Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> Hayward MI Chapter comes thru for LCO/DNR |
| Message Subject: Hayward MI Chapter comes thru for LCO/DNR | |||
Ty Sennett |
| ||
| We're not keeping up with anyone. That's the problem. You're right about the rearing ponds. They wouldn't work here. I mean, why try? The pike population on the Chip is lower than it's been in ten years or so. They have an established population that spawns in Chief, Crane, and James Slough. For the most part they spawn in different areas than muskies Unless you want to see the panfish population go out the roof and screw the whole lake ballance up, killing 2500 pike is probably not going to help. Anyone that has cleaned a pike on the Chip knows that bluegills are one of their main forage. The Chip is in great shape right now. No need to screw that one up too. Throw all the degrees out the window. This isn't about biology anymore. This is plain and simply about making tourists and locals happy fast. Ty | |||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | With that attitude the road to Minnesota is wide open. Nothing is going to make you happy and a few others until we forsake the drive for genetic conservation than to plant Leech Lake fish in the face of the fact that Wisconsin-source fish started the Minnesota program off. I doubt what you have to say about pike populations after spending a number of days out with a camera this winter looking at pike on the Flowage. Panfish are one of the most desired fish on the Flowage so it seems that the tourists are happy in that regard. Still waiting for the Flowage people to step up after months of hearing how bad the pike are and now they are not. Even if they stock, it's still going to be a decade before you see these numbers of 50-inch fish, if then. I'll take the people with the degrees myself. Did you have any problem filling lounge charts up with fish in the 30-inch range one season and saying how great the Flowage was? So what is a half-cocked decision like "do it or else" going to get accomplished? If someone is even thinking about bringing them in without the DNR then that can be taken care of right off and would only greatly increase the threat of VHS. It's going to be a tough year no doubt for businesses, might be just as tough for Minnesota as well. The fish in Minnesota matured and with the increased fishing pressure I'd rather wait and see what happens. Gas is headed to another high or higher than last year. Recreational dollars per household are also at a low and that means less tourism. You guys lost the genetic discussion and it's clear that our fish have the potential to grow big. Well, I'd rather leave here with my thanks to Mr. Neuswanger and his work on the LCO plan and the up and coming pike removal, let alone the volunteer groups who built cribs in LCO to build suitable habitat for the fishery. All good work. Thanks to all these people. I'm done here on this thread. Edited by lakesuperiorkid 4/6/2007 9:32 PM | ||
| Larry Ramsell |
| ||
Posts: 1291 Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Troy: The 800 advanced yearlings stocked into LCO by the Hayward Lakes Chapter of Muskie's, Inc. were in the 13" (likely males) to about 21" (females) if my memory is correct. They will have a great chance to survive and grow. They were purchased from Kalepp's Fish Farm at Dorchester, Wisconsin. Ty: A "meeting motion" is not an "idea." Look before leaping. As for stocking regime's, our Chapter also sent a letter to Mr. Neuswanger requesting that LCO be returned to an "every year" stocking regime until such time as the population is at management goals. Stocking was reduced a number of years ago due to budget constraints (as I was informed at the time). Since LCO is in a current and ongoing study to analyze that stocking reduction, it will take some doing to get it removed. We pleaded our case by indicating that by waiting the entire 10 years for the study to be completed could be too late. We feel that LCO should have never been removed from the annual stocking regime in the first place. The other limitation to stocking is the "max" number that can be stocked in any single year in any lake. That number is 2500 fingerlings, regardless of the size of the lake. LCO is one of the bigger muskie lakes in Wisconsin and currently could use more stocking in our opinion, which is evidently shared by the local DNR fisheries manager that signed off on our stocking LCO last year with the 800 yearlings, an "off" DNR stocking year for LCO. | ||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | Thirty to forty years of habitat loss and other factors within that time frame, according to the LCO Management Plan, means it is going to take time to restore LCO. That simple and no other way around the time factor. Stocking is not the only answer and thanks to Mr. Neuswanger for putting forward a plan for LCO. | ||
| Ty Sennett |
| ||
| Ok, let's really look at this: Richard Frie was part of a study on the northern Wisconsin muskellunge diets that I'm sure you know of. It's in the North American Journal of Fisheries. He was my proffesor in college so this was of great interest to me. Northern pike and bass made up a small percentage of the muskies diet. I would really love to hear how the diet of muskies is going to miraculously change to where they start controlling pike numbers. Perch populations control pike number......not muskie populations. Can't train a muskie to eat pike, but you keep believing. Next, we were always taught that the top predators were the ballancing factors in the pyramid. Remove any species near the top and the whole system becomes unballanced. So now that the Chippewa Flowage is about as healthy as it's ever been, let's rip out one of the two top predators in the northern pike and see what happens just for the sake of hearsay. Do you think the DNR knows anything about the pike population history on the Chip? If so give me a number of how many you think they have handled. Or, how you know the Chip is in trouble from an underwater camera through the ice? The stocking of those fish on LCO last year is very significant. I think that is great. I really think it's something. I hope to see this type of thing spread throughout the Hayward area. I know they put some in Round also. I applaud the stocking effort and Muskies Inc. for contributing. Keep it up. Ty | |||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | I agree. Let's really look at this... TY SENNETT: Richard Frie was part of a study on the northern Wisconsin muskellunge diets that I'm sure you know of. It's in the North American Journal of Fisheries. He was my proffesor in college so this was of great interest to me. Northern pike and bass made up a small percentage of the muskies diet. I would really love to hear how the diet of muskies is going to miraculously change to where they start controlling pike numbers. DAVE: Ty, it would seem that we have something in common. We both know and respect Dr. Richard Frie. His loss to cancer at such a young age was a tragedy, but at least his memory lives on. Dick was a friend and colleague of mine when we worked together for the Missouri Department of Conservation. He did the fisheries profession a great service when he applied his considerable computer programming skills to creating some of the most widely used software in the country for analyzing inland fishery survey data, FISHCALC and DISBCAL. He was quite a guy. We hated to lose him when he left MDC to teach at UW-Stevens Point, but I’m sure he positively influenced many lives there, as well, before we all lost him. Knowing that Dick Frie was a top-notch fishery scientist, he probably would caution us not to assume that the results of one musky food habits study would allow us to make sweeping generalizations regarding interactions between musky and pike. I’m sure Dick knew the limitations of the study, where all but a handful of the muskies examined were under 34 inches long. (I know this because one of my biologists provided graduate student Tom Burri with most of the data.) Dick may or may not have been aware that northern pike populations were quite low in most of the waters where musky stomachs were examined; so without the opportunity to encounter many pike, we would not expect the stomach-pumped muskellunge to have eaten many of them. Diet, as Dick undoubtedly taught, is a function of both preference AND availability, and it is influenced by both size of predator and size of prey. I share these thoughts in order to suggest it is not absurd to hypothesize that larger muskellunge, in some number, could eat a substantial number of northern pike. We suspect that cannibalism among muskellunge and predation by pike is a limiting factor to how many young muskies survive to adulthood in any given lake. What else would account for the HIGH mortality rate (90% on average) of stocked 10-12 inch musky fingerlings before they reach reproductive age in northern Wisconsin? But we have not been able to document the frequency of these predatory events outside the hatchery environment because muskies are relatively rare in the wild; and we do not have time to routinely examine stomach contents of muskies or pike. We must all remember the old scientific axiom, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” TY SENNETT: Perch populations control pike number......not muskie populations. Can't train a muskie to eat pike, but you keep believing. DAVE: I’m sure yellow perch eat some pike eggs and larvae. But I have never seen published or unpublished evidence that perch actually CONTROL pike populations. If you can point me to a reference or two, I might learn something here myself. I do know that yellow perch are very significant in the diet of northern pike. If we agree on that, wouldn’t having far fewer northern pike in Musky Bay of Lac Courte Oreilles translate into higher survival of yellow perch there? And if yellow perch eat juvenile pike to a significant extent (your assumption, not mine), wouldn’t that further reduce the pike population in a positive feedback loop that helps us achieve our goals there? TY SENNETT: Next, we were always taught that the top predators were the ballancing factors in the pyramid. Remove any species near the top and the whole system becomes unballanced. So now that the Chippewa Flowage is about as healthy as it's ever been, let's rip out one of the two top predators in the northern pike and see what happens just for the sake of hearsay. DAVE: Actually, the top (most influential) predator in the Chippewa Flowage, expressed in terms of pounds per acre of predatory fish, would certainly be walleye. Many other predators are significant (northern pike, largemouth bass, and muskellunge); but their influence pales in comparison to the impact of walleye on the overall fish community. And because the Flowage has so many predators besides northern pike, a reduction in pike density would almost certainly coincide with an increase in numbers of other predators to fill that niche, like young muskellunge. Our hypothesis is not unreasonable. TY SENNETT: Do you think the DNR knows anything about the pike population history on the Chip? If so give me a number of how many you think they have handled. DAVE: I agree that we (DNR) do not have a good handle on historical trends in pike abundance on the Chippewa Flowage. We have not sampled pike frequently enough with the right gear to understand their population dynamics. I am certain that an observant, hard-working guide like Ty knows more than we do about the ups and downs of pike density on the Chip. But that is about to change. We will be sampling northern pike with the right gear at the right time on the Chippewa Flowage annually beginning in spring of 2008. Last year our early spring fyke-net catch of northern pike was 2.9 times higher on the West side of the Chippewa Flowage (232 fish over 14 inches long) than in an equal amount of netting effort on the East side (75 fish). Interestingly, our catch of muskellunge was 2.7 times higher on the East side (110 fish over 20 inches long) than on the West (41 fish). Makes you wonder if there is a negative interaction between pike and muskellunge, does it not? But we need much more data before any conclusions can be drawn. We will be collecting that information over the next few years. Stay tuned. Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward Edited by Dave N 4/8/2007 8:55 AM | ||
| Ty Sennett |
| ||
| Thanks for the response Dave. I'm glad you were able to know Proffesor Frie. He was the toughest proffesor I had, so I had to ask a lot of questions to stay up to pace with him. Great teacher though. And a great guy. Most of the graduates from Point remember him the most. I didn't clarify the "perch control the pike" comment very well. I was trying to get accross that the pike population on the Chip fluctuated in the last fifteen years according to the perch population. As the perch cyled so have the pike. We may see a rise in the pike population as the perch population is on a climb recently. I know that's not the only reason for the fluctuating pike population as they have a wide variety in their diet, but perch and bluegill seem to be what they have preffered out here. With the Blue Heron kill a couple years back, the bluegill have benefited also. I don't know why I didn't think of the walleye as one of the top predators. My mistake. Proffesor Frie would be a little disappointed. I don't even consider them out here as they seem to have shiners in their bellies most of the time. I'm sure they do their share of scavaging on others also though. For the number of muskies in your nets being higher on the east side of the Chip compared to the west side, that is no surprise. The muskies on the Chip seem to migrate like the walleyes to the river channels on the east side to spawn. Places like the West fork, Drake Creek, Beaver Creek and the bay just east of it, Hay Creek,Hell's half acre, anywhere in Moss Creek and Musky Bay, and Kavanaugh Bay(Usually the biggest and heaviest in here). Back when we had some cold springs or the season opened early, we had to target muskies shile guiding. It was pointless to put time in on the west side. A big percentage of those fish were not there. This was before there was a fishable population of northern. Sure there were a few spots on the west side that had muskies. You could go to the channel off of Dorazio Bay where the old resort used to be, or Sunfish bay in Squaw Bay. The small bay just before you get to Crane Lake and a couple small spots in crane are good also but the numbers aren't like the east side. If you did your netting in July they would be totally different. The proportions of muskies from one side to the other is about equal then. I know you don't fyke-net in the warm water periods very often. A little tough on the fish. It doesn't surprise me that the pike population is higher on the west side either. They need the cool water in the summer that the basin style origional lakes like Crane and Chief supply. They also have exceptional spawning areas connected to them for the pike. Pokegama would have been a good choice also for them but there is no spawning ground adjacent. James Slough kind of throws me off. It's one of the major spawning sites for them but there isn't the deep water directly connected like the others. Sorry, I got carried away there. Hey Dave, if you want to establish a stong muskie fishery on LCO, why not take out the northerns over 28 inches also? Those are the strong reproducing females. This is just a question. I know you're busy and tired of this banter. I personally would have trouble killing some of those big pike just because you hate to see a trophy fish killed, even if it is a pike. Thanks for everything Dave. Lakesuperiorkid, harvesting pike during the pike tournament wont work. You're asking pike fishermen to kill pike. That's like going to a walleye tournament and saying you want them to kill all the walleye they catch. They wouldn't enter the tournament if they didn't like catching them. Besides, between a couple friends and my brothers, they usually catch more than half the fish in the tourney. I know they aren't going to kill all those pike. My brothers Tim and Tait partner up and usually boat the most of anyone by far. They usually average about 150 pike per day. One tournament they had somewhere around 250 for the day. Does that mean the lake is overrun with pike because they caught that many? No, most people catch 20 a day. They just know where the small pods of pike are. Ty | |||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | I wish I could have had Professor Frie......Point needs to start doing some proffessor overhauling.... | ||
| jeffyd |
| ||
| Pointerpride - you could always vote with your feet rather than wait for a "professor overhaul"... | |||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | True....but having the Point name behind my degree helps a bit too......I guess I'll just teach myself. | ||
| Dave N |
| ||
Posts: 178 | Ty, I found your observations on muskellunge distribution and movement in the Chippewa Flowage to be fascinating, especially your belief that muskellunge never spawned as much on the west side as on the east side, even before northern pike entered the system. Interestingly, I've heard similar accounts of seasonal movements of walleyes between major basins of the Flowage. No need to apologize for "getting carried away here" by sharing such interesting insights. It's this sort of information sharing that allows us to learn from each other and makes these message boards worth checking occasionally. It also makes me think you and I could benefit from spending some time together in a boat one of these days. My 17-foot Lund is ready to be steered in the right direction (wherever you point) if you ever want to get out and do some mutual brain picking. In the meantime, let me try to answer the question you posed earlier... TY SENNETT asked: Hey Dave, if you want to establish a stong muskie fishery on LCO, why not take out the northerns over 28 inches also? Those are the strong reproducing females. This is just a question. I know you're busy and tired of this banter. I personally would have trouble killing some of those big pike just because you hate to see a trophy fish killed, even if it is a pike. Thanks for everything Dave. DAVE: We have two reasons for not planning to remove northern pike over 28 inches long from Musky Bay of LCO -- one social and one ecological. The social reason is that the folks who helped us develop the goals of our fishery management plan still wanted a pike fishery at LCO, just not one that overwhelms the musky population. They wanted far fewer pike, but considerably larger fish, such that 15-25% of all pike over 14 inches long are over 28 inches long. We (DNR) felt this was possible, but only if pike density could be reduced from an estimated 3 adults per acre to 0.5-1.0 per acre. The ecological reason we would not deliberately remove big pike is based upon their behavioral response to temperature. As you surely know, big pike move into deep water when the shallow weedbeds warm in mid summer. Unlike small pike, big pike prefer water temperatures similar to trout. In fact, an excellent study done in South Dakota a few years ago showed that big pike will not even grow in a shallow, warm reservoir in the summertime. (They did all their growing in fall-winter-spring when they were not stressed by high temperature.) If big pike leave the shallow weedbeds when the water warms, they pose less of a threat to the recruitment of young muskellunge than the small "hammer handle" pike that reside there all summer. It truly is speculation on my part; but I believe this spacial segregation during much of the growing season makes big pike less threatening to muskies than small pike. All things considered, I see no reason, at this point in time, to deliberately remove the big pike. (You are correct that the big girls lay the most eggs, but there are so many factors affecting the survival of eggs, larvae, and small fingerling pike, that the number of eggs laid may be of little consequence.) I hope this addresses your question about our decision to favor big pike over small pike at LCO. I know you agree that northern pike are a fine sport fish in their own right. I enjoy them so much, personally, that I am planning a trip to Alaska with my son this summer to do some flyfishing for big northerns. I wouldn't mind doing a little of that right here at home someday, too, if we are able to shift the "balance of power" in the LCO esocid community from lots of small pike to a low to moderate number of pike over 28 inches long and a moderage number of muskies over 42 inches long -- what the fisheries profession classifies as "preferred-size pike" and "memorable-size muskies." Dave Neuswanger Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin Wisconsin DNR, Hayward | ||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | Lakesuperiorkid, harvesting pike during the pike tournament wont work. You're asking pike fishermen to kill pike. That's like going to a walleye tournament and saying you want them to kill all the walleye they catch. They wouldn't enter the tournament if they didn't like catching them. Besides, between a couple friends and my brothers, they usually catch more than half the fish in the tourney. I know they aren't going to kill all those pike. My brothers Tim and Tait partner up and usually boat the most of anyone by far. They usually average about 150 pike per day. One tournament they had somewhere around 250 for the day. Does that mean the lake is overrun with pike because they caught that many? No, most people catch 20 a day. They just know where the small pods of pike are. You and your brothers are not biologists either. Up to them as I said. Pike get killed fish at tournaments. Who was asking anything more than what the numbers are which you do not know unless you are doing your own DNR studies. They pod up in several situations. You can handle the pike crowd on the Flowage when they start complaining. 250 a day? Hmmmmmm..... Edited by lakesuperiorkid 4/10/2007 7:28 AM | ||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | You'll like the big pike in Alaska or if you get to the Northwest Territories. Monsters up there. Easily fish over 40-inches. Lake Superior is good but not the numbers and it is a cold-water Lake. | ||
| Ty Sennett |
| ||
| Actually, they have fisheries biology degrees from Stevens Point. Ty | |||
| lakesuperiorkid |
| ||
Posts: 52 | Really? I had no idea? Degrees? College of Natural Resources? Looks like the walleye won out of the Flowage as being top predator. Dave discussed things to my satisfaction. I supported pike in the Flowage and Chip from the start and wanted both to become a trophy pike fishery. How that happens is up to Dave N. You're singing to the wrong choir. DAVE: Actually, the top (most influential) predator in the Chippewa Flowage, expressed in terms of pounds per acre of predatory fish, would certainly be walleye. Many other predators are significant (northern pike, largemouth bass, and muskellunge); but their influence pales in comparison to the impact of walleye on the overall fish community. And because the Flowage has so many predators besides northern pike, a reduction in pike density would almost certainly coincide with an increase in numbers of other predators to fill that niche, like young muskellunge. Our hypothesis is not unreasonable. Edited by lakesuperiorkid 4/10/2007 7:39 AM | ||
| Ty Sennett |
| ||
| Lakesuperiorkid, I really don't think you have a grasp of what goes on here. If the guides and DNR don't work together, that would be pretty stupid now wouldn't it. Why do you think the higher size limits are in place on Round Lake, LCO, Chip, and Namekagon? It's not because of the resorts or businesses. It's because of the local guides. And to pass a relolution it's always better to have the support of the local fisheries biologist. We don't always agree with the DNR agents on certain issues but that's fine. When it's all said and done, as long as the fishery benefits we all win. For me to question the project on LCO should only strengthen the project. Ty | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |