A big Thank-you to Jim, Will, Scott, Trevor and all the others. I would say it was very successful to say the least. Looks like it raised a lot of money for minnows and other things. I think the DNR speaker was the best ever. It was really good to see everyone. I know I'm greedy on this but when he said a chance of stocking GLS in Hudson, I could of got up and danced and that wouldn't have been pretty!! 
A big thanks to everyone involved! I really enjoyed the speaker as well; he presented a lot of good information, but also kept it simple for us laymens. What was the remarkable stat he gave at the end of the presentation? A 2% increase in harvest is equivalent to a 30% decrease in reproduction output? One would think a stat as dramatic as that would be the cornerstone to increasing the size limit on the Antrim Chain. I think a higher size limit is the way to go as it affects hook/line anglers and spearers alike.
"Mayhem" said:
[quote="jasonvkop"]. What was the remarkable stat he gave at the end of the presentation? A 2% increase in harvest is equivalent to a 30% decrease in reproduction output? .
2% increase in annual mortality would lead to a 70% decrease in reproduction output.
Ya, would be good enough to show 30%! But 233% more than that is a staggering number. I almost have him a standing ovation when he said that [smilie=jamminz.gif]
"Steve S" said:
I wish I would have asked him a follow up question when I asked him about artificial habitat. What do they do the best on, like cabbage, if so if the lakes that they are put in don't have the best habitat, should this be put into this lake.
I believe they reproduce best in current/river situations. I believe pike eggs stick to weeds or other objects in the water whereas muskie eggs do not. Because of this, muskie eggs fall to the bottom and will be suffocated by sediment if there isn't current or flowing water.
"Mayhem" said:
[quote="jasonvkop"]. What was the remarkable stat he gave at the end of the presentation? A 2% increase in harvest is equivalent to a 30% decrease in reproduction output? .
2% increase in annual mortality would lead to a 70% decrease in reproduction output.
That's insane! I'm obviously biased, but that seems like a no brainer to have stricter regulations on waters like the Chain and Black/Burt/Mullet.
Great time once again. Thanks to all involved in putting this thing on. Hopefully we made a good amount of money to put towards all of the great things MMA supports.
Also, the speaker was one of my favorites in all the banquets I've been to. A lot of real interesting data. I wish he could have talked for hours on that stuff. Can't wait to read more about it all once the final reports are published.
Thanks to all who made that happen and agreed, the presentation seemed to have all of us listening more closely than ever, some real eye-opening info.
I wish I didn't have to leave early. A custom Medusa in in particular, the one in mostly black with a gold middle section, was screaming at me to steal her and remit a donation later with my written confession.
"jasonvkop" said:
[quote="Mayhem"][quote="jasonvkop"]. What was the remarkable stat he gave at the end of the presentation? A 2% increase in harvest is equivalent to a 30% decrease in reproduction output? .
2% increase in annual mortality would lead to a 70% decrease in reproduction output.
That's insane! I'm obviously biased, but that seems like a no brainer to have stricter regulations on waters like the Chain and Black/Burt/Mullet.
This is the quote in context from the paper Patrick referenced.
“The high exploitation on muskellunge observed in Elk and Skegemog lakes likely impacts both size
structure and abundance to some degree. While the size structure is still very good, it could probably
be even better. The impact of harvesting large, old muskellunge on a population is such that a 2%
increase in annual mortality (18% to 20%) of trophy muskellunge is comparable to a 70% reduction in
recruitment to the population (Casselman et al. 1996). Although the proportion of released muskies that
were legal size is unknown, without voluntary catch and release, it is likely that angler harvest would
have likely exceeded levels needed to sustain the fishery.”
"Will Schultz" said:
This is the quote in context from the paper Patrick referenced.
“The high exploitation on muskellunge observed in Elk and Skegemog lakes likely impacts both size
structure and abundance to some degree. While the size structure is still very good, it could probably
be even better. The impact of harvesting large, old muskellunge on a population is such that a 2%
increase in annual mortality (18% to 20%) of trophy muskellunge is comparable to a 70% reduction in
recruitment to the population (Casselman et al. 1996). Although the proportion of released muskies that
were legal size is unknown, without voluntary catch and release, it is likely that angler harvest would
have likely exceeded levels needed to sustain the fishery.”
Okay, I want to make sure I have this worked out correctly in my head…
If the annual mortality increases 2% (from 18% to 20%) that would basically mean 30 baby muskies are getting hatched/spawned that given year instead of 100 baby muskies? I obviously made up the 30 and 100 numbers, but wanted to make sure I have the terms 'recruitment to the populations' correct.
Secondly, if the DNR Biologists know the fishery isn't sustainable at the current catch/kill levels, how haven't there been any changes in the restrictions? Are they giving the tag system a couple years to see what effects that has on the system?
"jasonvkop" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]This is the quote in context from the paper Patrick referenced.
“The high exploitation on muskellunge observed in Elk and Skegemog lakes likely impacts both size
structure and abundance to some degree. While the size structure is still very good, it could probably
be even better. The impact of harvesting large, old muskellunge on a population is such that a 2%
increase in annual mortality (18% to 20%) of trophy muskellunge is comparable to a 70% reduction in
recruitment to the population (Casselman et al. 1996). Although the proportion of released muskies that
were legal size is unknown, without voluntary catch and release, it is likely that angler harvest would
have likely exceeded levels needed to sustain the fishery.”
Okay, I want to make sure I have this worked out correctly in my head…
If the annual mortality increases 2% (from 18% to 20%) that would basically mean 30 baby muskies are getting hatched/spawned that given year instead of 100 baby muskies? I obviously made up the 30 and 100 numbers, but wanted to make sure I have the terms 'recruitment to the populations' correct.
Secondly, if the DNR Biologists know the fishery isn't sustainable at the current catch/kill levels, how haven't there been any changes in the restrictions? Are they giving the tag system a couple years to see what effects that has on the system?
Not exactly. The reduction is related to a reduction in the mean age of the population.
"with as little as a 2% increase in annual mortality causing a reduction in mean age of muskellunge from 23 years to 21 years, which is comparable to a 70% decline in recruitment"
52
34