I was going to hold of on this for the March newsletter but I can't keep it inside for the next couple weeks… I will ask that we please keep this within MMA and not discuss this outside MMA.
For the last three or four years I've been trying to get someone to listen and recognize the tremendous impact a well done release mortality study would have on muskellunge management. Not just here in Michigan but all across the range of muskellunge. Unfortunately I'm usually met with little more than mediocre interest and nothing ever happens – until now.
Because of the study that the DNR is conducting on the Elk Chain I've made friends with someone that was previously just a person I ran into at DNR meetings or at the symposium in Indianapolis. You may or may not recognize his name unless you're as much of a fish geek as Pete or me. Jim Diana (School of Natural Resources and Environment at University of Michigan) has been involved with numerous muskellunge studies in Wisconsin with Terry Margenau. You don't have to be much of a fish geek to recognize Terry's name or at least some of his studies (single hook sucker study).
It looks like I've found someone that seems nearly as excited about this study as I am – Jim Diana. Through e-mail and a long phone call today I've explained the basics of the study and with his help we are going to (hopefully) make this happen. The thing that really made me feel like we're about to "make a name for Michigan" is that Jim is going to send my outline of the study to Terry Margenau and get his feedback. I'm blown away that a study I outlined will actually be reviewed by the person that I consider to be the foremost expert on muskellunge biology next to Dr John Casselman. Jim is also intersted enough in this study that he wants to take it, immediately, to the Michigan DNR Esocid Committee for their support and approval. Once the DNR approves the study and we get Terry's feedback Jim will begin looking for a gradate student to run the study and also for funding. I believe we will be able to obtain funding from numerous sources outside the normal channels such as Esox Angler magazine and other Muskies, Inc. chapters.
Please understand that we're in the planning and design phase of this study and nothing is "for sure" until the work begins.
Though a little tentative I'm prepared to share the outline of the study and answer any questions at this time. Obviously this may change as we progress with the development of this project but at least you can see where we are starting.
[size=150]Release Mortality Study [/size]
Objectives
Evaluate the impact of the catch and release on muskellunge. The focus of this study would examine water temperature and handling methods during the catch/release process and how it impacts muskellunge survival. Release survival is an important part of muskellunge management however our understanding of release mortality is minimal. This study would benefit fisheries managers in Michigan but also across the range of muskellunge in the US and Canada.
Methods
– Examine release mortality using angler captured fish
– Capture control fish using fyke nets/boomshocker
– PIT tag all fish for future data collection
– Some fish will need to be handled poorly and kept out of the water for extended periods
– Large floating net pens should be utilized to hold fish for a period of two weeks
– The capture and hold/study should take place during a minimum of two water temp ranges
— Surface temp below 65
— Surface temp above 78
Negatives
Muskellunge will die during the study. To make the data accurate muskellunge will have to be intentionally mishandled and some will not survive.
Needless to say I'm about as excited about this as I was when I hung up the phone with the Iowa DNR after getting that program in place. Sure, there's still a chance that this couldn't happen but I believe with Jim on board and Terry Margenau reviewing the initial outline for the study it will happen.
"john c" said:
Will, would you like to add some comments as to the reasons for your excitement?Thanks
There are a number of reasons most of which are mentioned above. The primary reason for my excitement is this study will be something that can be used by fisheries managers all across the range of the muskellunge in the US and Canada. The study itself will provide management data that has never been available. Catch and release mortality has been just a guess for managers, this study will provide the answers. The only study of this type was not done in the wild but was done by hauling fish to tanks where they were monitored (Casselman).
On some waters release mortality is insignificant but on other waters, particularly high pressure waters, this study can/will help dictate harvest limits and/or stocking densities. It isn't just the highly pressured waters that will benefit but also the low density waters because release mortality could be a significant factor in the evaluation of harvest limits or possibly placing a no harvest on certain waters.
I'm also excited that that this study will put Michigan on the map as a muskie state. Sure we have a long way to go but running a study, that has never been done, that will have such broad ranging management implications is something that will turn heads.
I'm sure it will seem strange to some that I can be, even slightly, excited about this study. This study will intentionally cause harm, and likely a number of mortalities, to muskellunge. We have worked so hard to get these fish stocked in the first place but we have to look at this as a long term investment in managing muskellunge and not just here in Michigan.
Some great questions from my PM box about this potential release mortality study…
The first question that this potential mortality study raised in my mind is will it ultimately support hook & release angling or will the study hurt it. By that I mean this: suppose the study shows that half (or some surprisingly high percentage) of the fish we release die. Suppose the results – be they accurate or very inaccurate – show that we, the hook & release types, are killing ten times as many as the spearers, for example.
Mike Holmes has already used release mortality stats to express that spearers kill fewer fish than open water anglers. There's no question he's right when you combine purposely harvested fish with delayed mortality. I don't want to go off in another direction but spearing isn't a problem really, overharvest is a/the problem that is often associated with spearing. Overharvest happens with open water anglers too, we've heard a couple examples of that here on this forum within the last year.
While this study could prove that mortality is higher than anticipated at least we'll have solid data to use for management. Am I worried about Mike using this in an underhanded way? No, not at all, he never has he only uses mortality stats to support his position. He is not a bad person and the last thing he would want to do is take away anything (open water angling) from sportsmen in Michigan.
I'm assuming you're confident the study results will support release angling. Is this true?
Being that we have very little to go on with release mortality it is tough to make any kind of assumption. We do have some experience to draw on though… The abuse that the fish go through during the egg take is a great example of how tough these fish really are, the result is very few floating fish (out of 100's). The other example is the transmitter implanted fish at Thornapple some of which were kept out of the water for ten minutes, or more, during surgery. Those movement study fish experienced zero mortality. Granted the egg collection and transmitter fish were taken in cold water but to have zero mortality with the transmitter fish was a surprise – at least to me. I'm hoping that we'll see very low release mortality and that we'll really have to abuse the fish to kill them. My guess is that even in hot water with poor handling we will see no more than 10-15% mortality if it is 75% then at least we have the facts. If that is true then we will at least have something to go on for hot water fishing vs. the guess we're making now. Southern states (even southern Michigan) will love to have that data if the mortality rate is very high in hot water they could use our study to close seasons.
I'm interested in your point that a study like this could "put Michigan on the map".
If this works out I'm sure MHM and Esox Angler will use the data and likely write articles on the study. The only study of this type didn't yield much useful data which is why we're all still guessing about release mortality. Just the answers to the question about how many fish die in cold water vs. warm water will make this one of the most important studies for muskie management ever done – in my opinion.
More questions from my PM box…
When is Jim Diana taking this to the committee?
Jim is taking this to the esocid committee next week. I've already got word from one of the members that he thinks this a good idea and has volunteered DNR equipment.
How long before this plan is put into action (if approved)?
It is possible the study could happen this spring if a grad student can be found… oh… and that little matter of funding. More likely 2009, partly infoluence by the fact that Jim is concetrating his efforts on the Elk Chain movement study right now.
How long would the duration of a study like this last?
The study would actually be fairly short term and should take place over one season. There would be two capture times (spring and summer) where we (MMA) would need to get out and catch fish for this, probably over a weekend. The study fish should also be monitored as long as possible using PIT tags (internal) that can be scanned during surveys and Floy tags that can be reported by anglers.
How many different scenarios of mishandling would be used? Perhaps this would be an opportunity to collect more data on vertical holds as well.
Basically we've discussed three sets of fish will go into the pens and I will throw the vertical hold into the equation. The problem is that unless vertical holds were the only method of mishandling it would be tough to know if that was the sole reason or just a contributing mortality factor.
The study, as discussed so far, will capture three sets of fish.
– Netted or boomshocked control fish.
– Angler caught fish that are handled correctly (time out of water recorded).
– Poorly handled fish (joe angler). Fought to exhaustion then netted and put on the floor of the boat for unhooking (timed), measured, photo, kisses, etc. (all timed). Specific criteria for the methods and duration of these events will be set by the biologist and used by each angler.
What water(s) would be best suited for this study?
There are a couple waters that could work for this study but only one really seems to be perfectly suited.
The needs for the water are:
– Will allow opportunity for numbers of angler caught fish
– Will allow opportunity to easily capture control fish (nets or boomshocker)
– Will tolerate the number of mortalities that could be a result of this study
– Minimal recreational traffic
– Ability to easily monitor holding pens
Lake Ovid (Clinton County)fits all these criteria.
"john c" said:
Will, in a lake with two "strains", such as Ovid, would you envision any considerations for mishandling Michigan fish versus mishandling Iowa fish?I vote they only mishandle the Iowa fish in there! Please, Please, please…
I'm guessing you're getting at not messing with the 99 fish since all subsequent years have been Iowa fish? That would be really tough since there's no way to positively ID the fish except guessing based on size. Based on other water, the 2000 females are probably at least as big as the 99 Michigan fish. The best sample will of course include the largest fish in the system, unfortunately.
"john c" said:
I was thinking the 2000 fish were Michigan fish. Didn't realize they were hawkeyes.
No problem, not many people outside the hatchery even know. If you look at 1998 and 2000 you’ll notice that Hudson was not stocked. That means there were not any Michigan fish produced at the hatchery since the two brood lakes are stocked first.
Boy, some great questions up there. Good answers too.
A few more q's that I don't think that we discussed before Will:
What is the targeted sample size…30? 100? as many as possible?
What is the targeted control size?
Will the grad student conduct the collections (fyke netting, not catching), or will that be an MMA role?
-I'm sure you've seen certain DNR personnel handle sizable muskies…a green grad student could be worse. This could skew the data.
Is the role of the PIT tags be used for judging longer term survival (>2 weeks in the nets)?
Will there be a cut off point at the higher temp end where the study will not be conducted?
-Inquiring since Ovid can get surface temps in the upper 80's. Wondering if a 77-82 high end range is more practical, and would make the data more meaningful?
How will caught fish be transferred to the pens? Included in the out-of-water time?
Maybe a lot of these details will be hashed out later on with J. Diana and T. Margenau as the study matures…
Much of this will be detailed after the study, in theory, is approved by the DNR.
"Pete" said:
What is the targeted sample size…30? 100? as many as possible?What is the targeted control size?
I’m sure a minimum will be set for each capture period/method as well as determining a minimum size. I’m thinking the minimum for any period/method should be at least 10. If that is the case the study would involve at least 60 fish.
"Pete" said:
Will the grad student conduct the collections (fyke netting, not catching), or will that be an MMA role?
-I'm sure you've seen certain DNR personnel handle sizable muskies…a green grad student could be worse. This could skew the data.
The control fish will likely be handled by only MI-DNR and UofM staff. Jim is very experienced in handling muskellunge. The handling of the control fish will be a little more gentle for this than the egg take process.
"Pete" said:
Is the role of the PIT tags be used for judging longer term survival (>2 weeks in the nets)?
Yes that is why I included that in the outline, future surveys will allow for monitoring of these study fish. Something that came up yesterday is an interest in using floy tags to evaluate exploitation rates by setting up a DNR web page that will allow an angler to register a caught/released tagged fish.
"Pete" said:
Will there be a cut off point at the higher temp end where the study will not be conducted?
-Inquiring since Ovid can get surface temps in the upper 80's. Wondering if a 77-82 high end range is more practical, and would make the data more meaningful?
This will need to be discussed further with a possible upper limit set. The primary concern, in my opinion, is not the surface temps but the net pens allowing the held fish to reach cooler water w/ acceptable DO.
"Pete" said:
How will caught fish be transferred to the pens? Included in the out-of-water time?
This is another detail that will have to be worked out when the study is written. I would prefer to see the grad student or DNR come to each boat which would require a special permit to exceed the no wake speed. In hot water ice can be used to keep a big livewell cool, along with a liquid oxygen set up. Transfer time would be recorded, of course, but probably not included in the guidelines for poor handling since all fish will have some transfer time.
Another good question… from my PM’s
Wouldn't keeping fish in a pen after release skew the results. It seems like it might restrict the movement of a fish after release causing extra stress. I would think just a tag would be sufficient. If you find the tagged fish and it is still moving… it's alive. If you find the tagged fish and it doesn't move… it's dead.
The reason for the control fish (not angler captured) is to judge the impact of the fish being held during the study period. We discussed the net pens in detail and they will need to be BIG (I’m thinking 1000 square feet).
Only radio or sonic transmitters could allow the possibility of monitoring the fish outside pens. Implanting 60+ fish with the cheaper sonic transmitters would cost $15,000+ just for the transmitters. Surgery is also required which adds a whole new level of stress. There are external transmitters but if the fish somehow looses the tag, the tag doesn't move, and the fish would be assumed dead (bad data). I also recall a fish in the Thornapple study that didn’t move for a couple weeks. If she was assumed dead during that time and no one ever tried to locate her again that would really mess up the data.
The "hold period" is the area I have the most concern. I'm hoping this is where we'll get the most feedback from the people Jim has looking at the study. He has sent this along to his "friends" and not just Terry Margenau for review. It could be determined that one week is long enough to monitor the fish and long term data can be collected through PIT and floy tags.
Delayed mortality studies have been completed extensively for bass. A question that needs to be addressed for the catch and release period for muskies is: what depth do those fish move to post release? Does this depth/location vary? When? Seasonally? etc.
Using net pens for a delayed mortality study must address the above question so the researcher can address and quantify the affects due to net pens. Which is one of the reasons a control group is necessary.
Usually, net pen depths will vary throughout the study period to try and mimic where those fish would locate themselves naturally.
"Poppy" said:
Delayed mortality studies have been completed extensively for bass. A question that needs to be addressed for the catch and release period for muskies is: what depth do those fish move to post release? Does this depth/location vary? When? Seasonally? etc.
In talking with Jim we talked about building net pens that would allow access to the shallowest and deepest water available. Fortunately that shouldn't be too difficult in Lake Ovid.
First and foremost, the information that a study like this could produce would be extremely interesting. It is a glaring deficiency that it doesn't exist already. However, as far as its value and applicability in the real world, well, I for one would like to hear it directly from many and various fisheries managers before undertaking the project that they would use the data in some meaningful way.
What would they do with it? I'm guessing that current management decisions do not take into account release mortality whatsoever (?), so the only resulting change that could come of it would come by way of a significantly high mortality rate demonstrated even in the best handling practices. Would they undertake a strong educational effort to the public on good release practices? Couldn't we just push for this irrespective of the study, just to get the info out there to be on the safe side? Forgive the strong wording, but anything short of that could be seen as a waste if it doesn't result in some real world effects. That is if its usefulness is to be proved to the angling community vs. only the scientific community. I'm sure many anglers would agree that today's DNR does not test every decision made with the question "how is this going to improve the fishery" as they did in the old days, and that this is the cause for the rift between the DNR and the public. To boil it down, there is a philosophical difference between the two- Studies vs. Stringers.
I'm sure this has been thought of by everyone if not voiced already, but why Michigan? Arguably the muskie-poorest state with their own program, the one that has gone panhandling just about every year for donations to provide for out-of-state fish just to cobble together a low-level year class of fish? I don't think this proposal should move forward without something like a vote from the people who in effect own a portion of these fish. I do fully understand that a mortality study on Ovid would not spell doom for this particular lake's fishery, and the result of an informed member vote probably will not reject it. That's not the point, the principle of it is.
This is getting way too long, I have some study parameter questions too but I'll save them maybe for another time. I hope this doesn't come across as a torpedo-job, or making this out to be a bigger deal than it really is. But it does really have some interesting implications.
Interesting angle…
First some questions to clarify…
Would you like to hear from fisheries managers from Michigan only or IA, MN, MO, WI, IN, OH, KY, NY, etc.?
Why Michigan?
I guess I would have to ask – Why not? I don’t think anyone in any state would ever say that there is a great time to conduct a study like this. No one is ever happy with “their waters”. There’s always too little stocking, too much pressure, size limits are too low, there’s too much harvest, etc. Someone needs to do this – Why not Michigan? I guess there are leaders and followers in all aspects of life. Michigan could be a leader when it comes to muskellunge mortality research or we could wait, hope someone does this study, and be followers.
Management…
I will be happy to research and get feedback from fisheries managers concerning how they would utilize this study and if they feel it would be useful. However, I see this study applying to us, as an angler group, when lobbying for:
– a reduction in harvest limits
– increased or decreased stocking densities
– need for supplemental stocking on natural water
– expansion in fisheries (due to pressured waters)
– change in the “open season” based on hot water
– open season during March/April on stocked water
Education…
Would an educational effort on our part, or the DNR, have any merit without the data collected in this study? Would you propose education for proper release based on feelings? We think this is the best way to handle fish and you should do it this way because our feelings tell us that your way is wrong.
Putting it to a vote…
MMA board members would be asked to vote on two things if the esocid committee approves of the study.
– Will MMA support the study?
– Will MMA provide financial support for this study?
If MMA’s board chose not to support this study financially or otherwise, it’s possible that it wouldn’t matter and it would happen anyway without the support of MMA.
57
10
1 Guest(s)