Jump to content


Tiger Musky fishery in New Mexico


54 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Jim_*

Guest_Jim_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 08:21 AM

I simply dont like to see a NoN-Native fish taken to any area and stocked to control a native species, If those suckers and other fish were becoming a problem for somebody, I feel they should have been dealt with in another way. And to set the record straight, i also dont have anything against a tiger musky as a fish, Its not their fault, they would agreeably be fun to catch, and even keep if you had the proper facilities. But it seems that sometimes Folks take it on themselves to re-arrange what mother nature obviously took a long time figureing out, and this is what i dont agree with.

#22 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 08:41 AM

I may be a fisherman but I never troll.


Sorry to further derail but why has trolling become taboo among fishermen? I've always seen trolling as an excellent technique to cover lots of water and get quick knowledge about what fish is where. Also a great way to scrounge up a few fish around middle day in cold front conditions.

#23 Guest_Jim_*

Guest_Jim_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 09:01 AM

Sorry to further derail but why has trolling become taboo among fishermen? I've always seen trolling as an excellent technique to cover lots of water and get quick knowledge about what fish is where. Also a great way to scrounge up a few fish around middle day in cold front conditions.


I dont understand that either??? Im probably more of a fisherman than a specific species chaser, and i have always used trolling as a way to locate where the fish are on a given day, as i cant afford big expensive fish finders (Which in my opinion is high tech Trolling) and every fancy rig has those attached. Also when the fish are not biting at a certain creek, i jump around all over this county til i find where they are biting (geographic trolling), so im with you Uland...Dont understand.... But that happens to me a lot :blush:

#24 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 10:59 AM

Trolling is very effective but it is hardly interactive. There's a reason that any captain with little kids and non-fishermen aboard always resort to trolling.
To cover big water or target any great depth [with downrigs] trolling can't be beat.

Forgot to add, if someone would just show me a lake with plenty of big introduced pest hybrid tiger demons at say, 22 per acre, I'd be glad to spend all day trolling. I'd eliminate those pests one at a time. :laugh:

Edited by mikez, 29 March 2009 - 11:04 AM.


#25 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 11:07 AM

I wasn't accusing you of anything Mike. When I said trolling I ment our new forum member puskie looking for hits on a website, which is essentially spamming. I wasn't talking about the fishing method at all. We're not a fishing website and these aren't native fish, that was my point. We don't need tempers flaring between over a topic that isn't really appropriate here anyways because someone is looking for people to check out their organizations website that promotes something NANFA isn't necessarily in tune with.

#26 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 11:15 AM

I can't deny that just about anyone can clip on a crankbait and flatline fish out of a lake but to effectively control the boat by targeting structure and managing speed along with lure selection and weight management isn't exactly mindless or any further detached than vertical jigging or chucking stickbaits at a weedline with a broomstick.

#27 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 01:02 PM

I wasn't accusing you of anything Mike. When I said trolling I ment our new forum member puskie looking for hits on a website, which is essentially spamming. I wasn't talking about the fishing method at all. We're not a fishing website and these aren't native fish, that was my point. We don't need tempers flaring between over a topic that isn't really appropriate here anyways because someone is looking for people to check out their organizations website that promotes something NANFA isn't necessarily in tune with.


I know you hadn't accused me, I was anticipating you might after you saw my post.
You might be right about spamming, I didn't think of that. If so, I wouldn't have picked up the cause.
If the thread was meant as sincere discussion, I do believe it could be relevant to native fish. The plight of native fish in the arid southwest is a very interesting and depressing subject. Truth is the giant manmade impoundments bare very little resemblance to anything nature ever intended for that region. The fish species present aren't any more natural than the bodies of water themselves.
Having followed the now discontinued tiger muskie program in Ma for 30 years, I know tigers don't come close to deserving their demonic reputation, nor do they come close to meeting the high hopes and propaganda of fishery managers who promote them.
My prediction for NM is there will be a few years of fast action, a few more years where a few giants will be caught then the state will drop the program. Native fish [what few there are] will not likely exhibit any long term, uncorrectable affects.
I would sincerely, without sarcasm, enjoy further discussion if anyone cares to share a point of view [besides generic anti-stocking rhetoric].

#28 Guest_Jim_*

Guest_Jim_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 01:18 PM

I dont think tempers flared too much :smile2: , Although this thread is all over the place, Me and Uland even mistaking the " Trolling" comment as something totally different , and going off in that direction. So im gettin outta this discussion, and going to do a case study on all the different possible ways to NOT derail a thread, and how many possible ways to discuss trolling in a thread of its own, and leave whats left of this thread to the experts. But i will have to admit it was both informative for me, and maybe made a point about using this Forum to promote somthing inappropriate.

#29 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 01:57 PM

I had hoped Mike and I could turn this into the first ever trolling discussion on the NANFA forum :biggrin:
I can't lie, I was not concerned all that much about derailing this topic since I believe the author of this topic generated spam and nothing else. I suspect he's a chair or owner of a NM Muskie club and/or intends to promote this fishery in the NM or the southwest. I'll bet he's been posting topics like this in as many forums as he can. No biggie but spam is spam.

I see your position on Muskie Mike and you make some valid points (yet details on the inhabitants of the lake are lacking to make any real claims). I view Muskie in NM as nothing more than a fish trap where nobody collects the fish in the trap. Sure anglers will pay for them and the state will fatten it's coffers a bit but taking that money to advance native fish would only be speculation to be honest. Local baitshops will sell a few more larger than usual inline spinners and stickbaits but I'm willing to bet similar results could be obtained by teaching people how to make the most of the native fish that exist. They might not be as sexy as a Muskie but certainly more sustainable in the long run and likely more profitable over time compared to "fad" introductions.

#30 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 07:43 PM

No detailed claims were intended on my part. I'm speculating based on passing knowledge of the situation in the SW and more detailed experience with TM here.
Actually, I threw out the challenge for somebody to come up with specifics mostly cause I didn't have the time to spend Googling and I hoped they would. :rolleyes:
A certain amount of trust in the judgment of NM F&G was assumed on my part as well. I know TU has been successful in changing policy in some of the other western states. Species that have a reasonable chance of being saved and that reside in reasonably intact and protectable habitat are given priority. High elevation golden trout habitat having invasive brook trout poisoned out above major fall barriers or protection offered the Lahontan cutthroat trout in Pyramid Lake come to mind. Sometimes the protections given those fragile species doesn't sit well with the general worm slingin' public. Since they really do pay the bills, they get a bone thrown to them in the form of an exciting, high return oriented fishery that happens to be totally alien but is only stocked in those artificial environments that don't support the sensitive species.

As far as spammin the forum, I'd have never thought of that. I missed it. Of course I spend alot of time on angling forums so talk of great fishin holes seem natural.

Uland you need to plan a trip out here for September. We can try trolling for big stripers or bluefish. Make you forget all about those toothy little darters you mess with. :laugh:

Edited by mikez, 29 March 2009 - 07:45 PM.


#31 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 07:53 PM

No detailed claims were intended on my part.


It sure did sound like you were making claims by reading my post. My bad, I was lumping comments made by the topic author in that post. I would like to see the data he's referring to though.

Uland you need to plan a trip out here for September. We can try trolling for big stripers or bluefish. Make you forget all about those toothy little darters you mess with. laugh.gif


Man...I might just take you up on that. I've never caught either and have been exposed to great Bluefish and striper stories and video.

#32 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 March 2009 - 09:30 PM

Forget the trolling, go for blues the honest way, by surfcasting. And "toothy" darters? But everyone's a critic...

#33 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:13 PM

It sure did sound like you were making claims by reading my post.


maybe when I said "my prediction is..."?
I was speculating. No clue how it'll really turn out. I'll be watching...

#34 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:18 PM

Forget the trolling, go for blues the honest way, by surfcasting. And "toothy" darters? But everyone's a critic...


Surf castin's too easy, at least from the beach in day light and good weather like most people. I prefer to chase 'em from the slippery rocks at night in a Nor-Easter, with my nine weight flyrod.
It would be irresponsible for me to subject a Landlubber to those conditions the first time out. Hmmm, I just realized why nobody ever wants to go fishing with me a second time. :laugh:

#35 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 March 2009 - 06:51 PM

maybe when I said "my prediction is..."?
I was speculating. No clue how it'll really turn out. I'll be watching...



I'm sorry Mike...I have communication issues. I know full well what you mean and that you've made no claims.

#36 Guest_Gambusia_*

Guest_Gambusia_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2009 - 07:24 PM

As to state game and fish agencies stocking muskies, pike and hybrids where they do not exist its mostly for money reasons.

Big 'trophy' tiger muskellunge might sell more licenses and attract fishermen from across the state.

That said I assume most Western states are stocking tigers because they don't reproduce and for fishing reasons, not necessarily to control carp.

States that mucked around with purebred Northern Pike are now having problems and even states that did not stock pike are having problems with pike invading lakes and taking over.

Its funny in that in the eastern US states that stock pike- like West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania- rarely have problems with overpopulating pike when they are stocked in impounded waters. Maybe its because these fisheries are dependent on stocking whereas in most western waters pike reproduce naturally.

In North Carolina there was a program to bring back muskellunge starting in 1970. Muskellunge are native to Guelph of Mexico drainage mountain rivers but not to Atlantic Slope mountain rivers.

In the late 1970s through 1983 it was decided to stock hybrid 'mountain tiger' muskellunge into several Atlantic Slope drainage reservoirs and also Fontana Reservior on the Guelph side.

Purebred muskies were stocked into native rivers and one Atlantic slope reservoir (Lake Adger).

The hybrid muskie program was discontinued because they said it was hassle getting the eggs from out of state or so I read. Those fish are long since gone.

Purebred muskies are still stocked today however.

I can see tiger muskies being used as a select management tool but I agree that just stocking them to stock them in non native areas like New Mexico might not be good.


Somehow circa 1995-1996 non native chain pickerel started showing up in the French Broad River around Asheville and now they are well established

Edited by Gambusia, 01 April 2009 - 07:32 PM.


#37 Guest_mikemn230_*

Guest_mikemn230_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 May 2009 - 11:59 PM

I live here in Minnesota, and I have caught Pike, Muskie, and Tigers here, in some of the metro lakes tigers are stocked, where fishing pressure is high. What I have seen is that they get almost as big as the pure strain, and or in-between the aggressive level of a Pike and Muskie. Pure Muskie are about the pickiest eaters, and Pike attack about anything. Tigers attack about anything of the right size. They are also cannibals like most esocids.

That being said, we are talking NM, not MN. I am curious however as to how this turns out. Out of all non-natives, I put the Tiger on the short list of those non-natives to be far less concerned about.

The one big reason is that ultimately, if you want to get rid of them, just stop stocking them. They are truly sterile. No ifs and or buts about it. 100% incapable of reproducing amongst their own kind. They do not have profoundly long lifespans either, so in the long assorted history of idiotic stocking of non-natives, Tigers would be the easiest to fix if they have a negative impact on the native fish.

As to over populations of Suckers, I agree 100% that they are less likely to be the culprit of reduced trout populations if they are indeed native to those waters. Native fish do not just one day start behaving drastically different in their native environment.

Goldfish on the other hand, I can easily see having a horrible impact. Even if they do not eat the same food source, they are both ovivors eating the eggs of more desirable fish, as well as just like their carp cousins, they murk the water up terribly by the messy way they feed in turning up the bottom sediment. That would have a huge detriment to the Trout, as they require much cleaner lakes to survive in.


Please don't take the comments personally puskie13.

You should realize that NANFA and this forum are all about wild, native fish being well...wild and native. Tiger Muskie in new mexico are neither. I doubt you'll find a whole lot of people that think putting a hybrid fish in a state that has no native Esox to eat other fish introduced to new mexico is a good thing. So we have goldfish and the Esox eats them. Should we next get and exotic bird to eat the Musky? Then an exotic cat to eat the birds? Perhaps an exotic gigantic monitor to eat the cats? Anyhow....I might not call Esox natural born killers but would indeed call them eating machines.



Why would you need to bring anything in to remove something that cannot reproduce? If they are eating machines, and they are best suited to eat the goldfish, and goldfish are the problem, then they are just another tool to kill those fish, but less toxic than rotenone, and no need to drain the lake. If they need to be gotten rid of, you stop stocking them, and make it a free for all in keep limits, and they are gone very fast. That is the big difference with the tigers, is that they cannot make more of themselves, if anything, they would gladly assist in helping reduce their own populaiton, as they are cannibals too.

Edited by mikemn230, 11 May 2009 - 12:16 AM.


#38 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 May 2009 - 07:51 AM

You have great faith that all tigers are sterile all the time. That was a selling point for many of the Asian carp species introduced as triploids at various times and places, too, and we know how well that went.

#39 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 May 2009 - 12:03 AM

"Life will find a way. " - Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park

#40 Guest_mikemn230_*

Guest_mikemn230_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 May 2009 - 08:29 PM

You have great faith that all tigers are sterile all the time. That was a selling point for many of the Asian carp species introduced as triploids at various times and places, too, and we know how well that went.



There is a big difference between an altered triploid fish, and a hybrid fish. In theory 1% of female tigers may be able to back cross with a pure pike or muskie (which would itself be the problem if present), however there has never been a recorded fertile male tiger muskie.

Even in the case of back crossing to pure parents is only theory. There has never been a recorded naturally existing back cross in any body of water ever where all three species naturally occur together. They have shared environments for over millions of years, and still exist as distinctly different species. Very strong evidence that tigers do not reproduce. Even in the astronomically unlikely event of a back cross, there are no pure parents in these waters in New Mexico, if they were there already, then any conjecture about tigers and their fertility would be irrelevant.

Comparing them to Triploids is grasping at straws. Triploids are genetically altered versions of actual species. Sometimes things go wrong and they are fertile, and fertile normal chromosome specimens have been recorded naturally reproducing among Asian Carp.

Tigers are crosses between two species, and like most hybrids are truly sterile. Many states that have both tigers and muskies naturally have used tigers stocking in many lakes, and naturally reproduction has never been recorded, not even once, among tigers in any of them.





"Life will find a way. " - Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park


Good job quoting a movie character. Wow, what strong logic.

99%+ of all life on earth is extinct.

Life in general may live on, but to make the leap into suggesting that sterile hybrid species will always find ways to reproduce is absurd.

Heck, when faced with disease or enviroment change alone things tend to go extinct very readily. That my beef with goldfish being added to lakes. Why would I rather have tiger muskies than goldfish be there? I'd greatly prefer neither were there, but the tiger would concern me a lot less. Goldfish very rapidly take up the entire biomass of a lake, because not only can they reproduce, but they do it almost all summer long.

Edited by mikemn230, 14 May 2009 - 08:51 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users