I was very pleased to see the numbers harvested that were listed in the Figure 8 this month, and the success of the milt extender is awesome. I am impatiently waiting to go back to the hatchery to help harvest again this year, it was a blast last year.
They obviously have a good number of fertilized eggs, which will hopefully have as good of a success rate in the ponds as the fish did last year with the small number of eggs. I have heard the stocking rates for lakes listed per acre, but what exactly is their strategy when trying to create/maintain a fishery. How many fish/acre are they looking to plant, and then how many of those do they figure will actually survive and provide to the fishery.
I am sure this has been discussed before, but I have not seen it in the few years i have been on here, and there have been a lot of new guys since then too, so I thought I would rehash it.
I was wondering if anyone had any updated information regarding stocking coming up? Also, in addition to the previous question from Vano about strategy, has there been any discussion or debate to which GLS waters will be stocked once a broodstock is established? Is there a prioritized "list" ranging from waters with existing fishable populations (ie supplemental stocking @ Elk chain – I Chain, BBM Indian Riv) prior to stocking LM Rivs and mouths? I've had some boat convo around these questions and others relating to stocking inland waters in the future, so figured I'd put it out there and see who jumps in….I'm sure the next Figure 8 will cover our numbers etc from Wolf Lake, but wanted to intiate some "short, medium, long term" chatter as well….
"Adam Minnick" said:
I was wondering if anyone had any updated information regarding stocking coming up? Also, in addition to the previous question from Vano about strategy, has there been any discussion or debate to which GLS waters will be stocked once a broodstock is established? Is there a prioritized "list" ranging from waters with existing fishable populations (ie supplemental stocking @ Elk chain – I Chain, BBM Indian Riv) prior to stocking LM Rivs and mouths? I've had some boat convo around these questions and others relating to stocking inland waters in the future, so figured I'd put it out there and see who jumps in….I'm sure the next Figure 8 will cover our numbers etc from Wolf Lake, but wanted to intiate some "short, medium, long term" chatter as well….
I was kinda hoping for a response to this, I have been wondering the same thing.
"Kingfisher" said:
Well I seem to remember talk of establishing two brood stock lakes first. Im a sure Will has the Information about those lakes. Thornapple is one if my memory serves me right.
Big Bear and Thorn I think. I understand priority one, GLS broodstocks, and the future in general. Talking more specifics / logistics. Looking to start some constructive dialouge about the years to come.
First and foremost I'm extremely appreciative / respectful for the opportunities we have to fish for muskies today in Michigan. I'm also impressed/excited with the unprecedented regs! Understanding the MDNR has consistent limitations regarding funding, personel, and resources, it's clear we can't have "it all." So in order to go GLS and build a foundation for a even better future, I'm guessing most of us wonder what sacrifices will have to be made in the short term?
OK, sorry for putting this off.
The broodstock lakes are stocked at a very high rate, last year each lake got about 6/acre because of the smaller than hoped size. If the size of the fall fingerlings is better the lakes will get fewer fish. The goal of the broodstock lakes is to have plenty of fish to take eggs from which should result in higher numbers that a normal stocked fishery. The "normal" goal is to have .5 to 1 adult per acre, this should (dependent on so many factors) require stocking at a rate of 2/acre every other year.
Survival is again based on many factors, size appears to be the most critical. Estimates that I've read generally use the following mortality estimates:
– First year mortality is 50-60% mortality
– 4-5 years after is 20-30% mortality
– once they reach adult size mortality seems to be directly related to angling pressure and harvest
There are two #1 priority lakes which are the broodstock lakes, Thornapple and Big Bear. Beyond the broodstock lakes, 3000 fingerlings have been promised to Wisconsin. After the "must haves" get their fish, the future is really in the hands of the district biologists. If they want to change their lakes from NMUS (nothern strain) to GLMUS (great lakes strain) then those lakes like Sanford, Ovid, etc, etc will change over to GLMUS. It's completely up to the district biologists to request fish for waters that were stocked with NMUS or waters where the GLMUS should be stocked to rebuild or supplemental. Unlike the years with, all or mostly, Iowa fish there are very few waters where the GLMUS should NOT go. These are waters with natural reproduction and are in the UP, though it could be argued the naturalized (stocked and successfully spawning) waters could get GLMUS.
If that doesn't answer completely keep asking and I'll keep an eye on this thread.
Things are busy around the fisheries division so as things progress and I see who has requested GLMUS I'll keep you updated.
Thanks for the info Will.
Something I was wondering, seeing that Ross Lake got over 500 GLS fish last year, what was the biological reasoning behind using these fish on a lake like Ross that had previously been stocked heavily with NMUS/Iowa fish? Is there potential for reproduction in Ross? From what I remember from the presentation at the last banquet I thought it was not the best idea from a genetical standpoint to allow the different strains to interbreed. If that is the case why wouldnt the DNR want to use the GLS fish left over after stocking the broodstock lakes and giving to Wisconsin in a lake where they might be more benificial?
A more generic question would be, does the DNR give out information on the reasoning behind their decisions on lake stocking priorities?
"Will Schultz" said:
It's completely up to the district biologists to request fish for waters that were stocked with NMUS or waters where the GLMUS should be stocked to rebuild or supplemental.
Thanks for the info Will. My only question is, in your OPINION, do you think the district bioligsts will switch over the inland lakes such as Murray, Ovid, Bankson, Long, etc? Have there been any talks or rumors about which direction they plan to go?
"MattG_braith" said:
Thanks for the info Will.Something I was wondering, seeing that Ross Lake got over 500 GLS fish last year, what was the biological reasoning behind using these fish on a lake like Ross that had previously been stocked heavily with NMUS/Iowa fish? Is there potential for reproduction in Ross? From what I remember from the presentation at the last banquet I thought it was not the best idea from a genetical standpoint to allow the different strains to interbreed. If that is the case why wouldnt the DNR want to use the GLS fish left over after stocking the broodstock lakes and giving to Wisconsin in a lake where they might be more benificial?
A more generic question would be, does the DNR give out information on the reasoning behind their decisions on lake stocking priorities?
No, no spawning in there or the chain but the fish in Ross can end up in Lake Huron. Technically… the entire chain over there should never have received NMUS, this can be said for many waters including Murray
"Jim tenHaaf" said:
[quote="weatherby"]Are we getting anything in exchange for the 3000 we are sending to WI ?
If I remember right, they helped with the manpower needed to net the fish and collect eggs.
Yes, they provided manpower in 2011. Future consideration is the most important WIFM, since MI isn't going to have a NMUS program WI may be able to provide fingerlings when/where needed.
368
17
1 Guest(s)