|
|
Posts: 720
| Great news Steve. Thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | John, I think I may have a better way of putting it. MN uses Lake Rebbecca as the brood stock lake in most years. Leech Lake proper fingerlings are stocked into Rebbecca every 4-5 years ((on average, sometimes every other). These fingerlings come from wild fish spawned at Leech. Genetic diversity is maintained in Rebbecca by the stocking of these fingerlings. What WI is basically trying to do is go into Leech every year to maximize the new genetics used. Actually it would be like going into Leech, Winnie, Cass, etc. on a yearly rotational basis. The number of yearly mate pairings Dave presents mirrors what happens in Rebbecca. Year classes are also crossed in each pairing.
Raising fish in the hatchery and then rearing ponds does exactly what Dave mentioned. The weak fry and fingerlings that may have been cropped off in a natural environment, do in fact make it to stocking age under the current MN system. Talk to some of the Park Falls guys. They harvested fingerlings this past fall with lower jaw deformities. These fish were raised to advanced fry stage using an experimental dry diet, then stocked into rearing ponds. Had they been raised on sucker fry in the hatchery or in a natural lake they may have starved and died. However in this example, these fish will still probably not make it once they have to chase real forage. The mortality may have just been delayed. So you have to now ask the question does "survival of the fittest" still apply here? If the "weak" genetic trait is a trait that expresses itself at the fry stage, then no. If it occurs after 6 months of age, then yes.
Edited by tfootstalker 4/7/2008 5:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Moltisanti - 4/7/2008 8:36 AM The point I'm trying to make is that now that these lakes have "come of age," it's like, "MNDNR does everything right and WDNR does everything wrong." I would think that the WDNR has significantly more challenges based on fishing pressure than the MDNR has, since muskie fishing has been in WI esox anglers for practically 100 years and the pressure reflects that. BTW, a few friends of mine have started complaining about how their milk runs on Minnetonka are starting to dry up because they are getting fished so hard. People probably had that same problem on the Chippewa flowage...30 years ago. Dave, keep up the good work. You know more about the situation than anyone, it's what you do for a living and I'm sure you take it seriously. A very true comment. Does anyone even catch fish on ML during the day anymore?  I bet most people don't realize that the DNR recognizes 1985 as the year in which the first successful stocking event took place in ML. The fishery is only 22 years old!! A lot of the other lakes were introduced in 1982-1983.
|
|
| |
|
|
Footstalker;
My questions are regarding why "going to Leech" every year, as you described the comparison is better than going to the brood stock lakes every year.
I understand how both scenarios work, I'm curious as to why one is better than the other, or if they are really very different when comparing the end results.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | I'm not sure if they are different. The only thing I can think of is if the perceived "weak" fish do in fact die at young age, than you actually are stocking fewer fingerlings than if all the fish you stocked were "strong". This takes a liitle bit of a stretch though. I'm guessing it costs a lot more to go the WI route. You must also be willing to gamble that you will hit your quota, at least for these beginning years until the program stabilizes. MN has several back-up brood lakes that lay out geographically that allows a Plan B if Plan A fails. In the end it's what the people called for and what the agency believes in. You certainly can't argue with that. It certainly is major program change and I applaud them for going for it.
I'm not going to get into the whole "the reason for stocking is to produce a self sustaining fishery" debate. If that were the case, there would be walleyes in 1/3 of MN lakes as there are now. Even then, would anglers be satisfied with the low numbers that would exist in these created self sustaining lakes?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Interview regarding this subject with Dave Neuswanger, Upper Chippewa Basin Team Leader, WIDNR
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/play_mp3.asp?id=856
Article responding to comments from Bob Benson:
See research Forum
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 756
| We all knoow there are big fish in flowages,but what is surprising that the turtle flambeau flowage was not mentioned here as a brood stock lake. Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| kdawg - 4/10/2008 6:54 PM
We all knoow there are big fish in flowages,but what is surprising that the turtle flambeau flowage was not mentioned here as a brood stock lake. Kdawg
Kdawg, the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage has some monster fish, to be sure, and a healthy proportion of big fish overall. But we have chosen not to use the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage as a source of broodstock because we have documented ZERO natural reproduction there. I think most folks will find this surprising, but as far as we know the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage muskie fishery is sustained entirely by stocking. And where did those stocked fish (now trophies in the TFF) come from? Wisconsin DNR hatcheries.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
Posts: 756
| Thanks Dave for the response. I guess the reason I brought up the Flambeau was that I had read in the Wi. Top Muskie Lakes book, in the Flambeau review, in the fourth paragraph, it stated the flowage supports good natural reproduction of muskie ,but with predation from pike,stocking is therefore supplemented. But if it wasn'nt for the pike,would the population be self-sustaining? Also, with a population of northerns in the Chippewa Flowage, I'm sure musky fry experience a certain level of predation as well. Is there a difference between these two bodies of water? Or do I need a better understanding of self-sustaining? Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| kdawg - 4/11/2008 10:57 AM
Thanks Dave for the response. I guess the reason I brought up the Flambeau was that I had read in the Wi. Top Muskie Lakes book, in the Flambeau review, in the fourth paragraph, it stated the flowage supports good natural reproduction of muskie ,but with predation from pike,stocking is therefore supplemented. But if it wasn'nt for the pike,would the population be self-sustaining? Also, with a population of northerns in the Chippewa Flowage, I'm sure musky fry experience a certain level of predation as well. Is there a difference between these two bodies of water? Or do I need a better understanding of self-sustaining? Kdawg
Ken, the statement you quoted above in the Wisconsin Top Muskie Lakes book is not supported by WDNR data. We don't know if muskellunge eggs hatch in the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage (TFF). If they do hatch, we don't know why young muskies are not seen in fall electrofishing samples there. There are quite a few skinny northern pike in the TFF. They might eat some young-of-the-year muskies. But we do not know the significance of that relationship at this time.
The northern pike population in the Chippewa Flowage IS cause for concern with respect to the future of muskellunge recruitment (survival to catchable size). The following is a paragraph out of our August 2007 Chippewa Flowage Fishery Management Plan:
"Valid estimates of northern pike density (number per acre) are almost impossible to obtain on the Chippewa Flowage because of its large area (15,300 acres) and high habitat diversity. We have no recent estimates of density, but near the end of the pike spawning season in late April of 2006 we captured northern pike over 14 inches long in 98 fyke-net nights of effort in northern areas of the Chippewa Flowage at an average rate of 3.1 per fyke-net night – twice the mean capture rate of stock-size muskellunge at that time. Of the 307 pike =14 inches captured during the week-long survey, only 6% exceeded 28 inches (objective range for RSD-28 = 15-25%). Though size structure was similar on both sides of the Flowage, we captured northern pike at a rate 3.1 times higher on the clear-water, more densely-vegetated west side than on the stained-water, more sparsely-vegetated east side. This observation corresponds to angler reports of better pike fishing on the west side of the Flowage than on the east side – particularly in the Scott, Tyner, Chief, and Crane lake basins."
Perhaps not coincidentally, we also captured muskellunge at a rate 2.7 times higher on the east side (fewer pike) than on the west side of the Chippewa Flowage.
We have much to learn about the causes of low recruitment of muskellunge in some waters. But until we can be relatively sure there is not a genetic basis for reproductive failure, we should use waters as sources of broodstock where natural reproductive capability is not in question.
In the meantime, since northern pike are not a highly sought-after species on the Chippewa Flowage, and because muskies are VERY important there, we need to encourage harvest of pike up to the daily bag limit of 5 (no size limit). This year we are issuing a pike fishing tournament permit to Musky Tale Resort with the stipulation that all fish registered in their annual tournament be kept, rather than released as in the past. Assuming the sponsor still holds the tournament under these conditions, we could see a couple thousand northern pike harvested in one event. Thinning the pike population in this manner and throughout the year might help muskie recruitment and also improve pike population size structure, making the annual pike fishing tournament more interesting in the future. A potential win-win situation if folks give it a chance.
Dave Neuswanger
Fisheries Team Leader, Upper Chippewa Basin
Wisconsin DNR, Hayward |
|
| |
|
| There is a northern pike tournament that is held on the Chip every May. Can't there be a special priviledge that allows anglers from that tournament to keep every pike that is caught to help eliminate some of the pike populations? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 756
| Dave, I understand that it would take time ,effort, and money,but are there any lakes in Wi. that could benefit from say a northern pike transfer similar to what occurred at Butternut? Taking pike out of the Chip and Flambeau and perhaps re-establishing a trophy pike fishery like on Chequamagon Bay or any lakes in the state with a large rough fish population that could use a large predator like a pike? Kdawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 178
| kdawg - 4/14/2008 10:49 AM
Dave, I understand that it would take time ,effort, and money,but are there any lakes in Wi. that could benefit from say a northern pike transfer similar to what occurred at Butternut? Taking pike out of the Chip and Flambeau and perhaps re-establishing a trophy pike fishery like on Chequamagon Bay or any lakes in the state with a large rough fish population that could use a large predator like a pike? Kdawg
Kind of a moot point right now, Kdawg, as WDNR is under a policy moratorium on wild fish transfers from one body of water to another in order to minimize the risk of spreading VHS.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | This may have been covered in another post...if so please direct me. Instead of using a lake that potentially has big fish (Moose lake) , has any consideration been given to using a giant Wisconsin Strain female from Mill Lacs for eggs? I know that her 'giant' genetics would not be certain to pass along, but the odds are better. Perhaps use a couple of giant females from Mill Lacs to even better your odds?
Thanks |
|
| |
