An announcement will be made in the fiheries Division today that the program will only collect 750,000 eggs from Thornapple Lake. At 50% capacity, Wolf Lake is hoping to be able to keep up with the day to day feeding, tank cleaning, maintenance, and health procedures. This will still be a challenge for the hatchery since they are still lacking the proper number of technician staff at Wolf Lake State Fish Hatchery.
"Will Schultz" said:
An announcement will be made in the fiheries Division today that the program will only collect 750,000 eggs from Thornapple Lake. At 50% capacity, Wolf Lake is hoping to be able to keep up with the day to day feeding, tank cleaning, maintenance, and health procedures. This will still be a challenge for the hatchery since they are still lacking the proper number of technician staff at Wolf Lake State Fish Hatchery.
To me, this seems like a mistake. Last year, the percentage of survivors was so low. What if this happens again? If only 5% of fish make it to the stocking stage normally, what if something goes wrong and only 1% make it this year? We can't go back to the lake and get more eggs. I think they'd be better off taking the full amount that they normally do. Then, if the little guys are doing well, kill off the smaller weakest ones. I know it sounds cruel, but let the strongest survive.
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]An announcement will be made in the fiheries Division today that the program will only collect 750,000 eggs from Thornapple Lake. At 50% capacity, Wolf Lake is hoping to be able to keep up with the day to day feeding, tank cleaning, maintenance, and health procedures. This will still be a challenge for the hatchery since they are still lacking the proper number of technician staff at Wolf Lake State Fish Hatchery.
To me, this seems like a mistake. Last year, the percentage of survivors was so low. What if this happens again? If only 5% of fish make it to the stocking stage normally, what if something goes wrong and only 1% make it this year? We can't go back to the lake and get more eggs. I think they'd be better off taking the full amount that they normally do. Then, if the little guys are doing well, kill off the smaller weakest ones. I know it sounds cruel, but let the strongest survive.
Not so fast…
The results last year were likely caused by being understaffed and not being able to give the muskies the attention they need (they are very high maintenance). So… putting the same workload on even fewer staff this year could likely result in a total loss. It is entirely possible that in the end this is actually the right number of eggs to take each year. Starting at 750k doesn't acutally mean the yeild of fall fingerlings is going to be low.
"Steve S" said:
Will, if this works out better like this. Would they take eggs from Hudson next year and then Thorn the next. Or are they all the same strain?
The Hudson fish came from Thornapple fish so where they come from doesn't matter at all. The Thornapple fish started from a stocking long ago and those fingerlings were from Wisconsin. Because Thornapple is so much closer to the hatchery it makes more sense to only use Thornapple. The reason both have been used in the past was to shorten the amount of time to collect 2 million eggs. With the reduction in eggs needed Hudson could become a backup to Thornapple until a time the GLS brood are old enough.
Do you think that there's any connection with the die-off last year, and the kind of circus (newspapers, public viewing, etc)that was happening at Thorn during the egg take? Some animals are pretty tempermental when it comes to giving birth. When my parents horses would give birth, they would never go into labor if a human was around. They would always wait until nighttime. Now, with the muskies, we're talking a finicky spawner, who is taken out of water to give up her eggs, in the midst of 100's of people. Nature can be funny sometimes…
Note closely the wording of Will's first post. I've been telling you the DNR fisheries division was doing everything they can to help the muskie program. The DNR fisheries is now operating on the same amount of money as they had in 1990, yet we all know how much more everything cost in 2010. Kelly Smith admitted some things will have to go in the future. They saved you 50% of the muskie program. Some other program paid that price. Be sure to say "Thank you" Saturday night for saving half of the muskie program.
"Hamilton Reef" said:
Note closely the wording of Will's first post. I've been telling you the DNR fisheries division was doing everything they can to help the muskie program. The DNR fisheries is now operating on the same amount of money as they had in 1990, yet we all know how much more everything cost in 2010. Kelly Smith admitted some things will have to go in the future. They saved you 50% of the muskie program. Some other program paid that price. Be sure to say "Thank you" Saturday night for saving half of the muskie program.
That is a fact! This is the second time the muskie program has been saved from being cut completely. I can say without a doubt that the partnership MMA has maintained with the DNR since 2001 saved the muskie program again.
Isn't it strange that a guy in Minnesota can raise a million muskies and sell them all over the place and Michigan struggles the way they do? Why wouldn't Michigan take the money they/we spend on attempting to raise fish and put it towards buying the fish from someone who is clearly capable of doing a better job?
"MuskyDan" said:
Isn't it strange that a guy in Minnesota can raise a million muskies and sell them all over the place and Michigan struggles the way they do? Why wouldn't Michigan take the money they/we spend on attempting to raise fish and put it towards buying the fish from someone who is clearly capable of doing a better job?
How many reasons do you want?
1. Since the muskie program costs are minimal if you took that money you would be able to buy less than 2500 fish.
2. The fish raised in MN couldn't be used in many waters in Michigan (there are rules against mixing genetics).
3. If you were to buy enough fish from MN to stock the state you would end up spending more than 600,000.
4. Maybe it's just me but in times when the DNRE needs to be fiscally responsible spending that much money annually on fish that yeild very little economic gain for Michigan isn't being fiscally responsible.
The finger always gets pointed at the hatchery because they aren't capable, when it simply isn't fair. I've said this a thousand times but I'll say it again because it obviously isn't getting through. Wolf Lake does the best with what it has. The facilities are far from perfect but the money isn't there to renovate the hatchery. If you were to check around to other states you would find they all experience problems raising muskies:
– Last year (I think) MN muskie farm lost most of their fish.
– A couple years ago IN lost all/most of their fish.
– five +/- years ago IA lost all/most of their eggs.
– etc, etc, etc.
When the DNRE is looking for ways to save money anything but support for what the DNRE has done for muskie anglers in Michigan could yeild a shutdown of the program.
If all we do is complain about it then why would they want to continue a program that no one is happy with?
(edited for current pricing)
144
32
1 Guest(s)