Jump to content


Tiger Musky fishery in New Mexico


54 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Newt_*

Guest_Newt_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 May 2009 - 08:56 PM

Your assertion that most hybrids are truly sterile is far from true. Fertile hybrids are abundant. The agriculture and horticulture industries are centered on such hybrids, and they are also common in animals, both in the wild and in captivity. A few fish examples include common petstore mollies, flowerhorn and red parrot cichlids (transgeneric hybrids, no less!), and saugeye.

Tiger muskies may well be truly sterile, but your argument from general principles holds no water.

#42 Guest_mikemn230_*

Guest_mikemn230_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 May 2009 - 10:18 PM

Your assertion that most hybrids are truly sterile is far from true. Fertile hybrids are abundant. The agriculture and horticulture industries are centered on such hybrids, and they are also common in animals, both in the wild and in captivity. A few fish examples include common petstore mollies, flowerhorn and red parrot cichlids (transgeneric hybrids, no less!), and saugeye.

Tiger muskies may well be truly sterile, but your argument from general principles holds no water.


Are you talking about backcrossing a female hybrid with male of either parent species? Later having second generation of such back cross unions where the males are now fertile as well, I concede is not uncommon.

However that does not change the issue of a first generation hybrid the heterozygote (males) is still more often then not sterile when both parents are of distinct different species. Hybrids between subspecies are often fertile.

All of that however does not matter as we really need to look at each case different, and in this case, its Tiger Muskie. Not Saugeye, not Liger, not Mules, Grolar bears etc... Tiger muskie have to my knowledge never in any recorded instance reproduced any viable offspring. This is not a pure species that had been thought to have been steralized, as in triploids, rather this is a mixed breed that are always, and have always been sterile.

The bottom line is that in cases of introduced species, in this instance, a sterile one is being put in as an attempt to reduce another very prolific one, and this is supposed to benefit the native trout in this area.

While trout and goldfish may not directly compete for the same food source, they do compete for over-all Biomass of the water, as well as the turning up of sediment reducing water clarity that the trout need.

This has been done with success in Montana, and if the tigers do create a problem in New Mexico, or worsen the existing problem, then removing them would be easy as stop putting them in.

I would be very upset if they were to use pure muskie or even worse pike, because if either of those create a problem, they are not so easily ridden.

#43 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 May 2009 - 11:58 PM

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


Logic or no, I'm usually right. That's what's so irritating about me.

#44 Guest_boringname_*

Guest_boringname_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 03:33 AM

The emotions on this thread are out of proportion to the real issue. I have a feeling that a lot of people typed first and asked questions later. Meaning a lot of people flew into a rage before considering that these fish are sterile. Then tried to salvage the situation by stating their sterility was not sterile enough, maybe one will give birth in a manger or something. If you all calm down you will realize that releasing sterile goldfish eating fish isn't going to bring on a disaster.

#45 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 07:25 AM

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.


Um No.. Female Tigers were backcrossed in a lab before so it is not Theory. Additionally, where Musky and Northerns naturally exist together they avoid hybridization due to habitat preference and different spawn habitat and seasons. Even so it has been noted that where Northerns or Northern Musky from inland lakes have been stocked into a naturally occurring lake (containing one or the other species) that Hybrids often show up. They do then compete for spawning and will readily hybridize.

That said I'm with Martin on this point:
"Life will find a way. " - Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park

#46 Guest_Uland_*

Guest_Uland_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 08:41 AM

Have we learned nothing of fish introductions?

In a perfect world, every fish introduced would be sterile. Additionally, people to obtain and actually introduce fish would be certain only sterile animals would be stocked and not a single E. lucius (Northern Pike) would slip through the cracks.

To move even further away from logic, I will say Murphy's law should be applied X2 since this is a living thing and X2 again since people are the agent of delivery. It's only a matter of time before you get burned when you play with fire.

#47 Guest_Kanus_*

Guest_Kanus_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 09:17 AM

I will say Murphy's law should be applied X2 since this is a living thing and X2 again since people are the agent of delivery. It's only a matter of time before you get burned when you play with fire.

Amen to that. Sometimes I can't believe how dumb our species is.

#48 Guest_mikemn230_*

Guest_mikemn230_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 01:58 PM

Um No.. Female Tigers were backcrossed in a lab before so it is not Theory. Additionally, where Musky and Northerns naturally exist together they avoid hybridization due to habitat preference and different spawn habitat and seasons. Even so it has been noted that where Northerns or Northern Musky from inland lakes have been stocked into a naturally occurring lake (containing one or the other species) that Hybrids often show up. They do then compete for spawning and will readily hybridize.

That said I'm with Martin on this point:
"Life will find a way. " - Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park



Re-read what you quoted. I never said back cross was impossible, and you can make just about anything in a lab. What I said was "never been a recorded naturally existing back cross", meaning one has never been found in the wild.

We can go in cicles forever about the issues of a backcross, but we are not talking about a place where either pure parent exists, rather one where only the tigers themselves exits.

Even in labs tiger muskie have never been able to be bred back to eachother and create viable offspring. For all intents and purposes, they are sterile.

Again, life finds a way, species often don't. In this case, tigers have so far never found any way, other then asking a pure pike and musky to get it on again. They have been tested in many other waters, and have reproduced in none of them.

Edited by mikemn230, 15 May 2009 - 02:02 PM.


#49 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 07:05 PM

Re-read what you quoted. I never said back cross was impossible, and you can make just about anything in a lab. What I said was "never been a recorded naturally existing back cross", meaning one has never been found in the wild.

We can go in cicles forever about the issues of a backcross, but we are not talking about a place where either pure parent exists, rather one where only the tigers themselves exits.

Even in labs tiger muskie have never been able to be bred back to eachother and create viable offspring. For all intents and purposes, they are sterile.

Again, life finds a way, species often don't. In this case, tigers have so far never found any way, other then asking a pure pike and musky to get it on again. They have been tested in many other waters, and have reproduced in none of them.


I do not need to re-read it...
This is what you wrote:

Even in the case of back crossing to pure parents is only theory.

This is not a "Theory" and it is a known fact that fertile hybrid females and potentially males exist. Eggs from these fish have been fertilized using male genetic material from both of the parent species. It is not a theory that there is a potential for these fish to spawn. Whether or not it has been recorded in the wild is a moot point as the evidence exists that it could exist.

You also said this:

They have shared environments for over millions of years, and still exist as distinctly different species.

And you seem to have missed what I said altogether.. Hybrids have been noted when Northern pike are introduced to a Musky lake and vise versa. They do not hybridize in the wild where they naturally occur together for they do not share the same habitat or spawning grounds in those cases. This is also why other Esox hybrids are also quite rare in natural systems. Start introducing them where they are not natural or native and you do see some increase in hybridization. Disrupt the natural system through hydrology or habitat and you also see increased hybrid potential. Fish begin to resort to mediocre habitat or just whatever is there. They adapt and adjust to changing conditions. "Life will find a way" and so will species... None of this is "theory" either it is observed and documented.

In all honestly, I could care less for this discussion as I do not care at all for lab bred mongrel sportfish, nor do I care to fish for them here in Michigan or in New Mexico. Frankly I do not understand the mindset that would legitimize the stocking of these bastard fish anywhere. I just do not get it at all.. If your into that I could care less, but you can be damn certain I'll be sure to kill every damn one of them I ever see within legal limits.

Point however in the above post is to point out you have some issues with your "sterile" theory and those particular holes are not exactly a small thing. It is not a legitimate argument to promote continued stocking of these fish to falsely state, on faith, that they are Sterile when we all know on scientific fact that they potentially are not. They also serve little real purpose except to get some fisherman's jollys off on. Stocking these stupid things is about money not about fixing a broken ecosystem that has been run into the ground by negligence and poor management of native resources.

#50 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2009 - 11:35 PM

Stocking these stupid things is about money not about fixing a broken ecosystem that has been run into the ground by negligence and poor management of native resources.



Well, I doubt if they are actually earning a profit on the deal, but your second point is spot on. I understand the appeal to sportfisherman (of which I am one) - that is after all why we have carp in America and LMB in Japan. Without jumping on anybody who likes the idea of tiger muskies in NM, let's just say "NO!"

As for 99% of species becoming extinct - well, this is one of the things that happens when exotic species invade...

This is one of those things that sounds like a good idea until somebody says "Um, I hadn't figured on THAT happening! Who'd a thunk it?"

#51 Guest_mikemn230_*

Guest_mikemn230_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 May 2009 - 07:39 PM

This is not a "Theory" and it is a known fact that fertile hybrid females and potentially males exist. Eggs from these fish have been fertilized using male genetic material from both of the parent species. It is not a theory that there is a potential for these fish to spawn. Whether or not it has been recorded in the wild is a moot point as the evidence exists that it could exist.


Fertile Male tigers in many decades of stocking, have not been found. I've tied to find any study ever referencing one, and could not.

If either parent species were present, where non-native, then they themselves would be the problem. Pike have been very destructive when introduced to places where they originally were not.

I would not even be bringing up the sterility argument if not for 2 things. 1, I really believe that in an environment where they are the only esocid, they will not reproduce. 2. In Montana Tigers have been used successfully to greatly improve trout fisheries.

If I could go back in time and stop the guy who released goldfish into the lakes where they are talking about putting in tiger muskie to control them, then I would much rather just stop the guy from putting in the Goldfish in the first place.

That however is not possible, the goldfish are there, and in some lakes they are 90%+ of the biomass, and the trout if still there at all are barely hanging on. They have not found a way. I wish they had.

The NM DNR feels the best way to control them is with a sterile predator. They feel it is far more cost effective than draining lakes and using rotenone, which ultimately can be futile, and is very expensive.

If you have a better suggestion to save those fisheries than the use of a predator that will not reproduce, then I certainly would like to hear it. I am reasonable, and if you do have knowledge of a better idea to get rid of, or at least cut the numbers of prolific invasive like goldfish, than I would like to know what it is too. Any other really good idea at elimination or containment I would easily get behind.

Posted Image

They do not hybridize in the wild where they naturally occur together for they do not share the same habitat or spawning grounds in those cases.



They do occur naturally, even in places where both parent species have always co-existed. http://lakestclairmu...iger_musky.html

They are rare however. Only the Muskie from the upper Mississippi River system, Leech Lake Strain, use different spawning habitat than pike. Other strains, even ones that also naturally co-exist with pike use the same environment to spawn, just at different times. The Muskie use it two weeks later than the pike. This is also bad for Muskie fry survival, as the Pike young eat many of the Muskie. The survival strategy of Muskies that use the same habitat two weeks later is simply to lay higher amounts of eggs, to guarantee enough are born that some will survive to adulthood. Every now and then a Pike will be hanging out just a little too late and spawn with a Muskie. It’s rare, but still happens now and then, yes even in the wild.

Even with the Leech Lake strain, Tigers still occur, very rare, but even on leech lake, they will sometimes be caught. This means that the deeper areas the Muskies are using, sure enough, on rare occasion a Pike will get in on the action.

When Pike are introduced to lakes where Muskies have lived without them in the past, those Muskies often are not only using the same places to spawn, but the same time too. When that happens tigers show up with a greater frequency.

Tigers do not only show up in populations that were originally isolated, they just show up more often when that happens.

Edited by mikemn230, 16 May 2009 - 08:05 PM.


#52 Guest_Mike_*

Guest_Mike_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2009 - 12:27 AM

So what native game species exactly are benefiting from the Tiger Musky? A quick look through Petersons lists the following species that would be considered gamefish:

Cutthroat Trout
Black Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Flathead Catfish
White Bass
Warmouth
Green Sunfish
Bluegill
Longear Sunfish

It also lists a few native suckers and no non-native suckers.

Aside from the Cutthroat Trout all of the other fish should be able to quite easily compete with goldfish and suckers. As for the trout, there needs are different enough from most of the suckers and the goldfish that if they shouldn’t be in direct competition for resources unless the stream or lake is already degraded beyond good trout habitat which would then allow the goldfish and some suckers to increase.

So again, how is the Tiger Musky benefiting native NM species, especially game species? And what species are receiving the benefiting?

I for one think the consequenses can only be negetive by introducing a top predator into an environment, although I have no clue if Tigers are sterile or not, I can only hope.

Andy


The problem with this post is only the Cutthroat trout, and the few native suckers are native.
Black Bullhead, Channel Catfish, Flathead Catfish, White Bass, Warmouth, Green Sunfish, Bluegill, & Longear Sunfish are not native to most of NM and in some cases all of the State. If you were to look up Quemado & Bluewater Lakes you would also find they stock Rainbow trout, and Smallmouth Bass too. It did not say what non native suckers were there, but I would bet they would be White Sucker sence its the most widely used as bait. They are only native to part of northern New Mexico. In lakes this messed up I see no problem with stocking Tiger Muskie.
That said, I do wish our forefathers didn't mess up our waters so bad. I would rather travel around and ceatch native fish. One fish from the South West that would give the muskie a run for its money would be the Colorado Squawfish (Pikeminnow). Its not native to New Mexico either though.
Mike
Mike

#53 Guest_MultispeciesTamer_*

Guest_MultispeciesTamer_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 June 2009 - 07:51 PM

Well I dont have time to read all this thread but tiger muskys are the dnrs best deffense. Unlike pike or musky they dont spawn (although some females have produced good eggs, normaly no males contain good milt). Tiger musky will prey on the most abondent easy to catch prey in this case goldfish and carp. They provide a good angling experince and disapear after about 10 years, maybe longer depending on the longevity of the each fish. This being a warm water area I dont see them lasting to many hot summers.

#54 Guest_Zephead4747_*

Guest_Zephead4747_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 August 2009 - 11:53 PM

Well I dont have time to read all this thread but tiger muskys are the dnrs best deffense. Unlike pike or musky they dont spawn (although some females have produced good eggs, normaly no males contain good milt). Tiger musky will prey on the most abondent easy to catch prey in this case goldfish and carp. They provide a good angling experince and disapear after about 10 years, maybe longer depending on the longevity of the each fish. This being a warm water area I dont see them lasting to many hot summers.




and then joe somebody decides to throw a pike into the lake. And then you have lots of them.

#55 Guest_mikemn230_*

Guest_mikemn230_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:19 PM

and then joe somebody decides to throw a pike into the lake. And then you have lots of them.


If Tiger are already established, likely any pike small enough to transport would be eaten very fast. Statistically there is only a small% of survivors in stocking, and "a pike", would one have to be male, and two be able to survive getting eaten by the larger Tiger Muskie, and three be able to find a fertile female tiger to spawn with. I think the chance it gets eaten by a Tiger is about very high, the chance is somehow survives and can locate a fertile female tiger (rare indeed) is very low.

Asking what happens if someone is putting Pike in is not relevant, as if someone put in a few pike into a lake with no esocids at all, the pike themselves are the problem. I would never suggest putting Pure pike into anywhere they are not native. You would find some huge pike, and they would eat almost everything else, and reproduce at an alarming rate.

With no large sterile esocid present (they are voracious cannibals), say 3 northern pike, 2 males and 1 female, with both males being 20” long and a 24” female, they would all then have a good chance of survival, and likely be able to find each other in the spring, have themselves an orgy and make thousands of more pike.

Again, that in and of itself would become the problem, regardless of if Tigers were already in there or not.

You put in Pike you have a Pike problem. Don’t put in Pike.

At best if tiger muskie were present in such a lake, they would take out the pike before they had a chance to reproduce, in a worst case scenario, the tigers would have no effect on the pike that would soon proliferate all by themselves.

The good news is trout and pike tend to co-exist rather well. The Sucker populations will go down, but not disappear all together. The Carp would be reduced, as less juveniles would make it to adult hood. The goldfish farm is over however. Goldfish do not hold up well with pike.

The bad news is any native predator now has to compete with pike, one of natures most perfect eating machines. The are also very efficient baby pike machines that reproduce quite well on their own.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users