shambone
02-03-2009, 10:57 PM
check out this post from SOMA56.com
Post subject: Ohio DNR Responses to Ohio Muskie Summit QuestionsPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:25 pm
S.O.M.A. Officer
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:16 pm
Posts: 6
I recently submitted a series of Ohio Muskie Program related questions to Scott Hale, Inland Fisheries Program Administrator at the ODNR Division of Wildlife. Below is a summary of the questions and answers. If there are any additional questions that SOMA members may have, please let me know and I will bring them up at the Summit.
-Joel
Q1. Aside from the minnow fund, can additional club donations and/or volunteer service positively augment the muskie program? If so, how?
A1.Contributions to the minnow fund are the best way to make donations. We call it the “minnow fund”, because it was originally initiated to directly buy minnows. It has evolved to become a fund that allows us to have equipment purchased by the clubs provided to our hatcheries to help us raise minnows, which can be the most expensive part of muskie production.
I’m not sure what ideas you have for volunteering, but we can certainly discuss this. One idea would be agreeing to keep the card boxes full at boat ramps for the MAL program AND encouraging others to use the on-line program if they are not already doing so. Catch records are critical to this program’s success. If each club could adopt a lake for keeping the boxes full AND promote use of the MAL, that would be very helpful. I am hoping that we can discuss this in the open forum at the summit.
Q2. Is the quantity of muskie fingerlings reared at the ODNR hatcheries limited by available space or could additional funding increase production, if so desired? Is there a maximum stocking or population density identified for each program lake? Can private parties/clubs supplementally stock certified VHS-free muskie fingerlings in program (or non-program) lakes?
A2. Our six hatcheries raise fish for a variety of programs and each hatchery is somewhat unique, so both space and other recources for raising fish are always limited. As I am sure that you are aware, we raise over 30,000,000 fish per year, including muskie, saugeye, walleye, channel catfish, hybrid striped bass, steelhead, rainbow trout, brown trout, and other fishes. Although numerically our muskie program only represents about 20,000 advanced fingerlings for stocking, these are among the most expensive fish that we raise, yet they serve the fewest anglers. Muskie anglers clearly get their licence dollars worth out of Ohio fish management programs.
We currently stock 1 advanced fingerling per acre in our muskie program lakes, which provides exceptional fishing opportunties (for example, compare our catch rates with those of most Wisconsin waters). Higher stocking densities of these large fish might put us dangerously close to encouraging disease problems, which have occurred at high-density muskie lakes in some areas of the country. At this time, we do not permit private muskie clubs to supplementally stock fish in public waters.
Q3. Are regulations or guidelines available for private parties/clubs to put fish cribs or other artificial structure into Ohio lakes/reservoirs?
A3. The addition of fish attractors to reservoirs is a common practice in Ohio. This can only be done, however, with the approval of the reservoir’s controlling authority and is best done through consultation with the local Division of Wildlife Fisheries Management Supervisor. For example, if SOMA was interested in doing this at Caesar Creek, the US Army Corp of Engineers should be contacted first for approval and then Doug Maloney (ODNR, DOW) should be contacted for advice. Doug or his biologists could provide useful information about where cover has already been added or describe projects that have been done by other clubs.
Q4. Are there any Ohio sections of Lake Erie (e.g., Sandusky Bay, Maumee Bay, Bass Islands) or rivers/streams that if stocked, could possibly reclaim a native and hopefully a naturally reproducing fishable population of muskie available to Ohio licensed anglers?
A4. This might be something to discuss in the future, but there are several important issues to consider, two of which are habitat and genetics. It is important to remember that habitat is typically the critical issue that prevents self-sustaining populations from developing within their native range; therefore, stocking is unlikely to trump habitat issues when they are the bottleneck preventing natural populations from flourishing. In addition, population genetics have to be considered carefully and appreciated.
Q5. What are the guidelines for determining the "Fish Ohio" criteria for each species? The current "Fish Ohio" size of 36" for muskie means that statewide nearly half of all fish caught are eligible for the award. In fact, some lakes had an average length greater than 36" in 2008. Award criteria can strongly influence novice anglers in their choice between harvesting and releasing fish of a particular size. For reference, the 2008 M.A.L. statistics for catching various lengths of muskies in all Ohio lakes are provided below:
36" length = 48.2% (~1:2 odds)
38" length = 32.1% (~1:3 odds)
40" length = 20.3% (>1:5 odds)
42" length = 11.3% (>1:10 odds)
44" length = 5.6% (>1:20 odds)
46" length = 2.7% (>1:40 odds)
48" length = 1.1% (~1:100 odds)
50" length = 0.2% (1:500 odds)
A5. This is simply an angler recognition program, not science. To some people, a 36” muskie could be the fish of a lifetime, to others (like yourself, pehaps), it is just antoher fish. If Ohio anglers think that lengths of “Fish Ohio” fish need revisited, we can certainly do that. We plan to discuss this at the Muskie Summit.
Q6. Would the ODNR consider including information in the regulations pamphlet as well as the DOW website regarding the benefits and proper techniques of Catch and Release (C&R)? This is particularly important for species that rely on voluntary C&R to maintain current program success. If possible, a special link could be provided at no cost to the ODNR for those anglers who are interested in detailed information regarding safe handling techniques for muskie (voluntary assistance available from Muskies, Inc.).
A6. This would only be possible if we moved from a larger “book style” of regulations digest, rather than our current pamphlet. As you might expect, doing so would increase cost of production, which is not the best option in the current economy and might not be desired by anglers. Links to our website on the digest could help direct anglers to a variety of information about all aspects of fishing, including the C&R of muskie. We are continually adding to content on our website and welcome new information. I serve as the primary content manager for our fishing web pages and would certainly entertain all ideas.
Q7. Would the ODNR consider modifying its current definition of a trophy muskie in its publications... "release of nontrophy (less than 30inch) muskies"? Since the definition of a trophy is subjective, an alternative statement could be made regarding the benefits of releasing predator gamefish in general.
A7. Yes. Doing so could be as simple as removing a specific length from the publication.
Q8. Would the ODNR consider utilizing muskie pictures in its brochure and/or website which emphasize C&R (e.g., water release photo) when or if possible? This picture could also include a statement to promote C&R, such as "Catch, photo, and release of large predator fish, such as the muskie, greatly improves the quality of fishing in Ohio".
A8. We are actually in the process of producing a C&R page for our website and that is where we might use such material. Like other organizations, we are moving away from printed publications and trying to provide more material on the internet. This not only helps control costs, it also allows us to provide more information.
Q9. Would the ODNR consider including an educational statement under the "Minimum Size" column in the Ohio regulations pamphlet for muskie and other game fish which rely on voluntary catch and release for optimum program success? For example "None (C&R encouraged)".
A9. See comments above regarding the fishing digest.
Post subject: Ohio DNR Responses to Ohio Muskie Summit QuestionsPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:25 pm
S.O.M.A. Officer
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:16 pm
Posts: 6
I recently submitted a series of Ohio Muskie Program related questions to Scott Hale, Inland Fisheries Program Administrator at the ODNR Division of Wildlife. Below is a summary of the questions and answers. If there are any additional questions that SOMA members may have, please let me know and I will bring them up at the Summit.
-Joel
Q1. Aside from the minnow fund, can additional club donations and/or volunteer service positively augment the muskie program? If so, how?
A1.Contributions to the minnow fund are the best way to make donations. We call it the “minnow fund”, because it was originally initiated to directly buy minnows. It has evolved to become a fund that allows us to have equipment purchased by the clubs provided to our hatcheries to help us raise minnows, which can be the most expensive part of muskie production.
I’m not sure what ideas you have for volunteering, but we can certainly discuss this. One idea would be agreeing to keep the card boxes full at boat ramps for the MAL program AND encouraging others to use the on-line program if they are not already doing so. Catch records are critical to this program’s success. If each club could adopt a lake for keeping the boxes full AND promote use of the MAL, that would be very helpful. I am hoping that we can discuss this in the open forum at the summit.
Q2. Is the quantity of muskie fingerlings reared at the ODNR hatcheries limited by available space or could additional funding increase production, if so desired? Is there a maximum stocking or population density identified for each program lake? Can private parties/clubs supplementally stock certified VHS-free muskie fingerlings in program (or non-program) lakes?
A2. Our six hatcheries raise fish for a variety of programs and each hatchery is somewhat unique, so both space and other recources for raising fish are always limited. As I am sure that you are aware, we raise over 30,000,000 fish per year, including muskie, saugeye, walleye, channel catfish, hybrid striped bass, steelhead, rainbow trout, brown trout, and other fishes. Although numerically our muskie program only represents about 20,000 advanced fingerlings for stocking, these are among the most expensive fish that we raise, yet they serve the fewest anglers. Muskie anglers clearly get their licence dollars worth out of Ohio fish management programs.
We currently stock 1 advanced fingerling per acre in our muskie program lakes, which provides exceptional fishing opportunties (for example, compare our catch rates with those of most Wisconsin waters). Higher stocking densities of these large fish might put us dangerously close to encouraging disease problems, which have occurred at high-density muskie lakes in some areas of the country. At this time, we do not permit private muskie clubs to supplementally stock fish in public waters.
Q3. Are regulations or guidelines available for private parties/clubs to put fish cribs or other artificial structure into Ohio lakes/reservoirs?
A3. The addition of fish attractors to reservoirs is a common practice in Ohio. This can only be done, however, with the approval of the reservoir’s controlling authority and is best done through consultation with the local Division of Wildlife Fisheries Management Supervisor. For example, if SOMA was interested in doing this at Caesar Creek, the US Army Corp of Engineers should be contacted first for approval and then Doug Maloney (ODNR, DOW) should be contacted for advice. Doug or his biologists could provide useful information about where cover has already been added or describe projects that have been done by other clubs.
Q4. Are there any Ohio sections of Lake Erie (e.g., Sandusky Bay, Maumee Bay, Bass Islands) or rivers/streams that if stocked, could possibly reclaim a native and hopefully a naturally reproducing fishable population of muskie available to Ohio licensed anglers?
A4. This might be something to discuss in the future, but there are several important issues to consider, two of which are habitat and genetics. It is important to remember that habitat is typically the critical issue that prevents self-sustaining populations from developing within their native range; therefore, stocking is unlikely to trump habitat issues when they are the bottleneck preventing natural populations from flourishing. In addition, population genetics have to be considered carefully and appreciated.
Q5. What are the guidelines for determining the "Fish Ohio" criteria for each species? The current "Fish Ohio" size of 36" for muskie means that statewide nearly half of all fish caught are eligible for the award. In fact, some lakes had an average length greater than 36" in 2008. Award criteria can strongly influence novice anglers in their choice between harvesting and releasing fish of a particular size. For reference, the 2008 M.A.L. statistics for catching various lengths of muskies in all Ohio lakes are provided below:
36" length = 48.2% (~1:2 odds)
38" length = 32.1% (~1:3 odds)
40" length = 20.3% (>1:5 odds)
42" length = 11.3% (>1:10 odds)
44" length = 5.6% (>1:20 odds)
46" length = 2.7% (>1:40 odds)
48" length = 1.1% (~1:100 odds)
50" length = 0.2% (1:500 odds)
A5. This is simply an angler recognition program, not science. To some people, a 36” muskie could be the fish of a lifetime, to others (like yourself, pehaps), it is just antoher fish. If Ohio anglers think that lengths of “Fish Ohio” fish need revisited, we can certainly do that. We plan to discuss this at the Muskie Summit.
Q6. Would the ODNR consider including information in the regulations pamphlet as well as the DOW website regarding the benefits and proper techniques of Catch and Release (C&R)? This is particularly important for species that rely on voluntary C&R to maintain current program success. If possible, a special link could be provided at no cost to the ODNR for those anglers who are interested in detailed information regarding safe handling techniques for muskie (voluntary assistance available from Muskies, Inc.).
A6. This would only be possible if we moved from a larger “book style” of regulations digest, rather than our current pamphlet. As you might expect, doing so would increase cost of production, which is not the best option in the current economy and might not be desired by anglers. Links to our website on the digest could help direct anglers to a variety of information about all aspects of fishing, including the C&R of muskie. We are continually adding to content on our website and welcome new information. I serve as the primary content manager for our fishing web pages and would certainly entertain all ideas.
Q7. Would the ODNR consider modifying its current definition of a trophy muskie in its publications... "release of nontrophy (less than 30inch) muskies"? Since the definition of a trophy is subjective, an alternative statement could be made regarding the benefits of releasing predator gamefish in general.
A7. Yes. Doing so could be as simple as removing a specific length from the publication.
Q8. Would the ODNR consider utilizing muskie pictures in its brochure and/or website which emphasize C&R (e.g., water release photo) when or if possible? This picture could also include a statement to promote C&R, such as "Catch, photo, and release of large predator fish, such as the muskie, greatly improves the quality of fishing in Ohio".
A8. We are actually in the process of producing a C&R page for our website and that is where we might use such material. Like other organizations, we are moving away from printed publications and trying to provide more material on the internet. This not only helps control costs, it also allows us to provide more information.
Q9. Would the ODNR consider including an educational statement under the "Minimum Size" column in the Ohio regulations pamphlet for muskie and other game fish which rely on voluntary catch and release for optimum program success? For example "None (C&R encouraged)".
A9. See comments above regarding the fishing digest.