How about a Michigan-proposed and run study, but carried out in Indiana! Or if it is Michigan, how about starting with a pike release study? Acknowledging the obvious differences, of course
The reason why not Michigan reason goes back to
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
being the one to embark on a mortality study.
I personally would be satisfied with Michigan fisheries manager's input only, but other state's perspectives would be very helpful. In fact I'd love to see how it mightbe received differently from other states vs. Mich. The potential management goals laid out sound great, of course, I just have not often seen the DNR demonstrate any forward-thinking ("outside the box") to give me any reason to believe they would actually do it. I would like to see some conditions agreed to by the DNR prior, on what action they would actually take if the data supports it. I am not convinced these guys would stand behind any of these possible management changes.
OK I've got a few questions. If the DNR kills some of the fish in the study will they replace them in the fall with some more Iowa fish or michigan fish? If we want to make Ovid a DNR test lake for doing studies. Can we get a 50 inch limit or it only be CR only so we can study the fish for longer time? Also makeing a study like this will in no dout make more fishing presure from people that read it or here about come and fish the lake. How do we deal with that.
LeMay OUT
"Duke" said:
The reason why not Michigan reason goes back to
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
being the one to embark on a mortality study.
Are we really though or is it management problems? You know, as well as I, that if we go back ten years and distribute those fish at one per acre no one would have the perception that we are a muskie-poor state. The pike study wouldn't have any impact on pike management and would be tough to honestly use for muskies.
Take it to Indiana? Ovid is arguably the closest thing we have to Indiana waters, in fact I would argue that it rivals all of their water except Webster. The potential problem… Ovid doesn’t have shad.
I know that no one wants a study like this on their “home lake” which seems like where this is going. I consider Ovid home water and I feel you, to be honest Murray was the first choice but the recreational traffic was a huge problem to deal with, Ovid doesn’t have that problem. This and the next response seems like we’re starting to discuss “feelings”, which is fine, I have no problem with that.
"LeMay" said:
OK I've got a few questions. If the DNR kills some of the fish in the study will they replace them in the fall with some more Iowa fish or michigan fish? If we want to make Ovid a DNR test lake for doing studies. Can we get a 50 inch limit or it only be CR only so we can study the fish for longer time? Also makeing a study like this will in no dout make more fishing presure from people that read it or here about come and fish the lake. How do we deal with that.
LeMay OUT
This is where things might get into a slippery slope and we don’t want to start pointing fingers. How many muskellunge were caught in Ovid last year by MMA members? I’m guessing 200 or more, if we had 5% mortality on those fish we killed 10 fish. Are we going to start asking members to replace the fish they kill? Yikes, I don’t even want to go there.
The fish wouldn't be replaced this fall because Ovid is on an odd number year rotation for stocking. The reality is that Ovid has been overstocked, just like Murray, the fishery isn’t natural. As a result
One of the things talked about was possibly asking for a higher size limit to allow longer study of these fish, I can’t say that it seemed like a big concern though. The short term is really where mortalities are expected, somewhere from 1-72 hours after release.
I don't believe this study would have any effect on fishing pressure. Did the Eilers study increase pressure on Thornapple? Though I'm just going on my observation, no creel survey data, I perceive the pressure on Thornapple to be less than it was before the Eilers study. If for some strange reason this study does increase pressure at least we’ll have some way to evaluate how that pressure might affect the fishery. Right now all we could say is “there’s more pressure, I’m not catching as many fish, the pressure must be killing fish and we need to stock more”. That statement simply doesn’t support our objectives the most important – To support selected conservation practices based on scientific merit and carried out by authorized federal and state agencies.
One of the reasons Ovid is at the top of the list is because the current density is assumed to be on the high side compared to the available forage. We aren't talking a low density natural fishery where conducting a study like this could have long term effects.
One more thing…
Take a look at the video in the link below. I knew there was a disconnect between what we feel is good handling and what biologists consider good handling. I sent this video to a biologist and the response was "that didn't seem too bad at all".
You be the judge…
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
re: video link-
GOOD … NIGHT
And as far as the "not on my home lake" I wish I could come up with a convincing way to state that is NOT where any of my concerns lie. I probably can't except for just pleading that you believe my words: I want nothing more than for muskies to be removed from Ovid. I just wish, given their value in this state, that it would not be by sacrifice in the name of sceince but be by way of adult transfer to more needy waters.
Ok, don't want to [smilie=deadhorse.gif] on the feelings v. science point but I can't resist. I agree that there are many times when the feelings v. science point is a valid one. But come on, to raise that here in the proper release context? I think we tend to get too wrapped up in this need for scientific proof of everything when logic (not feelings) will do. Can science prove that shooting yourself in the temple will hurt….probably if the test group lives to tell the tale. Do I need science to prove to me that this is true without conducting my own experiment, no. Who cares what a biologist thinks is a good hold and release of a musky, logic dictates we know better. Do we need to prove that scientifically to be "fact" (in a true scientific sense to a peer reviewed scientific journal) to support it, no. If we keep taking the position that we have to scientifically prove everything we do in the musky world to make any progress or support change then the picture is going to be bleak for me and the next generation.
One of the primary goals of this study, as I see it anyway, is QUANTIFY how many fish may not survive a C&R, and perhaps the difference between proper and improper handling during C&R. Yes, common sense does tell us that some fish will die after C&R, but doesn't have any way of telling us HOW MANY die.
Once knowing the numbers, we can start planning and pursuing the appropriate stocking efforts needed in MI. It isn't ALL we need to know, but we DO need to know it.
After reading some of the threads about the clashes between C&R "fisherpeople" (to be as PC as possible 😀 ) and the "darkhouse" anglers, it seems to me that we need to know not only how many fish get speared, but also how many are lost through C&R, too. Once knowing BOTH these attrition rates, ideally we could plan a stocking effort for MI that would allow EVERYONE to fish they way they want and STILL preserve the muskie fishery!
If MI had a stocking program that replaced the fish being harvested or lost through attrition, everyone would be happy, and MI could then be a "destination muskie fishery". We'll never have a proper stocking program, if we don't have the numbers, and plan it properly. A well-designed, scientifically-backed plan is the ONLY kind that can be "sold" to the people making these decisions.
Is Ovid over stocked? Ya most likely. If it had shad in it then I think we could make it like Webster. I like the idea of a lake with 5 fish peracre. I most likey fish their more then any other MMA member. The fish all look good to me. Some of them are not as fat as some of the other fish I get their. But I think the fish look skinner in mid summer then spring of fall becuse that are more active. I'm not an ickthyologist. I see that the fish are growing fast, we are seeing more upper 40 inch fish in their. So their is food in their for the number that are in their. I have yet to see a dead muskie floating on the lake. Not that MMA member are killing the fish. I think we all try to save the fish as best we can becuse we understand we want them to live. I think one or two boats are targeting the fish to eat. [smilie=brickwall.gif] And if the fish are over 42 inches these not to much we can do about that. If the do the study at Ovid and they test 120 fish in a year and kill 5% of them that suck's in my book. But I also look at it this way to. Will thought about 200 fish CPR in Ovid last year. Me I think its higher more like 350 fish CPR by MMA member. Last year I netted 96 fish in the lake. And if I killed 5% from mishandling Then in two years I alone will kill more then the study. I think the fish survive better them we think.
LeMay OUT
"Scrappy" said:
Ok, don't want to [smilie=deadhorse.gif] on the feelings v. science point but I can't resist. I agree that there are many times when the feelings v. science point is a valid one. But come on, to raise that here in the proper release context? I think we tend to get too wrapped up in this need for scientific proof of everything when logic (not feelings) will do. Can science prove that shooting yourself in the temple will hurt….probably if the test group lives to tell the tale. Do I need science to prove to me that this is true without conducting my own experiment, no.
I don't know if there is a more valid place to compare feelings vs science because no one has proven that delayed mortality increases with handling like we see in that video. We FEEL (based on logic)that hot weater and poor handling probably kills fish. Logic tells us it does? Really? Would that be the same logic that assumed the test group in your temple shooting study would all be dead or vegetative and not be able to respond?
I just tested your example, I shot myself in the temple and it hurt. I lived though because your study parameters weren't very clear and I used a rubberband. Therefore your "logic" that I would likely not be able to report on my findings because I would be dead if I shot myself in the temple was flawed.
"Scrappy" said:
Who cares what a biologist thinks is a good hold and release of a musky, logic dictates we know better.
I care – very much! Biologists are the decision makers in the end. If the biologist doesn't think the average angler mishandles a muskie based on the above video yet we all think that fish is dead… How do we prove our point and/or expect our position to be seen as more than feelings?
For the moment, I'm most interested in what positives may come of "putting Michigan on the map" (more so than the potential applications of the release and mortality results). Will, at the risk of asking you to repeat yourself, would you like to list some potential of outcomes if Michigan can attain a new status?
Shooting people in the temple!! SWEET where do I sign up for it. 300, 400, 500 yds stuff? When I was at the FBI sniper school we did a lot of talking about this. And more people will survive this then you would think. Shooting people in the temple is not going to stop them 100% of the time as you would think. Shooting them lower in the brain stem is where the shot placement needs to be 100% stopping. I've seen the videos and read the reports. And with out this type of study less people lives would saved in a hostage tpye shoot out. So with out a study no one realy know's. I look at it this way if we lose some fish from a study and its for the good of all the fish we lose some fish. We can always get more fish right. If it kills more fish maybe we have to rethink our way of handling of the fish. And maybe the DNR will plant more fish in the lakes for all of us to enjoy.
LeMay OUT
"john c" said:
For the moment, I'm most interested in what positives may come of "putting Michigan on the map" (more so than the potential applications of the release and mortality results). Will, at the risk of asking you to repeat yourself, would you like to list some potential of outcomes if Michigan can attain a new status?
Putting Michigan on the map is really the least important aspect, it's the feel good soundbite. What comes with putting Michigan on the map? Respect for Michigan and respect for the fishery in Michigan among our biologists but also among other states biologists.
Why did Wisconsin go to the OMNR when they wanted to diversify the Green Bay genetics? We've got clean GLS right here in Michigan.
Why doesn't Michigan come to mind when muskellunge management is being discussed? No respect.
Why has nearly all the muskellunge research Jim Diana has done with UofM been conducted in Wisconsin? No respect.
Michigan is a salmon state, when people have problems with salmonids they come to Michigan. Shouldn't we also have some respect when it comes to muskellunge?
That's what I was trying to get to. Do you/we believe that improving Michigan's reputation as a muskie state will lead to a better muskie fishery in Michigan? This is a long term oriented notion, admittedly. I'm looking for some examples – if you agree- of how an impoved reputation will further Michigan muskie fishing.
In other words, could creating or improving a Michigan muskie culture result in:
-Progressively better size limits, creel limits, open seasons
-A change in the biologists' values or paradigms
-A change in the DNR's values or culture
-More/improved muskie rearing
-Better stocking prescriptions
-Other ideas????
I think all of the above would/could be affected by building respect. We have the potential to change views concerning, management, stocking and the overall importance muskellunge could have on our fisheries and economy.
We've made the baby steps over the last five years. Now it's time to get this done in leaps and bounds. MMA has the respect it needs, now Michigan muskellunge need to get that same respect.
MN is my favorite example of what we could have. I did some research the other day and found that 20 years ago in MN they had two 50" muskies registered in the Muskies, Inc Lunge Log. In 2007 there were more than 350 50"ers registered in the Lunge Log in the state of MN. Granted I don't expect to build something like MN here but to see how they have come from virtually nothing to become what they are today is amazing.
The same could be said for the fishery in Green Bay. 20 years ago there was nothing and today it might give you the best shot at a 50 pound fish anywhere in the US.
Are those in Indiana, Illinois and Ohio interested in coming to Michigan for muskie fishing? I think the number of anglers that travel to MN, WI and even St Clair shows that. I hate to use this but… if we build it they will come.
Wow, I'm not even going to try to respond to the rubber band comment…I'm anxious for a debate on the moral of my story not iterations of my proposed experiment.
John C and Duke have the issue set out dead on "what will Michigan gain for its sacrefice of already scarce muskies in one of our lakes?" Will, I agree that Michigan gaining some respect in the fisheries community would be a plus. However, the results of this study will NOT (and it can be argued until one is blue in the face to the contrary) in any way result in Michigan stocking more fish in our lakes even if it is shown that additional stocking is needed due to the mortality rate even when fish are caught and released. Why is that? Because this state is in a tail spin and the state doesn't have the money to do it. All the mortality studies in the world will not get us a new cold water hatchery. All the mortality studies in the world will not get us more money to feed or more acres of netted pond space to raise addtional musky fingerlings. That presupposes that we don't kill the little guys before they get to the pond.
What we need is a study that will show what muskies grow the fastest in Michigan lakes (a la Illinois project Green Gene) so we can determine how best, with our limited resourses and budget, to catch up to the other Midwest states that are blowing us away with there ability to generate fishable populations of fish.
Really, in principle, I'm not against supporting this study but I think that if MMA is going to get involved in this beyond the planning stage, the members deserve an answer to the $6 million dollar question…what is in it for us? Respect amongst a bunch of scientists (who largely reside in other states that have outstanding stocking programs) who don't have the ability to generate the needed cash to put more muskies in our lakes in my mind isn't enough to make up for the sacrefice of a bunch of fish that MMA paid to get to Ovid in the first place.
Bottom line, how does this study help us built "it" so they will come? I've yet to hear this question answered in anything other than feelings…we will get more respect.
"Will Schultz" said:
The same could be said for the fishery in Green Bay. 20 years ago there was nothing and today it might give you the best shot at a 50 pound fish anywhere in the US.
I spoke to someone from the DNR esocid committee who was of the opinion that Saginaw Bay could outperform Green Bay as a muskie fishery someday, if managed properly.
I know I'd like that. 😀
Ya Hemichemi I know the guy you where talking to it about at the Midland lure swap. Their are a lot of places that we could make better then Green Bay. But the bottem line is Michigan DNR money goes to other things. Muskies are low on the list. Maybe MMA could get some land and raze some fish. But MMA does not have the money to do that. We are just stuck in a hard place. And its going to take some time to move up the ladder.
"LeMay" said:
Ya Hemichemi I know the guy you where talking to it about at the Midland lure swap. Their are a lot of places that we could make better then Green Bay. But the bottem line is Michigan DNR money goes to other things. Muskies are low on the list. Maybe MMA could get some land and raze some fish. But MMA does not have the money to do that. We are just stuck in a hard place. And its going to take some time to move up the ladder.
We have to take the long view on this. Yes, it's not going to happen now, but it will likely never happen unless the higher level decision-makers at DNR and the state legislature see that the muskie fishery is something more than a small sideline for Michigan as a fishing attraction.
Muskies are low on the list now, but as the alewives, and after them the salmon, disappear from the Great Lakes, this may be easier to do in the future. Convincing those who hold the purse-strings will likely take a long time, but we have to start somewhere or it will never happen.
Perhaps we (The MMA board and our membership) should be making loud noises to our state senators and representatives, and get THEM to apply pressure on the intransigent ones in DNR to improve the muskie fishery. How about a letter-writing campaign? This is not my original idea; it was suggested to us by the DNR person we spoke to. It sounds like a good idea to me.
Yes, I've heard that suggestion before as well. We've never really done it but, as much as it pains me to say, I think it is a waste of time. The DNR doesn't have the money to improve the musky program and writting even 140 letters (roughly the size of MMA's membership I think) will not do squat to get their attention. Likewise, writting your state representatives isn't likely to go anywhere fast either. I doubt highly you will convince a state legislator that more money is needed for muskies given the state of Michigan's finances. If such a letter campaign got off the ground I would participate but I think it is wasted effort. We would need a lot more numbers then we have to get the DNR's attention on this never mind Lansing's.
Glad you thought the rubberband was as stupid as I thought the gun analogy was.
"Scrappy" said:
John C and Duke have the issue set out dead on "what will Michigan gain for its sacrefice of already scarce muskies in one of our lakes?"
How scarce are the muskies in Ovid exactly? I think this is getting a little too doom and gloom when we start talking "scarce" and "sacrifice". They're just fish and in reality they're really not that expensive when we're talking the Iowa fish. I do understand that this might not "feel" right. In fact, I was expecting to have these questions come up first and not the more technical questions. Sacrifice with a put and take fishery isn't a huge deal, there will be more fish stocked. I don't want this to get into an argument over what is spent on fish and where the money should go. MMA is a statewide organization and as such will not allocate funding or effort based on where the majority of our anglers are located.
"Scrappy" said:
However, the results of this study will NOT (and it can be argued until one is blue in the face to the contrary) in any way result in Michigan stocking more fish in our lakes even if it is shown that additional stocking is needed due to the mortality rate even when fish are caught and released.
Now we're getting to the point. No this will not result in more fish being stocked, the goal is about 25K every year, which is pretty darn achievable. That isn't the point and was never stated as such, better management? yes – more fish? NO.
I'm not a "type A" so I don't get this but I do try to understand. I know we live in a world of "I want, I want, I want and I want it now". When we're talking management of a fish that can live for 18+ years wouldn't it be wise to make choices for the long term? I'm not in this game to put three stockings of fish in a lake so that the ten guys that fish that lake will be happy for the next ten years. I'm in this to build a muskie fishery across the state of Michigan.
How could this study impact and change stocking? By giving good data to estimate the overall harvest and mortality of a water to determine stocking rates. For instance… Ovid gets relatively little muskie angling pressure and based on the results of this study what if it was determined that Ovid only needs to be stocked with 550 fish every other year. In know, I know you want to know what you get out of it… If Ovid had not been stocked at such a high rate in 2003 and 2005 there would have been 2500 more fish to go around the state. If you want to have the WIIFM (what's in it for me) that is it right there. 2500 additional fish that could be stocked somewhere else. Heck, that could have been an additional 2500 fish that went into Sanford. (how's that??)
Will knowing an estimated harvest and mortality rate help determine seasonal limits? Yep. Same as above… What if we could propose that with a reduced harvest limit and reduced stocking densities we would end up with the same quality fishery ten years down the road. WIIFM? More consistent stocking of "your" lakes.
I would argue that no one better understands how it might "feel" to loose some of these fish and sacrifice. The hours, blood, sweat and typers cramp that I've put in over the last seven years has at times taken a toll on my life, marriage and my son. All for a stupid fish… No, I'm not looking for a pat on the back I just want you to know that I understand.
"Scrappy" said:
Yes, I've heard that suggestion before as well. We've never really done it but, as much as it pains me to say, I think it is a waste of time. The DNR doesn't have the money to improve the musky program and writting even 140 letters (roughly the size of MMA's membership I think) will not do squat to get their attention. Likewise, writting your state representatives isn't likely to go anywhere fast either. I doubt highly you will convince a state legislator that more money is needed for muskies given the state of Michigan's finances. If such a letter campaign got off the ground I would participate but I think it is wasted effort. We would need a lot more numbers then we have to get the DNR's attention on this never mind Lansing's.
Did someone wake up grumpy and negative about the world today?
Group hug for Scott – "><url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … uphug2.gif">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” alt=”
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … uphug2.gif">[Permission to view this media is denied]
” />
57
33
1 Guest(s)