Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 04, 2011, 02:42:13 PM
Post by: Madison on October 04, 2011, 02:45:41 PM
There are a limited number of lakes with muskies. you should feel lucky to have caught one.
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 04, 2011, 02:58:32 PM
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 04, 2011, 03:00:41 PM
Post by: beagledog on October 04, 2011, 03:34:13 PM
Post by: TheHunt on October 04, 2011, 03:42:35 PM
My great grand father home steaded that area and my relatives still own property on the lake. My son banked two a few years ago. They are fun to catch for sure.
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 04, 2011, 03:52:35 PM
Just another thing you can thank the state for.my grandparents stay up at Tiffany's resort from April to the end of Sept.. And grandpa says the trout fishing seems to get worse for larger trout every year since the tiger muskies were put in and the state keeps putting more in there :bdid: :bash::yeah: I know the muskies have ruined that lake for trout fishing.
Post by: teal101 on October 04, 2011, 06:11:21 PM
How many of those Squawfish have you caught recently? I'd venture to say not near as many as before. The tigers are decimating their numbers in there paving the way for trout fry escapement. One Tiger Musky wont eat near as many trout as all the squaw fish it eats. The state has to keep stocking the lake with rainbows because of the Squaws and probably somewhat due to the fishing pressure it gets. They were doing a creel study this year at Tiffanys looking for hatchery fish vs wilds.
Curlew receives few Muskys compared to other larger lakes. The state puts in as many as the lake can support. They're in their to weed the lake of trash fish. They will and do eat trout and bass, but not enough to put a hurting on the population. Take a look, heres a study backing it up.
http://www.nwtigermuskies.com/faq/ (http://www.nwtigermuskies.com/faq/)
Tigers are a great "natural" way to regulate rough fish. Without using Tigers the rough fish are free to populate and outgrow the lake, decimating the game fish species. Tigers are controlled by the state. The state does electro surveys counting tigers and adjust plant numbers based off of data gathered. They dont just keep dumping fish in, some years the lake will receive more, and some years less. Without tigers you're left with a lake full of rough fish. In other lakes the poison the lakes out to get rid of them. The tigers allow rough fish control and still allow angling for game species while also introducing a new species to pursue.
Ignorance spread by people who havent done any research on the tigers is disturbing. Mindlessly killing these fish because somebody cant catch trout anymore is wrong. It's called fishing, not catching. Remember that.
Heres some "small" trout pictures from the "ruined" trout lake. Right off of the dock at Tiffanys in less than an hour where I landed a 36"+ Tiger as well :rolleyes:
(https://s-hphotos-sjc1.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/263994_249862915031124_100000222529605_1226646_2537377_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/259934_249862855031130_100000222529605_1226644_984174_n.jpg)
Post by: beagledog on October 04, 2011, 08:01:07 PM
I think all that was being said was the trout fishing and bass fishing are not what the use to be.
About the squaw fish yes the tiger Muskie have seemed to wipe them out pretty well. But at what cost. Let me ask you and everyone else how many duckling do you see up there in the early summer.I have not personally been up there in two years due to work schedules.it is still a nice place to go and catch fish just not like it use to be when I was a kid and would go spend two or three weeks at a time with my grandparents and parents. If you stayed at Tiffany's you meet my grandpa Jack I'd bet ya , And there's no denying the old man knows how to catch fish up there
Post by: superdown on October 04, 2011, 08:06:50 PM
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 04, 2011, 09:21:19 PM
I never said that I couldn't catch trout in Curlew. And I have fished there for years, my dad has been going to Tiffany's and Black beach since the 1950's. I have caught lots of trout in Curlew. But in the last few years it has declined in the amount of bigger trout. I don't necessarily believe that its all about the Muskies eating the squaw. I think its all about the Tiger Muskie association being able to catch the state record Muskie and Curlew is the wrong lake to make that happen. I have seen a 4 ft tiger muskie eat two smaller ducks down by the old railroad bridge near the N end of the lake. I mean come on those fish are serious predators in a small lake just to make some club happy. I think they need to clean them out and then you will see the 3-4 pound rainbows grow.
Tigers are not a natural fish in that lake. Assuming you have a prestine forest full of deer and elk and you introduce 30 wolf packs, isn't this the same thing? They will kill everything in sight. You are introducing a species with out any control. You can't keep a muskie unless it is over 50", that is wrong. What is the point of not being able to keep a muskie under 50"?
Now about the squaws, there still in Curlew regardless of what the WDFW does and nwtiger muskie group. Tigers are the wrong species to be introduce to control squaw fish. Furthermore, I fish a large lake in B.C. Canada every year. There is no introduction of hatchery trout. They contiunually have 10 pound plus rainbows. And they had the same problem with squaws. But, they let it be and to tell you the truth the trout were eating all the squaw fish and not the other way around.
I also believe the study is inaccurate because its bias, of course the nwtigermuskie group is going to say how great the fish are and what they are doing for the lake. But to make it accurate an independent group would have to look at it and report. Do you really think they will say something negative? About 10 years ago prior to the introduction of the Muskies, everyone kept saying the Muskies are great they will eat all the MillFoil in the lake, wrong. There is more Milfoil then ever before, Muskies are not herbivores. I am not ignorant, just stating some facts about the wrong fish in the wrong lake to make some group happy that I have never seen there before.
What is a rough fish as you are saying? the squaw fish, I don't think so. Tiger muskie is like a lingcod. If the muskie eats everything else (trout, bass) they will eat each other. I have caught muskies while bass fishing and I wished I could have killed them, but they were to small. And the bass in the 80's and 90's used to be a lot bigger than they are now.
Post by: teal101 on October 04, 2011, 10:44:40 PM
Teal101-
I never said that I couldn't catch trout in Curlew. And I have fished there for years, my dad has been going to Tiffany's and Black beach since the 1950's. I have caught lots of trout in Curlew. But in the last few years it has declined in the amount of bigger trout. I don't necessarily believe that its all about the Muskies eating the squaw. I think its all about the Tiger Muskie association being able to catch the state record Muskie and Curlew is the wrong lake to make that happen. I have seen a 4 ft tiger muskie eat two smaller ducks down by the old railroad bridge near the N end of the lake. I mean come on those fish are serious predators in a small lake just to make some club happy. I think they need to clean them out and then you will see the 3-4 pound rainbows grow.
Tigers are not a natural fish in that lake. Assuming you have a prestine forest full of deer and elk and you introduce 30 wolf packs, isn't this the same thing? They will kill everything in sight. You are introducing a species with out any control. You can't keep a muskie unless it is over 50", that is wrong. What is the point of not being able to keep a muskie under 50"?
Now about the squaws, there still in Curlew regardless of what the WDFW does and nwtiger muskie group. Tigers are the wrong species to be introduce to control squaw fish. Furthermore, I fish a large lake in B.C. Canada every year. There is no introduction of hatchery trout. They contiunually have 10 pound plus rainbows. And they had the same problem with squaws. But, they let it be and to tell you the truth the trout were eating all the squaw fish and not the other way around.
I also believe the study is inaccurate because its bias, of course the nwtigermuskie group is going to say how great the fish are and what they are doing for the lake. But to make it accurate an independent group would have to look at it and report. Do you really think they will say something negative? About 10 years ago prior to the introduction of the Muskies, everyone kept saying the Muskies are great they will eat all the MillFoil in the lake, wrong. There is more Milfoil then ever before, Muskies are not herbivores. I am not ignorant, just stating some facts about the wrong fish in the wrong lake to make some group happy that I have never seen there before.
What is a rough fish as you are saying? the squaw fish, I don't think so. Tiger muskie is like a lingcod. If the muskie eats everything else (trout, bass) they will eat each other. I have caught muskies while bass fishing and I wished I could have killed them, but they were to small. And the bass in the 80's and 90's used to be a lot bigger than they are now.
The Musky associations are there to support the state with its Tiger program. Thinking that the introduction of the Tigers is based on a club wanting a record fish is ignorant, just as ignorant as thinking the state is doing it to appease a club that wasn't even founded during the first release of muskies in the state in 1988! Theres a reason they dont stock other lakes with Tigers, they dont have a rough fish problem. Curlew did and instead of doing nothing about it or poisoning the lake, they introduced a controlled species.
You're wolf analogy is flawed. Wolves naturally reproduce. Tigers dont. The state calculates the amount of Tigers the lake can hold based on it's acreage. You're concern is actually the number on deciding factor on the amount of muskies released into a lake. That is followed by the population studies done on the fish currently in the lake. They arent going to plant 4,000 tigers in Curlew, it's too small. They arent going to bump the plants from 500 juveniles (by the way many of which die due to natural causes such as disease and predation) to 1000 if the tiger population is sustaining an allowable number. No they will continue to plant that amount or lessen it in order to maintain a proper balance. Being as the tigers dont reproduce, theres no worry of accidental over population. You can't keep them if theyre under 50" because if you could, people like you would mindlessly kill all of them and completely decimate the population skewing the states studies on tiger recruitment to maturity. Killing a lot of muskies would only allow the state to bump plant numbers.
Of course they're still in the lake. Theres no way to eradicate them. The tigers have controlled their numbers, something the trout could not do before. If the trout were all large 10lb fish eating the squaws, there wouldnt have been a squaw problem to begin with. But the trout werent, and the fishery began to suffer. Maybe the fishery has declined because of squaw recruitment and now the state has implemented a solution. As the lake ecosystem acclimates to the tigers we can and will begin to see changes, some of which we can see now like the lack of squaws.
Before condemning the study based on party affiliation, maybe you should take a closer look at the study. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife actually conducted the study, which is an on going study. The musky group only aids in helping the state with funding and personal. It's like how the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation helps out with elk, the local musky groups help with the tigers. People saying that a Tiger will eat milfoil are very mis-informed. They are doing the same thing you are doing though, spreading propaganda in support of ones ideals without any scientific or factual backing. You're biased hate towards Musky groups baffles me. The groups were formed AFTER introduction of the muskies to support the program. It's hard to make a non-existent group happy. The groups dont pick the lakes either, the WDFW does.
A rough fish is just that, a non game fish species. Carp, Tench, Squaws, Goldfish, etc are considered rough fish. Musky already eat each other, just as bass eat other bass and trout eat other trout. It's the cycle of life. Theres still plenty of bass in the lake, and plenty of trout. My dad has been going there since the 50's as well, and his family before that. My girlfriend owns property up Kettle Falls Rd and her father and grandfather logged the highway into Republic from Wauconda. She still has family and many friends up there. None of them, nor my father has experienced this "lack of bigger rainbows". We find them just fine. Lakes change, ecosystems evolve and adjust, and fish change their habits, patterns, and forage based on such. Again, it's fishing, not catching.
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 05, 2011, 08:40:30 AM
Biased hate, that's pretty powerful. I am definitely not a bias person. Furthermore, my point is that Tiger Muskies should be in a larger lake and not Curlew. Why are they still in Curlew since as you say ecosystem has balanced itself? Muskies are not a natural predator in that lake.
The introduction of Tiger Muskies should only be in a lake that can substantiate the population of them. Curlew lake is not the lake to withold that type of fish. The Tigers Muskies should be in lake where the resources can hold a fish of that kind.
I don't agree with your reasoning on why you are only allowed to keep a 50" muskie. The reason is that people want to be able to keep a trophy fish, and a fish over 50" is likely to weigh 35-40 pounds or more. How many trout, bass and squaws do think a 35-40 pound muskies eats every day?
What is a natural predator on the tiger muskie? Nothing.
Disease will occur with any species, and muskies being sterile are really not the natural specie that they were intended to be. So, their biology has been altered to create a fish that the Nwtigergroup and WDFW want.
Furthermore, you don't have control on what a predator species is eating, such as a tiger muskie, bass, trout or squaw. Why would you introduce a species that is so aggressive that it will eat everything in sight?
How would you control what a 4' tiger muskie is going to eat all day. The only way to control it s to remove the species. Tiger muskies were never a natural predator in that lake, its false introduction of a species to control another species. The only control of the tigers is the numbers, not the amount of fish or ducks they eat. You are letting a false species into an area that cannot hold that type of fish.
Why do you think the state and other groups routinely stock 80,000 + trout a year. People are sure not catching that many trout. Most likely to satisfy the muskies. If they didn't the muskie would starve to death.
Why don't you provide some data to support how much fish a juvenile muskie will eat?.
And you are correct Curlew is too small, and that is my point. You have a lake that was once full a big trout, now you catch 12-20" routinely. Until the muskies are gone, you will never see holdover trout as large as they once were.
I am not against introduction of muskies into a lake that can withhold the species. I guess you and I will agree to disagree.
Post by: teal101 on October 05, 2011, 09:17:05 AM
Teal101-
Biased hate, that's pretty powerful. I am definitely not a bias person. Furthermore, my point is that Tiger Muskies should be in a larger lake and not Curlew. Why are they still in Curlew since as you say ecosystem has balanced itself? Muskies are not a natural predator in that lake.
The state only introduces as many muskies as the lake can support. Negates your small lake theory. Evergreen Reservoir in the Quincy Lakes is 1/4 the size of Curlew and has Tigers in it and is doing just fine. Science and facts support my reasoning.
The introduction of Tiger Muskies should only be in a lake that can substantiate the population of them. Curlew lake is not the lake to withold that type of fish. The Tigers Muskies should be in lake where the resources can hold a fish of that kind.
Curlew can support the Muskies. It has been for almost a decade now. Theres still a ton of fish in the lake. There is no evidence to say otherwise than a few old timers crying wolf about them eating all the trout.
I don't agree with your reasoning on why you are only allowed to keep a 50" muskie. The reason is that people want to be able to keep a trophy fish, and a fish over 50" is likely to weigh 35-40 pounds or more. How many trout, bass and squaws do think a 35-40 pound muskies eats every day?
Why dont you look into that. The size limit used to be 36". The WDFW upped the size to 50" to preserve the population since they do not naturally reproduce. If they allowed harvest of 36" muskie the population would collapse and be ineffective at rough fish control. Again reasoning backed by science and studies and not speculation. A 40" Tiger is a trophy in my mind, I'd still practice catch, photo, and release regardless of size or limit. Most bass fisherman do too, the state has a slot limit you know allowing one large fish.
What is a natural predator on the tiger muskie? Nothing.
It doesnt need one, it cant reproduce and take over a lake. The natural predator is management by the state.
Disease will occur with any species, and muskies being sterile are really not the natural specie that they were intended to be. So, their biology has been altered to create a fish that the Nwtigergroup and WDFW want.
Actually Tigers occur naturally in many lakes where true Musky and Pike are present. The WDFW as well as many other state organizations have realized the potential for such a fish and are now breeding them. Again you throw out the club name when they have nothing to do with the creation of Tigers.
Furthermore, you don't have control on what a predator species is eating, such as a tiger muskie, bass, trout or squaw. Why would you introduce a species that is so aggressive that it will eat everything in sight?
No we dont, but studies here in WA, in NM, in MI, WI, MN, etc show what they are eating and squaws, suckers, tench and other rough fish are preferred over trout and bass. Bass eat trout as well. BTW Bass are a NON NATIVE species to WA state, but the trout in Curlew have adapted just fine. They dont eat everything in sight, they eat what they prefer when they are hungry. More fear mongering.
How would you control what a 4' tiger muskie is going to eat all day. The only way to control it s to remove the species. Tiger muskies were never a natural predator in that lake, its false introduction of a species to control another species. The only control of the tigers is the numbers, not the amount of fish or ducks they eat. You are letting a false species into an area that cannot hold that type of fish.
Bass arent a natural predator either, and we have NO control over their population because they reproduce naturally. If you control the numbers, you control their intake. A tiger will eat x amount of fish/ducks/muskrats a week. If you only introduce as many fish as the lake can support you control your variable quite well.
Why do you think the state and other groups routinely stock 80,000 + trout a year. People are sure not catching that many trout. Most likely to satisfy the muskies. If they didn't the muskie would starve to death.
Because the state plants them in hundreds of lakes that barely support trout or the lakes get heavily over fished. People are catching that many trout. You're absolutely ignorant if you think they plant 80,000 trout to feed the muskies. You do know theres only seven lakes in the entire state with muskies right? Why would they plant trout in Wapato lake in Chelan when theres no musky in it if all their plants are to feed the musky? It's because the lake cant naturally support the number of trout harvested by anglers like many other lakes in this state. Curlew has been getting plants since well before musky introduction. Your ideas are flawed. The state plants trout in lakes they have no business being in, or to re-populate a lake they poisoned.
Why don't you provide some data to support how much fish a juvenile muskie will eat?.
Why dont you provide some data to back up ANY of your "facts".
And you are correct Curlew is too small, and that is my point. You have a lake that was once full a big trout, now you catch 12-20" routinely. Until the muskies are gone, you will never see holdover trout as large as they once were.
Now you're skewing what I said. I stated Curlew is too small to support plants of 4,000 Musky. It is not too small to support plants of 500 Musky. That is why the state plants 500, not 4,000. It is still full of big trout. I have no problem catching them. Fishing, not catching. Change your technique and you might be surprised. The Musky have changed the ecosystem and fish behavior and you need to adapt to compensate. The big fish are still there.
I am not against introduction of muskies into a lake that can withhold the species. I guess you and I will agree to disagree.
Curlew can and does withhold the species just fine. it has been for nearly 10 years now.
We will disagree. The problem is false information gets spread and then people cry wolf and latch on to false ideals that end up harming something good. I hate to see people killing Musky out of fear they are eating all the trout when that is 100% false.
Post by: teal101 on October 05, 2011, 09:19:08 AM
Nice fish teal
I think all that was being said was the trout fishing and bass fishing are not what the use to be.
About the squaw fish yes the tiger Muskie have seemed to wipe them out pretty well. But at what cost. Let me ask you and everyone else how many duckling do you see up there in the early summer.I have not personally been up there in two years due to work schedules.it is still a nice place to go and catch fish just not like it use to be when I was a kid and would go spend two or three weeks at a time with my grandparents and parents. If you stayed at Tiffany's you meet my grandpa Jack I'd bet ya , And there's no denying the old man knows how to catch fish up there
We've seen quite a few either Barrows or Common Goldeneyes nesting on the lake with chicks. A few mallards and wigeon here and there. Large groups of geese as well.
I probably have met him, lots of nice people that stay at Tiffanys. We stay there every year out by the point and the old dock :tup:
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 05, 2011, 10:56:48 AM
As you have said you have fished Curlew for years and their used to be bigger trout in Curlew as stated in my earlier post. I think another person on this forum who commented earlier agreed to.
What is interesting when I viewed the nwtigermuskie website, most of the content in based on tournament fishing and the mission statement to promote healthy muskies in the environment. I did read about the introduction and management of the fish. But, then again why would you continually allow 500 muskies yearly as you stated in your post to help with the management of a small ecosystem? Because of the rough squaw fish, really come on. There were plenty of trout in Curlew prior to the introduction. And as you have state the WDFW has no business releasing fish in certain lakes in WA. Releasing tiger muskie in Curlew lake is one of them.
I also think that you will find that the average trout fisherman and family spends more money (rental, gas, food, licenses,boats) in the surrounding economy than a group that wants to promote a fish for the state record.
You have to be realistic here, and I agree that the muskies are their to control "rough" fish as you say and the muskie group. But, the main purpose is to create the state record. Just look at your recent tournament on Sept.17, 2011 (Curlew Lake) with a 50" fish. This is not a natural fish in Curlew lake, you can take that how you want. But, my point is that you shouldn't have a species of fish that you are allowing to grow into 72" (stated on the website)or more and think that it will naturally balance the ecosystem out. That is pretty real, just look at the pics that are provided on the nw tigerwebsite.
I guess as stated earlier, you and I won't agree. And you are definitely blinded by others opinions of this topic. You only want the road to go one way. I am not against fishing for the Muskies. I think the limit of length should be reduced back to the 36".
Post by: Alchase on October 05, 2011, 12:20:59 PM
Whether fishing from dock or boat, I personally know of no lake that has better fishing or divercity of fishing then Curlew. My boys are even on the wall of fame at Fishermans Cave, fishing from the dock, lol.
Post by: teal101 on October 05, 2011, 12:58:32 PM
I don't think I have provided false information and I am definitely not crying wolf as you have described. I am just stating some facts which are real and you don't agree with them. You may not like the fact that I am challenging your theories of why you should have 50" or more Muskies in Curlew Lake.
Your facts are based on your own personal speculation as well as a few others. That is not a fact, that is speculation. Facts are information backed by scientific findings, such as the studies bioligists conduct for the state coming to the conclusions they do, which I have presented to you. Take it as you will, but you have NOT provided anything backed by evidence other than personal speculation.
As you have said you have fished Curlew for years and their used to be bigger trout in Curlew as stated in my earlier post. I think another person on this forum who commented earlier agreed to.
What is interesting when I viewed the nwtigermuskie website, most of the content in based on tournament fishing and the mission statement to promote healthy muskies in the environment. I did read about the introduction and management of the fish. But, then again why would you continually allow 500 muskies yearly as you stated in your post to help with the management of a small ecosystem? Because of the rough squaw fish, really come on. There were plenty of trout in Curlew prior to the introduction. And as you have state the WDFW has no business releasing fish in certain lakes in WA. Releasing tiger muskie in Curlew lake is one of them.
It's based on tournament fishing because it is an opportunity for the club members to get together, raise money for the program, and to use the resource the state has provided. Again I'll say this, yet you seem to keep ignoring it. The state planted the tigers well before the clubs were formed. It was the states decision, not the clubs. The clubs formed to take advantage of an awesome resource provided to use by the state as well as help further research and funding for the program. They allow 500 tigers a year because that is what science says needs to go in. They dont naturally reproduce and fish die every year. In order to maintain the current population, no more, no less, they need to release 500 a year. It's not hard to understand.
I also think that you will find that the average trout fisherman and family spends more money (rental, gas, food, licenses,boats) in the surrounding economy than a group that wants to promote a fish for the state record.
Which is fine, because theres still plenty of trout in the lake. Tiffanys is sold out every year in July and August. I've talked with the owners and they love the tigers. I havent heard anything bad from them, and especially havent heard that anything is slowing down up there due to lack of fish!
You have to be realistic here, and I agree that the muskies are their to control "rough" fish as you say and the muskie group. But, the main purpose is to create the state record. Just look at your recent tournament on Sept.17, 2011 (Curlew Lake) with a 50" fish. This is not a natural fish in Curlew lake, you can take that how you want. But, my point is that you shouldn't have a species of fish that you are allowing to grow into 72" (stated on the website)or more and think that it will naturally balance the ecosystem out. That is pretty real, just look at the pics that are provided on the nw tigerwebsite.
The state record has nothing to do with this. If the state didnt introduce the fish, there wouldnt even be a possibility for a state record. If the state didnt introduce the fish, there wouldnt be tiger clubs to support the fish. This has nothing to do with tournaments or a record. Saying it does is blindly ignoring facts. Bass arent a natural fish in Curlew lake either. Lets eradicate them as well.
I guess as stated earlier, you and I won't agree. And you are definitely blinded by others opinions of this topic. You only want the road to go one way. I am not against fishing for the Muskies. I think the limit of length should be reduced back to the 36".
I am using science from biologists, people who go to school to study fish and the ecosystem. These peoples lives revolve around these kinds of studies. I'd trust their findings and judgment a lot quicker than a few hearsay from fishers because they had a bad day on the lake. The only one blinded here is you and your inability to rationalize scientific facts presented to you.
What would you say if i wanted to eradicate the Largemouth and Smallmouth bass from the lake?
Post by: teal101 on October 05, 2011, 12:59:40 PM
The Tiger muskies control the squaw fish. Curlew is (in my mind) one of the best lakes in the state to fish for trout and Tiger Muskies. I have never not limited on trout at Curlew. Last summer we stayed at Spectakle Lake. We fished Spectacle, caught a couple small trout. Next day went to Wanacut and caught one trout. Next day went to Palmer Lake and caught an 7.8lb Largemouth bass and a couple smallies. I had a craving for a trout dinner so on the last day we drove over to Curlew. We put in at the State Park, motored up to the tressel, had had three limits of 12 in. or better trout in 2 1/2 hours.
Whether fishing from dock or boat, I personally know of no lake that has better fishing or divercity of fishing then Curlew. My boys are even on the wall of fame at Fishermans Cave, fishing from the dock, lol.
Nice fish! The trestle is one of my favorite trout spots on the lake :tup:
Post by: Black Plague on October 05, 2011, 01:28:43 PM
Post by: teal101 on October 05, 2011, 01:54:03 PM
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/article.asp?aid=1086 (http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/article.asp?aid=1086)
http://lakevermilion.com/muskies/htmls/diets.html (http://lakevermilion.com/muskies/htmls/diets.html)
http://www.midatlanticmuskies.com/joomla/documents/MUE_Diet.pdf (http://www.midatlanticmuskies.com/joomla/documents/MUE_Diet.pdf)
EDIT: More links added
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/Muskylengthlimitfaq.pdf (http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/Muskylengthlimitfaq.pdf)
http://muskie.fishn.ca/articles/whatdomuskieseat.shtml (http://muskie.fishn.ca/articles/whatdomuskieseat.shtml)
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3T_DzjgD6ekJ:www.newmexicomuskiesinc.org/resources/what%2Bdo%2BNM%2Bmuskies%2Beat%2Bbrochure.doc+muskellunge+trout+diet&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi8fWcOqwp3o-pbUmuiHkTnsR4jTUz8B-OiH_U1ZjnZ3dBBmjHBGltJyNAlqFmeN3TfxTabV4sG1IdFETh7etkbLesV8odG2MMfb2RVxHSL5BS2_XLzcz3Z_RCv75utyNmNYvp_&sig=AHIEtbT9HadexpdbBjGEFYm5V_kV9xMLFg (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3T_DzjgD6ekJ:www.newmexicomuskiesinc.org/resources/what%2Bdo%2BNM%2Bmuskies%2Beat%2Bbrochure.doc+muskellunge+trout+diet&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi8fWcOqwp3o-pbUmuiHkTnsR4jTUz8B-OiH_U1ZjnZ3dBBmjHBGltJyNAlqFmeN3TfxTabV4sG1IdFETh7etkbLesV8odG2MMfb2RVxHSL5BS2_XLzcz3Z_RCv75utyNmNYvp_&sig=AHIEtbT9HadexpdbBjGEFYm5V_kV9xMLFg)
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 05, 2011, 02:30:31 PM
I don't think I have provided false information and I am definitely not crying wolf as you have described. I am just stating some facts which are real and you don't agree with them. You may not like the fact that I am challenging your theories of why you should have 50" or more Muskies in Curlew Lake.
Your facts are based on your own personal speculation as well as a few others. That is not a fact, that is speculation. Facts are information backed by scientific findings, such as the studies bioligists conduct for the state coming to the conclusions they do, which I have presented to you. Take it as you will, but you have NOT provided anything backed by evidence other than personal speculation.
As you have said you have fished Curlew for years and their used to be bigger trout in Curlew as stated in my earlier post. I think another person on this forum who commented earlier agreed to.
What is interesting when I viewed the nwtigermuskie website, most of the content in based on tournament fishing and the mission statement to promote healthy muskies in the environment. I did read about the introduction and management of the fish. But, then again why would you continually allow 500 muskies yearly as you stated in your post to help with the management of a small ecosystem? Because of the rough squaw fish, really come on. There were plenty of trout in Curlew prior to the introduction. And as you have state the WDFW has no business releasing fish in certain lakes in WA. Releasing tiger muskie in Curlew lake is one of them.
It's based on tournament fishing because it is an opportunity for the club members to get together, raise money for the program, and to use the resource the state has provided. Again I'll say this, yet you seem to keep ignoring it. The state planted the tigers well before the clubs were formed. It was the states decision, not the clubs. The clubs formed to take advantage of an awesome resource provided to use by the state as well as help further research and funding for the program. They allow 500 tigers a year because that is what science says needs to go in. They dont naturally reproduce and fish die every year. In order to maintain the current population, no more, no less, they need to release 500 a year. It's not hard to understand.
I also think that you will find that the average trout fisherman and family spends more money (rental, gas, food, licenses,boats) in the surrounding economy than a group that wants to promote a fish for the state record.
Which is fine, because theres still plenty of trout in the lake. Tiffanys is sold out every year in July and August. I've talked with the owners and they love the tigers. I havent heard anything bad from them, and especially havent heard that anything is slowing down up there due to lack of fish!
You have to be realistic here, and I agree that the muskies are their to control "rough" fish as you say and the muskie group. But, the main purpose is to create the state record. Just look at your recent tournament on Sept.17, 2011 (Curlew Lake) with a 50" fish. This is not a natural fish in Curlew lake, you can take that how you want. But, my point is that you shouldn't have a species of fish that you are allowing to grow into 72" (stated on the website)or more and think that it will naturally balance the ecosystem out. That is pretty real, just look at the pics that are provided on the nw tigerwebsite.
The state record has nothing to do with this. If the state didnt introduce the fish, there wouldnt even be a possibility for a state record. If the state didnt introduce the fish, there wouldnt be tiger clubs to support the fish. This has nothing to do with tournaments or a record. Saying it does is blindly ignoring facts. Bass arent a natural fish in Curlew lake either. Lets eradicate them as well.
I guess as stated earlier, you and I won't agree. And you are definitely blinded by others opinions of this topic. You only want the road to go one way. I am not against fishing for the Muskies. I think the limit of length should be reduced back to the 36".
I am using science from biologists, people who go to school to study fish and the ecosystem. These peoples lives revolve around these kinds of studies. I'd trust their findings and judgment a lot quicker than a few hearsay from fishers because they had a bad day on the lake. The only one blinded here is you and your inability to rationalize scientific facts presented to you.
What would you say if i wanted to eradicate the Largemouth and Smallmouth bass from the lake?
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The hatchery trout are not native species either, so lets eradicate them.
Why should you have a say in eradicatiing squaw fish? I have caught plenty of trout full of squaw fish. Furtermore, Your tiger group and WDFW have already eradicated the bass and et. al.
I have educated my self, you directed me to your website that you are likely a member of. The website is full over ego muskie fisherman who want to introduce a false species into a lake that cannot sustain fish of that type and I should say the WDFW.
I will bonk the first muskie that I catch in Curlew that is over 50", now that is eradication :chuckle:
Post by: teal101 on October 05, 2011, 02:36:05 PM
Teal101-I don't think I have provided false information and I am definitely not crying wolf as you have described. I am just stating some facts which are real and you don't agree with them. You may not like the fact that I am challenging your theories of why you should have 50" or more Muskies in Curlew Lake.
Your facts are based on your own personal speculation as well as a few others. That is not a fact, that is speculation. Facts are information backed by scientific findings, such as the studies bioligists conduct for the state coming to the conclusions they do, which I have presented to you. Take it as you will, but you have NOT provided anything backed by evidence other than personal speculation.
As you have said you have fished Curlew for years and their used to be bigger trout in Curlew as stated in my earlier post. I think another person on this forum who commented earlier agreed to.
What is interesting when I viewed the nwtigermuskie website, most of the content in based on tournament fishing and the mission statement to promote healthy muskies in the environment. I did read about the introduction and management of the fish. But, then again why would you continually allow 500 muskies yearly as you stated in your post to help with the management of a small ecosystem? Because of the rough squaw fish, really come on. There were plenty of trout in Curlew prior to the introduction. And as you have state the WDFW has no business releasing fish in certain lakes in WA. Releasing tiger muskie in Curlew lake is one of them.
It's based on tournament fishing because it is an opportunity for the club members to get together, raise money for the program, and to use the resource the state has provided. Again I'll say this, yet you seem to keep ignoring it. The state planted the tigers well before the clubs were formed. It was the states decision, not the clubs. The clubs formed to take advantage of an awesome resource provided to use by the state as well as help further research and funding for the program. They allow 500 tigers a year because that is what science says needs to go in. They dont naturally reproduce and fish die every year. In order to maintain the current population, no more, no less, they need to release 500 a year. It's not hard to understand.
I also think that you will find that the average trout fisherman and family spends more money (rental, gas, food, licenses,boats) in the surrounding economy than a group that wants to promote a fish for the state record.
Which is fine, because theres still plenty of trout in the lake. Tiffanys is sold out every year in July and August. I've talked with the owners and they love the tigers. I havent heard anything bad from them, and especially havent heard that anything is slowing down up there due to lack of fish!
You have to be realistic here, and I agree that the muskies are their to control "rough" fish as you say and the muskie group. But, the main purpose is to create the state record. Just look at your recent tournament on Sept.17, 2011 (Curlew Lake) with a 50" fish. This is not a natural fish in Curlew lake, you can take that how you want. But, my point is that you shouldn't have a species of fish that you are allowing to grow into 72" (stated on the website)or more and think that it will naturally balance the ecosystem out. That is pretty real, just look at the pics that are provided on the nw tigerwebsite.
The state record has nothing to do with this. If the state didnt introduce the fish, there wouldnt even be a possibility for a state record. If the state didnt introduce the fish, there wouldnt be tiger clubs to support the fish. This has nothing to do with tournaments or a record. Saying it does is blindly ignoring facts. Bass arent a natural fish in Curlew lake either. Lets eradicate them as well.
I guess as stated earlier, you and I won't agree. And you are definitely blinded by others opinions of this topic. You only want the road to go one way. I am not against fishing for the Muskies. I think the limit of length should be reduced back to the 36".
I am using science from biologists, people who go to school to study fish and the ecosystem. These peoples lives revolve around these kinds of studies. I'd trust their findings and judgment a lot quicker than a few hearsay from fishers because they had a bad day on the lake. The only one blinded here is you and your inability to rationalize scientific facts presented to you.
What would you say if i wanted to eradicate the Largemouth and Smallmouth bass from the lake?
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Hearsay is he said she said garbage that cant be proved either way.
The hatchery trout are not native species either, so lets eradicate them.
Rainbows are a native species. Hatchery fish are a supplement to the natural population because of the fishing pressure. Another false statement.
Why should you have a say in eradicatiing squaw fish? I have caught plenty of trout full of squaw fish. Furtermore, Your tiger group and WDFW have already eradicated the bass and et. al.
I dont have nay more of a say then you do. You know who had a say in eradicating the squaws. The WDFW Director and six other federal agencies. Eradicated the bass where? In Curlew? You're nuts. More false statements backed by nothing.
I have educated my self, you directed me to your website that you are likely a member of. The website is full over ego muskie fisherman who want to introduce a false species into a lake that cannot sustain fish of that type and I should say the WDFW.
I am not a member of any of the websites I linked for you. The lake is sustaining just fine. Has been for over 10 years.
I will bonk the first muskie that I catch in Curlew that is over 50", now that is eradication :chuckle:
Thats pathetic fear induced ignorance.
Ignore facts and science all you want, the fish are here to stay. :IBCOOL: :hello:
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 05, 2011, 04:05:24 PM
Pathetic fear induce ignorance. Lets go back to the argument.
I thought we were discussing why the Tiger Muskies are in Curlew Lake.
I not going to argue your biology reports that you listed, junk science the reports are not from WDFW or certified. I don't think biologist go off and study fish without any input from anglers and the general public.
Okay so lets say your calculation is right (500 muskies a year released), not the 4,000 (that you said not me). Lets say that 200 die every year, probably low but a good #. So you have 300 left and they eat 2 trout a day at .5lb each or if you want bass, that is 600 trout/bass a day for those 300 fish only, not the holdovers. If I do the math right it is 109,500 trout/bass per year to sustain 300 tiger muskies.
So lets break it down more. You have 100 of the 500 planted live. They eat 2- .5 lb per trout/bass that 100lbs of fish a day and that is 73,000 trout/bass per year. That's a lot of fish to sustain 100 tiger muskies.
And I bet if you dig into the reports from the WDFW biologist their reports would change your mind about how much fish the muskies harvest each year and day.
Why do you think they release 80,000 + trout into that lake every year, it is to sustain the muskie population. The hatchery by Tiffany's never went in until the Muskies were introduced.
Now lets look at the overall pic. Lets say a 1000 muskies are in that lake (holdovers and all). And each of those muskies eat 1 trout a day .5 lbs per trout= 500 trout or bass a day which = 182,500 trout/bass a year. Now these are simple #'s, and no scientific proof of these numbers but you know you cannot forget the base rate, Muskies do eat at lease 1 fish per day to survive. Even if they ate 1 fish every other day it is still over 90k.
Why whould you argue with me, I am just stating a fact that you don't want to hear. You should request the WDFW to provide you with the reports and if you get them share them with me and I will believe you.
Post by: MtnMuley on October 05, 2011, 04:14:09 PM
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 05, 2011, 04:20:42 PM
Now that is what I call eradication of the trout, bass or what ever else game fish are in their.
Post by: teal101 on October 05, 2011, 04:28:29 PM
Teal101-
Pathetic fear induce ignorance. Lets go back to the argument.
I thought we were discussing why the Tiger Muskies are in Curlew Lake.
I not going to argue your biology reports that you listed, junk science the reports are not from WDFW or certified. I don't think biologist go off and study fish without any input from anglers and the general public.
Actually the one report is a WDFW report on the Musky lakes in this state and a few articles I linked are from the NMDFW and the WIDNR. I guess those arent certified enough. Again, check the source.
Okay so lets say your calculation is right (500 muskies a year released), not the 4,000 (that you said not me). Lets say that 200 die every year, probably low but a good #. So you have 300 left and they eat 2 trout a day at .5lb each or if you want bass, that is 600 trout/bass a day for those 300 fish only, not the holdovers. If I do the math right it is 109,500 trout/bass per year to sustain 300 tiger muskies.
So lets break it down more. You have 100 of the 500 planted live. They eat 2- .5 lb per trout/bass that 100lbs of fish a day and that is 73,000 trout/bass per year. That's a lot of fish to sustain 100 tiger muskies.
Again if you read any of the cited literature from multiple recognized and accredited sources such as the Wisconsin DNR, you'd have read that 50% or more of the muskies captured during their diet studies had empty stomachs. Muskies dont eat 2 trout a day every day. Thats ludicrous. Again you provide information based on nothing but speculation. NO facts.
And I bet if you dig into the reports from the WDFW biologist their reports would change your mind about how much fish the muskies harvest each year and day.
I have, I even linked the WDFW diet study and a Wisconsin DNR study which you obviously failed to read. I think you will be the one surprised.
Why do you think they release 80,000 + trout into that lake every year, it is to sustain the muskie population. The hatchery by Tiffany's never went in until the Muskies were introduced.
Actually the net pen on the lake was in operation before the Musky were introduced. The rainbow population kept declining despite the net pen releases so the state added muskies as part of the solution. STOP spreading false information.
Now lets look at the overall pic. Lets say a 1000 muskies are in that lake (holdovers and all). And each of those muskies eat 1 trout a day .5 lbs per trout= 500 trout or bass a day which = 182,500 trout/bass a year. Now these are simple #'s, and no scientific proof of these numbers but you know you cannot forget the base rate, Muskies do eat at lease 1 fish per day to survive. Even if they ate 1 fish every other day it is still over 90k.
Wrong. Read the studies I posted. They dont eat at least one fish per day to survive. Cite literature supporting such if you would.
Why whould you argue with me, I am just stating a fact that you don't want to hear. You should request the WDFW to provide you with the reports and if you get them share them with me and I will believe you.
I'm arguing with you because you are spreading false information regarding a species in which I enjoy pursuing. The spread of wrongful information is detrimental to both sides of this argument. Why dont you read the WDFW and WIDNR reports I posted. You already have all the information you need in front of you. You fail to either accept it or you are falsely labeling it as club propaganda because you didn't read it.
Read this,
http://www.idaho-fishing.com/forum/yaf_postst1384p2_WDFW-Diet-Studies.aspx (http://www.idaho-fishing.com/forum/yaf_postst1384p2_WDFW-Diet-Studies.aspx)
statements from Don Wittenberger who is highly involved with muskies in this state.
Post by: teal101 on October 05, 2011, 04:34:17 PM
My calculation was off in the first paragraph it should be 600 fish a day for (300 muskies only that were planted this yr) x 365 days a year=219,000 fish a day.
Now that is what I call eradication of the trout, bass or what ever else game fish are in their.
If you had read anything regarding the muskies you'd also know that there is an approximate 65% mortality in year one and a 35% mortality in year two plus/minus on average for hatchery raised and released tiger muskies. Just some FACTS to add to your speculation so you can attempt to provide something of truth.
Post by: Alchase on October 06, 2011, 01:07:24 PM
As for killing all the trout, bass, simply not true. There are tons of bass and trout in Lake Curlew.
Duck, if you do not want to believe the information shared here, or the WDFW, go talk to the owner's of Tiffany's, Blacks beach, and Fisherman's cove and get their take on the Tiger Muskies. If you do not want to believe them or any of the people who fish there often, well I don't know what else to tell you.
Post by: DuckDr.Duke on October 06, 2011, 02:35:16 PM
I have caught 3 muskies in two years their. Two of them were 34-38" and we landed a huge one when I was bass fishing, I thought I had snagged a log. That one was 48" and we let them all go, so I hope you are happy TEAL 101. I am not going to kill them, I wouldn't even want to eat them and I am not a trophy fisherman. I like fishing for Kings anyway, and they likely taste better.
TEAL 101
no hard feelings :tup:, but once you started the pushback I wanted to see how much info. you had on the topic. From the way you were responding I knew you knew something about the issue. Look, I wasn't even trying to find anything about them, because I never provided you with any articles (only had the ones from you). I guess you know a lot more than I do about muskies. I could care less that they put them in their, and hopefully there is no repercussion with them in the future. I have not had the time to read the last post you sent me, but I will. I do think the pens went in just prior to the introduction of the the muskies though I think around 99-2000 or maybe right when the released them.
My kids are damn scared of them though, I don't know if they will even swim in the lake :chuckle:
Post by: teal101 on October 06, 2011, 04:48:39 PM
I have talked with owners at Black. Back when they were first going to introduce the muskies in early 2000's they kept saying it was for the Mill foil problem, we were like "what." I not against the introduction of them, it just that Teal 101 was all fired up over it and I wanted to push back someone to see why they are really in their. Honestly I have no info on them either way except for what Teal 101 provided me with and I am glad someone did. Only problem I can see is how big do they really get? Yeah I know they are sterile which is a good thing. I not bashing the fish, I was playing devils advocate on this. I have heard this crap from so many people on why they are their and why they shouldn't be.
The milfoil thing is one of the big reasons I fired back. Mis-information like that spreads rumors and false beliefs. I'd hate for people to have a false understanding of these very important fish, so I rebutted with s much scientific info as i have. My goal is accomplished in the fact that you have new material to read and understand to further your knowledge about the Tigers.
Generally they wont get above 55-56" in this state, 30-40lbs. They do not live as long as a true Muskie.
I have caught 3 muskies in two years their. Two of them were 34-38" and we landed a huge one when I was bass fishing, I thought I had snagged a log. That one was 48" and we let them all go, so I hope you are happy TEAL 101. I am not going to kill them, I wouldn't even want to eat them and I am not a trophy fisherman. I like fishing for Kings anyway, and they likely taste better.
Congrats, those are trophy fish. I'm currently chasing the kings and metalheads too on the Columbia :IBCOOL:
TEAL 101
no hard feelings :tup:, but once you started the pushback I wanted to see how much info. you had on the topic. From the way you were responding I knew you knew something about the issue. Look, I wasn't even trying to find anything about them, because I never provided you with any articles (only had the ones from you). I guess you know a lot more than I do about muskies. I could care less that they put them in their, and hopefully there is no repercussion with them in the future. I have not had the time to read the last post you sent me, but I will. I do think the pens went in just prior to the introduction of the the muskies though I think around 99-2000 or maybe right when the released them.
Same in return. My only goal is to spread education about the fish so they hated by people for no reason other than false information and myths. I looked for info on the pens and found they were put in before the musky, but no dates were given.
My kids are damn scared of them though, I don't know if they will even swim in the lake :chuckle:
I was joking about that with my girlfriend. We were on the dock at Tiffanys and there was a 42"ish fish swimming around there right next to the swim pen. Dun dun, dun dun, :chuckle:
Post by: Alchase on October 07, 2011, 05:27:17 PM
From the Lake Curlew Wiki link:
" The Tiger Muskellunge, raised at the Columbia Basin Fish Hatchery (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_Basin_Fish_Hatchery&action=edit&redlink=1) in Moses Lake, were initially released into the lake in 1997 to control populations of Squaw fish.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curlew_Lake_(Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curlew_Lake_(Washington))