I wanted to know if anyone out there knows what the science says about harvesting these old large female muskies. A fisheries biologist once told me that keeping large female walleyes has little effect on the population because the large old females are not as important to the fishery because the eggs become less viable as the fish gets older, and they don't produce as many fry as younger females. If the same holds true for muskies,(I don't know that it does that's why I'm asking) shouldn't it be ok for some harvest of the older large females? in other words which is more important to the resource a mid 40 something inch female reaching her peak or a 50 something inch on her way down?
"skegmonster19" said:
I wanted to know if anyone out there knows what the science says about harvesting these old large female muskies. A fisheries biologist once told me that keeping large female walleyes has little effect on the population because the large old females are not as important to the fishery because the eggs become less viable as the fish gets older, and they don't produce as many fry as younger females. If the same holds true for muskies,(I don't know that it does that's why I'm asking) shouldn't it be ok for some harvest of the older large females? in other words which is more important to the resource a mid 40 something inch female reaching her peak or a 50 something inch on her way down?
Both are equally important!! A mid-40" fish may have just started to mature enough to spawn. (Depending on which lake, or area of the state). The last record Muskie taken from Torch was only 13(I believe?) yrs old, but was 55" long. Ripe females are on average anywhere from 6-19 yrs old.
So, what if that last muskie was done growing? Some fish may just top out at 55". But, they could then be 55" for the next 8 years. You cannot use length to determine age, or maturity level.
There is a big difference between a 12 year old female measuring 49-53" in her biological prime and a key breeding fish and say a 22 year old female that might measure 51-56" that could be on her downslide and not be a key breeder. Obviously most people aren't gonna have a clue on how to tell the age of a fish they just caught and there are very very few truly old female muskies out there.
EDIT. Jim basically beat me to it, point is a "big" female could be really old or it could have 10 more years to go of good spawning years.
With the growth rate in the lower chain the biggest issue as stated before is that most of the females are nearly 50 by the time they spawn once, and will spawn for another dozen years or so after. Even considering the last record out of Bellaire, and her age, she was not past prime yet either. Also looking at the population densities of those waters, it is pretty obvious that the current management plan isn't quite sufficient. It will be a few years before there is a noticeable change with the new tag system reducing harvest, and I can not wait till that starts showing up. But there is still a biological need for reduced harvest in that chain, however it has to happen.
"skegmonster19" said:
I wanted to know if anyone out there knows what the science says about harvesting these old large female muskies. A fisheries biologist once told me that keeping large female walleyes has little effect on the population because the large old females are not as important to the fishery because the eggs become less viable as the fish gets older, and they don't produce as many fry as younger females. If the same holds true for muskies,(I don't know that it does that's why I'm asking) shouldn't it be ok for some harvest of the older large females? in other words which is more important to the resource a mid 40 something inch female reaching her peak or a 50 something inch on her way down?
Yours is a very good question…we went down this road about 10 years ago with the DNR after some of their field staff handled (in truth – mishandled…overhandled…abused) older females at Thorn during the egg take. Will, Dale W & Duke probably recall our exchange with their 'all knowing' retiree who loved making muskies hold their breath. This was at a meeting that MMA put on with the hatchery staff at Gander Mt…and I sighted some data like you mentioned with lower fertilities in older female walleyes & bass. Obviously, I brought it up in hopes to get the staff to stop killing prized big fish by the stresses of handling…since in reality I'd like them to always get eggs & milt from the BIGGEST breeders in an ideal world (one where the fisheries staff isn't dropping the subjects en route to the holding tank!).
I have to give the hatchery staff credit – they listened, and at the next year's meeting had acquired great data plotting the % survival of fertilized eggs vs. age. It showed no significant correlation & the old giants made just as many babies, percentage-wise, as the first timers. Turned out it was a win-win though – they got some great data, and I think got them thinking a little more logically & scientifically about the breeding/rearing process, and the old timer who abused our fish retired shortly thereafter (you can see his photo in the famous Gun Lake musky picture with the beauty that they trapped long after stocking was stopped).
The problem is these guys can and will still stab anything that looks big to them and I really don't think most of them can tell the difference between 45" and 50", or 50" and 55" in the spear hole, nor do I think they care.
Back to the original topic though, I would think that the older, bigger females would be just as valueable, if not more valueable, than the first or second year spawners as they obviously have the good genetics to grow big and live long.
"skegmonster19" said:
sounds like you guys are saying the antrim chain needs a higher MSL, maybe 50inches
Based on data collected and to fit with the management plan 48" is the absolute minimum that should be in place on the Antrim chain. Problem is we couldn't get agreement that this needed to be the "optional" size with the new regulations so we're stuck with 42 or 46. Why the IR chain and the Antrim chain weren't immediately placed at 46 is beyond me.
Will the DNR release tag data to the public on how many fish were taken via the tag and where they were taken from? I would be interested in seeing how many tags come from the Indian River and Antrim chain lakes and what the size of those fish were. You never really hear of any taken from those lakes that are much smaller than 50". Would increasing the MSL up there even reduce harvest?
"MattG_braith" said:
Will the DNR release tag data to the public on how many fish were taken via the tag and where they were taken from? I would be interested in seeing how many tags come from the Indian River and Antrim chain lakes and what the size of those fish were. You never really hear of any taken from those lakes that are much smaller than 50". Would increasing the MSL up there even reduce harvest?
Yes, but it's voluntary reporting so we'll see how many report. They've done a good job stopping their ranks reporting on the Master Angler form so they can always use that to say "there were more fish killed angling than speared".
Do we only hear about the big ones because they're big and no one really talks about the smaller ones?
"Mayhem" said:
[quote="Will Schultz"]. Why the IR chain and the Antrim chain weren't immediately placed at 46 is beyond me.
Is this still being worked on? Any time frame on when it could be in place?
As much as I hate to say this it will likely take some new biologists in the area to make changes. Unless the Esocid Committee is given the power they NEED to make changes like this it will be an uphill battle in many areas.
Well that's very depressing, why have a muskie management plan at all if they are not going to put in the necessary regulations to make it work! They can't even hide behind no data in this case. Meanwhile Minnesota (48" and maybe 50" soon?) and Wisconson (50" on green bay) is able to get high MSLs on their trophy lakes.
"Mayhem" said:
Well that's very depressing, why have a muskie management plan at all if they are not going to put in the necessary regulations to make it work! They can't even hide behind no data in this case. Meanwhile Minnesota (48" and maybe 50" soon?) and Wisconson (50" on green bay) is able to get high MSLs on their trophy lakes.
Heather Hettinger is the local manager for the Antrim Chain, let her know your feelings: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
368
43