Walleye Discussion Forums
| ||
| View previous thread :: View next thread | |
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Now viewing page 6 [25 messages per page] Walleye Fishing -> General Discussion -> WI VHS Regs make Ice Fishing with Live Bait a Challenge |
| Message Subject: WI VHS Regs make Ice Fishing with Live Bait a Challenge | |||
sworrall |
| ||
Location: Rhinelander | Your last statement in your last post I agree with entirely. Brad B, I am more than familiar with your narrow and unfortunately inaccurate assessment of the Coalition's attempt to gain a temporary moratorium on Muskie harvest from Green Bay until population studies and upper confidence studies can be undertaken. The Coalition has even offered to fund the Graduate Student to help complete a study. First, there's a big difference between 'disgust' and concern. Second, many of these folks to a large degree have been involved from an organizational standpoint from the beginning. There's way more to this than what folks who are tacitly opposed might know or understand until a more careful study of the subject might be encouraged. Third, you misunderstand the goals of the coalition. The Conservation Congress vote on raising the limit on GB to 54" passed resoundingly, but was voted down basically in committee. This has been voted on by the public in our state's own democratic process, and was passed. Fourth, VHS is accurately voiced as a concern, but is not the motivation ( or as you insinuate, 'excuse' ) for the proposed harvest moratorium and I believe the Coalition was clear on that issue. Read the proposal, and listen to the audio from the presentation. Fifth, recent Canadian regulations designed to protect fragile trophy Muskie fisheries are viewed by most in Muskie management as visionary. One can view placing a 54" limit there as a 'social issue', as one can view slot limits, reduced bag limits in walleye or bass management, you call it a social issue, we call it a conservation issue. There is a growing combination of pressures on that special and highly concentrated population. In this case, our state has a very special trophy Muskie fishery just coming of age with potential to be more than world class, and a fair portion of the success of that program was financed by Muskie anglers. If that's not worth protecting to you, that's fine; it is to me and I'll do my best to educate those who do not understand the proposal or ideas behind working with our DNR to accomplish the stated goals. Sixth, of course the top muskies there only represent a small percentage of the population. You make the point for me, if an ever growing number of fish are harvested at 50" and there are only a few available, there it is. Have you read the large volume of information in the Research Forum at MuskieFIRST on this issue? Please do, and please allow that is much more to this effort than what you are saying. | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
Member Posts: 617 Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Steve - I had a long response written directed at your critique of my post regarding the GBMC presentation. After re-reading what I had posted, I decided to delete it. It is apparent to me that we will not agree on this, much as I can not agree with the author of the GBMC's presentation. Good luck with your efforts. | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | Well, I must admit my short time here has been more than interesting. I came to this site to express my concerns and ask questions of the concerns I have been asked to address this year in the magazines. While many here are well informed and attentive to the VHS problem, the way some present their side is the underlying issue. Just the fact that when I first posted I got jumped on like I was an uneducated yuts. I did notice that before my first post someone posted the statement "Wisconsin DNR what a joke..." and no one batted an eye. I got pounced. Everything I have stated is fact and I even (though ignored) backed some of it up with websites including the Michigan DNR, but no matter what was posted it was heavily ignored by some. I research extensivly, I have to. What was most disapointing was anyone who disagreed with the DNR was labeled a "armchair biologist, junk yard dog and anonymous layman". It amazes me that there is a concern that DNR officials won't post for the fear of being bashed and all along there is a bashing of the ordinary citizen making them appear stupid. Much less bashing someone trying to have a discusion when you fully don't realize who that person may be. It is no wonder the DNR stirs such negative reactions out of people when they are looked upon as stupid or not important. The DNR may not say that but the staunch supporters of the DNR apparently do. Some may have good information but the debating skills need a lot to be desired. If your main concern is to make this forum comfortable for the DNR personel to post and not the average fisherman then your mission of informing and educating people has failed. Whether your a fishing guide, shop owner or just a fisherman if you come across as an elitest, your point (no matter how good and educated it may be) will be shoved aside. The greatest percentage of fisherman are not pros and guides they are the average joe trying to catch a few fish. You may have all the knowlage in the world on VHS and be 100% correct but because of the way you present yourself people will not heed. Then VHS starts to become less of a problem and the messanger becomes the bigger problem. One must realize that there are more veiws to this than just from a fisherman, guide or DNR. There is a complete industry out there that supports your hobby or career and it is very apparent that some cannot or do not want to see that veiwpoint. My veiw comes from that of all the ma and pa bait shops that I deal with through out the Midwest who depend on the industry for income. The concern of them having to close up shops massively out-weighs a one year 3% population kill of musky. I am starting a series in my cartoon that is going to deal with VHS and the different state's DNR and the way they are viewed and I want to thank all that have debated with me. The opinions and information was vast. Good luck with what you are trying to accomplish here. Steve Krueger | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Location: Rhinelander | Steve, Actually, the effort here is to make this forum a comfortable place for everyone to post. If there are statements like this from a published writer, I think they SHOULD be questioned: 'I will revise my blame comment to include the State Legislature, as they say, if you want to find the reason for anything follow the money. This is all about money for the state. I still say the VHS scare is way over blown though.' OK, no mistake what that accusation means. 'This is serious, but I'm afraid the DNR is the problem for not being on the ball trying to stop VHS in the first place. After all, they have known about it for 65 years.' Which is it, is this serious, or something we should just 'let take it's course? I had to ask, and don't see the harm in doing so. I asked folks to look at the PDF because the timeline of the advance of the disease hoping to point out what you were trying to say here. Again, obvious.You complain about the DNR trying to slow or stop the spread of the disease, then complain they didn't do anything before the spread of the disease was noted in the Great Lakes. 'This is just one example where they know there is a problem but yet do not inact anything to prevent exotics from entering. Salmon are not native fish to Michigan. They were planted there after the fish population was devistated due to mis-management and eels.' OK, you link an article and cherry pick a couple critical comments from that piece describing the complicated and now set in stone introduction of Salmon into Lake Michigan. Then you accuse the DNR of mismanagement because an invasive entered the lake...how long ago? Keep in mind the timeline there. Attempt here is to try to indicate a pattern...and it's pretty obvious. 'The DNR has been slow to non-responsive to any threat that comes to this state until it hits and it is too late. When they do respond it is in gross overdose of what is needed.' 'I will revise my blame comment to include the State Legislature, as they say, if you want to find the reason for anything follow the money. This is all about money for the state. I still say the VHS scare is way over blown though.' 'Let's face it, the DNR is known for botching things up like eco-systems.' 'The lake needs fish to be planted every year to keep the population. A lake of that size is unable to naturaly support itself due to what? Nature? No, the miss management of the lake. The last I looked the DNR has a huge chunk of that responsability.' And so on. I was debating you fairly point to point and indicated that comments like yours and OTHERS here would not likely draw in folks who actually are working scientists and might know something definitive about this issue, and that anonymous attacks from laymen ( there were a few and you ARE a layman, as am I) were counterproductive, and that many of the accusations were not supported well by the facts. There is and was a considerable amount of armchair biology going on in this thread, admit that, it's right in front of us. That's fine until the insinuation is that we know better than the scientists, and they are all bumbling about shooting arrows in the dark. That goes too personal, and is an obvious attempt to do just that. I then pointed out that if one is abused here or anywhere else in an unfair manner, they are not likely to join the conversation. That leaves this pretty badly one sided, and allows for the topic to degenerate into a bash fest or train wreck, something I'd like to avoid when discussing a subject as important to all of us as this one. I simply challenged your points of contention, I didn't 'jump' anyone. Look at your reaction to simple debate when your concepts and accusations are questioned...you holler like hell and bail out. How would you expect one of the DNR folks to react, or for that matter anyone who looks into what has REALLY been said and done and sees what's happening here? I know, I had several read this today and give me their reaction. Our 'mission' on the message boards here is not just to educate, but that's an obviously attractive by product of providing accurate news of the day and encouraging reasonable and fair discussion. The 'average fisherman' posts here all the time. Sometimes we agree with each other, sometimes we don't, that's obvious from the posts here. As a few discovered with no prodding, beating on each other doesn't forward the discussion. I happen to be more concerned than you about the potential threat of the spread of this virus. Some will dismiss it, and I think that's dangerous until we get a better understanding where this all might go. You mention your personal bias dismissing the potential impact stems from concerns about the bait and tackle stores and others in that part of the fishing retail sales chain, I feel the same way there, it is alot to have to deal with for the bait shops; large and small. I'm sure bait dealers will have no end of problems with this, but this too shall pass eventually, and if an adjustment is made in how we fish, entrepreneurs like our local Rhinelander bait dealers will adjust. I hope also this will eventually blow over, but I'm not betting the ENTIRE future of our sport on a section of the economic structure of the present. VHS is here, and we all will have to deal with it and the results as they play out. The difference is....some were looking for someone to blame and kick around without carefully thinking it through, and some wanted to actually discuss the ramifications of the disease. I brought this up to discuss the issues of the disease, regulations placed as a result, and future of our sport as a result. I think we have hashed that over pretty well. | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | Steve, I'm not totally bailing out, I just need to get back on the road agian. I don't think I was hollering like hell but I am biased on that, I may very well have. My points were not cherry picking, they were derived from my own veiws and the veiws of many others. There are many concerns on the way things have been handled in the past. The only way to express them are to mention them such as CWD, it was not to compare them as the same type of problem but simply to show a point that things have not been approched in what many see as a proper manner. And to show the outcomes are usually not what was expected nor the concern so great in the end. When I refered before that points were simply dismissed I was talking about things such as the comparing VHS with LMBV. Biologists in TX, TN and MI that I have talked to say the two are very similar in the way they are spread, water temp needed and effect. The main difference is LMBD mainly killed the large adult bass only, no other fish. The point was that the only way to deal with any virus (including in humans) is to allow the targeted hosts to build up an immunity. And by all estimates the fish population will do the same. Humans are not the only way that VHS can be spread around, there is the natural element. It is well known that ponds and other bodies of water that had no fish all of a sudden start having a fish population. No man interfering, just birds with fish eggs clinging to them from another body of water or carrying a fish and drop it in a fish free pond and suddenly introduce fish. This even happend in by backyard for crying out loud, a few years back my yard had a huge body of standing water that it never had before. I live near Winnebago and have many ducks around and they were swimming in the standing water. In a few days the water started drying up and low and behold there was a tiny minnow swimming in the water. VHS will spread and just blamming and targeting humans for it's continued spread is very short sighted. Unless there is a plan out there to train waterfowl to take a sanatation shower before they leave bodies of water I see no way that the DNR can remotly control it's spread. And agian, there is no evidence what so ever that any virus has ever had a long term negative effect on any wild fish population. The one thing that really got my attention on the DNR is agian... I purchased minnows at the local gas station. One had all signs of VHS. I called the DNR and they came by that night and picked it up and agreed it looked very much so like VHS. By the time they got there the minnow died so I froze it to preserve it. This took place on Dec 18, 2007 if I am remembering correctly. Last week I was told that the minnow was not going to be tested and he didn't know why. So in short, there was a very possible case where a bait minnow from a supply tank had VHS and nothing at all was done. How is that taking it seriously? They didn't even quarentine the tank it came from, all the minnows were sold and who knows what system they went into. You could resonably say that the DNR has helped in the spread of VHS. I happened to take plenty of pictures of the minnow for the record. It clearly shows the bleeding and eyes. Am I supposed to just sit on this if the DNR does nothing? Just because it may make the DNR look bad does that mean I shouldn't bring this to the attention of other influences in the industry. This is i huge blunder whether it be a person or policy. You cannot say you are very concerned about VHS if this incident does not raise a major concern with you. Show me the DNR addressing the natural planting of VHS by birds and being concerned about a very possible VHS case in minnows and then I will take this more seriously than what at this moment I can. Steve Krueger | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Location: Rhinelander | Earlier you said this: 'I just talked to the DNR bio. and I was told that the minnow can't be tested unless it's alive and no action was taken to make sure any of the minnows in the tank it came from didn't have VHS.' Then: 'Last week I was told that the minnow was not going to be tested and he didn't know why.' I don't know why the bait dealer wasn't shut down. I wouldn't attempt to speculate because I don't know all the details. Drop me a PM and I'll make some calls to see what I can find out. What type of minnow was this? Is that specie on the list? One cannot reasonably say anything more than that about your minnow incident, in my opinion, until more information is provided. On the road myself today! Mammals and birds don't carry the disease, so it would have to be transmitted by carrying an infected fish from one water body to another, From what I have read, that sort of incidental contact is unlikely to spread the disease, I'll try to give a reference later. I sincerly hope you are right, and the 'long term' effect is minimal; but I sure won't welcome the virus introduction into any lake or river. | ||
| |||
| tyee |
| ||
Member Posts: 1406 | Steve, don't take this personal but who is supposed to pay for the test you asked for? Is the DNR now absorbing the costs that are supposed to be handled by the bait suppliers and dealers, does the DNR have the authority to quarintine the bait dealers inventory? What did you expect to happen? Was the dealer registered? You see it's not the DNR's fault they have no authority but yet YOU blame them? Should that store have disposed of that lot of minnows? maybe that would be the better solution if they were as concerned about the spread as much as some people they should have killed them all. Hell I have too Most of us here know one another and many of us disagree with one another. I bring topics like this to the table all the time and get bashed quite often for my views yet continue for some unknown reason, Fishing is a passion for me and many folks here have taught me a lot over the years, If my skewed view of the topic helps only one person look at something from multiple angles I'm happy. There are too many one-sided people in this world that only look out for themselves. I appreciate your view and the points you have made and hope you continue to participate, there are a lot of lurkers that come here for advice or a chuckle so please hang around and enjoy and try not to take things personal! Good Luck Tyee Edited by tyee 1/10/2008 9:51 AM | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | The DNR Bio. siad that he did not know why the minnow was not going to be tested. He was given the reason that it had to alive, then gave a reason later that it was because it was frozen. He was confused with the answers he was getting from the the people who are actually responsable for the testing. He is one of the people within the DNR who sees a huge hole in the regulations. He was the person who was told to pick up the minnow, he doesn't deal directly with the VHS testing but he can't understand why it won't be tested. The minnow was a golden shiner. My understanding is fish eggs can carry VHS, that is why they started egg disinfecting but the disinfecting does not work on all spicies of eggs like musky. | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | Tyee The DNR doesn't have the authority to quarentine the minnow stocks at the farms but the do have the authority to quarentine the tank at the dealer. I admit that funding for testing is an issue but you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you can't go around and fine people for carring live minnows away from a lake that show no sign of infection and probably arn't just because you might infect a different body of water then turn around and not test a bait minnow that shows all the signs which has a higher probability that some of the minnows from the same tank also have it, and allowing those minnows to be bought and used. Yes, the store having to destroy that batch of minnows would be very much in line with the regulations, that would have been a very good responce. I try not to take thing personal, I just get cranky once in a while. | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Location: Rhinelander | I guess we need to talk to someone who is on stream with VHS testing. I'm told quite a bit of the disease testing in fish is done right here in Wisconsin, maybe I can dig a little and get some answers. Tyee, almost everyone here is 'one sided' when offering opinions and ideas, it's the nature of the beast. I get bashed alot too... | ||
| |||
| Jayman |
| ||
Member Posts: 1656 | 3% muskie kill in an "abnormal" population of muskies. I don't beleive catching double digits of muskies in a day is normal. oh...forgot to add purely opinion. Edited by Jayman 1/10/2008 1:20 PM | ||
| |||
| Jayman |
| ||
Member Posts: 1656 | Virus life cycle The life cycle of viruses differs greatly between species (see below) but there are six basic stages in the life cycle of viruses: A virus attaches to the host cell and enters endocytosis. The capsid protein dissociates and the viral RNA is transported to the nucleus. In the nucleus, the viral polymerase complexes transcribe and replicate the RNA. Viral mRNAs migrate to cytoplasm where they are translated into protein. Then the newly synthesized virions bud from infected cell.Attachment is a specific binding between viral capsid proteins and specific receptors on the host cellular surface. This specificity determines the host range of a virus. For example, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infects only human T cells, because its surface protein, gp120, can interact with CD4 and receptors on the T cell's surface. This mechanism has evolved to favour those viruses that only infect cells that they are capable of replicating in. Attachment to the receptor can induce the viral-envelope protein to undergo changes that results in the fusion of viral and cellular membranes. Penetration: following attachment, viruses enter the host cell through receptor mediated endocytosis or membrane fusion. Uncoating is a process that viral capsid is removed is degraded by viral enzymes or host enzymes thus releasing the viral genomic nucleic acid. Replication involves synthesis of viral messenger RNA (mRNA) for viruses except positive sense RNA viruses (see above), viral protein synthesis and assembly of viral proteins and viral genome replication. Following the assembly of the virus particles post-translational modification of the viral proteins often occurs. In viruses such as HIV, this modification, (sometimes called maturation), occurs after the virus has been released from the host cell.[51] Viruses are released from the host cell by lysis (see below) . Enveloped viruses (e.g., HIV) typically are released from the host cell by “budding”. During this process, the virus acquires its phospholipid envelope which contains embedded viral glycoproteins. DNA viruses Animal DNA viruses, such as herpesviruses, enter the host via endocytosis, the process by which cells take in material from the external environment. Frequently after a chance collision with an appropriate surface receptor on a cell, the virus penetrates the cell, the viral genome is released from the capsid and host polymerases begin transcribing viral mRNA. New virions are assembled and released either by cell lysis or by budding off the cell membrane. RNA viruses Animal RNA viruses can be placed into about four different groups depending on their modes of replication. The polarity of the RNA largely determines the replicative mechanism, as well as whether the genetic material is single-stranded or double-stranded. Some RNA viruses are actually DNA based but use an RNA-intermediate to replicate. RNA viruses are dependent on virally encoded RNA replicase to create copies of their genomes. Reverse transcribing viruses Reverse transcribing viruses replicate using reverse transcription, which is the formation of DNA from an RNA template. Viruses containing RNA genomes use a DNA intermediate to replicate, whereas those containing DNA genomes use an RNA intermediate during genome replication. Both types use the reverse transcriptase enzyme to carry out the nucleic acid conversion. both types are susceptible to antiviral drugs that inhibit the reverse transcriptase enzyme, e.g. zidovudine and lamivudine. An example of the first type is HIV which is a retrovirus. Retroviruses often integrate the DNA produced by reverse transcription into the host genome. This is why HIV infection can at present, only be treated and not cured. Examples of the second type are the Hepadnaviridae which includes Hepatitis B virus and the Caulimoviridae - e.g. Cauliflower mosaic virus. Bacteriophages Main article: Bacteriophage Transmission electron micrograph of multiple bacteriophages attached to a bacterial cell wallBacteriophages infect specific bacteria by binding to surface receptor molecules and then enter the cell. Within a short amount of time, in some cases, just minutes, bacterial polymerase starts translating viral mRNA into protein. These proteins go on to become either new virions within the cell, helper proteins which help assembly of new virions, or proteins involved in cell lysis. Viral enzymes aid in the breakdown of the cell membrane, and in the case of the T4 phage, in just over twenty minutes after injection over three hundred phages could be released. Oh and this is purely fact. | ||
| |||
| Jayman |
| ||
Member Posts: 1656 | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_viruses This ought to get everybody fired up!  | ||
| |||
| Jayman |
| ||
Member Posts: 1656 | Prevention and treatment Because viruses use the machinery of a host cell to reproduce and reside within them, they are difficult to eliminate without killing the host cell. The most effective medical approaches to viral diseases so far are vaccinations to provide resistance to infection, and antiviral drugs which treat the symptoms of viral infections. Host immune response The body's first line of defense against viruses is the innate immune system. This comprises cells and other mechanisms that defend the host from infection in a non-specific manner. This means that the cells of the innate system recognize, and respond to, pathogens in a generic way, but unlike the adaptive immune system, it does not confer long-lasting or protective immunity to the host.[82] RNA interference is an important innate defense against viruses.[83] Many viruses have a replication strategy that involves double-stranded RNA [dsRNA]. When such a virus infects a cell, it releases its RNA molecule or molecules, which immediately bind to a protein complex called Dicer that cuts the RNA into smaller pieces. A biochemical pathway called the RISC complex is activated which degrades the viral mRNA and the cell survives the infection. Rotaviruses avoid this mechanism by not uncoating fully inside the cell and by releasing newly produced mRNA through pores in the particles inner capsid. The genomic dsRNA remains protected inside the core of the virion.[84][85] When the adaptive immune system of a vertebrate encounters a virus, it produces specific antibodies which bind to the virus and render it non-infectious. This is called humoral immunity. Two types of antibodies are important. The first called IgM is highly effective at neutralizing viruses but is only produced by the cells of the immune system for a few weeks. The second, called, IgG is produced indefinitely. The presence of IgM in the blood of the host is used to test for acute infection, whereas IgG indicates an infection sometime in the past.[86] Both types of antibodies are measured when tests for immunity are carried out.[87] A second defense of vertebrates against viruses is called cell-mediated immunity and involves immune cells known as T cells. The body's cells constantly display short fragments of their proteins on the cell's surface, and if a T cell recognizes a suspicious viral fragment there, the host cell is destroyed by T killer cells and the virus-specific T-cells proliferate. Cells such as the macrophage are specialists at this antigen presentation.[88][89] Not all virus infections produce a protective immune response in this way. HIV evades the immune system by constantly changing the amino acid sequence of the proteins on the surface of the virion. These persistent viruses evade immune control by sequestration, blockade of antigen presentation, cytokine resistance, evasion of natural killer cell activities, escape from apoptosis, and antigenic shift.[90] The production of interferon is an important host defense mechanism.[91] Vaccines For more details on this topic, see Vaccination. Vaccination is a cheap and effective way of preventing infections by viruses. Vaccines were used to prevent viral infections long before the discovery of the actual viruses. Their use has resulted in a dramatic decline in morbidity (illness) and mortality (death) associated with viral infections such as polio, measles, mumps and rubella.[92] Smallpox infections have been eradicated.[93] Currently vaccines are available to prevent over thirteen viral infections of humans[94] and more are used to prevent viral infections of animals.[95] Vaccines can consist of live or killed viruses.[96] Live vaccines contain weakened forms of the virus that causes the disease. Such viruses are called attenuated. Live vaccines can be dangerous when given to people with a weak immunity, (who are described as immunocompromised), because in these people the weakened virus can cause the original disease.[97] Biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques are used to produce subunit vaccines. These vaccines use only the capsid proteins of the virus. Hepatitis B vaccine is an example of this type of vaccine.[98] Subunit vaccines are safe for immunocompromised patients because they cannot cause the disease.[99] Antiviral drugs For more details on this topic, see Antiviral drug. The true DNA base thymidine The antiviral drug Zidovudine - AZTOver the past twenty years the development of antiviral drugs has increased rapidly. This has been driven by the AIDS epidemic. Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, (fake DNA building blocks), which viruses incorporate into their genomes during replication. The life-cycle of the virus is then halted because the newly synthesised DNA is inactive. This is because these analogues lack the hydroxyl groups which along with phosphorus atoms, link together to form the strong "backbone" of the DNA molecule. This is called DNA chain termination.[100] Examples of nucleoside analogues are aciclovir for Herpes virus infections and lamivudine for HIV and Hepatitis B virus infections. Aciclovir, is one of the oldest and most frequently prescribed antiviral drugs.[101] Guanosine The guanosine analogue AciclovirOther antiviral drugs in use target different stages of the viral life cycle. HIV is dependent on a proteolytic enzyme called the HIV-1 protease for it to become fully infectious. There is a class of drugs called protease inhibitors which have been designed to inactivate the enzyme. Hepatitis C is caused by an RNA virus. In 80% of people infected the disease is chronic and without treatment they are infected and infectious for the remainder of their lives. However, there is now an effective treatment using the nucleoside analogue drug ribavirin combined with interferon[102] The treatment of chronic carriers of the Hepatitis B virus by using a similar strategy using lamivudine is being developed.[103] | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | These are the statements from the MDNR about the musky population in St. Clare and the lastest is after the musky kill off by MDNR's Newan and I quote: "He noted that even though up to several thousand muskies may have been lost this spring, those are only a small fraction of the population in the St. Clair system. "It's still going to be terrific [muskie] fishing. The system arguably is home to the highest densities of muskies anywhere.'' This is from a MDNR report just before the musky kill: "For example, walleye, muskellunge and smallmouth bass, in combination, have sustained an ecological function as important piscivores, despite changes in their habitat, forage patterns, and relative abundance over the last 30 years." and "The Lake St. Clair muskellunge population is one of the few remaining self-sustaining populations in the Great Lakes. Muskellunge currently support a significant and growing recreational fishery in Ontario and Michigan waters of Lake St. Clair. In 1989, for the Ontario waters of Lake St. Clair, muskellunge represented 10 % of the total summer fishery effort with 34,000 rod-hours and catch of 2,000 fish (MacLennan and Bryant 1990), which in 2002 increased to 22 %, 43,000 rod-hours and 7,200 fish, respectively (MacLennan 2003). 20 Draft Fish Community Goal and Objectives For the St. Clair System Draft 3-28-03 An increase in the Ontario and Michigan minimum size limit from 76 to 102 cm (30 to 40 inches) in 1987 along with a growing "catch and release" ethic appears to have afforded important protection to the muskellunge stocks in Lake St. Clair (MacLennan 1996) and contributed to more than a doubling in stock size during the 1990's. Changes in the habitat of Lake St. Clair, favorable to muskellunge also occurred after 1987. The density of musk grass (Chara spp.), a primary substrate for spawning muskellunge (Dombeck et al 1984) had dramatically increased over extensive areas of Lake St. Clair based on macrophyte surveys comparing the mid 1980's to 1990's (MacLennan 1997). Overall macrophyte density in the Ontario waters had increased 5 fold, providing both nursery and adult habitat. Muskellunge were not only more abundant in the lake, but more ubiquitous in distribution. While there has been concern that the increase in muskellunge density may exceed availability of abundant preferred food, recent evidence suggests growth rates remain high (OMNR, unpublished data). The management objective to provide trophy muskellunge fishing opportunities (fish greater than 16 kg (35.3 lbs) and 102 cm (40 inches)) from a stable self-sustaining population appear to have been realized through the 1990's." I am not going to add any of my own comments but why is the MDNR not too troubled about the musky population? They think it is fine. Steve Krueger | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Location: Rhinelander | PR, Steve, PR. Ask any fisheries biologist working the muskies over there what they think of losing the 4000 muskies, and let me know what they say. I already have, over a year ago; in person. The last piece was published in it's whole and reused repeatedly (see the reference to the 1990's there, I saw this piece referenced at the last Muskie Symposium a couple years ago) before the arrival of VHS. I don't much care if you think 4000 dead adult muskies is just fine, to me it isn't. Nothing to be done for it there now except wait to see if there are recurring losses to the disease, but I sure hope we don't see that happen on the Bay. Do you? I know the MIDNR wasn't happy with the losses to VHS, but they have to deal with what happened and move on as best as they can. There's much more to this, as I have said several times. The disease just being present halted transportation of fish used for stocking our lakes across State and national boundaries in many areas, halting stocking efforts across the Muskie range for many states, and causing others who were lucky enough to have a surplus to not be able to use those as trade material for other gamefish they need. There are ripple effects from this across the board. Wisconsin was using stock from the infected waters to stock Green Bay. As of right now, it looks like that will end. I hope not. Here's a document that deals with potential financial losses as a result of spread of this infection produced by the USDA. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseasenotice_fil... I don't want to see a layer of dead gamefish on the surface of Pelican Lake. I am not arguing the virus will kill ALL the fish, but I know what it costs to get ONE muskie from fry to 50", and would prefer to lose zero to a preventable situation. Here's what a fisheries manager had to say from a Western State when asked on our sister site what he felt would be the impact if the disease shows up;he sort of supports the notion that not much can really be done to halt the spread of the virus completely unless direct action is taken, which I understand is part of your premise that we should be doing nothing at all and conversely definitely IS the reason the DNR here acted as noted: ' Many of the western states have already imposed a ban on the importation of fish from any of the Great Lakes States. That, however, only takes care of the movement via fish. I would be more surprised if it DIDN'T show up somewhere in the west given the extremely mobile nature of our society. Many states, Utah included, have implemented Aquatic Nuisance Species control measures. Right now, these are largely comprised of some half-baked education effort; in other words, not much substantive action is being taken, mostly lip service and 'sky is falling' rhetoric. Quite frankly, I'm not sure much can be done once it shows up. Many of the western states historically have not been all that worried about fish diseases since much of the resource (trout - based) has been dependent upon stocking; now that there are many wild stock fisheries supported by natural reproduction, the deck has been re-shuffled and 'advanced worrying management' has again become a popular pastime... S.' Here's a press release submitted to MuskieFIRST on May 21, 2007: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 17, 2007 CONTACT: Tammy Newcomb 517-373-3960, Gary Whelan 517-373-6948 or Richard Morscheck 517-373-9265 Fish Disease Discovered in Budd Lake, Clare County Department of Natural Resources (DNR) officials today confirmed the presence of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) in an inland lake in Michigan. Budd Lake, a 175-acre lake in central Clare County, experienced a very large die-off of fish beginning April 30 that included black crappie, bluegill and muskellunge. DNR biologists responded quickly to the lake to determine the cause of the die-off. Potential natural and human-induced causes for the die-off were evaluated. Fish collected from Budd Lake were taken to Michigan State University for testing. Because of the nature of the testing process for VHS, several weeks are required to obtain results. The DNR learned this week that the fish from Budd Lake were positive for VHS. Although the exact cause of the fish die-off is yet to be determined, this is the first time that the virus has been found in inland waters in Michigan. “We are disappointed that the disease has spread to Budd Lake, and clearly we are very concerned about protecting our inland waters from further spread of this virus,” said DNR Fisheries Division Chief Kelley Smith. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia is known to cause large-scale mortalities in fish populations over short periods of time. Infected fish may exhibit hemorrhaging in the skin including large red patches, small pin-point spots of minor external hemorrhaging or no external signs at all. Sick fish often will appear listless, swim in circles or hang just below the surface. VHS likely was introduced into the Great Lakes around 2002 via ships that entered the Great Lakes and discharged ballast water that contained the virus. The virus is now known to be distributed in Michigan’s waters of the Great Lakes from northern Lake Huron to Lake Erie. Widespread mortalities in muskellunge and gizzard shad in Michigan waters of Lake St. Clair were observed in 2006 along with significant mortalities of yellow perch, white bass, freshwater drum and round gobies in lakes Erie and Ontario. Internationally, VHS is a fish disease of concern and is a required reportable disease to the International Organization of Animal Health. In October 2006, the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service imposed interstate and international restrictions on the movement of fish to prevent the spread of VHS in the U.S. As a result of this finding in Budd Lake, the DNR is modifying regulations proposed in the Fish Disease Control Order that was presented for information to the Natural Resources Commission May 10. The Fish Disease Control Order identifies restrictions on the use of baitfish and fish eggs for different disease management areas. These regulations are necessary to protect the aquatic resources of the state, minimize the spread of disease to uninfected waters and protect the DNR’s hatchery system. “It is unfortunate that we have to take the steps required under the order, but those steps are similar to what other Great Lakes States and the Province of Ontario are enacting in an attempt to slow the spread of VHS in the Great Lakes Basin,” Smith said. “The order, however, will not prevent anglers from fishing as usual anywhere in the state this summer.” Major changes to the order include an expanded certification process for facilities that maintain baitfish or other live fish that are known to be susceptible to VHS, as well as additional restrictions on the use of baitfish or eggs by anglers when fishing. DNR Director Rebecca Humphries is expected to take action on the order at the June 7 meeting of the Natural Resources Commission. The order can be reviewed online at www.michigan.gov/dnrfishing. The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state’s natural resources for current and future generations. Just an observation, the MIDNR sure seems concerned from the tone of this release. Steve, I get it, you feel VHS is not that big a deal. I strongly disagree, and I hope most other anglers out there do, or we may have more up close and personal experience with VHS than anyone here would like. | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | I am not happy about the musky kill either, but if the kill amount was as devistating to the over all population as it has been pointed out to me why are there DNR releases and statements out there basically saying otherwise? I would figure they all would come to the same conclucion and they don't. That poses a big problem and confuses the public. I may be one of them but I am still basing my opinion on DNR statements and releases. That can't be discounted. It's starting to look like everyone in the DNR are not on the same page with this. This is very apparent when you can show me stuff where the conclucion is the VHS and musky kill are a big deal and I can find stuff that come to a different conclusion. And both sides are from goverment agencies and sometimes the same agency. Very confusing. | ||
| |||
| Tyee Unlogged |
| ||
| I seem to get the most reliable info from WHO and the DATCP, there are plenty of DNR reports/news articles and personal opinion out there to be concerned about and raise eyebrows. Dr. Kebus seems to be the most knowledgable. Good Luck Tyee | |||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | Thanks, most of the quotes I have posted have come from the official DNR websites and releases. I am having a hard time understanding how one can point to certian DNR reports and dis-miss others. I suppose it depends on your veiw point though because I lean heavier on the ones that back up my points and other do the same naturaly. Steve K. | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Location: Rhinelander | Not really, Steve, it's the intent of the release that matters. The one you posted was designed to calm fears the 4000 fish killed would decimate the Muskie fishery. Note no one said that it was just fine to lose that many, just that the population was large enough to absorb a kill off of that size and still provide good fishing. The one I posted was designed to express the MIDNR's concern about the virus did what it did in an inland MI lake. If you see what the release was intended to address, it's not that hard to properly place it in perspective. I've been following this since 2005, so I've read alot of 'em in the context for which they were intended. | ||
| |||
| Purple Skeeter |
| ||
Member Posts: 885 | Please don't remove this question, it is not posed as a derogatory remark! Are you the same Steve Krueger that works for the DNR and saw a Bigfoot like creature steal a deer carcus out of the back of your pickup in Southern Wisconsin a few yeara ago? a quote from an article: "Bio, Steve Krueger is a contract worker for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. He was hunting, killed a deer and put it in the back of his pickup. A creature with the body of a bear with very broad shoulders, and the head of a wolf took the deer from the truck. The creature stood between 6 and 7 feet tall and had 2 inch long fur." Again, not meant to be a derogatory remark, very interested in hearing his story if he is the same guy. Thanks Dominic | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | All I can say to that is I can see how the DNR at times seems to paint themselves in a corner as far as public opinion goes. Most people don't desyfer the intent of a press release or or official comments. In these cases with the material I refered to should not make it appear as they do. It kind of makes it a up hill battle when it doesn't need to be. Steve K | ||
| |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Location: Rhinelander | It's up to the researcher to look into the timeline and context. The questions to ask are: Is the piece from reliable source? What is the timeline on this piece in relationship to the overall story? Who wrote the story, what are the author's qualifications to speak to the subject and what was the motivation to content and timing, how was it published? Who was the article intended for, what audience? Was the piece intended for fisheries scientists or managers, or the public? And so on. Taking care to make sure one 'processes' written information in context allows for one to better understand and apply what the intent was, and usually clears up any questions one might have, especially if information seems to be in conflict, in my opinion. | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | That makes sense. I'm not conceading to anything...yet Steve K | ||
| |||
| RedNeckTech |
| ||
Member Posts: 319 | Purple Skeeter, The answer to your question is both yes and no. Yes it was I that got flashed all over the nation back then from what happened. No, I did not say it was bigfoot. I don't think this is the correct forum to get into details for several reasons. Steve K | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > Now viewing page 6 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's