|
|
| Would someone please enlighten the ignorant: What is a SHOEPAC?
This is in relation to another thread of course. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
| smaller muskie strain..........??.....I found the following.......
"Based on where the genetic strain is originally found their genetic potential can vary greatly. The ShoePac strain reaches smaller lengths and weights than the Leech Lake Strain (both stocked through out the mid-west). The Northern musky reach larger sizes due to a "burn out" in the southern fish."
taken out of.....
http://www.muskieexpert.com/muskie/muskie.php
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 198
| Shoepac strain was used for stocking by the Minnesota DNR up until the mid 1980's. Eggs came from Shoepac lake which is in the Voyeagurs National Park. Some fish may have some genetics from a mix of Shoepac and Mantrap lakes as I've seen some photos of larger than normal fish that look like shoepacs but for the most part shoepacs only grow to mid-upper 30 inch fish. Anything beyound that is extrememly rare. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| I remember first hearing about them I had been fishing lakes that had them in there and I had never heard of them before so when I caught a muskie I was all excited and i would tell someone and they would be like oh well that is only a shoepac muskie and they would explain to me what it was and it felt like a knife was stabbed into me! to hear that these lakes I grew up on fishing were infected with genetically infereior fish and that someone was trying belittle me and to take away my accompishments! I had a choice to either get over it and not let it get me down or to let them bring me down! I chose to continue fishing these "just a shoepac muskies" and have throughly enjoyed it, I havent caught many muskies but to me a muskie is a accoplishment, granted yes it is not a huge fish but it takes plenty of time on the water before I can hook one! |
|
| |
|
| Well, Leech Lake Strain, that all depends on how a guy buys into the whole idear of a smaller Musky being an 'inferior' Musky, doesn't it? (Oops...getting dangerously close to a broodstock debate...) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | In this case, though, the shoepac were not what I would call an "inferior" strain...just one that doesn't grow to the same sizes as the leech lake strain fish known in the area. So...I highly doubt there would be a broodstock debate on this one...
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| hawkeye I never said that they were infereior but I was told they were so someone could take away my feelings of accomplishment but obvouisly I did not take it that way if I continue to pursue them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | Ok, I fish these little bastards all the time. A 45" Shoepack is a monster. I've seen one caught at 47". Most of the lakes I fish that have them average about 33-35". They fight a little harder too... I always think i have a 40"+ on and then look down only to be disapointed. I bet you guys think that all the time 
Here is a location of Shoepack lake. This is the natural location of where the strain started. An isolated lake on an island... pretty neat. Here is also a pic of me with my largest Shoe last year 40". Notice the brown spots on the edge of the belly. Once they hit 35" they start getting those. The Hybrids look really weird, Brown instead of green.
Edited by dtaijo174 1/25/2010 9:41 AM
Attachments
----------------
 Shoe1.JPG (16KB - 191 downloads)
shoe2.JPG (34KB - 205 downloads)
shoe3.JPG (56KB - 190 downloads)
40_Shoe.jpg (244KB - 370 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | dtaijo174 - 1/25/2010 9:36 AM
A 45" Shoepack is a monster. I've seen one caught at 47".
The Hybrids look really weird, Brown instead of green.
How about the 50" freak that Musky-Skunk caught this past summer?
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/cnr_images.asp?view=detail&photoid=...
Looks like a Shoepack muskie to me. Anyone, Bueller?
Edited by Hammskie 1/25/2010 10:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | Hammskie,
I'd bet $20 that's the same shoepack strain lake i fish. I need to start upsizing my baits. Never even had a follow from one that big there. my god... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| wernt there more then a few shoepac lakes around Hackensack???? maybe this is where we can use the fine print in the long range plan and reestablish the musky population with purestrain. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| I caught this fish on a lake with a shoepac stocking in the mid-80's last year. Does this look like a shoepac to you? It does have some brown markings towards the belly...
Attachments
----------------
42 inch.jpg (60KB - 397 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'd say none of those are pure shoepac. That particular strain of fish would rarely make 40 inches much less anything larger than that. If it is larger, I'd bet it is a mix of the two strains from what was left or created by the stocking.
Everyone please stop and think about this for a moment....it has been over 20 years since any Shoepac strain muskies have been stocked. If anything, the fish in the lakes are smaller due to having Shoepac Genetics that have mixed with the native strains that were originally in the lakes... NONE of those fish will be pure Shoepac....the likelihood of that I would say is right around 0%.
Happy Hooker...a PM will be coming your way. No doubt I would love to see a "boost" so to speak for the lakes in the mentioned region.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | I think a 50" Shoepack could most certainly be a leftover product of stocking in the 80s. I mean, look at the head on that dinosaur! Don't you think it could be 20 years old or more? Sure they rarely make 40 inches, but how cool is it if one DID get to 50" due various factors and someone got to catch it? Really cool. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I could see a fish being 20 years old or more, but a shoepac of that size....it would be extremely rare...freak rare....very very remote that it could happen. If it did, it would be really cool.
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | VMS- In all seriousness, with no malice intended... you must be a Biology teacher. (?) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya,
By all means I don't take anything bad or malicious on your comment... I am a teacher, though (mathematics) and with quite a bit of help from other biology instructors who were most helpful in giving me some guidance...just have done a bit of research over the years on it, and, tied with growing up fishing one of the lakes in particular from other threads the fish in question I feel are shorter, but not pure-strain shoepac. I do consider what the statistics could show and what trends "should" happen (tongue firmly in cheek here...)...and I just don't feel that any fish caught in Shoepac stocked MN waters could be 100% Shoepac anymore. When you consider these lakes that received the Shoepac stocking and were mixed with a very strong natural strain (leech lake strain) over 25 years ago, any fish in the water now "should" be a mix if they indeed cross bred (which I have a strong hunch they did). What I don't know is if any successful reproduction did take place from the Shoepac Stocked fish... If it is anything like what Casselman found in his research, it might be a very low chance (again...conjecture of mine here...nothing to show for it...)
Just something to consider here, and if memory serves me correctly on this (been a long while since I have looked at this information) when muskies breed, I believe it has been stated that only 1% of the egg hatch makes it through the first year of life. The following year, only 1% of those survive, etc....to where at some point it levels off because the size of the fish make it more of a predator than prey...(again..tongue firmly in cheek here since I am not 100% positive on this anymore) so...take that over 25 years, with two different strain...I just don't feel it is possible (my opinion here)
Again, not to say it couldn't happen, but if it is not occurring in a lake that is total shoepac (Shoepac Lake, Crescent Lake, Dumbell lake) It would be a very very low probability it would happen within any of the lakes that were stocked with pure shoepac.
Steve
Edited by VMS 1/25/2010 12:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | Ok guys, this is straight from the MN DNR. In essence, my 40” is a pure Shoepack. The 47” I saw was a pure Shoepack as well. I changed the name of the lake to protect "my lake"
Lake X was stocked with only Shoepack strain beginning in 1953 for a total of 17 years up to 1979. There were no stockings of any other strain during that time period.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | you had it tested?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi everyone,
I received a file today from the Walker area Fisheries manager regarding some interesting information about the stocking of Shoepac strain fish. The lakes that are listed within the document are lakes that received either all shoepac, a mixture of shoepac and native, or wisconsin strain fish. If you take the time to read the document, you might find it a bit interesting regarding the potential of a 100% pure shoepac strain fish that was introduced to other waters within the state. There is a 3rd section to the document that went over 300kb which goes through what the genetic make-up of fish in the different lakes. if it is something you would like to see, shoot me a quick PM with your email and I will send it off to you.
Steve
Edited by VMS 1/25/2010 4:33 PM
Attachments
----------------
Shoepac genetics study..pdf (171KB - 1522 downloads)
Shoepac genetics study..2.pdf (61KB - 262 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| I wouldn't go so far as to say the fish I caught was a pure shoepac. It did cross my mind that it definately wasn't a leech laker (or at least not a pure leech laker). Cool thread and I'm glad to hear the different opinions on this. The 50 I caught is on a stocked lake that has a fair population of big spotted muskies. All the other fish I've caught from this lake have been nicely spotted and silvery looking leech lake strains. This one was really brown and fairly clear. It fought like no other fish I've hooked making 8-10 hard runs taking line and stayed deep the entire fight, although I hooked it off a shallow flat. It took a fairly long time to even get a look at it and I figured it was an older fish by it's big head and banged up looking body. Here's a couple more pics. BTW as one would expect it was quickly released and swam away only a couple seconds after being returned to the water.
Edited by musky-skunk 1/25/2010 5:08 PM
Attachments
----------------
xxx.jpg (116KB - 219 downloads)
09 016.jpg (54KB - 217 downloads)
50 2009.jpg (63KB - 322 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I would bet that your fish if DNA tested would not have any shoepac genetics in it... depending on the water it came from, it could very well have Wisconsin strain in it, which was shown to produce large fish too... it all depends on which lake it came from...
Steve |
|
| |
|
| Cast - 1/24/2010 8:22 AM
"
Would someone please enlighten the ignorant: What is a SHOEPAC?
This is in relation to another thread of course." Apparently, it’s a small bag odor absorbing pellets (zeolite rock) that can be placed inside of smelly shoes as required. I know a few guys that could use some. http://www.kruegerenterprises.com/site/372462/product/022
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | VMS,
I read the study and can honestly say that my 40" is pure shoepack strain. According to your study, it was never introduced with any other strain. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which lake it is... Considering a 40" is huge, i doubt anyone will flock to it anyway.
I can also tell you that this last summer they started a new management goal.
X's & Y's added
"The project has a goal of removing smaller muskies that have a high percentage of Shoepack ancestry so that a larger size of muskie can be produced in Lake Y. Fish that are removed from Lake Y are transferred to Lake X."
so next year, there will no longer be a 100% pure shoepack strain in lake X. Fine by me  |
|
| |
