Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tiger Muskie
#1
I just noticed on the DWR Webpage that they stocked 750 15"muskie in pioneer park in brigham city. Is it just me or does this seem weird to anyone else???
[signature]
Reply
#2
I'm guessing it's a typo. They show 1125 in Willow Park Pond, 375 in Salem Pond, 750 in Riverton Pond, 750 in Parowan Pond, 375 in Kaysville Pond, 375 in Highland Glenn Park Pond all on the same day. I doubt it for 4 reasons. 1) I don't think they raise Tiger Muskies to 15 inches. They always plant fingerlings. 2) They haven't had that many to stock even if they could raise them to that size. 3) They stock them to control over abundant species, which isn't normally the case at Community ponds. 4) They just barely got 4200, 3 to 5 inch Tiger Muskies that they bought from South Dakota.
[signature]
Reply
#3
i see. makes sense.
[signature]
Reply
#4
Here is a link for an article to where they planted some tiger Muskie. There were three places mentioned.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/news/42-uta...aters.html
[signature]
Reply
#5

Thanks for the link Kevin, sounds like some good things are coming. I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope it all comes together this time.
[signature]
Reply
#6
Fishrmn is correct. It was either a typo or some kind of odd database index error. We have not stocked tiger muskies in the community ponds. Only a couple of people have access to update the database, and they are out of the office today, but we'll get this corrected as soon as we can.

For those of you that haven't seen it, here's a video of the tiger muskie stocking at Joes Valley just over a week ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62C4ttP9P...e=youtu.be
[signature]
Reply
#7
Why don't you stock true muskie's instead of Tigers? Is it because the muskie's are not sterile?
[signature]
Reply
#8
True musky are not stocked for a few reasons: 1) they are more difficult to raise/rear in hatcheries than even tiger musky and 2) they are not sterile and, therefore, much more difficult to control in a fishery 3) tiger musky, as a hybrid, grow quicker and are not as vulnerable to temperature extremes that we see in utah waters (high temps to low temps).

Tiger musky are stocked in Utah waters where an overabundance of prey species exist. Many people believe that the musky will "control" this overabundance, but I do not. Though the tiger musky will prey heavily upon them, the number of tiger musky stocked and the number of fish the tiger musky prey upon will not cover the reproductive capabilities of most prey fish--like perch or chubs.
[signature]
Reply
#9
Oh okay. So what would be a better choice for "controlling" prey fish?
[signature]
Reply
#10
I am not sure there is...that is the danger of having nonnative fish stocked into habitats where mother nature cannot control their numbers. It is also why you very rarely see native fish stunt because of fish density. The reality is that predator and prey evolved together in the same ecosystems. When fish are removed from their natural environment, they can be difficult to control.

The best real control we have is rotenone. Rotenone, though, is nondiscriminatory and will kill all the fish. But, where prey species are too abundant and more desirable sport species are being negatively impacted by them, rotenone is the best solution. Also, in some situations (like with perch and bluegill), liberal harvest regulations allow fishermen to help with the problem. But, in some situations (like with Utah chubs) harvest will never be very high.

The good thing about the tiger musky program is that they are providing a sport fishery in Utah that we wouldn't otherwise have. And, they are doing it in fisheries where they can only help.
[signature]
Reply
#11
What about wiper growth rate and aggressiveness compared to tiger trout and tiger musky?
[signature]
Reply
#12
I like this topic its a good one. personally I loved haven them out at newton it was the good place for them I love tigers cause they are CRAZY fish
[signature]
Reply
#13
Then I know folks who dread the introduction, claiming it ruined the fishery.
I've enjoyed it for panfish, bass, and the lucky-musky encounter. Though I can see the despair of losing a quality lure to some toothy beast. The surprise factor of having your perch swallowed by a musky is something of itself.

We'll see what the future brings. Wonder how much all that rain did for the level? Bet the farmers get it while they can!

just got my new inflatable kayak. Maybe I drag the kids up and wallow in the mud this weekend!
Reply
#14
[quote bornfishin]What about wiper growth rate and aggressiveness compared to tiger trout and tiger musky?[/quote]

They are all similar and all display hybrid vigor...the neat thing about hybrids, though, is the ability fisheries managers have in controlling their numbers. Reproduction and stunting aren't issues...if their numbers are too high, reduce stocking. If their numbers are too low, increase stocking. The danger with species like walleye, pike, brook trout, and perch among others is that in the wrong places they stunt and their numbers become virtually uncontrollable.
[signature]
Reply
#15
Removing TMs from Newton would actually accomplish the exact opposite goal than what you desire--instead of having more big bass, removing TMs would result in fewer big bass and more little ones.

Your words from another thread. Question is do the muskies help control fish species, or don't they? Or is it all relative to the argument your trying to make? You put enough sharks in the tank with the other fishies, pretty soon all you'll have is sharks.
[signature]
Reply
#16
Tiger musky were put into newton and other reservoirs in hopes that they might control fish populations...I don't think that they can because the fish that they are trying to control reproduce at too high of levels. But, for every perch they eat in newton, for example, that is one less fish to exacerbate the problem...I have never said anything different. Not sure what point you are trying to make!
[signature]
Reply
#17
[quote catmaster23]Removing TMs from Newton would actually accomplish the exact opposite goal than what you desire--instead of having more big bass, removing TMs would result in fewer big bass and more little ones.
[/quote]

These are my words...and I stand behind them! But, they do not contradict anything else I have said. The TM were not controlling the populations of perch, crappie, or bluegill in Newton--those fish were all still stunted! The TM were eating them, though. And, by doing so, they did keep their numbers lower than they would have been....
[signature]
Reply
#18
Control is control no matter how you spin it.
[signature]
Reply
#19
So, what is your definition of "control"? To me, if the tiger musky were controlling the perch, crappie, and bluegill numbers, the perch, crappie, and bluegill would be much less abundant and much bigger than what they were when they were first introduced. But, that hasn't happened. So, they haven't "controlled" them! But, the TM have definitely eaten their fair share...so, the trend of those fish would have a much steeper curve on the increase than what they would have without them!

I am not trying to spin anything...you are the one trying to spin things! Think of it this way: let's say that there is a whole in the dam and the dam is leaking water because of it. Let's say that the whole is the size of your thumb. If you put your pinky in that thumb size whole, would it "control" the water leaking from the dam? I say, NO! But, because you have a pinky in that thumb size whole, you are decreasing the amount of water leaking. So, you are slowing the process of water running through the whole. The same can be said about the TM and the perch, crappie, and bluegill in Newton. Putting TM in the reservoir is like putting a pinky in that thumb sized whole. It is not "controlling" the problem, but it is slowing it down!
[signature]
Reply
#20
Okie Dokie
[signature]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: