Muskie stocking in Gull Lake!?

[gorrilla]

Fish500, before you get all upset with me too, I'll just tell you this isn't a personal attack, just advice/opinion of mine.

Before you start leaving long posts about stocking techniques on lakes such as Gull, you need to get your information straight. From my interpretation of your last post, you think the stocking of walleyes in Gull Lake might effect the "very good population" in it already. If I'm reading your meaning correctly, I believe you are inaccurate again. The high walleye population in Gull currently, can be directly attributed to a successful stocking program by the DNR, not threatened by it. You seem to be stirring the pot and not backing up your theories very well...

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

Witch hunt is an interesting phrase. Don't witch hunts usually single out people who are different in some way.

---

I think witch hunt is a perfectly accurate way to describe this topic. Though there may be more people in support of musky stocking in this thread, than those not in support, musky fishermen are far outnumbered.

I think this thread has pretty much run its course and the thing to do now would be for everyone to attend the meeting on October 6th.

No one here has the answers and the people we all really want to hear from are the fisheries personnel and that will be the forum to do so.

I would trust the fisheries personnel in charge of managing a specific body of water far before someone on the internet. No offense Fish500, but I have faith in someone who is actually doing the work versus someone coming on a site and talking as if they did it. The internet is a great place to learn, but there is also so much BS that everyone has to weed through it is tough to know what is legit. I am not saying you are making stuff up or anything, don't get me wrong, but any one of us could find reference material and text and responded as you have done in this post. I prefer to talk to those responsible and see what they have to say. I think that is what we all should do because we are not going to come to any conclusions here.

[fish500]

Thats all right gorilla. I'm not upset with you. I was actually referring to the population that existed before stocking. Gull had a very good walleye fishery before stocking. Hopefully that population remains intact, but there is a risk that it does not or that it is being degraded.

Introgressive hybridization of stocked fish into native populations, and predator prey relationships are straight forward, well known concepts.

I find it hard to believe that someone else educated in fisheries management would have any doubt that these are legitimate concerns. You should be verifying what I said instead of picking it apart. If not then please explain to me how the two concepts are not extremely important when stocking walleyes in Gull. Also explain to me how they have been addressed by the DNR. I know some research is being done in Minnesota, but is the public really aware of these concerns. I have heard Loren Miller discuss the topic of introgressive hybridization of walleyes. It is a potential problem.

[B420]

Fish500,

Hybridization of walleyes appartently isn't much of a concern in the whole state of MN as they stock the bejesus out of the walleye lakes here. People don't care if they catch a "natural" or "hybrid" walleye as long as it's an eater!!!

[fish500]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

[The Crumpler]

Quote:

---

Another concern with stocking walleyes (especially in Gull because it had a very good population to begin with) is introgressive hybridization. Walleyes hatched in a hatchery and raised in rearing ponds have not been exposed to the same selective forces that wild ones would have been. Because of this, their gene pool could be weak or flawed. This becomes a problem only if the stocked walleyes are breeding with the native ones.

These are a couple reasons why I think stocking of sport fish is a threat to our fisheries.

If one could determine that the stocked walleyes were not interbreeding with native walleyes, and that the forage base was not being badly affected then there would be less reason to not stock them. Otherwise you could be hurting the lake in the long run without knowing it.

Most people like walleye stocking because it is highly tangible. You put fish in, they grow, and you take them out. It's very possible that we would be better off using the time, energy, and money spent on walleye rearing and stocking to maintain the fisheries we already have. The problem is that many people are less apt to commit to long term goals where there is less of an immediate payout.

---

Sorry to keep picking on Fish500, but "introgressive hybridization" refers to the transfer of genetic material between two DISTINCT species by the production of fertile viable hybrids and subsequent matings of hybrids with members of the parental species. Such as saugers and walleyes => saugeye which leads to the loss of saugers. The phenomenon you are refering to is known as "outbreeding depression". It is important to remember, however, that introduction of "new" genetic material may be beneficial to a population as well. . .

[ccarlson]

Fish500,

Once again you seem to be making statements that I very much doubt you can back up. This time it is about the walleye population of gull lake before walleye stocking began.

So, pop quiz. In what year was gull lake first stocked with walleye? Were they fry or fingerling? Were they released by the DNR or a group of local anglers who did it on their own without the DNR even knowing about it? Before the first said stocking of walleye on Gull lake, what was the population of walleye and what are you basing that population estimate on (DNR lake study, fishing success etc)?

Second, you throw around the mixing and inbreeding of impure walleye as if you know the various strains stocked throughout MN. So, part two of the quiz. What strain of walleye were "naturally" occuring in gull lake prior to stocking and what strain have always been and are currently being stocked into gull lake? What are the other strains of walleye throughout MN and where are each of these strains harvested and hatched at throughout the state? Can walleye fry or fingerlings hatched from just any old place in MN be stocked into gull lake as needed?

Thank you and I'm still waiting to hear where you work at as a fisheries biologist.

ccarlson

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Another concern with stocking walleyes (especially in Gull because it had a very good population to begin with) is introgressive hybridization. Walleyes hatched in a hatchery and raised in rearing ponds have not been exposed to the same selective forces that wild ones would have been. Because of this, their gene pool could be weak or flawed. This becomes a problem only if the stocked walleyes are breeding with the native ones.

These are a couple reasons why I think stocking of sport fish is a threat to our fisheries.

If one could determine that the stocked walleyes were not interbreeding with native walleyes, and that the forage base was not being badly affected then there would be less reason to not stock them. Otherwise you could be hurting the lake in the long run without knowing it.

Most people like walleye stocking because it is highly tangible. You put fish in, they grow, and you take them out. It's very possible that we would be better off using the time, energy, and money spent on walleye rearing and stocking to maintain the fisheries we already have. The problem is that many people are less apt to commit to long term goals where there is less of an immediate payout.

---

Sorry to keep picking on Fish500, but "introgressive hybridization" refers to the transfer of genetic material between two DISTINCT species by the production of fertile viable hybrids and subsequent matings of hybrids with members of the parental species. Such as saugers and walleyes => saugeye which leads to the loss of saugers. The phenomenon you are refering to is known as "outbreeding depression". It is important to remember, however, that introduction of "new" genetic material may be beneficial to a population as well. . .

---

Can we now refer to this "As the fisheries biologist turns..." LOL

[fish500]

Yes outbreeding depression might be a better term for what I'm describing. If you considered the stocked and native fish to be different subspecies, introgressive hybridization might be a better term. The main thing is to understand what I meant.

A certain amount of outbreeding can be beneficial, but that is not what is being talked about in this case.

Don't worry about picking on me. If I'm wrong and you can prove it, I want to know. I do hope that my posts are read with an open mind in addition to criticizing them. When I'm accused of things like trolling, I think there is a chance I might not be able to use the forum to discuss this. That bothers me. If I am really misusing the forum I guess I don't know why. These are the first times I've posted on a forum, so maybe I don't understand the rules. But I can read that people can be banned for what people have accused me of. I hope its not just because I have a different viewpoint.

[The Crumpler]

Where is Toad when we need him?

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

Yes outbreeding depression might be a better term for what I'm describing. If you considered the stocked and native fish to be different subspecies, introgressive hybridization might be a better term. The main thing is to understand what I meant.

A certain amount of outbreeding can be beneficial, but that is not what is being talked about in this case.

Don't worry about picking on me. If I'm wrong and you can prove it, I want to know. I do hope that my posts are read with an open mind in addition to criticizing them. When I'm accused of things like trolling, I think there is a chance I might not be able to use the forum to discuss this. That bothers me. If I am really misusing the forum I guess I don't know why. These are the first times I've posted on a forum, so maybe I don't understand the rules. But I can read that people can be banned for what people have accused me of. I hope its not just because I have a different viewpoint.

---

Fish500, you have not crossed any line in my opinion so I wouldn't worry about being banned from the site. I do think that your comments are intriguing, while I can't say that I agree with every one of them, there are some that got me thinking. Having a difference of opinion is fine as long as it never goes beyond that and turn in to personal attacks.

In my experience on this board as compared to others I have been on the ship is much tighter here. I think that bodes well to have a cleaner board with much less of the bashing that can and does go on in other sites.

[gorrilla]

I'm still trying to ride the polite train awhile Fish500.

My only non sarcastic concern with your posts is like often seen with critics, I see lot of opinions and so called reasons to NOT do something (like stock muskies or walleyes), but what do you suggest the DNR does..?..?.

Ban fishing, stocking, take away public accesses to keep lake "pure"????

I say we need to keep it real, stocking is a part of life on heavily fished lakes like Gull. Any other viable options would be interesting to hear....

[fish500]

ccarlson,

I think I've read some posts of yours in the past that discussed some of things you talked about, and if I remember correctly you were very informed on the subject. What knowledge do you have of the history of Gull Lake in regards to walleye populations (natural or stocked). As far as backing up my statement that Gull had good natural populations to begin with, I have to admit that I got this idea from people who are much more knowledgable about the history of the lake than I am. I can get more specific details from them, but not right at this moment. I can tell you that I have spoken with at least two different people who told me that Gull was a major walleye fishery at least as far back as the thirties.

As far as different strains of walleyes are concerned I do not know the information off the top of my head but that's good if you do. What I said could pertain to stocking of walleyes even if they are of the same strain. If you carefully read my post, I believe I alluded to the absence of selective forces due to being hatched in a hatchery and raised in rearing ponds. Under these conditions, individuals with poor genetics might reach adulthood and contribute back into the gene pool. Whereas in the wild, they might not be able to do so. These are just things to think about when stocking fish.

Also, did I forget to answer your question about my employment? Do you need to read more carefully or are you trying to imply something?

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

ccarlson,

Under these conditions, individuals with poor genetics might reach adulthood and contribute back into the gene pool. Whereas in the wild, they might not be able to do so. These are just things to think about when stocking fish.

---

OK, so we can catch the dumb ones then.

I have heard some people say that they believe the stocking of walleyes have turned them into "weed" fish since they are accustomed to "hiding" in the weeds of the shallow rearing ponds.

I don't believe there to be any truth to this as walleyes are stocked at such a young age that they wouldn't be able to develop these traits.

Walleye stocking is also done with eggs stripped from spawning females native to the lakes. So any genetic concern I think is moot. Granted these eggs are taken, fertilized onsite and then moved on to hatcheries where they are grown before stocking so they are introducing some other forces into the mix, but the gene pool is still being controlled in these circumstances.

[ccarlson]

500,

I may have missed where you were employed in previous post, sorry if I missed that and I certainly wasn't implying anything. I just want to be sure that you understand we have competent fisheries bioligists in the Brainerd area and your opinions seem to forget that.

I could easily turn this post and your comments more into a walleye stocking debate but I won't other than to say that the Mississippi strain of walleye that are stocked into gull are the same as the native walleye have always been there. Also, your inference that stocking is not good for lakes is a theory that the entire DNR fell for in 1993. That was when the DNR changed their stocking strategy based on a study that was done that really entailed more natural walleye lakes of which there are really only a handfull of in MN. It had some in the DNR thinking at the time that they could drastically cut back the stocking on all of their walleye managed lakes and things would still be fine. By 1997 we all knew, and so did they, that they had been wrong. Stocking is a vital part of walleye and lake management unless you just want to jet ski and watch sunsets. Of course, there are always the little lakes that really shouldn't have walleye in them and, in fact, the residents of the lake that push for the walleye don't even realize they are killing their tremendous crappie potential for these lakes. But, lakes like Gull, pelican, N. Long, and such across the state, are large enough and diverse enough to easily handle the stocking of walleye (just as one could say muskie) as well as to maintain a strong, balanced multi species fishery and adequate forage base. That is what our fisheries bioligists are telling us.

By the way, it is noted that gull was being stocked with walleye for many years by locals with and without the DNR's knowledge. From what I understand, there was a good walleye population around these times but most likely still not anything like today's population. There really would be no way of knowing to what degree though since testing methods and surely angling practices have improved so much in that time.

With gull being a great candidate for fry stocking (which is cheap and easy) there really is no reason a few more could not be stocked to compensate for the few walleye that the musky may eat as part of their diverse diet. Bottom line is that, in my opinion, walleye anglers such as myself don't need to worry about musky hurting the walleye fishery.

ccarlson

[gorrilla]

CC, I really like the way you think.

The only thing I have a little discrepancy with is that if/when muskies are added to Gull the walleyes will need any stocking compensation at all. I don't buy into the idea that muskies will knock down the walleye population one bit. If anything it(muskies) predate the small northerns enough to keep them in check and maintain a optimum healthy size and population, which in turn is a boost to most walleye populations since we know what an overabundance of hammerhandles can often do to walleye fry.

[CaptainMusky]

Quote:

---

CC, I really like the way you think.

The only thing I have a little discrepancy with is that if/when muskies are added to Gull the walleyes will need any stocking compensation at all. I don't buy into the idea that muskies will knock down the walleye population one bit. If anything it(muskies) predate the small northerns enough to keep them in check and maintain a optimum healthy size and population, which in turn is a boost to most walleye populations since we know what an overabundance of hammerhandles can often do to walleye fry.

---

Does a musky population help that? I have noticed on lakes like Alex, Shamineau, Sugar and many others that they have pike regulations that promotes catching and keeping of the small pike. It isn't evident to me the muskies are doing anything to curb this issue. Maybe it would be worse without them, but I have never found a correlation and relationship to muskies and hammerhandles.

[ccarlson]

Gorrilla,

You are right, the extra walleye stocking would most likely not be needed due to any reason caused by the musky. But,explaing to a walleye angler how easy it is to pump a few more walleye into the system like gull that does well with fry stocking may help them feel better and more accepting of the musky stocking.

ccarlson

[gorrilla]

I'm sick of debating this issue for the time being,

I'm going to go goose hunting and then hang the remainder of my deer stands...