|
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | From one of the articles in Dennis's link:
"Smith said one possible directive would restrict the use of bait minnows taken from water known to have VHS-infected fish. Fishermen may be barred from using those minnows in bodies of water that have not had infections reported to keep the disease from being introduced into new areas." |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Dennis, Thanks for the link. Just to clear up the matters, I am well aware of VHS and all the constant cut and paste info on VHS...heck how can ya avoid it on this site? 
Here's something I find surprising, and again playing devils advocate, In 2003 VHS was known to exist in St. Clair and Erie. in 2004 and 2005 I fished Erie and the Detroit River in spring (MWC stop). At that time not once were we informed about VHS, it's effects or anythign else about this disease. We were even stopped and checked at the ramps in Port Clinton by ODNR. And not one word was mentioned to us as they inspected our vessels to ensure we were Great Lakes equipment compliant.
We heard more in 2005 in the spring when all the dead Muskies were floating down the river. People talked about the number of dead fish only then did I hear about VHS but still knew very little about it.
I guess the surprising part for me is that it wasn't a big deal at the time of it occuring, atleast I didn't get that impression. Yet here in WI, it almost seems like a knee jerk over reaction to someting we're not sure about. And by the way there is an unbelieveable year class of walleyes coming up on Erie. So VHS is not going to be THEE END.
Just an observation.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Brad B - 12/21/2007 10:02 AM From one of the articles in Dennis's link: "Smith said one possible directive would restrict the use of bait minnows taken from water known to have VHS-infected fish. Fishermen may be barred from using those minnows in bodies of water that have not had infections reported to keep the disease from being introduced into new areas." Thanks Brad. I saw that but that's a far cry from a total ban on live bait. It's not too far from the current WI regs. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Jayman.
Cannot vouch for the St.Clair or Erie, but even though suspected, we here in Michigan could not officially verify that VHS was deffinetly here until last year when they found and determined that fact in Thunder Bay, on Lake Huron. I suspect the DNR people assigned to identify, test for and plan strategies to combat these type things are very few in numbers in every states agencies. Let's face it, invasive's and viruses in the numbers they are coming into the Great lakes now, are overwhelming all the resources of these agencies.
Edited by walleye express 12/21/2007 12:40 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 21
Location: Potter, WI. | My 2 cents worth. Saltys are coming in yet...We don't stop them...Wisconsin Didn't want to spend any money for the eletric barrier in Chicago (I know the feds are funding it now) Were building and repairing lochs on the fox so we can have gobies, quaggs, white perch, ruffe and who all knows what else in are system.. The boat lift will kill all invasives...Whatever! But your gonna fine me $600 for taking my minnows home that I'm going to use on the same lake...Wisconsin DNR what a joke...... Does anyone have any common sense left???? The guy that Contaminites the next lake up north doesn't know the regulations. I would think the best thing to do would be leave it up to the sportsman and educate them that if you use the bait on a VHS water that's the only water you can use it on. You fish the bago system then you can only use your bait on that system or the great lakes. |
|
| |
|
| Cranky - That was probably the best post I have EVER read on this site.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| From the DNR
"The virus is not likely to be transmitted by residual bilge water or birds. By far, the most likely way in which VHS will be transmitted to another water body is infected fish, with large quantities of contaminated water a distant second"
So what came first the chicken or the egg?
It appears that the biggest concern is of people harvesting bait from infected waters and possibly taking it to other lakes and the only way to prevent it is by having the new rule to kill bait before leaving the shoreline. Now THAT makes more sense than anything else I have heard or read. Weather or not you like the rule you have to agree that any other rule would have resulted in an unenforceable rule that basically becomes a voluntary regulation and we all know those don't work!
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| I believe the point that most have made is THAT killing your bait will be a voluntary regulation and very difficult to enforce. Which "we all know those don't work". |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Tyee,
I would be interested in knowing who or where you got that DNR info from. The readings that I have seen and brochures that I personally passed out last season (from what I believe to be reliable sources say to the contrary. Is this new info our someones opinion?
Here is just one quote:
All VHS viruses can be recovered from homogenates of internal organs, sex products, or urine. Little virus can be recovered from feces. Experimentally, fish can be infected by cohabitation, immersion, intraperitoneal and intramuscular injection, brushing virus on the gills, and feeding virally spiked food.
Fish-eating birds, such as the gray heron, can be mechanical vectors of VHS virus, but passage through the gastrointestinal tract of birds appears to inactivate the virus. The virus does not appear to be transmitted by parasitic vectors or to be capable of replication in insects. In the hatchery environment, mechanical transfer of VHS virus on the surface of animate or inanimate objects presents a substantial hazard. taken from: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseasenotice_fil...
Another quote:
Anglers and boaters can also help prevent the spread of VHS and other viruses or bacteria that cause disease in fish by not transferring fish between water bodies, and by thoroughly cleaning boats, trailers, nets, and other equipment when traveling between different lakes and streams. The use of a light disinfectant such as a solution of one half cup chlorine bleach to five gallons of water to clean vessels and live wells is very effective against VHS and other viruses and bacteria that cause disease in fish. Soaking exposed items such as live wells, nets, anchors, and bait buckets in a light disinfectant for 30 minutes is also an effective method to prevent the spread of a wide range of aquatic nuisance species.
Taken from: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_10950_46202-160980--...
I could go on and on. Most reports see a connection. Again, I ask, is this something new? Most articles that I read are about a year old, so is it possible that this is new research? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| Dennis,
It is from Mr. Staggs and is purely the opinion of our DNR at the current time based on what they know I am sure!
How they arrived at that opinion I can only venture to guess that they have access to a bit more data than I. (Possibly that there are more people out thair catching their own minnows than I would have thought?) Either way it is how they are responding to questions!
PS. Lets go ICE fishing I could use a drink!
Good Luck
Tyee
December 19, 2007
TO: Anglers who have contacted us with concerns about VHS rules
Subject: Responding to your comments on VHS rules
Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for your recent communication on administrative rules to control the spread of the fish disease viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). As with all our ongoing efforts to develop policies and rules to manage our critical natural resources, we appreciate any and all input from interested citizens and strive to incorporate this input wherever possible. The Natural Resources Board – which is the Governor-appointed citizen board that sets policies and makes rules for the DNR – met on December 5 to consider final VHS permanent rules. I shared all comments that I received before the meeting directly with Board members so they were aware of your individual concerns before making decisions. In addition, the department held 11 different formal public hearings since May 2007 on VHS rules, and board members publicly discussed these rules at six different board meetings, so they are making their decisions based on extensive public input.
At their December 5 meeting, the NR Board did approve a set of final permanent rules. These rules extend to the entire state requirements that have been in effect in many areas of the state since April 2007. All boaters and anglers are now required to drain all water out of their boating and fishing equipment when leaving the water or entering Wisconsin over land from another state, and are prohibited from moving live fish or fish eggs away from any water without a permit. Emergency rules in effect this spring and summer required these actions only on Lake Winnebago, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River and all connecting waters up to the first barrier impassible to fish. More information about the NR Board’s action and generally about VHS can be found on our website at http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pages/vhs.html.
Many of the comments we have received concern use and reuse of minnows for bait. Many of you have made very reasonable suggestions for ways in which unused minnows could be saved for use on another lake or another day without spreading VHS. During their deliberations on December 5, the NR Board did consider an amendment to the rules which would have allowed people to keep leftover minnows if they had not exchanged water in their minnow bucket and were only going to use them later on the same waterbody. The fundamental problem with this and similar exceptions is that it is impossible to tell if people are complying. There is simply no way to keep track of minnows once they leave the water, and there is no way to know where the minnows that are being taken off the water actually came from. They could have even been netted from the water itself, which would be very troubling if that water had VHS.
We know that the vast majority of anglers care about Wisconsin’s fisheries resources and would certainly follow the rules to avoid spreading VHS. Our experience, however, also shows there are always a few people who disregard the rules. If law enforcement personnel do not have a way to actually identify and catch those few people, those people have little incentive to do the right thing. The NR Board members discussed this issue at length and fully understood that they were choosing between a set of rules that would be less popular but would be legally enforceable and a set of rules that - if everyone followed them - would prevent the spread of VHS but because they are legally unenforceable would essentially be voluntary.
In the end, there were some differences of opinions among NRB members, but they passed rules that would in fact be enforceable. Wisconsin has some of the nation’s best fishing resources and most popular fishing, and NR Board members were unwilling to place these at the mercy of voluntary regulations.
Many of you expressed other concerns with the rules. While I cannot address each of your letters and e-mails individually, I have tried to summarize some of the issues that have been considered in detail and at length by the Department and the Natural Resources Board as part of the development of the rules:
1. The virus is not likely to be transmitted by residual bilge water or birds. By far, the most likely way in which VHS will be transmitted to another water body is infected fish, with large quantities of contaminated water a distant second. It is very unlikely that VHS will be transmitted by water remaining in bilges or pumps after they are drained, or boats and equipment that are just still wet, or by birds or animals. There must be a threshold level of virus particles transferred before fish in another water can actually catch the disease. An infected fish can easily transfer the disease because they are alive and their bodies continually manufacture and spread virus particles - or they can be eaten by an uninfected fish. Contaminated water can spread enough virus particles, but only if large quantities of water are moved. Small amounts of water simply won't contain enough virus particles to infect fish in another water body. Also, the virus does not survive when a fish is eaten by a bird or mammal, so there is no live virus in any animal droppings. It is possible that a bird could carry some virus in the water on its feathers, but again, it is unlikely that enough virus will be transferred to infect fish in another water. So the approach that we have taken is to focus on the most likely vectors which are potentially infected fish and larger quantities of potentially contaminated water.
2. The horse is not out of the barn. There are still thousands of lakes and miles of rivers in Wisconsin that do not have VHS and can be protected by aggressive control measures. VHS has been in Great Lakes waters of New York and Michigan since at least 2005, and so far there are only 3 inland waters in New York and 1 in Michigan that have been infected (please note that state officials in those states believe infected minnows were responsible for all of the inland infections).
3. We will never know exactly which waters have VHS at any given time. Whatever regulation system we have, it cannot rely on knowing exactly what waters are infected with VHS. To date, DNR has tested about 150 lots of fish from around 50 waters statewide. In 2008 we are hoping to expand this to another 80-90 waters. That is the practical limit given our current staffing and available laboratory testing capacity. This level of testing does give us a good idea generally which watersheds have VHS, but with 15,000 lakes and 44,000 miles of rivers and streams, there is no way we will ever be able to definitely tell people exactly which waters have VHS and which do not. That is one of the reasons that the Natural Resources Board has chosen to expand regulations aimed at curbing the movement of live fish and large quantities of water to all waters statewide.
4. No control measures will work unless anglers and boaters know about the threat from VHS. We wholeheartedly agree that public education and information is our best weapon in this fight. In 2007 we did a lot to get the word out including press releases, signs at landings, public information materials, paid advertising on radio and TV, watercraft inspections, direct outreach to reporters, clubs, and anglers, and a comprehensive VHS website (http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pages/vhs.html). And we will continue and expand that effort in 2008.
5. There is no cure for VHS once it infects fish. There is no way to treat minnows to make them safe from VHS. VHS is a fish virus and there is no treatment or cure once a fish is infected. We have provided disinfection procedures for water and equipment on our website, but the concentrations of chemicals or temperatures needed to kill the virus in the water would also kill any fish in the water. The only way to prevent the spread of VHS is to make sure that infected fish are not moved to other waterbodies.
6. Commercial wild bait harvesters, fish farmers, and minnow importers must meet strict fish health inspection and testing standards. Under current DNR and Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection regulations, all minnows available for sale or distribution in Wisconsin will have undergone a fish health inspection performed by an accredited professional. Wisconsin has among the most stringent fish health testing requirements in the US which will ensure that the risk of introducing or spreading VHS or other fish diseases is minimized. The only exception is for anglers who harvest bait for their personal use on the same waterbody which is allowable without testing though the fish may not be moved away from that waterbody. Again, there is more information about wild bait harvesting on our VHS webpage.
Ultimately, all of us anglers and boaters must take personal responsibility to make sure that our recreational activities are not spreading harmful invasive species or diseases. Sometimes it means that we have to take a step back and look at the situation from a statewide perspective, and we may find that the best thing for everyone is to change how we've been doing things in the past. I encourage you to continue to participate in the dialogue on this difficult issue and continue to make suggestions on how to make things better. The Department and the Natural Resources Board do listen to what is being said and try to take everyone's concerns into account when making final decisions. What might not seem like a good idea today may eventually end up being the right solution.
I have attached as Word files, several other informational documents that may be of help in understanding the new rules. If you cannot open them, they will soon be available for viewing on our VHS webpage: http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pages/vhs.html
Thanks again for your help and input on this issue.
Sincerely,
Michael Staggs, Director Bureau of Fisheries Management
|
|
| |
|
| Heres an interesting question?? Does a shore fisherman have to disgard of his/her minnows after a days fishing?? I was never on the water. Whats your take on this one......or do I have to kill all my minnows for fear VHS may spread into my minnow bucket. If we have to clean our boats with a bleach solution then do we have to clean our minnow buckets everytime we are done getting bait!!?? Everytime a new batch of minnows is brought to the bait shop then will the owner have to use bleach solution in his minnow tank.........well looks like its cut bait only for the catfish setliners, cuz you can't go catch bait on some pond or stream and transport it, Surely the flathead setliners will love this!!!!!!!......Well i'm pretty much disgusted......VHS = CWD The advancement in technology and science have no doubtly discovered something that probably has always been around........I'm out!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| Am I wrong in saying the DNR just does not trust the fishermen of Wisconsin? What I mean is why don't they have a law that just states you can not use the same bait in two different bodies of water? Minnows in the spring and winter can last well over a week due to the cold temps. and I just find it stupid and childish that I have to have a second bait bucket in my truck that hasn't crossed the "lake line" that I can scoop backup minnows out of especially when I plan on fishing the same body of water the next day. I realize enforcement of this rule would be hard, but at least it makes more sense. |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Shore fisherman,
Yes, you have to destroy your bait. If you are fishing from shore and are using your bait, the theory is you will be exchanging water from the bucket and the water you are fishing.
Take my word for it, VHS has not 'been around' our area for a long time. The first time you see a serious outbreak, I believe you will agree. There are several other diseases that attack our fish in the spring and fall, but VHS has not been one of them until recently.
Flyman, short answer is no, fisherman as a rule can't be trusted not to transfer invasives. Some can and are very diligent, but those who don't care.... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Im my experience the ones who don't care the most are visitors to the area waters or people with no investment of any kind in the fishery.
Example: We have two "Free Fishing Weekedns" that our DNR allows every year. Nobody needs a license to fish during these weekends. It's hard to notice any differnce with the one that takes place in June, because most trash sinks in open water. But come out on the Bay after the one during ice fishing time. The trash left on the ice is 10 times more then the regular slobs who don't give a crap. I picked up 2 garbage bags of propane bottles, beer cans and the cartons they came in after one of these weekends. And seen many more trashed areas I drove by on the way in from the Bay. I could only waste so much of mine and my fishing clients time playing junk man. It's a sad shame, but most of us still have to be babysitted for the betterment of the resource. |
|
| |
|
| Sorry Steve I will not take your word for it because you have no proof to back it up. Just like I have no proof to back up that it has been around for a long time.
If that makes any sense!! My point is these knee jerk reactions to try and prevent something that no one knows a whole lot about are pretty frustrating to the sportsman. Even though for the best....they are frustrating!! Well I'll get off my soapbox now and get back to trying how to invent some sort of artificial live fish that I can sell to catfish setliners!!! I'm gonna be rich I tell ya rich!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | VHS has been tracked across the Great Lakes and into waters in Michigan, and now Wisconsin. The fish kill of THOUSANDS of adult muskies last year in MI and Canadian waters was pretty conclusive; that had never happened before and VHS is not that hard to identify; VHS was the culprit.
There is a paper that will be published that takes VHS into context while arguing for additional regs on Bay of Green Bay. This work references nicely the VHS outbreaks, etc to date. When I have the author's permission, I will link that work for you. it's darned conclusive, and provides all the 'proof' I need.
I for one will not discount the importance of doing everything I can personally to reduce the spread of this virus, and until better regs that are less restrictive are the law, so be it. |
|
| |
|
| You know what is also ironic about this, is Green Bay has been bolstering its musky population over the course of the last 10 years and from what I understand they are the most subjective fish to the disease. So we as fisherman are surely setting up ourselves for a natural disaster. All the money and resources pumped into this one resource only to be toppled. If your saying VHS was something never here before then surely it is in Green Bay already because little lake butte des mortes has had a confirmed case already!!! Cripes the press that one loley sheepshead got on television one would have thought there was some sort of mass crisis in the fox valley. Imagine what will happen when about 500 to 1000 dead muskys are found in the lower bay. Fish that are not even native fish, all stocked. My gosh i know people that will want to have funerals for these fish!!!
Let me ask you this Steve if your so certain that VHS was never here before on Lake Michigan, Green Bay, Winnebago system.........Have we then ever done extensive testing for the disease on these waters??? Did anyone have any sort of understanding of it back in the 80's 90's. There is just to much uncertainty and one mans documention doesnt answer how long the virus has been around the wisconsin waterways? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Shore Fisherman:
Please do not take my question as a negative reply. It is meant only for understanding.
Let's say that we have what I would call a worst case scenario for the Winnebago Chain of Lakes. Let's presume that it's ice out and our worst fears are realized. With the ice barely off the lakes we all start to see massive amounts of floating dead decaying fish. Now the newspapers start to report that DNR crews have collected some of the dead fish for testing and have confirmed that these fish do indeed have the virus. Many of us are shocked and disgusted. Sportsmen are up in arms and worried about he future of our prized fishery.
Am I to assume that you and some others reading these threads will come back and say that there really isn't anything to worry about? That we have had these types of die offs before but now the advanced testing that we have are putting a name on it?
Are you suggesting that we just accept it? That we say it's okay, mother nature will takes care of this like it has before? Or should we as sportsmen applaud the steps that the DNR is taking to help prevent the spread?
Or are we to accept the fate of all lakes in Wisconsin (as I think some are suggesting on this site) and say there is nothing that we can do in the long run? All good intentions from us or the DNR are useless? Those not knowing the rules or do not care will spread the disease anyways? The inevitable will happen regardless? Might as well sit back and let it take its course? After all, remember its been here forever anyways, we just gave it a name.
Please help me clarify your position. Am I close to your reasoning? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | I have been trying to find certain info, maybe someone has it.
In reference to The die off of muskies in michigan. The question.
After the initial die off over there, was there a follow up die off as well? Or is this a one time shot of VHS that kills them and then its all over?
Thanks for replys that give links to scientific evidence. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Denny:
I believe that this answers your question.
Has VHS Isolate IVb caused mortalities in the Great Lakes? Yes. In the eastern
part of the Great Lakes Basin, a large scale mortality of freshwater drum occurred
in 2005 in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario in Ontario. In the spring of 2006,
large fish mortalities were observed in Lake St. Clair (Great Lakes muskellunge,
gizzard shad and yellow perch), St. Clair River (gizzard shad), Detroit River
(Great Lakes muskellunge and gizzard shad), Lake Erie (west basin -freshwater
drum and white bass, and central basin-yellow perch), Lake Ontario (round goby)
and St. Lawrence River (Great Lakes muskellunge). The mortalities in the spring
of 2006 are considered to be one large-scale fish kill event.
Fish kills in Lake Huron - Thunder Bay (lake whitefish and walleye) and Conesus
Lake NY (walleye) that occurred in the fall of 2006 were likely related to VHSv.
Additional large fish kills were seen in the spring of 2007 in Lake Winnebago WI
(freshwater drum), Budd Lake MI (black crappie, bluegills and largemouth bass),
Lake Ontario – Hamilton Harbor (common carp), and eastern Lake Erie NY
(gizzard shad). Repeated fish kills in locations with previous fish kills have not
been seen to date in the Great Lakes region.
The whole article comes from: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Viral-Hemorrhagic-Septicemia-...
It's great reading and is dated August 1, 2007 from the Michigan DNR. I now personally believe that they have been doing a better job at keeping abreast of this problem then our own DNR. As an example, they still believe that the transmission of the virus by water is a real threat. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 201
Location: Colgate, WI | Now I am really confused. I just came back from Eau Claire WI. I took my boys up crappie fishing. My uncle owns a convenient store that services anglers too. I asked him what he thought of the law and he said he is so confused and he wishes the DNR would have researched their solution better before putting it into certculation. I read the brochure that the DNR gave to him to hand out and it reads to me that you are only suppose to kill bait from Bago and Green bay. When my uncle asked the DNR person to clarify he seemed very unsure on exactly what the law truely is. I agree we need to all do our part, but I think they really need to research their law and have a concrete plan of how they are going to get the rule across to the people. There were no signs at the launches and when I brought it up to the locals they had no idea what I was talking about. My uncle was not instructed to tell his patrons anything and he was cautious not to say anything because he was afraid of giving wrong information.
Thanks!!
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Dennis, I don't quite read what I am asking.
So, there were kills at places like bud lake Michigan. Has there been another kill since then?
OH, and by the way, I used to live 15 miles from Bud Lake Michigan and can tell you, that lake is a inland resort lake that is 100% different than the rest of the places listed. Not the size of a shawano but more like a gilbert in waushara county. That one doesnot fit the mold here.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | I thought you were asking if there were additional fish kills after the first one? They say repeated fish kills in locations with previous fish kills have not been seen to date in the Great Lakes region.
A follow up opinion:
I'm reading into this a little but they believe that one of the major contributors to the fish kill appears to be when fish are in high abundances, and congregate or concentrate in specific locations. It's therefore logical to believe that a following year fish kill would be difficult because the fish are no longer in high abundance. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 885
| Does anyone remember the massive die off of shad last spring... the dead shad were a 1/2 mile wide and 5 miles long all along the East shore of Bago. It was the first time I had ever seen anything like it. Is anyone now saying that it was due to VHS or are they still claiming that this occurs every year on bago.
For anyone that was on bago the week that the sheephead were flopping all over the place just befor they announced vhs, it was surely something to remember. I got off the water one day and just knew something was not right. There were thousands of dead fish in the Menasha River, something I had never withnessed before and it looked like the whole lake was dead.
Should make for an interesting Spring.
Purple Skeeter |
|
| |
|
| Sunshine,
I did not take your response as negative and I hope no one takes my statements as negative. I'm just trying to make people aware of the uncertainty that still exists around this disease and the possiblities it poses. Trying to keep people thinking outside the box from what they here from some uneducated news caster tells them. I recall fishing merc nationals about in about 2002 and there was literaly thousands of whitebass dead all over the place. No one really ever said anything about it...just acknowledged there was a large fish die off. What was it?? I do applaud the DNR for such stingy rules to stop the spread if indeed this is something that never was in our wisconsin waterways before. But I'm not convinced when fish biologists are learning how to test for VHS for the first time...then claiming that certain dead fish have the disease.
As far as my stance well.......I'm a skeptic lets put it that way. But I also am concerned for the well being of our natural resources and this is a good way to vent my frustrations with all the new rules!!!!
|
|
| |
