Michigan Muskie Alliance

Until we can start our own MI GLS program I'll slip in some WI examples. Go to the link to see photo.

Lake Winnebago muskie prospects excite anglers

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/app ... 90637/1233

February 19, 2006 By Jim Lee Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers jlee77@charter.net

OSHKOSH — If a spotted muskie is 30 inches long after three years, how big will it be in 10 or 15 years?

Muskie anglers on the Lake Winnebago system are eager to find out.

"With the forage base we have out there ... and with natural reproduction ... we could have one of the top muskie fisheries in the state of Wisconsin," says Bob Haase of Eldorado, assistant executive director of the Musky Clubs Alliance and a past president of the Winnebagoland Musky Club.

Ron Bruch, Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist at Oshkosh, concurs.

"We had past water quality problems on Lake Winnebago," he says, "but since the 1980s, we've been successful in restoring much of the fisheries habitat."

Guided by the Lake Winnebago Comprehensive Management Plan, pollution issues were addressed, erosion curtailed, water clarity improved, fish spawning areas restored and desirable vegetation rejuvenated and protected.

Taking a cue from DNR efforts on Green Bay, where a 15-year stocking effort has shown signs of restoring a spotted muskie population, Bruch and DNR fisheries biologist Kendall Kamke joined with local muskie organizations to bring the spotted muskie back to Winnebago area waters.

The spotted muskie is native to Lake Winnebago, its presence documented in the 1920s when the Winnebago system's waters were unpolluted and connected to Green Bay and Lake Michigan.

"Since 2002, we have stocked an average of 3,000 to 5,000 large muskie fingerlings a year," said Bruch. "That's in addition to hundreds of thousands of fry and small fingerlings. But the survival of those large fingerlings is greater, and it's those fin-clipped fingerlings that are starting to show up."

The muskies were released in the upriver lakes (Butte des Morts, Winneconne and Poygan) and up the connecting Wolf River as far as Fremont.

"After two summers in the system, those large fingerlings are averaging 29 to 30 inches in size," Bruch said. "By now, I suspect some of the fish released in 2002 would exceed the minimum legal size (at which anglers can keep their catch) of 34 inches."

With support from the local muskie groups, the DNR has proposed the minimum size be raised to 50 inches in 2006 to protect the fledgling musky fishery and provide an opportunity to determine whether it is capable of regularly producing 50-inch-plus class fish.

"I think initially we'll see growth rates similar to those in Green Bay (where several muskies believed to top 60 pounds were caught and released this year by walleye and bass anglers before the muskie fishing season opened)," Bruch said, "but I'm not sure we'll be able to sustain those same growth rates."

Green Bay is deeper and colder than waters in the Lake Winnebago system, he said.

"Fish live longer in colder water, so the muskies in Lake Winnebago may get large but not live as long ... so they might not get as large as those in Green Bay," Bruch said.

"We don't know yet, but I think it will take at least eight to 10 years for a muskie here to reach the 50-inch mark."

Haase sees the Lake Winnebago muskie project as an important step in restoring Wisconsin's reputation as a producer of big muskies and making Lake Winnebago an important musky angler destination.

Winnebago's muskie fishery could rival the trophy-musky lakes of northern Minnesota and southern Canada, he says.

"We have one of the best walleye fisheries in the state," Haase said. "People are already coming from northern Wisconsin — as well as southern Wisconsin and Illinois — to fish Lake Winnebago.

"The more we have in the way of a diverse fishery, the more we'll be able to attract fishermen through all the seasons.

"We're fortunate to have people like Ron Bruch and Kendall Kamke willing to work with our local fishing clubs to make Lake Winnebago what it is today."

And what it might be tomorrow.

Not to burst their bubble, but they are never going to "rival the trophy musky lakes of northern Minnesota" if they are stocking at that rate!?? 3-5,000 per year for a system that is roughly the size of St. Clair? Not to mention they also have the problem of stocking Michigan GLS muskies which have not exactly proven they are good natural reproducers. Everything pales in comparison to the Leech Lake strain for producing trophies... Sure would love to see Winnebago become the next Mille Lacs though, and it will be interesting to see how our fish do in the smaller headwater lakes

Good job, Wisconsin!

Before this turns into a Leech fish RULE thread let me share some thoughts. First off, don't tell the fish stocked in Green Bay they can't reproduce. Ouside the Fox they've been doing pretty well - clean tribs = good GLS reproduction. I'm not on the Leech bandwagon, sure they have grown well in Mille Lacs, Leech and V but that doesn't make them the best for Winny or anywhere else. Since the Leech strain is a reef spawner and the Michigan GLS are river spawners the GLS should be better for Winny. Outside Leech Lake that strain has NOT shown great natural reproduction.

If were talking simply about return on stocked fish then I think it's important to consider what Illinois is doing and what we've seen in Michigan. Project Green Gene is showing how important it is to match strain to the water for optimal growth, what works in Minnesota might not be right for other water. As we have seen here in Michigan the best strain might be a mutt like (Mississippi, Wisconsin, Ohio, Leech) for return on stocking. However, the mutt strain that grows FAST is very likely to have a shorter lifespan. I think it's unlikely that we'll see the 18+ year old fish that we see in Thornapple (Wisc. Strain) in the lakes with the mutt (Iowa fish).

Hmmm, don't think my post was a Leech fish RULE rant, nor did I foresee it going that way anytime soon. Anyway, double-checking what I did say, notice I only said Wisonsin is not going to cure their Minnesota-envy by planting 3-5000 muskies per year, for 3 years so far, in a system that covers 165,000 acres of lake surface PLUS miles of connecting river. Its a great first step, don't get me wrong. But if their plan is to plant at that level and rely on natural reproduction to "rival the trophy lakes of northern Minnesota"... I just thought that was kind of funny for the WDNR to make that hopeful comparison. I would love to see it, applaud them for trying and I will be watching with great anticipation in the years to come.

I also only said that Leech Lake fish are far better at producing TROPHIES, I did not say better at REPRODUCING. And I did not say they should be stocking LLS in Winnebago, nor in Michigan. There are a few more lakes than Vermilion, Mille Lacs and Leech where those fish have grown well- you know very well out of the 100+ other lakes Minnesota has planted there are (MANY) others showing the same phenomenal growth and viability. I don't know what if any nat.rep. Minnesota has shown in all these lakes, do you? That really should be the crux of the stocking issue- future stocking levels depend on it. However, Leech Lake strain fish also DO spawn in rivers, the strain is genetically identified as both Leech Lake AND Mississippi, interchangably. Those fish manage to scrape by in the Mississippi River, for as long as that river has been running to the sea anyway.

And outside of a little area between Huron and Erie, GLS have NOT shown to be prolific reproducers. They reproduce, yes, but "good"??? The best comparisons to Winnebago would be the Inland Waterway system, or the Torch to Beals Intermediate Chain. I WILL tell those dudes they can't reproduce for squat. Muskies yes, but "good" numbers? Where in the Great Lakes have Green Bay muskies been documented to have reproduced and their offspring now constitute a good population? The stocked fish have done well, but their naturally produced offspring??? Show me.

All that said, do I think we should have an experimental lake planted with LLS? Uh huh! Limnologically, they stand a better chance at being the "right" fit in SOME of our lakes than do Iowa fish. Don't take that to mean I don't want the Iowa fish, those fish have been the greatest thing to happen in Michigan's history, up until Wolf Lake has cranked fish out the last couple years.

Duke - Sorry, I didn't meant to sound like I was going off on you. I've seen the Leech deal played out on other sites and I didn't want to see that happen here. I'll get back with the other Q's you had when I get a chance later tonight.

I for one would like to see more of these types of discussions on the board. Many other Musky sites have had similar discussions and certainly some drag on and on but the whole idea is to generate meaningful discussion. Opinions, facts and ideas should all be welcome and openly shared. We can all agree to disagree at times but I think this type of subject matter promotes information sharing...and that's a good thing! :)

I just thought I had to add my 2 cents and these, like anyone elses, are just my opinions. That said, I don't believe that all GLS fish are river spawners. I've seen some spawning in shallow bays and just out from shallow bays over chara near mud flats. Those Green Bay fish are returning to rivers in the spring because thats where they were dumped by the fisheries crews that planted them. They will attempt to spawn there but if you've ever seen the Fox..............yuck. I would have liked to see more of the fall fingerlings planted in bays or in some of the smaller, river mouth estuaries that have better spawning habitat but I have no say in the matter, of course. The fish have been straying north to better habitat but not in numbers that seem hopefull for natural reproduction. On the other hand, Duke, even if they don't reproduce I've been very happy with the Green Bay fish and have caught and seen some real bruisers. If I could ever get your buddy John to come visit me I'd show him but he seems real busy and gas aint' cheap. The Green Bay program is still young and hopefully the WDNR sees it out to their stated goal of naturally reproducing fish. It would help immensely if our own DNR would jump on the band wagon and I commend all in MMA who are working toward that dream.

Great topic here...wish I had more time right now to digest and discuss. Stupid work.

I’ve spent loads of time on the phone with biologists from WI, MN, KY, IA, IN and IL discussing this stuff over the past 5 years…and I probably came out with more questions than I went in with. The trouble is their opinions are all over the map, and you have to consider the source since about 90% of these folks were making big leaps in musky biology/genetics based on differences they have seen in striper, bluegill or steelhead strains. So although no one really knows, the studies going on currently should start to answer a few these burning questions (natural reproduction, growth rates, life span…).

Musky strains aside, I will say this coming from breeding and raising a few million little fishies in my lifetime: for fry survival, disease-resistance, growth rate, spawning success and all that jive, the more genetic variation you have the better. Muskies are actually kinda like many species of the African cichids that I’ve raised – you have the same specie geographically separated for like…ever – all look a touch different, some grow a little faster, some spawn a little better, some mature a little later, some like it a little cooler, etc. Start swapping genomes though and the results sure appear to be magic! I’ve always said it would awesome to see some DNR someday test these potential musky mini-hybrids in a nice, confined lake somewhere…I even tried to talk the owner of Minnesota Muskie Farm into doing it one time!

As far as the natural reproduction of different musky strains go, I know that our GL fish haven’t had any documented cases of natural reproduction yet in Green Bay – maybe because of the crappy waters they were released in like Steve said. Never thought of that and it is a REALLY valid point…should be mentioned to the WI DNR for sure. I also know that Leechers have shocked biologists in establishing themselves in pike lakes where no other strain of musky ever had a lick of prior success. Doesn’t mean that Leechers are the ultimate strain by any means, but the fact that they spawn a little deeper, and in more open-water, weed-free environments than their cousins is a nifty trait. I just searched online for a bit, trying to find links to all the musky-genetics papers and crap that I’ve read through the years…didn’t have much luck, but here’s a link that might be of interest to the dorks that lay awake at night with this stuff rolling through their brains.

http://www.fishinfo.com/fishingreports/ ... /2398.html

The discussion of the GLS muskie pro/con and the potential or lack of reproduction of the GLS needs to be in the context of the reality of what we are forced to deal with. We are limited to the GLS because the Federal and state biologist of the Great Lakes have decided to protect and restore the 'native' fish as a priority. We are attempting to reintroduce GLS to spawning habitats that have been abused or worst eliminated. The success of GLS as viable spawners needs to match their biological strength to available habitat.

In the case of Lake Michigan note all the drowned-river mouths and harbors that are listed as Areas of Concern (AOC). In addition to the AOCs most of the other lakes and bays around Lake Michigan have also been abused in some way.

For reference:
LAKE MICHIGAN AREAS OF CONCERN
http://www.epa.gov/lakemich/lmlamp2000/LM appendix f.pdf

An Overview of U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern
http://www.glc.org/docs/AOC/aocoverview.pdf

Note the list of Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) for the AOCs. The GLS muskies that were stocked in the Fox River and Menominee River had strikes against them to start with two BUIs, the Degradation of fish and wildlife populations and the Loss of fish and wildlife habitat. They did have a big plus with abundance of forage, thus the stocked fish grew large. But, now they are faced with limited 'good' spawning habitat and whatever biological viability limitations they may have. The very small genetic diversity of the parental stock was not a good way to start off, but that was the best we could do at that time.

We need to be realistic. Are we to wait until we cleaned up all the pollution and restored all the habitat before starting a GLS program? The perfect clean and restored habitats will never occur as the pristine world the GLS once knew before man. I support stocking the GLS to take advantage of abundant forage now while we work on the BUIs. The GLS also serve as a strong public PR tool to provide great sportfishing and economics while it draws attention to support the restoration of the BUIs. Lets have some fun while we work.

There is some migration of the GLS occurring up into Little Bay de Noc. There are more spawning habitats over in Big Bay de Noc waiting for GLS to arrive. I remain hopeful for the future. I don't have the historic GLS info for the B-Bay area. If anyone comes across some data let me know. Thanks.