Muskie Regulation Focus Group Meeting Chris Penne Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Presentation Roadmap Status of Utah s TM program Trends in management nationwide Results of 2015 Utah angler survey Goal for meeting
Status of Tiger Muskie Mgmt. in Utah Tiger muskie first stocked in Utah in the 1980s Nearing 30 years of muskie in UT Pineview first water to be stocked
Stocking Moratorium 2007-2009 Concerns about VHS (viral hemorrhagic septicemia) in imported muskie fingerlings prompt a halt to stocking
Stocking Moratorium 2007-2009 Three actions taken: 1. Catch & release regulation on Pineview and Newton reservoirs. 2. Search for clean stock of muskie 3. Construction of Lee Kay Warm Water Fish Hatchery
Catch & Release Regulation Implemented in 2008 in order to conserve existing fish
Search For a Clean Stock of Fish Search lasted over 3 years Certified disease free sources eventually found in Nebraska and South Dakota
Lee Kay Warm-Water Fish Hatchery Construction begins in 2008
Lee Kay Warm-Water Fish Hatchery
Lee Kay Warm-Water Fish Hatchery Many improvements made over the years
2009: Stocking Resumes
2012: Utah Stocks Own Tiger Muskie
2013: A Major Setback ( and a black eye)
2014 Stocking continues with fish imported from Nebraska Pineview receives 10,000 fingerlings New brood muskellunge obtained for Lee Kay Hatchery
2015 Utah continues to produce & stock its own tiger muskie. 2,400 fish raised and stocked An agreement with Nebraska allows Utah to meet and exceed stocking quotas Pineview stocked with 30,000 fingerling tiger muskie
2016 Utah continues to produce & stock its own tiger muskie. 3,300 fish raised and stocked An agreement with Nebraska allows Utah to meet and exceed stocking quotas Today: Pineview stocked with 22,000 fingerling tiger muskie
Looking Ahead Improvements to LK Hatchery will continue UT will continue to produce more of its own tiger muskie each year NE will assist UT in meeting its stocking needs until we reach muskie independence.
Trends in Muskie Mgmt Nationwide Number of muskie anglers growing
What drives potential for trophy fish? 1. Food resources 2. Water temperature 3. Harvest 4. Genetics*
Water temp & growth potential 1958. Journal of Marine Sciences
Lake size explained 70% of observed variation in ultimate length among lakes
Harvest Can definitely influence size structure of muskie population Harvest regulations have been getting more restrictive over time
Harvest regulations by region Western States Regulation Number of states States Notes Minimum length 50" 1 WA Minimum length 48" 1 ND Minimum length 40" 5 UT, ID, SD, NE, NM Minimum length 36" 1 CO Minimum length 30" 1 WY Catch & release only 1 OR Just started muskie program
Harvest regulations by region Midwestern States Regulation Number of states States Notes Minimum length 54" 1 MN Minimum length 50" - WI 3% of muskie waters Minimum length 45" - WI Minimum length 42" 1 MI Harvest tag required Minimum length 40" 2 IA, WI Minimum length 36" 3 IN, IL, MO Minimum length 28" - WI 3% muskie waters Catch & release only - WI No size restriction 1 OH
Harvest Regulations by region Eastern States Regulation Number of states States Notes Minimum length 40" 2 PA, NY Minimum length 36" 2 TN, MD Minimum length 30" 1 KY Catch & release only 1 VT Artificial lures only
Summary of 2015 Survey 40% of respondents target tiger muskie 48% would not harvest a muskie 47% would harvest (most preferred fish >36 long) No consensus on trophy length 40 vs. 45 vs. 50
DWR Mission Serve the people of Utah as Guardian and Trustee of Utah s Wildlife Goal: Maintain and expand quality fishing opportunities. Balance the desires of a diverse angling public.
Goal for Tonight Craft or propose a harvest regulation that allows some level of harvest while preserving our trophy muskie fishery
Possible Regulations Minimum length limits (40, 45, 48 ) Maximum length limits (35, 40 ) Slot limit (36-48 ) Tag System Suggestions welcome