Well I suddenly got over my gloom when Will proclaimed that he wasn't a type A personality. I have to change my shorts I laughed so hard.
I know I'm not supposed to get personal Will but you love to complain about the Midland crowd supposedly always bringing up the us v. them issue. Of course, you were quick to do so above. Take your own advise and quit pouring unwanted gas on that fire.
Did I ever claim Ovid was in my back yard, nope, you did. Ovid is 1 1/2 hours from my place, not exactly my back yard. Did I ever complain that giving these fish up in the name of science was a bad idea per se, I don't think so. What I did say is if Michigan is going to kill fish in the name of science we should get something out of it because we don't have the fish to spare. Know why all the other studies at U of M have been done in Wisco (other than the fact that even U of M grad students want to be closer to Madison and far away from Ann Arbor)? Because the damn State of Wisconsin is full of musky lakes, that actually get managed and stocked.
Excuse me, and a fairly good number of others on this string, if we aren't all that juiced up to kill a number of the limited fish we have (in one of the very few muskie numbers lakes in the state) to make a name for ourselves that may, or may not, result in the betterment of our stocking and management program years from now. You talk about the need for better management and if there had been better management perhaps Sanford would have received some of Ovid's overstock. Funny, in the past I'm pretty sure you have claimed that Ovid wasn't overstocked and that fish were put in there to attain a one fish per acre volume. Now all of a sudden you seem to be singing from the roof tops that lakes like Ovid and Murray were in fact overstocked. Unless my grumpiness has caused amnesia I'm pretty sure Pete has been warning us for years that the stocking management in this state has been way out of wack and that mud puddles like Ovid, Campau and Murray (let's not forget Austin that got bumped from the stocking list after we put a large number of fish in it) were being overstocked to the detriment of other, more needy waters in the state. Did we (and you Will, since I think you have admitted they are overstocked) need a mortality study or any other study to reach the conclusion these lakes have been overstocked? No. Logic dictated that long ago.
Really, I'm not being ornery for ornery sake, just tell us how EXACTLY (since proof as opposed to feelings is your rally cry) it is that this study (at the cost of a fair number of the fish we/you have toiled so hard to raise) will result in better stockings and better management of Michigan's musky resource. For example, have you obtained a commitment from anyone high up in the DNR to use the results of this study to do things better? From my perspective I think you FEEL they might use it to make things better but can you PROVE they will do so?
For the record "I" don't need to get anything out of this study so I guess I resent your suggestion that this is all about my personal gain. I put in enough time and money to this club that I think that for you to suggest that I'm being selfish is a bit over the top. As an MMA Board Member I do think we (MMA members) are not in the wrong to want to know (before we commit time and resources including killing muskies we helped plant) how this study is going to improve Michigan's musky fishery. Did you start to address this in your last response, yes. But really, while I'm sarcastic by nature, I don't think the points I was making or the issues I was raising were out of line or rose to the level of suggesting that all I want to do is make my back yard a better place to fish.
Now we're getting off the topic a little I think and it's turning into Scott vs. Will…
Nothing here is personal I'm just trying to respond to all the comments/concerns.
I'm "quoting" these quesions so that someone reading through can follow along and not because I'm addressing questions/concerns in a personal manner. Please don't take it that way.
These first few I shouldn't respond to but…
"Scrappy" said:
Well I suddenly got over my gloom when Will proclaimed that he wasn't a type A personality. I have to change my shorts I laughed so hard.
Really? Just because I'm willing to talk on here openly on here and try to respond to everything… or is there another reason? I'm actually the polar oposite of a type A. What you see on here is analytical not type A. You'll have to trust me on that, my father is a type A and I'm not even close. Enough about the personal aspect though…
"Scrappy" said:
I know I'm not supposed to get personal Will but you love to complain about the Midland crowd supposedly always bringing up the us v. them issue. Of course, you were quick to do so above. Take your own advise and quit pouring unwanted gas on that fire.
Where exactly did I do that? By saying that those fish could have gone to Sanford. There was nothing more in that than simply stating the fact that all the begging I've done to allocate fish in a different way could be solved through a change in management. You read something into it that wasn't there.
"Scrappy" said:
Did I ever claim Ovid was in my back yard, nope, you did. Ovid is 1 1/2 hours from my place, not exactly my back yard.
When was that? I can't seem to find where I said that. I said no one would want this in their home lake but that was a general statement and actually in response to Duke.
"Scrappy" said:
Did I ever complain that giving these fish up in the name of science was a bad idea per se, I don't think so. What I did say is if Michigan is going to kill fish in the name of science we should get something out of it because we don't have the fish to spare. Know why all the other studies at U of M have been done in Wisco (other than the fact that even U of M grad students want to be closer to Madison and far away from Ann Arbor)? Because the damn State of Wisconsin is full of musky lakes, that actually get managed and stocked.
Excuse me, and a fairly good number of others on this string, if we aren't all that juiced up to kill a number of the limited fish we have (in one of the very few muskie numbers lakes in the state) to make a name for ourselves that may, or may not, result in the betterment of our stocking and management program years from now.
If you go back and read through all of this you'll not find where making a name was what I consider the most important aspect. In fact where I originally mentioned that was at the bottom of the post and I later mentioned that the importance of the study was not to "put Michigan on the map". In fact, I was asked why I was excited about the study by John C specifically to that point. It's a personal thing, that's all.
I guess I'm confused why are we dwelling on that point, it's of little significance. Compared to all the other points made about why this study could impact management.
"Scrappy" said:
You talk about the need for better management and if there had been better management perhaps Sanford would have received some of Ovid's overstock. Funny, in the past I'm pretty sure you have claimed that Ovid wasn't overstocked and that fish were put in there to attain a one fish per acre volume. Now all of a sudden you seem to be singing from the roof tops that lakes like Ovid and Murray were in fact overstocked. Unless my grumpiness has caused amnesia I'm pretty sure Pete has been warning us for years that the stocking management in this state has been way out of wack and that mud puddles like Ovid, Campau and Murray (let's not forget Austin that got bumped from the stocking list after we put a large number of fish in it) were being overstocked to the detriment of other, more needy waters in the state. Did we (and you Will, since I think you have admitted they are overstocked) need a mortality study or any other study to reach the conclusion these lakes have been overstocked? No. Logic dictated that long ago.
Man… you reached back for that one…
Why would I have stated those lakes have not been overstocked? Because they haven't according to the management plan. However, if you go WAY back you'll realize that I have been trying to get 2-4 fish per acre changed to 1 fish per acre since MMA started. Pete and I sat down in the Mason building with the important people at the time and the main idea I wanted to discuss was stocking at one fish per acre.
Now, years later we actually have the data to SHOW that based on density, stocking at one fish per acre should be optimal based on THE DATA. Not what logic dictated long ago.
"Scrappy" said:
Really, I'm not being ornery for ornery sake, just tell us how EXACTLY (since proof as opposed to feelings is your rally cry) it is that this study (at the cost of a fair number of the fish we/you have toiled so hard to raise) will result in better stockings and better management of Michigan's musky resource. For example, have you obtained a commitment from anyone high up in the DNR to use the results of this study to do things better? From my perspective I think you FEEL they might use it to make things better but can you PROVE they will do so?
Read back through this whole thing and I believe you'll find the answers you seek. I have said they should use it and hopefully will use it BUT I feel this is most important to us, as an angler group, when we present proposals for changing seasons, stocking, etc.
"Scrappy" said:
For the record "I" don't need to get anything out of this study so I guess I resent your suggestion that this is all about my personal gain. I put in enough time and money to this club that I think that for you to suggest that I'm being selfish is a bit over the top. As an MMA Board Member I do think we (MMA members) are not in the wrong to want to know (before we commit time and resources including killing muskies we helped plant) how this study is going to improve Michigan's musky fishery. Did you start to address this in your last response, yes. But really, while I'm sarcastic by nature, I don't think the points I was making or the issues I was raising were out of line or rose to the level of suggesting that all I want to do is make my back yard a better place to fish.
I didn't say this was for your personal gain at all, you shouldn't resent anything because nothing stated was personal. Go back an read it again…
You said "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?"
I think I answered that and did not state anything personal at all.
So… lets say that fisheries managers don't use this. How does it benefit MMA?
MMA can use this data when proposing…
– 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
Missed this…
"Scrappy" said:
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.
I don't think there is any possibility of changing strains. Particularly since we're not only dealing with lakes maintained entirely through stocking. What if strain X that grows fast can't reproduce? Then what, raise specific strains for specific waters? Green Gene is intended to determine if there is a single strain that would be the best for Illinois. What they are going to find, I'm guessing, is that a mutt will be the best for their waters.
We're already on the doorstep of putting two strains into the hatchery. Both strains, we know, can reproduce when conditions allow so in that respect – why try to fix what isn't broken?
None of us are happy about losing a Ski, but I can understand what this will do for the future. I know it's tough but you have to start somewhere. They did a similiar study like this, on the effects of circle hooks and what damage they do. All the fish in the study had radio tags. Some fish were left with the hooks in them, some take out and other fish had quick-set rigs. They got the data they needed, got the word out about how dangerous circle hooks were. The result is very few circle hooks are used now.
Steve
First off, for everyone else, I really don't mean this to be personal at all. It is an important issue Will rightfully feels strongly about and that I'm willing to play Devil's advocate against because I'm a board member and members have expressed a concern. Will, by way of your Presidency, musky knowledge, success fishing, hard work and respect from the DNR, you rightfully hold a lot of sway with the DNR and the club. However, when you have an opinion you don't shy away from it, you press it forcefully and you always have to have the last word. Trust me, as a type A, you are one of us control freaks, like it or not. I see it as my job on the Board to question your thinking and not back down when pressed. That is what I'm doing now. Am I saying you are 100% wrong on this? Hell no. Do I think you are being a bit too dismissive and overly aggressive in pushing your point on the club members questioning the issue in this string, yes, I'm afraid so.
To be honest, you say it is me that needs to look back at the string and that I'm reading too much into it. Seriously, look back at the post before your last and if you can tell me with a straight face at the banquet that you weren't taking shots at me for only being in this for me and my back yard I'll buy you drinks at the banquet. But seriously, look at it critically and from my perspective and I think you will see where I'm coming from.
In fact, I'll buy you many drinks if you will teach me how to cut and paste quotes into my responses like you do as that would make it easier for me to make some points.
Yes, Will you advocate 1 fish per acre but you obviously have great influence with the DNR on where fish go (that is clear and appreciated greatly by the fact you got Sanford fish this past year). Why is it that you didn't use that influence more strongly to stop the DNR from overstocking Ovid, Murray, Campau and Austin when you supposedly knew all along that what they were doing was not right? Maybe you did but that is certainly not the sense many of us (including myself) got from your comments on this forum until recently.
The penultimate question being raised is why does this study have to take place in Michigan where we have scarce few lakes to hunt muskies on, never mind numbers lakes and where the DNR does not have the money or serious interest in making Michigan a musky fishing destination? Doing this study will result in killing a bunch of fish on Ovid (most likely). Is it worth it to us, as Michigan musky fisherman, to do this on our home waters when the study is important enough and supported by Diana and others that aren't likely to abandon it if it doesn't happen on a Michigan waters since they can just as soon do this study in Wisconsin or Minnesota where there are more muskies to go around? Sure, Michigan, MMA and perhaps you Will don't get your name in a foot note on the bottom line of the study if it doesn't take place here in Michigan. But, bottom line, whether they do this study in Michigan or not it seems likely it will happen elsewhere. If it doesn't happen elsewhere despite our involvement then how important and ground breaking can the study really be? If the study happens elsewhere that same data can be used here in Michigan to push our DNR to make needed management changes without our having to agree to give up numbers of muskies on Ovid regardless of whether you now think there are too many fish in Ovid Will. So again, why here? Why is it Michigan, the worst midwest state as far as supporting and producing musky lakes, the state that needs to stand up and supposedly do what is right for the good of fisheries science? You have mentioned some reasons why Will and a number of them resonate with me but if and until you garner the support of the majority of MMA members after open and honest discussions I fear that you are going to fall short in the type of support I assume you will be seeking from MMA and it's board for this study in the not too distant future.
I missed the post about why fix what isn't broken? Why, because it is broken. Based on what I can see in Ovid, Murray and the like the Iowa
(a/k/a Leech Lake strain) grow faster and bigger than the Michigan fish have. But Michigan has now done away with the Iowa program in favor of pursuing a GLS only stocking in Michigan. This decision is based on what data? We are getting great growth rates from Iowa fish and they seem very capable of thriving in the lakes they have been placed into in this state. So why is it we are giving up stocking these foreign yet hardy fish?
"Scrappy" said:
Trust me, as a type A, you are one of us control freaks, like it or not. I see it as my job on the Board to question your thinking and not back down when pressed. That is what I'm doing now. Am I saying you are 100% wrong on this? Hell no. Do I think you are being a bit too dismissive and overly aggressive in pushing your point on the club members questioning the issue in this string, yes, I'm afraid so.
Control freak? YES!!! Type A? No, if I was type A this discussion would have me all wound up and stressed out but nothing could be farther from the truth.
If I need to say I'm sorry I will… I am truly sorry you perceive that I’m trying to force this on anyone or dismissing comments/concerns. I have tried to answer everything asked about this and have tried to address every concern. I posted this so these discussions could happen and to respond to questions and concerns. I have no problem talking through this until you are satisfied and you have answers to your concerns. There is no agressivenes to this at all belive me. To me this is nothing more than Q&A and shouldn't be taken as more than that.
"Scrappy" said:
To be honest, you say it is me that needs to look back at the string and that I'm reading too much into it. Seriously, look back at the post before your last and if you can tell me with a straight face at the banquet that you weren't taking shots at me for only being in this for me and my back yard I'll buy you drinks at the banquet. But seriously, look at it critically and from my perspective and I think you will see where I'm coming from.
In fact, I'll buy you many drinks if you will teach me how to cut and paste quotes into my responses like you do as that would make it easier for me to make some points.
First off… Whoohoo free drinks!!!
Yes, I read back through again before that last post because it concerned me that you might be offended by something I said. Certainly it could be taken any number of ways and once again in this medium we have no way to impart any kind of inflection. I could have used any other lake but since I’ve spent so much time in the last 4-5 years trying to get a reasonable number of fish for Sanford I used Sanford as the example. Nothing more and nothing less – really.
"Scrappy" said:
Yes, Will you advocate 1 fish per acre but you obviously have great influence with the DNR on where fish go (that is clear and appreciated greatly by the fact you got Sanford fish this past year). Why is it that you didn't use that influence more strongly to stop the DNR from overstocking Ovid, Murray, Campau and Austin when you supposedly knew all along that what they were doing was not right? Maybe you did but that is certainly not the sense many of us (including myself) got from your comments on this forum until recently.
I wish what you think was remotely true, however, I (we) actually have very little (NO) influence with the DNR on where fish go. How did I get fish to Sanford then? Because as you have noted I don’t back down when I believe in something and based on observations in the lakes that were intended to receive fish I was able to convince one manager that his water did not NEED fish in 2007 and those fish could be better utilized in Sanford. No feelings involved and no perceived “great influence” just talking to a biologist in terms of facts, which is what makes the difference in selling them on something and WHY this study is so important in my opinion for future discussions.
Overstocking…
Only one of those lakes noted above has been stocked at a higher rate than needed, in my opinion, based on observed densities. If Ovid got the pressure that Murray gets I would probably not have that opinion but at this time is doesn’t get much pressure at all. Then again maybe I’m wrong in that opinion because I don’t have a good release mortality study to provide data to support that opinion. Look at the stocking data, Murray has received 1.8-2.5/acre and one year at 4/acre(I tried everything to get those fish reduced or moved to another water). Campau (2-3/acre) and Austin (1-1.4/acre) none of those were never overstocked. You ask – Why didn’t I try to influence moving fish away from those lakes? I have for years! Ask Pete if you choose not to believe me on this. Again, since all the way back in 2001 I (we) have been trying to get the DNR to allocate fish differently. The problem has been that they either don’t want to listen and/or we didn’t have any proof that stocking rates were too high. As you were typing Pete and I were on the phone talking about this very subject, among others.
"Scrappy" said:
The penultimate question being raised is why does this study have to take place in Michigan where we have scarce few lakes to hunt muskies on, never mind numbers lakes and where the DNR does not have the money or serious interest in making Michigan a musky fishing destination? Doing this study will result in killing a bunch of fish on Ovid (most likely). Is it worth it to us, as Michigan musky fisherman, to do this on our home waters when the study is important enough and supported by Diana and others that aren't likely to abandon it if it doesn't happen on a Michigan waters since they can just as soon do this study in Wisconsin or Minnesota where there are more muskies to go around? Sure, Michigan, MMA and perhaps you Will don't get your name in a foot note on the bottom line of the study if it doesn't take place here in Michigan. But, bottom line, whether they do this study in Michigan or not it seems likely it will happen elsewhere. If it doesn't happen elsewhere despite our involvement then how important and ground breaking can the study really be? If the study happens elsewhere that same data can be used here in Michigan to push our DNR to make needed management changes without our having to agree to give up numbers of muskies on Ovid regardless of whether you now think there are too many fish in Ovid Will. So again, why here? Why is it Michigan, the worst midwest state as far as supporting and producing musky lakes, the state that needs to stand up and supposedly do what is right for the good of fisheries science? You have mentioned some reasons why Will and a number of them resonate with me but if and until you garner the support of the majority of MMA members after open and honest discussions I fear that you are going to fall short in the type of support I assume you will be seeking from MMA and it's board for this study in the not too distant future.
You are making this out to be more negative than it really is, as if it will have a global impact on muskellunge populations in all waters. I’m not sure I have any other way than what has been stated to answer “why here”. I believe the worth of the study is self evident. I believe I have detailed how it can be utilized and I’ve also tried to explain those reasons. Your angle seems to be that because statewide we have management issues that Michigan should not conduct a study of this nature on one specific water that can tolerate the assumed loss of fish. Which begs the question – Would I rather see these fish go home with someone to be used for a few meals or used for the long term understanding of how release mortality actually affects our fisheries? Maybe it’s just me but I would rather see the death a few study fish benefit the long term management plans as opposed to being used in a fish fry.
Let’s look at it in the simplest form – positives vs. negatives…
What negative impact will this study have on any water, other than the limited impact it would have on Ovid, within the state of Michigan? While you believe “we have scarce few lakes to hunt muskies on” this study impacts only ONE water. “Is it worth it to us, as Michigan musky fisherman, to do this on our home waters” Again we’re talking ONE water that can tolerate a limited number of mortalities.
What is the potential positive impact this study could have on the muskellunge fishery in Michgan? I’ve listed many in previous posts.
"Scrappy" said:
Why, because it is broken. Based on what I can see in Ovid, Murray and the like the Iowa (a/k/a Leech Lake strain) grow faster and bigger than the Michigan fish have. But Michigan has now done away with the Iowa program in favor of pursuing a GLS only stocking in Michigan. This decision is based on what data? We are getting great growth rates from Iowa fish and they seem very capable of thriving in the lakes they have been placed into in this state. So why is it we are giving up stocking these foreign yet hardy fish?
I know it sounds good in theory BUT… We still don’t know much about the Iowa fish. One thing Pete and I talked about tonight was the concern that they grow more like tigers in our water and they might burn out faster than the Michigan fish. Much like the strain Indiana uses that grow quickly, which initially seems great, there is a trade off. 50” fish in Indiana are VERY rare so much so that of the six guide there I know only two have ever caught a 50” fish in Indiana. Changing strains only based on initial growth and no long term growth is not good management. We know the Michigan fish are capable of reproduction, something we don’t know about the Iowa fish. We know the Michigan fish are capable of reaching at least 18 years in even the southern waters. We know the Michigan fish are capable of reaching 50# even in southern waters. Iowa was always a supplemental program and nothing more.
As for the GLS program? Well… I don't think I've made it anything less than obvious that the GLS program should take priority to the northern strain program in most instances because the GLS program will be supplemental stocking or will be rebuilding fisheries that will evenutally be self sustaining.
You're making me tired Will and that's quite a feat since some of the best plaintiffs' laswyers in the country aren't able to wear me down.
Again, I too was not trying to make this a personal assalut, I'm just trying to get some answers out there to some questions raised. I think you are now being a little too coy about the fish that will be lost on Ovid. First, you have no clue how many fish will die in this study, hence the need for the study in the first place. Second, the fish fry example, almost as bad as the rubber band one. Those fish being taken for the fish fry by the bluegill and bass crowd are still going to be taken out of there and then we add on the dead fish killed by the survey…it's not one loss or another its a compounding loss. Yes, they are just fish and we all want to see science grow and management techniques become more informed and improved. However, that comes at a cost. "Stupid fish or not" it's a cost and in my mind a pretty high one for those who fish Ovid or are suffering because Ovid got too many fish and other lakes (see I'm not naming my lake of choice) didn't. Is it worth it, probably, but I don't think you can dismiss the consern as unimportant.
As for Iowa, you hit the nail on the head about it being a supplemental program. You and Pete may be on to something about burn out, etc…However, until the MDNR can produce Michigan/GLS strain with any regularity why stop the supplement now? Why not continue to supplement stocking with the Iowa fish until Wolf Lake can prove they can produce a decent amount of fish more than one year in a row? Stopping the Iowa program now, in my opinion, is premature. That is why the thinking about the Iowa program is broken. We shouldn't stop the Iowa program until the MDNR fixes the Michigan/GLS program they so desperately want to get off the ground but can't seem to find the funds or knowledge to accomplish.
Alrighty, I'm pretty sure by now we have probably lost all but about 2.5 of our interested readers…
So if I may jump in, how about letting all that dust settle and re-focusing on the specific task at hand? And to aid in that, lets do a big-picture reality check.
I think we all agree that the total price to pay for this study, fish-wise is not going to be very high, considering the population in Ovid. So, lets leave it at that and ask the question: can the membership live with it? I think is a legitmate one that should be asked, because there's no getting around the fact that many members played a direct $ role in getting these Iowa fish here. This could be as simple as a poll conducted right here in this forum- Aye or Nay.
You started me on this Duke! [smilie=biggrin.gif]
I for one think the benefit outweighs the cost (i.e., in dead fish). However, I still want to hear the reason why this needs to be here and not in WI or MN? If it is about making a friend of Diana and hopefully using his support to do more studies in MI that will help get the attention of MDNR to start doing more for Michigan Muskies then, I can buy into that. If it is about doing it here (but regardless the study will happen in WI or MN if not in MI)and we just want it here to say we've done it, then not so sure about that.
"Scrappy" said:
Is it worth it, probably, but I don't think you can dismiss the consern as unimportant.
Sure… like I dismissed it on page three of this thread??
"Will Schultz" said:
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:
As for Iowa, you hit the nail on the head about it being a supplemental program. You and Pete may be on to something about burn out, etc…However, until the MDNR can produce Michigan/GLS strain with any regularity why stop the supplement now? Why not continue to supplement stocking with the Iowa fish until Wolf Lake can prove they can produce a decent amount of fish more than one year in a row? Stopping the Iowa program now, in my opinion, is premature. That is why the thinking about the Iowa program is broken. We shouldn't stop the Iowa program until the MDNR fixes the Michigan/GLS program they so desperately want to get off the ground but can't seem to find the funds or knowledge to accomplish.
By not being broken I was referring to the Michigan strain fish being an appropriate strain.
I hope you aren’t pointing the finger at me for the Iowa program dissolving? Or are you just venting and directing it at me? Let me assure you, as I’ve done before, that all the concerns you raised have been conveyed to the DNR. In fact, the instant I found out about the Iowa program going away back in 2005 I was on the phone trying to change the outcome. The managers don’t want them anymore, plain and simple… well… let me rephrase… One manager has a hair up his ass about using Iowa fish and the other managers agreed based on the case he presented to them. Wolf Lake takes their direction from the requests for fish that are passed down by the managers. No requests for anything other than MI fish = no Iowa program.
But we don't need no stinkin Iowa program, right? Don't get me wrong I/we all love those things, but for all their pluses they were only a stop-gap. If Wolf Lake can raise all the Michigan fish we could want, then we don't need them and don't want the extra cost associated with transporting them. And barring any VHS-type scares, there are many indications that Michigan is well on its way to becoming self-sufficient in terms of muskie production, even without the cool water facility. Right!???
"Duke" said:
Alrighty, I'm pretty sure by now we have probably lost all but about 2.5 of our interested readers…So if I may jump in, how about letting all that dust settle and re-focusing on the specific task at hand? And to aid in that, lets do a big-picture reality check.
I think we all agree that the total price to pay for this study, fish-wise is not going to be very high, considering the population in Ovid. So, lets
leave it at that and ask the question: can the membership live with it? I think is a legitmate one that should be asked, because there's no getting around the fact that many members played a direct $ role in getting these Iowa fish here. This could be as simple as a poll conducted right here in this forum- Aye or Nay.
Duke there is SOOO much great information in this thread though. If someone pulled out every question and concern the listed all the responses it would be an excellent read. All the BS in the middle might loose some people and/or that it looks like Scott and I are in a pissing match – which isn't the case at all.
Behind the scenes I asked the board members to vote on MMA's involvement in this study and support was unanimous. We can still put up a poll if you want.
Ok, I get acused often of my e-mails being surley, rightfully so sometimes.
Will, the Iowa crack wasn't pointed at you nor was I venting directly to you. I know your views regarding the Iowa program and respect your possition and efforts in that regard. I was venting in gerneral frustration to what I preceive as the ignorance of certain folks in the MDNR on that point. Duke, I'd like to think you are right but I have no confidence in Wolf Lake's ability to turn a good year like they did in '06…I'm very pesimistic and think the success of '06 was a fluke, not a turning of the corner to better things to come. I really hope I'm wrong about that but we shall see….
This thread has been a great read – I laughed, I cried (figuratively)…it made me think. And that's a hard thing for me to do on a Friday at work.
Several highlights in there, a few of which I'll mention from memory since I don't have the man-hours left in the week to re-read the whole thing:
– Jim likes to shoot bad guys, but not necessarily in the temple.
– Scott, while being extremely adept at inserting emoticons, can't figure out how to insert a quote. Pure gold!
– Real men don't hug (or cry).
– Will approves of free drinks.
– Something else about free drinks (can't remember the details…perhaps there will be free drinks at the banquet for all who participated in this post?)
Other items that seem of importance:
– There's one major con to doing this study in Michigan – we'll lose an unknown, but likely a relatively few, number of fish from Ovid.
– Thanks to John C, we have seen a good list of pro's to doing this study.
– The study may or may not need to be put to vote for all MMA members. Jury's still out there…
In my mind, a huge upside, which Will and Scott actually both hinted at (so it must be good), is that this will be the first step in completing the "MMA-Diana-Margenau-MDNR" loop. This is pretty huge, I think. Actually, if it were a word, I would say that it might turn out to be the 'hugest'.
The reason that this could be such a great thing is that future studies will likely follow (if we push), and they will likely NOT involve mortality. Scott mentioned a green gene-type study. Cool. I would also like to see a long term natural reproduction study (4-5 different strains stocked in ideal water, monitor any reproductive successes). Like Will and I talked about last night, how about a stocked-musky-size vs. survival study? Determine the most cost effective way to stock different waters (differing by turbidity, predators, forage base, etc.) Then eventually, after a few studies (or maybe just one, if it's well planned and received) you get respect. And after respect, then maybe you don’t need a study for some things. Instead you (MMA) get a stamp of approval and implement management changes at a rate that is more Minnesotian than Michiganian. That, I think, could be the real hidden gem here. Maybe too optimistic? I don't know…I just started typing and this is where I ended up…
[smilie=attention.gif] [smilie=applause.gif] 🙄 [smilie=bangtard.gif] [smilie=brickwall.gif] [smilie=stickpoke.gif] [smilie=bs.gif] [smilie=bud.gif] [smilie=cheers.gif] [smilie=cheers2.gif] [smilie=gayfight.gif] [smilie=stickpoke.gif] [smilie=sign-back2topic.gif] [smilie=eek7.gif] [smilie=eek7.gif] [smilie=idea.gif] [smilie=giveup.gif] [smilie=rip.gif][smilie=trophy1.gif][smilie=woot.gif]
Recap ala smiley
57
35