Printable View
Ty,
I heard that there had been some discussion about stocking the Chip with leech lake skis, but that it was shot down. Any idea why local anglers and biologists would be against that? I love the Chip, and have caught a 50+" fish from it, so there are opportunities for trophies, but let's be honest, Minnesota is light years ahead of us when it comes to musky management.
Just curious on everyone's thoughts on this matter.
I was the one who tried to get the program going and it's not technically over yet but there is a major bump in the road. Right now the Chippewa Flowage is the brood stock lake to supply all of northwest Wisconsin. Now, I don't feel there is a pure stain left in the Chip but I don't get paid by the state to do the stocking so my thoughts don't count much.
You've got to understand fisheries biologists to fully grasp the task at hand. All fisheries biologists are taught that fish adapt to biological situations through time and will best be suited for certain areas by stocking the ones that have adapted to the biological situations/environments presented to them through years of transfering the most beneficial genes from generation to generation. This is true for the most part but sociological issues have to be played into the mix also. What seems great to a Wisconsin biologist might be sub-par to a Minnesota or Michigan biologist. What does that mean? Well, to a Wisconsin biologist a big fish might be 48 inches because that's usually one of the largest fish they ever work with in the fyke nets where to a Minnesota biologist a 48 incher is a common fish to work with in the nets. A fish in the 52 to 54 inch range might be a large fish to a Minnesota biologist.
What we want as fishermen might not be attainable without some serious help in the way of funding and teamwork with anglers and biologists together. We want very large aggressive muskies. They(fisheries biologists) want a self sustaining quality resource. What a lot of people don't think about is the money aspect of things. It takes a lot of money to really get a different strain stocked in the Chip that you don't know will ever reproduce. That whole self sustaining aspect is hard for non-biologists to grasp. You really don't know what will happen in the future to a fishery because we don't know if stocking can go on year after year. A fishery that takes care of itself is a monumental goal and usually hard to achieve but if it happens it takes a lot of strain off of the biologists who are counted on to make the fishery what it is.
Similarly, I've said from the start that the largemouth bass weren't the main problem with the low walleye populatin on the Chip. Now the DNR has admitted that the largemouth bass are not the main problem with the walleye in the Chip. There are some other issues that are effecting the walleye recruitment. Stocking is the only way to combat whatever issues are effecting the walleye population. I truely believe it's hard to have a self sustaining resource anymore. Period. There are too many outside variables to take into consideration. Stocking takes money though and as with most states government money is hard to come by these days.
This walleye situation is no different than wanting a different strain of muskie in the Chip. It's going to take a lot of money to introduce a different stain the right way which is by overstocking the first couple years to maybe find out in the long run that they aren't reproducing like the variety of strains that are already in the Chip.
Soooooooooooo, it's a complicated issue.
Ty,
That was one of the most understandable explanations of the problems associated with stocking fish I have ever read. Did you study this in school?
3MUSKY
Yep, I went to Stevens Point. They turn out some great fisheries biologists and pretty darn good beer I might add. I studied fisheries biology there for two and a half years after a couple years at another college in Illinois. That being said, I am no fisheries biologist. Just someone that took the same classes and now is a guide.
So the state has gone back on their condemnation of LMB? That is good to hear, it always sounded like a stretch to me (especially since I never heard of data to back up claims of predation on walleye fry). The stocking issue is an interesting one. Ty makes a good point that the resources users (fishermen) and the managers may have somewhat different goals (but I wouldn't go so far as to say trophy fish aren't on their mind). A Stevens Point researcher has made some recommendations about changes to the current broodstock program that would help the genetic diversity of stocked fish, reduce artificial selection of reared fish (i.e. domestication), and probably increase the survival of stocked fish. This could also lead to successful reproduction of stocked fish, increasing the recruitment within a lake, and getting closer to a self-sustaining population, although this too raises genetic concerns. One major point is that broodstock fish should not come from a stocked lake. This could lead to inbreeding if a stocked fish is inadvertently used for captive breeding. I don't know the history of stocking on the Chip, but if it was always stocked with fish that were reared from Chip broodstock fish, it is still a good source for broodstock. If this is not the case, said researcher would argue it should be abandoned as a broodstock source. So, Ty is of the opinion that a different genetic strain could lead to more trophy fish. Researchers are justifiably concerned about the source of broodstock fish. Switching strains of fish would meet Ty's goals, but mean that the Chip would probably not be able to be the source of broodstock fish anymore, and this is possibly one of the states biggest arguments. However, it is possible that the Chip isn't a good source of broodstock fish anyway, depending on its stocking history, so a new source should be found and the strain switch is no longer as big of a deal. Not sure if that is useful to anyone or not, but that is what I learned in my 20 min of reading over this lunch break.
Paul Schueller
You mean you majored in hoops, minored in fishery biology.
It is refreshing to hear an opinion from a local on the lake daily who is also educated in the field. It provides a much more open minded opinion when the local understands the biologists reasoning, even if they disagree with it. And as you state, there are two major hurdles 1) the biologist/public opinion and decisions and 2) long term funding for stocking. Without both, it can't be successful. Sometimes the biologist would like to stock, but no money. Others have the support, but the biologist doesn't deem it necessary. Keep advocating and good luck.
trav
Ty, just curious if you think that MN or great lakes strain muskies will actually grow as fast in the much smaller WI waters? One has to admit that the forage types - and densities in Leech, Mille lacs, Vermillion, St. Clair, and Green Bay are second to none. Dense schools of open water fatty forage make easy meals for toothy critters. Do you think that when these muskies are released into WI waters they will adapt to become much more dormant because there is not the dense open water forage to chase for an easy meal?
I am no where near an expert or even knowledgable on the subject. With that being said I don't think water size really means anything. I have an 800 acre lake 20 miles from me here in southern MN that puts out fish to the 57 inch mark. 50 inch fish are caught every week. These are Leech Lake strain fish. I know cuz I have written some checks to have them stocked. As far as forage goes, this lake cotains the normal panfish plus some huge sheephead. The crappie fishing is some of the best around. I think the Wisconsin DNR has hitched their wagons to an inferior strain of fish and doesn't want to take a chance on the Leech lake strain. Right or wrong that is my opinion. I love the Chip. It is my favorite body of water. But I think it can be so much better. The years of 30 inch, let everyone kill a fish mentality really set this lake backwards, along with all of the other lakes in the Hayward area. Its a shame that a 800 acre Minnesota lake can put out more 50 inch fish in one week than the 15000 acre Chip puts out in 2 years. Something wrong. Like I said the Chip is my favorite body of water, so this is not a bash rather a want to get it to where it should be.
Schneider, if you read Scott Websters post it kind of sums it up. There are quite a few lakes in Minnesota that are much smaller than the Chip with a very limited forage base that after being stocked with Mississippi strain muskies see an upper end growth of 49 to 52 inches on average. That's about three to four inches larger than our average upper end fish on the Chip. Most of the Minnesota lakes that have Mississippi strain muskies in them are much smaller than the Chip but see a much higher top end length. I'm not saying the Mississippi strain is the best strain as the great lakes strain is also an exceptional stain. It's all in what the public wants and what the lake will naturally accept. Overall I've seen that the Wisconsin strain is a very hardy strain that reproduces well. To a biologist that's two out of three. The third would be to have a strain able to achieve top end length and girth. I just think it's hard to find all three.
Paul, I guess I shouldn't say the state or any fisheries biologists have totally dismissed the largemouth bass as the major reason for the walleye recruitment issues. They have made some comments in that there are more issues at hand than just the LMB when it comes to the decline of walleye recruitment in northern WI. Largemouth and walleye are usually two of the most prolific predators in a system. You hope that walleye are at the top meaning you have a great walleye fishery but I'm not so sure the crappie aren't the top predator in the Chip right now. I will say this; the largemouth bass population on the east side of the Chip is almost non-existant per acre. Why is there still recruitment issues on the east side for the walleye? Something else going on there.
By the way, Paul knows this as he is a fisheries biologist but most do not; muskies are not the top predators on the Chip or any well ballanced lake for that matter. Per acre they(muskies) usually feed on far less baitfish than most other gamefish species do per acre. It's rare that muskies have a negative impact on an ecosystem. It happens. But it's rare. There have been numerous studies done on the impact of muskies to an ecosystem after being introduced. Usually not much changes. Tiger muskies on the other hand have been introduced to control panfish populations when stunted classes start to emerge. Tigers do impact panfish populations negatively or positively depending on how you look at it.
Getting off topic now, sorry.
I don't personally feel that the Chip is a good brood stock lake. There are Callahan lake stunted muskies that spill into the lake along with Moose lake fish spilling in. From what I know Bone Lake fish were stocked in the Chip also. Maye the Chip is as good as the DNR can come up with for Northwest Wisconsin as a brood stock lake. Plain and simple. I don't know what other lake they could use. Something to think about. I'm stumped. The DNR's job is not easy.
Hey guys, love reading about the biological side of this. It's amazing what can happen to a lake, both on the positive side and the negative side. My biggest concern with the chip is habitat. My Grandfather began fishing the Chip back in the eary 1950's, and kept a diary of his Musky encouters which I have to this day, and read multiple times. The earliest was 1955 through roughly 1991. I was lucky enough to fish with him growing up and learned spots, saw follows and caught a few. The spots are not what they used to be. Some of them used to have a small patch of beautiful green weeds, now you can't even get a bait anywhere near em. For example moss creek SE corner was called 'stumps and snags', never had a weed near it, now it is choked out with weeds (junk weed), and unfishable. The chip is absolutley beautiful, however not the fishery it once was, and I hope will come back. To be honest over the past few years I have only caught a handful of Muskies from the Chip and have gone over a week without seeing one. I'm not sure I even know how to fish it anymore... :-)
I hope the DNR listens to people like Ty who are on the lake all season and see what is going on. It would be my hope that they stock it a lot more aggresively. This is a lake that gets hit pretty hard by Musky fisherman year after year. There needs to be more numbers in this lake. Then maybe some of them might not get caught so much and have a chance to grow.
Staying optimistic!
Silver Fox:
Agreed nice to see a conversation about musky stocking, or even lake status for that matter. As Our fisheries seem to be trending down for certain species, it trending up for others. I agree with those that have mentioned prior that there are too many details that are causing this trend. I also believe that some of those species are falling off as a result of no monies available for that stocking. Also am not sure that stocking is a cure-all in every case either. I am lamenting we can only hope that we are able to find ways to recreate fisheries that we once had in recent years let alone of decades ago.
Mark
I know the Spooner hatchery gets a lot of their muskies from Lac Courte Oreilles.
I think they(Spooner Hatchery) will now be getting them from the Chip.
They also took eggs from Lost Land in April this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ty Sennett
Thanks to everyone for responding. Let us know if there's anything any of us can do to help the cause.
DFK...They have netted and milked ski's from LLL since I was a kid...that's like forever ago. Bailey Bay is their favorite place to do it. That's where our favorite DNR Agent Sue, told my son and I that they had to cut up one of their nets to get that big Musky out a few years ago. She said she was there at the time and it had to be over 60". Could be the one that broke my Shimano Catana Musky Rod a couple of Fall's ago...and you already know where that happened! Merry Christmas, and best fishes Dan, and all of my friends here! Nick
Hahaha, good one Nick. Man, I didn't think that anybody had better "fish stories" than you but Sue might have you beat with that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Kanauz
Ty,
In response to the original strain still being in the Chippewa Flowage, could a place like Two Boys be a place where the original strain still exists? The only way i can see that being mixed would have been extreme high water. I also don't think they ever stocked back there. If so that could be a place where DNR should investigate to get some brood stock. I've seen a couple fish back there over the years that are true giants. Could be a forgotten gem for what they are looking for. What's your thoughts?
How does one identify the original strain from stocked kind. Most of the musky I've caught from the Chip have that clear, dark green back, riverine look to them. Hardly any bars. Can you tell if a fish is original by its appearance?
I've also seen similar looking fish in the Flambeau's.
Fishing since 61 and dark green and the big ones turning a brownish color. As for Two Boys I have also seen a few big ones there but need high water to get a boat back there. But when water is high the fish can also get there and I'm sure various strains go there and mixed breeding occurs. I know the lake was stocked for years from bone lake where the fish were generally of smaller size but this may be because of the size of the lake. When I started you never saw a northeran and now they are everywhere and a tiger was almost never heard of but have come with the influx of notherans. A 50 inch fish was rare when I started and are rare today but the fish on the flowage are generally heavier. Why the length is under those in Mn I dont' know but the weight I think relates to the amount of forage in the lake. When bullheads were abundant the fish were heavy, then the population went down and the fish were lighter. A few years back the crappie population exploded and the fish were heavy again and right now I think the crappie is the main source of food for the muskies.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJB
The loss of wood has hurt the structure and the change in weeds also has an affect on the lake. I liked milfoil as the fish concentrated there throughout the year; now the milfoil is almost gone and the fish are at weird places like a shoreline with nothing on it. There are less musky fishman but there is a ton of pontoons on the lake so lake traffic is higher.
Stocking will certainly help but a good year class hatch will make the difference or stocking that takes will make the difference for muskies, walleyes and crappies. I have seen this happen on the flowage and many other lakes and the fishing will be great for a while and then will go down again, the cycle will continue.
The goal of world record muskies has been researched for years and much has been tried and I don't think that is a bad thing but sometimes I believe we are after something because of false records and stories that are told every year. I do know that the record is not being caught even though the equipment is 1,000 times better than 50 years ago. We used to talk about weight and now the talk is inches and often those 50+ inches are skinny and the weight is low.
It's great that we keep trying but I fear we are chasing a dream of having a bunch of monster fish when they rarely get that big and it's almost like we want it easier. Better stop this rant as I could go on forever with my experinces over the years.
You'd be pretty hard pressed to get a muskie out of Two Boys Lake these days. I'm sure there are a few but not a fishable or netable population.
Also you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in strains by looking at them. The only way would be to do a DNA analysis and that costs more than most of us have in our pockets.