# Tiger Muskie



## rockymountainelk (Jan 18, 2009)

So dose anyone have anymore info. on the Tiger Muskie situation. What are they going to do? Are they going to restock them or just let them die out? If anyone has any info let me know. I love fishing for them I sure hope they restock.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

The DWR can't locate any Tigers that are certified clean.
For now, they are looking into stocking Pike instead of Tigers.
Pike can be raised here in Utah from our own fish.

If the DWR can ever find clean fish, they will raise Tiger Trout here in Utah in the future.


----------



## rockymountainelk (Jan 18, 2009)

So when will we know what they are going to do? Do they have any current updates?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

The DWR is working on both raising Tiger Muskie and Northern Pike.
It will be a few years before fish are stocked and big enough to catch.

This is why there is a catch and release mandate on all Tiger Muskie in Pineview for now.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

...additionally Newton Reservoir all TMs caught must be released...Grandpa D is spot on with his intel...also IMHO unfortunately the top DWR "daddy-rabbit' is only concerned with the prevailing fish in Utah (AKA Trout, Trout, Trout and more TROUT) :roll: :roll:


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

IMHO if the state DWR 'daddy-rabbit' was really (emphasis on the word "REALLY") interested in Tiger Muskies you would think they would be pursuing the same efforts such as Indiana (link below)...I have heard absoultely nothing about the DWR even looking into treating Musky eggs like other states are doing...kinda makes you wonder why... :?: :?:

http://www.in.gov/rde/xfw/newsroom.htm? ... abled=true

:? :?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> IMHO if the state DWR 'daddy-rabbit' was really (emphasis on the word "REALLY") interested in Tiger Muskies you would think they would be pursuing the same efforts such as Indiana (link below)...I have heard absoultely nothing about the DWR even looking into treating Musky eggs like other states are doing...kinda makes you wonder why... :?: :?:
> 
> http://www.in.gov/rde/xfw/newsroom.htm? ... abled=true
> 
> :? :?


Treating Musky eggs would be just fine -- IF Utah had a supply of Musky to collect eggs from! Where would Utah go to collect those Musky eggs? Unfortunately, we can't accept VHS infected eggs from other states, then treat them. That's a bad practice to even consider! Why take the chance of bringing infected eggs into the state?

Now, if we had a source of Musky in our state that eggs could be collected from, it would be a bit different.

It's a tough situation -- and it isn't something the DWR really has much control over. They are actually doing the right thing, by keeping any potential infection to Utah out.

It might take a few years, but eventually things will work out.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

hmmmm.... -Ov- 

I won't disagree things will work out eventually....I also agree the state needs to be cautious but for the life of me it appears they're attempting to jettison the TM fishing totally... 

Me just venting now...so don't take offense. :wink: 

...tell me when Utah stocked TMs they were all 'certified virus free'... it isn't like VHS wasn't around then...additionally on our extensive reading on this issue the link was just 'many' we've read...'there are disease free' TMs...so is Utah grabbing the brass ring...I respectfully say 'NO'...why cause hey this is a Trout state...for TM whenever something positive is released it takes 2 steps backwards as ohhhhhh know another potential virus we think and it's not VHS... :roll: 

Utah DWR can quadruple cross triple breed Trout scientific experiments making every possible combinations of Trout spieces known to man and beyond...but ohhhhhhhhh no can't seem to do anything for TMs from my prespective... :roll:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

k2 -- Wow. Quite the post.


Jettisoning the TM program? So far, they've been exhausting all available sources for disease free fish. I think that the last thing the state wants to do is abandon the TM programs. They know and understand their popularity. They want to keep them, if they can.

I will tell you that when Utah was stocking TM's they WERE disease free. They had to be. Prior to bringing in ANY fish or eggs from out-of-state, they MUST be disease free. Remember, the stocking ended when Utah's source for TM's tested positive for the disease. Prior to that positive test, they were testing negative, and certified disease free. You are correct that VHS was around, but Utah's sources were clean. They are no longer clean.

Utah does a lot of work with trout in Utah. One reason is due to abundance of trout. Utah doesn't rely on other states for it's supply of trout. We have what we need right here in Utah. But, even with Utah's stock of trout, they still don't move fish that have tested positive for disease. Even trout are limited when they test positive.

Finally, it isn't just Utah that is hurting for TM's. So are Colorado, and Wyoming. Any state that currently relies on those Great Lakes states for their supply of TM's are struggling to find disease free fish.

Also, just for your peace of mind, it isn't just a one-sided decision by Utah to not bring diseased fish into the state. It's a federal thing:

"On October 23, 2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture banned interstate shipments of several species of live fish from the Great Lakes states of Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin as well as from the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec to limit the spread of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) to aquaculture facilities."

the UDWR is doing everything in their power to keep our TM programs alive. Unfortunately, some of the problems with the TM's is out of the UDWR's power.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

PBH said:


> k2 -- Wow. Quite the post.
> 
> Jettisoning the TM program? So far, they've been exhausting all available sources for disease free fish. I think that the last thing the state wants to do is abandon the TM programs. They know and understand their popularity. They want to keep them, if they can.
> 
> ...


We shall see but my intel within the DWR paints a much different picture with the DWR senior leadership...we can only hope the state will walk the walk and talk the talk with TMs...they serve a very useful purpose in controlling pan fish populations...we ice fished Newton this past weekend and caught a dozen or more didn't keep count Crappie and they maybe were 7" stretching it...TMs are an excellent resource and 'top-of-the-fish-food-chain' at controlling pan fish hence the pan fish will get only larger...

...I guess for us it's just disappointing when we read everything else that is being done outside of Utah...it really makes us wonder and go -Ov- -Ov- ...but PBH I'm an optimist at heart...just a little fustrated at the lack of 'public' info/education on TMs from the DWR including posting at the various reservoirs the restrictions for the 'general weekend fish'n warriors' who haven't a clue about this awesome fish's peril within this state...really sad...no visibility for TMs unless one just happens to take time and study the ROEs the DWR publishes...they'll make a huge stink about Strawberry/Gorge/Fish Lake etc...but not once have I 'Ever' seen the DWR post anything at Pineview or Newton on Tiger Muskies...so my friend why is this???? Again don't take offense but TMs are a very popular fish for us in which we have the utmost respect when we land one...IMO anyone can catch a Trout...nuff said on my part...yes I did take my BP medicine today... :lol: :| :|


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

"I guess for us it's just disappointing when we read everything else that is being done outside of Utah"

what's being done outside of Utah, that Utah isn't also doing? We are in the same situation as Wyoming and Colorado. The only states that are doing more than us, are those states that have populations of musky and pike -- but they are all infected!

It's a sad situation, but much of this situation is out of our hands, as well as the UDWR's. They are doing the right thing, by keeping infected fish out of our state.



It sounds like you want some signs up at Pineview and Newton. I have to ask you, what good would signage do? The fish are going to die one way or another. Either harvest or old-age will get them. Either way, they'll die. Personally, I don't see any reason what-so-ever to place a ban on the harvest of TM's in those lakes. Those fish are doomed -- so why not allow anglers to harvest them before they die anyway?


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

PBH said:


> It sounds like you want some signs up at Pineview and Newton. I have to ask you, what good would signage do?
> 
> I do believe it would be called inform/educate folks isn't that how folks find out about something...how hard would it really be to place some signs??? Amazing the DWR places signs on information on telling the difference in Trout and slot info...isn't that also how folks get informed about Trout...so why would it be any difference in placing a few signs at the reservoirs that have TMs...I take it you haven't really caught a TM of size say pushing 50" or better...so guess you can't relate on educating folks on the importance of C&R of these smaller fish... (keep-em all mentality hmmmmmmm they're going to die anyways).....TM get big for one reason...they get successfully released.
> 
> ...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

K2 -- you're putting words in my mouth.

I don't agree with a complete ban on harvest of TM's. I think it's pointless. I think that the 40" restriction was sufficient. If someone caught a fish over 40", why not let them harvest it? Eventually that fish will die. I believe that it serves a better purpose hanging on someone's wall, vs. rotting on the bottom of Pineview. Give the fish the honor hanging on a wall.


I never said anything about keep all of them. I also didn't say anything about not educating people. But, you need to identify what you are educating people on, and why. Case-in-point: Pineview and Newton. In all reality, what is going to happen if someone keeps a TM from Pineview? Is it going to affect future populations of that species? Will it affect future populations of perch \ crappie \ etc? The answer to both questions is: no. The ONLY thing it will do is remove a fish from the reservoir that nature will remove in the near future anyway. 

I can't answer to you why there are no signs up at Pineview or Newton. I can tell you that there are signs reminding anglers of the 40" minimum restriction on the harvest of TM's at Johnson Reservoir.

Might I suggest that instead of all the effort you are putting into tearing the DWR down on their lack of concern for TM's, maybe you could contact the Northern Region Offices and ask if signage is something they are planning on -- or, even better, if it is something you could help with?


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

PBH said:


> Might I suggest that instead of all the effort you are putting into tearing the DWR down on their lack of concern for TM's, maybe you could contact the Northern Region Offices and ask if signage is something they are planning on -- or, even better, if it is something you could help with?


Already talked to the DWR about it... :wink: :wink:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> Already talked to the DWR about it... :wink: :wink:


And......???


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Still didn't put up any signs to my knowledge...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I was more curios to know what their response was when you asked if they had any plans to put up any signs. Did they tell you they planned on it? Did they think it was necessary? Did they need any help putting the signs up?

I'm just curious -- you said you called -- how the conversation went.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

PBH said:


> I was more curios to know what their response was when you asked if they had any plans to put up any signs. Did they tell you they planned on it? Did they think it was necessary? Did they need any help putting the signs up?
> 
> I'm just curious -- you said you called -- how the conversation went.


Actually I e-mailed a guy within the DWR and he indicated to me he would elevate it up the food chain...and that was the jest of the conversation. :wink: :wink:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Sounds familiar, K2. Been there before...


----------



## Swaner (Sep 10, 2007)

I think I have to agree with PBH on the complete ban being a bad idea. I thought that the slot limit worked fine and I think that having the slot over 45+" wouldn't be a bad idea either. But PBH is right...these fish will die eventually. What about introducing some sort of a TM tag? I know some states make you buy a stamp or a tag for a king salmon. If a person wants to harvest a legal TM for the wall then make them pay for it and put that money into finding a source for more TM's. Then at least some good will come from these fish dying off.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

flyfisher_1984 said:


> I think I have to agree with PBH on the complete ban being a bad idea. I thought that the slot limit worked fine and I think that having the slot over 45+" wouldn't be a bad idea either. But PBH is right...these fish will die eventually. What about introducing some sort of a TM tag? I know some states make you buy a stamp or a tag for a king salmon. If a person wants to harvest a legal TM for the wall then make them pay for it and put that money into finding a source for more TM's. Then at least some good will come from these fish dying off.


I wouldn't disagree and I talked to the same DWR employee about just raising the size limit to what you proposed...my bad as I didn't go to any DWR meetings and bring this up...but you can bet I will...lesson learned on my part. :wink: :wink:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> Already talked to the DWR about it... :wink: :wink:





k2muskie said:


> Actually I e-mailed a guy within the DWR and he indicated to me he would elevate it up the food chain...and that was the jest of the conversation. :wink: :wink:





k2muskie said:


> I talked to the same DWR employee about just raising the size limit to what you proposed...


I don't want to appear nit-picky, but I am somewhat confused. First, you said you talked to someone, then you said you didn't (you emailed them), then you said again that you talked to someone. Which is it? Did you talk to someone? Or did you only email someone?

Again, I'm going to suggest that you pick up the phone and call the northern region offices and ask to speak to one of the fisheries biologists.

I don't think a special tag is necessary. I don't think a complete ban is necessary. I think a one fish over 40" limit was perfectly appropriate. Just because you can keep them doesn't mean everyone would keep them.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

PBH said:


> k2muskie said:
> 
> 
> > Already talked to the DWR about it... :wink: :wink:
> ...


I work better from e-mail in the tone...but am re-engaging...will post up info. :wink: :wink:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Glad to hear. I honestly hope that you do make a phone call and speak with a biologist.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

[
I do believe it would be called inform/educate folks isn't that how folks find out about something...*how hard would it really be to place some signs??? *Amazing the DWR places signs on information on telling the difference in Trout and slot info...isn't that also how folks get informed about Trout...so why would it be any difference in placing a few signs at the reservoirs that have TMs...I take it you haven't really caught a TM of size say pushing 50" or better...so guess you can't relate on educating folks on the importance of C&R of these smaller fish... (keep-em all mentality hmmmmmmm they're going to die anyways).....TM get big for one reason...they get successfully released. 

[/quote][/quote]

Ever seen anything at Newton last very long ? Signs- hell the picnic tables were put in a few years ago and it took 2 weekends to have some of them chopped up and burnt for fire wood.


----------



## girlsfishtoo (Feb 5, 2008)

There is alot of things that people of Utah are having to worry about getting into our waters right now. VHS and quagga mussels are very big worries, if your not worried about our state getting them you should be. As it has been stated before there is a restriction on bringing fish in from east of the 100th mederian line because of the VHS. UDWR (despite what some may think) is looking for a virus free source, until then they'll keep looking.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

If you care to read...rather long here's the e-mail reply on this...

* DWR responding to my initial e-mail...*

Hello K,

My name is Ben Nadolski and I am the aquatic biologist that oversees the 
management of Newton and Pineview Reservoirs. Your inquiry was forwarded to me 
by Phil Douglass.

I greatly appreciate your input in this issue. Just to let you know, we did 
install signs at various locations around Pineview the day the emergency 
regulation change took effect. I have personally seen these signs as recently 
as last week. However, it would be helpful to determine if additional signs are 
needed, how many of the original signs are still in place, and if the existing 
signs are in good condition. We will be sure to do this very soon. In fact, I 
will try to have it done by tomorrow. However, it should be noted that winter 
may not be the best time to install new signs, if in fact they are needed. Key 
sign locations may not be accessible due to snow, ramp closures, etc. So please be 
patient if all access points are not addressed immediately.

I am not aware of any signs at Newton Reservoir at this time, but I have 
forwarded your inquiry to our officers in the area. I will be sure to follow up 
with them and will get back to you when I have more specific information.

Finally, if additional signs are needed and our current stock cannot absorb this 
demand, this request may take some time. The ordering process for new signs is 
fairly straight forward, but the manufacturing process does take time. So 
again, please be patient and rest assured that your concern is being addressed.

Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns regarding 
this matter. Again, thanks for bringing this to my attention, your input is 
greatly appreciated.

All the best

Ben Nadolski
Aquatic Biologist II
Northern Regional Office
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
515 E. 5300 S.
Ogden, Utah 84405
(801) 476-2772 (office)
(801) 643-4953 (cell)
(801) 479-4010 (fax)

*Here's my reply back to him today....*

Hey Ben et al,

Thank you for your quick response.

I understand putting up signs during the winter may not be feasible and/or 
realistic until ice off.

We fish Pineview extensively and launch from the Port Ramp and Anderson Cove 
areas. But we primarily launch from the Port Ramp area. We haven't launched 
from Cemetery Point so I don't know about that area. This also includes the 
beach area by Rattlesnake Creek.

We haven't seen any mandatory Tiger Musky release signs in areas where you prep 
boats prior to launching or in other areas around the parking lot/prep areas 
including the toilet areas at Port Ramp, Anderson Cove and Cemetery Point launch 
areas.

I haven't seen any signs about the mandatory release of Tiger Muskies when 
walking down the stairs or sidewalk at the Port Ramp to the floating docks. 
This also includes walking down the foot path at Anderson Cove to the floating 
docks. Even after fishing I'd walk my dog and would see the small angling signs 
on foot paths but I didn't see any signs on Tiger Muskies. The only signs we've seen is the Quagga Mussels certification forms and also all the 'information' signs on Quagga Mussels that 
are stuck in the ground.

Were the signs you mentioned placed on the information boards? If so, in 
addition to the information boards I'd like to recommend signs get placed in 
'higher' visibility areas and not necessarily restricted to placing on the 
information boards. Similar to the placement of signs on the Quagga Mussels that 
I've seen in various areas around Pineview.

I'd also like to recommend possibly the DWR approach American Leisure as the 
concessionaire service at Pineview and provide Tiger Musky information fliers so 
their seasonal workers at Port Ramp, Anderson Cove and Cemetery Point launch 
areas could handout these small fliers (same as they do with the Quagga Mussels 
certification forms) as folks come in and pay to access Pineview...just a 
thought.

Now I have some other questions. Can you provide me with any late breaking 
additional information on how the DWR is doing with finding a clean source of Muskies. 
Is the DWR still going to use the Lee Kay area to begin raising their own stock 
of Tiger Muskies? Has the state considered treating fertilized eggs with an 
iodine solution like other mid-western states have done such as Indiana...see 
this link

http://www.in.gov/rde/xfw/newsroom.htm? ... abled=true

Finally, how serious is the DWR considering replacing Tiger Muskies with 
Northern Pike in Utah waterways where Tiger Muskies were stocked up through 
2006?

Ben et al, I sincerely appreciate your time in addressing the sign issue with me 
and also the other questions I've asked at the end of this correspondence.

Very Respectfully,
K

So I'll keep y'all posted... :wink: :wink:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

K2 -- glad to see you're getting somewhere.


I'd like to provide some constructive criticism -- please take it for what it's worth...

Sometimes email communication is a poor means to have a conversation. As evidenced by your messages, a response will usually result in another question -- thus a second reply, and then a third question, and a third reply....

As you can imagine, this could drag on for days. If you really want to have a good conversation, a productive one, pick up the phone and make a call. Biologists aren't always in the office (as you know), but if you can talk to one in person, your conversation will go much quicker, and your questions will be answered (provided the person has the information to answer your question).


Thanks for posting your messages.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

PBH said:


> K2 -- glad to see you're getting somewhere.
> 
> I'd like to provide some constructive criticism -- please take it for what it's worth...
> 
> ...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

understood.




My father used to complain about email. His gripe was that because of email, he spent more time managing people than he spent managing fish. A believe that sociology degrees would benefit fisheries biologists more so than fish biology degrees in today's world. More time is spent managing anglers than managing fish.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

PBH said:


> understood.
> 
> My father used to complain about email. His gripe was that because of email, he spent more time managing people than he spent managing fish. A believe that sociology degrees would benefit fisheries biologists more so than fish biology degrees in today's world. More time is spent managing anglers than managing fish.


Well when you have something in 'written-word' you 'than have proof' of involvement and/or communication that is worthy of sharing... :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

What's the best way to cook a tiger musky? Do they make very good table fare?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I've never kept one, nor eaten one -- so i don't know.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

-Ov- -Ov- -Ov- ....'Y' bone along with floating bones...call it the Y bone...experience I had when fish'n with Grandpa back in the day as a kid in MN and CA...make sure you have bread... :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> What's the best way to cook a tiger musky? Do they make very good table fare?


Tree I have never eaten one but two of my brothers have and they tell me they taste better than walleye.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > What's the best way to cook a tiger musky? Do they make very good table fare?
> ...


I beg to differ! The one i had(a 41" that would not revive after an hour) was eaten and it tasted horrible! Bad texture and flavor. It was cooked 3 different ways and still not worth eating. I would think the smaller pike would be ok and have actually heard that they are good eating less the Y-bone and filleting.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I was doubtful as well lunkerhunter2. Walleye and bass are my favorites but thats what they said. My thought was they eat minnows and other fish like bass and walleye so maybe but unlikely.


----------



## DocEsox (May 12, 2008)

The problem of acquiring any VHS musky or TM is hardly unique to Utah. I have frequented some of the big musky boards for years and know many people involved with musky. They has been a massive upheaval of stocking programs in major musky waters.....like Georgian Bay....etc...due to the rampant spread of VHS. There are virtually no existence of any stock of "certified" VHS free eggs or fish. If Utah wanted to raise their own they would need to procure VHS musky (and of course, pike) for brookstock....the musky are not to be had. As far as substituting pike where TM exist....to my limited understanding pike are not available as sterile triploids (the only articles I could find said the highest heat treated triploidy rate of eggs was only 50%), therefore you would be stocking fertile pike in lakes without them...a practice with many ensuing nightmares in many states. Alaska is currently having a horrific problem with pike....although native in the interior of Alaska....people have illegally introduced them into the southcentral areas and they have had devasting effects on many salmon populations....as well as trout and grayling. And once they are in the water there is virtually no way of getting them out. One really has to be careful for what one wishes.

Brian


----------



## rockymountainelk (Jan 18, 2009)

Thanks for all the info guys.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

See previous post in this thread for initial e-mail correspondence&#8230;

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Nadolski 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:12 AM
Cc: Craig Schaugaard; Mitch Lane; Phil Douglass
Subject: RE: Tiger Musky

Hello K,

We've completed an inventory of muskie regulation signs at Pineview Reservoir. In all, we counted 26 signs that specifically address tiger muskie regulations, and all signs state "Closed to the possession of tiger muskie. All tiger muskie must be immediately released."

We've specifically mapped the locations of all these signs. All major access points are posted, including the areas where you had specific concerns (i.e., Port Ramp, Anderson Cove and Cemetery Point Ramp). However, it may be prudent to reposition some signs. For example, there are excess signs at the Middle Fork Inlet (n=8) and Anderson Cover Campground (n=6) areas, and some could be moved to higher priority areas that warrant additional coverage, such as Port Ramp and the Cemetery Point Boat Ramp. We will also use some of these excess signs to post Newton Reservoir at strategic access points around the reservoir.

I hope this information satisfies your concerns. Again, thanks for bringing this to our attention, and we ask that you are patient with the sign re-alignment process as frozen ground will prohibit sign removal and placement until early spring. All the best

Ben Nadolski
Aquatic Biologist II
Northern Regional Office
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
515 E. 5300 S.
Ogden, Utah 84405
(801) 476-2772 (office)
(801) 643-4953 (cell)
(801) 479-4010 (fax

2/4/2009 11:09 AM >>>
Ben et al,

Good Morning.

I sincerely thank you for your reply and recent site survey's on the signs and re-evaluation of sign placement at both Pineview and Newton Reservoirs.

So with that being said...any thoughts given to the recommendation I suggested in my original e-mail:

I'd also like to recommend possibly the DWR approach American Leisure as the concessionaire service at Pineview and provide Tiger Musky information fliers so their seasonal workers at Port Ramp, Anderson Cove and Cemetery Point launch areas could handout these small fliers (same as they do with the Quagga Mussels certification forms) as folks come in and pay to access Pineview...just a thought.

Can you address the questions I asked in the original e-mail:

Now I have some other questions. Can you provide me with any late breaking additional information on how the DWR is doing with finding a clean source of Muskies. Is the DWR still going to use the Lee Kay area to begin raising their own stock of Tiger Muskies? Has the state considered treating fertilized eggs with an iodine solution like other mid-western states have done such as Indiana...see this link

http://www.in.gov/rde/xfw/newsroom.htm? ... abled=true

How serious is the DWR considering replacing Tiger Muskies with Northern Pike in Utah waterways where Tiger Muskies were stocked up through 2006?

We know first hand the 'positive' balancing impact Tiger Muskies have made at controlling pan fish populations thus allowing Pineview Reservoir (and in a few years Newton) to have meaningful sized non-stunted growth pan fish (Crappie, Perch, Blue Gil). Without the Tiger Musky this wouldn't have been possible IMHO as an avid angler. 
Finally, from my position as an angler it would be a huge disappointment for us and I'm sure other TM C&R anglers if Utah totally abandoned Tiger Muskies. Not to mention the impact it would have on pan fish populations and those anglers who enjoy catching pan fish of size.

Anxiously awaiting your reply on the above recommendations for fliers and also addressing the above questions as the aquatic biologist that oversees the management of Newton and Pineview Reservoirs.

Very Respectfully,
K

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Nadolski 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:00 PM
Cc: Craig Schaugaard; Mitch Lane; Phil Douglass
Subject: RE: Tiger Musky

Yes, it would be nice if the concessionaire offered to handout flyers to everyone that accessed Pineview. However, such a request of the concessionaire is in our view, unreasonable. We feel the 26 signs that are posted on-site, our community/media outreach efforts, and the expressed rule in our proclamation serve as sufficient public notice. In addition, our officers do not cite an increase in the number of citations issued since the inception of the new regulation. We continue to make angler contacts through our law enforcement officers and a year-long creel survey conducted through our fisheries program. We feel these contacts will help us distribute our message regarding tiger muskie conservation, as well as promote the legal enjoyment of this resource.

The re-implementation of our muskie stocking program continues to hinge on our ability to find a safe source of true muskies. This endeavor is much harder than one might think. We are required to follow laws and procedures that make it more difficult to import fish, but in the end it is these same laws and procedures that protect our resources from deleterious pathogens. These changes are going to require time and patience. We are working diligently with other wildlife agencies and private growers to find a source that meets our stringent requirements. In the mean time, the Lee Kay facility is ready to receive fish and will be used as a muskie grow-out facility if we are able to find true muskies that don't present a pathogen risk. Without too much detail as to bore you or confuse you, we do continue to run into troubles in this regard. Promising leads continue to dry up, but this does not mean we have run out of options. We are working hard to re-develop this program, but will do so only in a manner that is safe to all aquatic resources of the state. In the meantime, it is important to understand that delays are only due to our caution for ALL fish of Utah and other western states. A mistake could be costly to our resources for years to come, and possibly irreversible, so again we ask for patience as we pursue this issue with adequate prudence for our resources but on the other hand, adequate regard for the muskie fishery and those who enjoy it.

As for sterile northern pike, we are not seriously considering this option, but we are evaluating public opinion regarding the use of sterile pike in the event we can't find a suitable muskie source. This is not our favored option. We would rather find true muskies that are pathogen free so we can continue with the program we've had in the past. But we want to be open to all credible options, and sterile pike might be one such option.

As for muskie predation serving to control panfish populations, you and I may disagree slightly. Yes, muskies can and in some cases do improve population dynamics for panfish. But in the case of Pineview, we don't feel that our perch fishery is overly advantaged because of it. This was in fact the biological philosophy during the inception of muskie stocking at Pineview. However, over time we've seen little response in the perch fishery due to muskie stocking. Perch have continued to experience drastic cycles of boom and bust over time, regardless of the size and structure of the muskie population. However, it does appear plausible that muskie do help to lessen the severity of the inevitable boom and bust cycles. For this reason, I certainly consider the muskie fishery to be beneficial to the panfishery, but by no means does the muskie program validate the absolute claim of a "meaningful sized non-stunted" panfishery.

Again, I hope this helps. Take care and happy fishing.

Ben Nadolski
Aquatic Biologist II
Northern Regional Office
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
515 E. 5300 S.
Ogden, Utah 84405
(801) 476-2772 (office)
(801) 643-4953 (cell)
(801) 479-4010 (fax)

Every day is a great day to go fishing! Buy your 365 day fishing license online at http://www.wildlife.utah.gov.

My replay back:

Ben,

Again thank you for your replies and your teams efforts with the signs...I also sincerely appreciate the time you took in addressing my questions. Guess I'll see about the fliers and put something together and see if American Leisure would be supportive of handing them out. I have to at least try correct...couple reams of paper...can't really hurt IMHO.

I'll be honest with you and others...when it comes to 'patience' I ran through that line. Guess I'll step back in the patience line and hang tight and see what happens via your office on this issue.

Glad we agree on the possibility sticking with the TM and not necessarily sterile Pike. But who really knows what the future holds. But I'm an optimist who believes this issue will eventually be resolved and TMs will again be raised/stocked in Utah waters.

Again thank you very much.

Very Respectfully,
K


----------

