of these fish is higher than the norm? Doesn't that make the Butternut Muskies more attractive, especially considering that this possible trait is in concert with Northern Pike competition? Given what our DNR has reported, what's your take on why the Butternut population is so high? Sidebar____________________________________________________________ As to the 'purity' of any one population of muskies and what that might mean, I asked several well known muskie fisheries experts from Trent U., Kentucky, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and elsewhere if that term means anything to the population's 'value' as brood stock. The answer was no; here's a synopsis of what I've been told. The population of any given water body evolves within that ecosystem over the centuries adapting to changes and selecting for those fish that survive the best under those particular conditions. Interbreeding with another 'population' over the long haul doesn't necessarily make any one population more or less well suited; so many variables exist. One population may do better with ultimate growth, others grow faster but perish earlier, etc. The assumption is that like/native populations can be intermingled, but bringing in a totally foreign population is discouraged. I believe Dr. Sloss's work will indicate to a degree how much that has happened, and what that may mean for our Wisconsin Muskies. Populations might co-exist without ever successfully interbreeding. Maybe that's what occurred in LCO over the years? All will be extensively effected by the environment into which they are introduced. Factors like prey availability and type, water chemistry and quality, availability of good substrate for reproduction, angling pressure and social mores involved, competition form other species like Largemouth Bass and Northern Pike, water temp averages, seasonal shifts and lengths, and many more will determine success or failure surviving and reaching ultimate size for that system as much as anything else. I have a problem with using terms like 'pure' or 'mutt' or any other interesting, but largely irrelevant term in an attempt to use dramatics to claim one population's superiority to any other population. Why? Because I'm told that isn't the way things work. I think this is the base of the debate, really, with the original 'it's the fish' claims put forth a couple winters back. 'it' according to the experts I've talked to, is a whole lot more than just 'the fish'. I've been taking this position for the entire debate for good reason. No one, not one single person, has been able to march out a series of Muskie experts who would refute what I've been told are the cold, hard, unfriendly variables leading to the facts when considering any one body of water and the muskies within. The subject matter is complicated, the variables diverse, and the conclusions range widely as a result. That is precisely why I have a tendency to (editorially speaking) accept the position of recognized science. I trust those folks, especially since they all seem to pretty much agree, to know more than someone who, regardless of desire or motivation, isn't formally trained to interpret or create the data or manage the fisheries. Dr. Cassleman and several other scientists speaking in presentations at the recent Symposium offered this perspective: Some lakes and rivers will never kick out monster fish no matter what management techniques or 'strains' are introduced, and one should accept that on some waters a 44" fish is a trophy. Other waters will excel for more environmental reasons than are possible to list here. All will experience variation of the upper confidence limit over time depending on year class recruitment, pressure, environmental changes, prey availability, and more. No magic bullet. | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | It appears that Dave may not respond further, but regardless I have more questions/comments. First Dave's comments: "For those who wish to grease their keyboards for another round of second-guessing, Blaisdell Lake on the East Fork Chippewa River is probably our next choice for collecting broodstock for the Spooner Hatchery in spring of 2008. But we are going to Butternut this year." and ""At my urging, we used the Chippewa Flowage as our source of broodstock for the Spooner Hatchery last year. So we will not go back to that source for five years if we follow Dr. Sloss' recommended protocol for ensuring system-wide diversity." and "It is doubtful that fish from the Chippewa River below the Winter Dam are any different, genetically, than fish from the Chippewa Flowage itself, because so many fish pass through the dam. Larry: If the Chippewa River below the Chippewa Flowage cannot be used for 5 years, how then can you/DNR justify using Blaisdell Lake next year, which is on the East Fork of the Chippwa River right above the Chippewa Flowage? Muskies go upstream as well as down thru the dam and the original genetics and stocking regimes have been no different in either. Has genetic testing been done there? DAVE: "Rather than questioning our sincere motives and best judgment, why not tell me what the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskies, Inc. can do to help process fish if we are able to remove a few thousand northern pike from Musky Bay this spring? We (DNR) have a plan and are prepared to do our part. Will local musky anglers step up to help, or not?" Larry: Dave I think you had better think twice about attacking the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskie's, Inc. In the past 20 years our chapter has dumped about $200,000 into the local muskie fishery, and have ALWAYS been there for the DNR, you and projects needing funding. While I am not on the executive board this year and can't speak to whether or not this request from you has been addressed or not, I am POSITIVE that you may once again count on our chapter to help out! Our President is currently in Florida for the next week and a half, but I'll certainly inquire about it with him upon his return. Out of order of posting, but I'll finish this segment with the following: DAVE: "Unlike some people, we (the "trained scientists") do not presume to know everything there is to know about complex aquatic ecosystems and biological processes. Like family practice doctors, we must refer to specialists on occasions when the subject becomes highly specialized. Entire books have been written about fish population genetics by people who specialize in the field. I think most anglers would encourage me to consult with such people, rather than guess at the right management approach based upon only a couple college courses in the specialized subject area. The value of my training, in this case, has been to allow me to understand the fundamental nature of the problem and then ask the right questions of the specialists." Larry: Should we assume then, based on your comment, that you are admitting that "perhaps" past stocking has been in error? Especially in light of the fact that Bone Lake (a non-NATIVE strain lake-against current protocol) was used for egg taking, without "throughout the spawning run protocol" in 45 of 47 years through 2005? Allow me now to take a different course in this discussion since it is "painfully obvious" that the WDNR has no "current plan" to do ANYTHING with regard to the production of trophy muskies in the NATIVE range, desite the fact that NO ONE can determine just exactly what the NATIVE range is, and NATIVE muskie lakes really are. In reality, the ONLY waters than can inconclusively be termed NATIVE are the major rivers, the Chippewa, Wisconsin and Flambeau, and the waters "immediately" connected to them. That "imaginary man made line" across the northern part of the state that encompasses several HUNDRED muskie waters, is just that, imaginary. Even Dr. Sloss admitted this fact. Regardless, let us for now accept these facts. Would it then be too much to ask of the DNR to consider using fish in the non-native lakes of the NW and southern parts of Wisconsin, that grow big and fast and give anglers what they are looking for? To date, this is not even an allowed topic of conversation at the Musky Committee meetings! The Muskie clubs want to purchase and stock Leech Lake fish, but absolutely no provisions are being ALLOWED to do this, even with VHS testing, which IS being used to further enhance the Green Bay Restoration Project (a project that is in potential jeopardy due to VHS). The Green Bay restoration, which to date has created a fantastic TROPHY muskie fishery, has been built with the use of ONLY four females from Michigan (not "exotics as Steve alluded to, but rather fish from the SAME Great Lakes eco system, just from another state!). When it was suggested to use Nancy Lake for our (Wisconsin's) own Leech Lake brood stock lake, that idea was shot down "because there isn't enough diversity." I submit that there is far more diversity there than there ever has been in the Green Bay project! AND, since this suggestion was for using those fish for stocking, non-native, non-reproducing muskie fisheries anyway, diversity isn't needed!! In addition, it is about time for Wisconsin to follow its own supposed mandates for stocking and use ONLY Great Lakes strain muskies for stocking into the waters that flow into Green Bay and Lake Superior, as well as Mississippi River strain muskies to stock into waters flowing into the St. Croix River, where those respective fish ARE the NATIVE fish there, despite the fact that the lakes being stocked are not native muskie lakes-the St. Croix River IS. Mr. Neuswanger alluded to doing just that last year for the Gile Flowage, but it did not happen. WHY?? | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32885 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry, You are attempting to re-argue the original WRMP platform. No way, that isn't going to happen again. MuskieFIRST took no end of abuse from WMRP supporters for trying to keep the facts clear during that debate, and I'm not about to open the door to that again. Our moderation staff spent untold hours trying to keep the debate civil and focused. We did our job and made sure all sides of the debate were well covered. The information is all here in HUGE volume, is all available for all to read, and that's the end of that. When did Dave attack the Muskie Inc club up there? He simply stated that he asked for some help from that source regarding removal of Northern Pike from LCO and had not yet heard back. I think he was suggesting that you might be better served to channel your energies to a project which is imminent to improve NR on LCO than to begin the rehash of the original WMRP platform and an attack campaign to 'stop' the use of Butternut fish this spring based wholly upon that platform's base. The fish are going to be used from Butternut this year, at least that's what I've been assured. If you want to beat the hell out of Dave and the rest of the WDNR verbally, you live quite close. Have at it, but not here. Watch for the MuskieFIRST Radio interview with the DNR next week. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |