"Steve S" said:
Any news on anything that will happen or not as far of possible stocking
We should be getting some NMUS from Wisconsin this fall and I've thrown Iowa back in the ring for a limited number of waters. The Wisconsin fish would go toward the UP waters that should get those fish and so far I've heard back from one biologist that could take up to 1000 Iowa fish in his waters. The Iowa deal is in the very early part of discussion and may or may not happen. Once a decision is made with Iowa I'll pass that along.
"Will Schultz" said:
The problem with Green Bay is that there isn't any genetic diversity, to help this Michigan is actually sending them fry each year from our Detroit River fish. Most of that population originated from a handful of fish captured way back in the 90's here in Michigan at Indian River and Lake St Clair (I think the number is 12 w/only 4 females) .
Not trying to be a smarta$$, but has anyone told Wisconsin that their Green Bay fishery has a problem??
Wait, yes I am trying to be a smarta$$. And I know Green Bay only has limited natural reproduction so far, but they have some. Why on earth does our DNR think that we need to achieve 'ideal academic theoretical genetic diversity' (whatever that is) all at once, and all up front?
We need steady, incremental forward progress. Bit by bit if we have to, since it's kinda hard to get perfect all at once. And it's stupid to go all or nothing.
"Steve S" said:
So what's on the horizon? In other words what kind of plan does the DNR for the future? I would think everything that has happened, has shook them up!
The plan is to get away from the Detroit River so VHSv is never a problem again. There are going to be discussions about other sources and a few will be identified this year with a plan in place to take eggs next spring.
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="Duke"]
Not trying to be a smarta$$, but has anyone told Wisconsin that their Green Bay fishery has a problem??
I think 20 generations in Green Bay from only those 12 fish is probably violating every rule about building a fishery. So they're telling themselves they have a problem.
Took a bit to check on a couple of things before I posted. Based on the dates mentioned here, it seems that you guys must be talking specifically about the southern waters of that bay. Green Bay is over 1500 square miles in area. I mention this because the waters around Sturgeon Bay on the east side had 40"+ musky in the late 80s early 90s. The west side river mouths of the Oconto, Peshtigo, and Menomonee all held musky around those times also. These could not have originated from those 12 fish.
Over the 20 plus years you're talking about, there must have been some mixing of those populations. Maybe not enough to eliminate the issue of genetic diversity, but it isn't complete inbreeding either.
"Randy O" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"][quote="Duke"]
Not trying to be a smarta$$, but has anyone told Wisconsin that their Green Bay fishery has a problem??
I think 20 generations in Green Bay from only those 12 fish is probably violating every rule about building a fishery. So they're telling themselves they have a problem.
Took a bit to check on a couple of things before I posted. Based on the dates mentioned here, it seems that you guys must be talking specifically about the southern waters of that bay. Green Bay is over 1500 square miles in area. I mention this because the waters around Sturgeon Bay on the east side had 40"+ musky in the late 80s early 90s. The west side river mouths of the Oconto, Peshtigo, and Menomonee all held musky around those times also. These could not have originated from those 12 fish.
Over the 20 plus years you're talking about, there must have been some mixing of those populations. Maybe not enough to eliminate the issue of genetic diversity, but it isn't complete inbreeding either.
That's true. I guess the discussion should have been more specific to where they're taking eggs and the genetics present. The WI DNR didn't want to take eggs this year and use those fish to stock because of the lack of diversity.
368
25