Tiger musky fertility..

[Drewp]

It was originally done control the rough fish populations, like carp. The pikeminnow i believe is considered a rough fish though.

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

I think tiger muskies are forced to consider adoption because they are infertile.

[kevinb]

I think tiger muskies are forced to consider adoption because they are infertile.

Good stuff

[Rich McVey]

Musky, a face only a mother could love.

[ProAngler'sDaughter]

Here's what the NW Tiger PAC website says about the planting of Muskies:

Tiger muskies were first introduced to Mayfield Lake in southwest Washington's Lewis County in 1988 to rebuild a local Coho salmon population by controlling the squawfish that preyed upon them. Spokane County's Newman Lake received tiger muskies in 1992 to control carp and stunted populations of perch and bluegill. The third lake to be planted with Muskies was Curlew Lake in 1998. WDFW has also made one-time plants in several lakes for rough fish control purposes, including Fazon Lake in Whatcom County, Green Lake in Seattle, Red Rock Reservoir in Grant County south of Potholes Reservoir, and South Lewis County Pond (multiple plantings in this lake). Since these lakes are no longer being stocked, and the planted fish were sterile and only live 8-10 years on average, it is unlikely any specimens still survive in any of those waters.

So, I think you are both correct...but who gets first prize?

PAD

[kevinb]

Here's what the NW Tiger PAC website says about the planting of Muskies:

Tiger muskies were first introduced to Mayfield Lake in southwest Washington's Lewis County in 1988 to rebuild a local Coho salmon population by controlling the squawfish that preyed upon them. Spokane County's Newman Lake received tiger muskies in 1992 to control carp and stunted populations of perch and bluegill. The third lake to be planted with Muskies was Curlew Lake in 1998. WDFW has also made one-time plants in several lakes for rough fish control purposes, including Fazon Lake in Whatcom County, Green Lake in Seattle, Red Rock Reservoir in Grant County south of Potholes Reservoir, and South Lewis County Pond (multiple plantings in this lake). Since these lakes are no longer being stocked, and the planted fish were sterile and only live 8-10 years on average, it is unlikely any specimens still survive in any of those waters.

So, I think you are both correct...but who gets first prize?

PAD

haha,..... Don and I would like a parade,new cars and 100 million dollars. I think this is a reasonable request

[Don Wittenberger]

KevinB -- Oh, I suppose you're technically correct, but I don't think of landlocked coho in freshwater lakes as "salmon." I consider them "other trout." I was referring to anadromous salmon.

PDA -- I don't need a parade, just gimme the money.

[kevinb]

I probably abused the word "salmon" just like the word sober

[ProAngler'sDaughter]

Oh sure...that's just petty cash! :shaking:

But first, you each need to write a 50 page (one page for each million) dissertion on why you are deserving of the money. You can't blame it on the Salmon, either!

PAD

[ProAngler'sDaughter]

Btw, Don...I'm not Public Displays of Affections (PDA), I'm ProAngler'sDaughter (PAD)!

Hahaha!

[muskyhunter28]

I think we need more dams and sealions in this state..........
Really lots of DAMS AND SEALIONS!!!!

That way the waters will be cured of the plague "SALMON"

[Don Wittenberger]

MH, you're misinformed. Dams and sealions aren't very effective at eliminating salmon runs. At least, not the Pacific Northwest's gigantic salmon runs of bygone millenia -- runs that exceeded 100 million fish in some years.

In fact, most of the damage to Washington's salmon runs happened long before the first Columbia River dams were built. The 19th century settlers really knew how to wipe out salmon. Here's how they did it.

First, before they arrived, western Washington's rivers were choked with fallen timber. Giant cedars grew on the banks, and as the banks eroded these huge trees fell into the river, and more logs stacked up behind them, creating log james a mile thick. This caused the rivers to flood, inundating tens of thousands of acres of lowlands. These flooded lowlands were "salmon factories" that produced 98% of the smolts. The Columbia River was small potatoes by comparison.

When the settlers came, the very first thing they did was clear the logjams out of the rivers to open them up for navigation. Next, they logged the old growth trees off the riverbanks, for the obvious reason that trees growing on the banks are easier to drag to the river and float downstream to sawmills. Then, they drained the lowlands and turned them into farmland. These three things did more destruction to the salmon runs than everything else put together.

The other big mistake our 19th century ancestors made was overfishing. Before the Civil War, the local market for salmon wasn't nearly large enough to put a serious dent in the salmon runs. This changed drastically after the war with the invention of canning and the coming of railroads that could transport vast quantities of canned salmon to eastern markets.

The modern landscape of Washington state has existed for about 16,000 years, when the last ice age glacier retreated. It probably was inhabited by humans as soon as the land was free of ice, and salmon have been here for millions of years. So, human exploited the salmon runs for at least 15,000 years without wiping out the fish. Why? Because Native Americans, by custom and taboos, limited their harvest to no more than 50% of the fish. By contrast, by 1890 non-native commercial fishermen were taking in excess of 90% of the fish. Not surprisingly, the size of the salmon runs plummeted within a few years.

By the time the Columbia River dams were built in the 1930s and 1940s, the salmon runs had already been reduced to a small fraction of what they were in antiquity, because of the destruction of the coastal spawning grounds in the pre-Civil War and commercial overfishing in the late 19th century. The dams merely reduced the fraction of the total runs that spawned in the Columbia River. Contrary to popular belief, the dams were not the major culprit in the decline of the salmon runs. They were merely one of the major culprits in damaging what was left of the salmon runs after the 19th century decimation of the runs by the pioneers.

[muskyhunter28]

WOW!!! I did not know that!
How do you know all this stuff?

[Don Wittenberger]

I do a lot of reading. A good book on this subject is http://www.amazon.com/King-Fish-Thousan ... 383&sr=1-1 You don't necessarily have to buy it; your library should have it.

[muskyhunter28]

I will wait for the movie to come out!!!
But thank you!

[kevinb]

I will wait for the movie to come out!!!
But thank you!

I just lost my bowels. I wish I knew how to read.

[KUP]

ahhhhh... just one more reason why all of us on here celebrate the esteemed Mr. Wittenberger!
Ask and yeah shall be told.
Nice work, again. DH.

[Fisherman_max]

so if the theory that a very small percentage of female tiger musky's can theoretically reproduce, i wonder what the mix of half tiger musky and half pike or pure musky would turn out like?


my guess would be that the offspring would more resemble that of the male pike or musky that fathered it. maybe the offspring would become fertile in both male and female specimens. so if all conditions were right (a single male pike or musky getting illegaly introduced into tiger musky waters) we could have a natural reproducing strain of "tiger" muskys in our stocked lakes.


i am just messing around with the thought that a very small percentage of tiger musky females COULD reproduce and in no way am i saying that even in a perfect world this could EVER happen.


just bored and having some fun running through the possibillities in my head.


P.S feel free to build apon or tottaly abolish my thoughts i want to see what kind of dream musky world we could weave hahahahaha

[muskyhunter]

uhmmm.after further thought...nevermind!

[Kenster]

uhmmm.after further thought...nevermind!

Better let this tread die now, before...