Natural Repro of Muskies in PA: North Branch Susky

[Dave_W]

The PFBC recently identified a viable population of naturally reproducing muskellunge in the North Branch of the Susquehanna River and so stocking will be dropped there. Evidence of such spawning success (and in other rivers across the state) has been mounting for awhile as well as having been rumored by anglers for years. Similar findings of wild fish and cessation of muskie stocking has already been implemented on the West Branch.


Anyway, the PFBC's study has verified the wild population. Even better - the results found revealed a wild population that is producing young fish at about twice the rate that Wisconsin considers to be a viable wild muskie population. In addition to the spawning success, the PFBC was surprised to discover that the growth rate of the wild fingerlings was twice that of the fingerlings in the hatchery system.
"Class A for Muskies" anyone?


While I still think we need to stock muskies in our state's rivers (although perhaps on a reduced or yearling basis) this discovery is great news and bodes well for toothie guys as well as providing a new angle to the PFBC's current review of muskie management.

 

[Susquehanna]

I find this to be awesome news.

I'm sure there are going to be bass guys out there that cringe at the thought, but I think ill be heading north to try my luck on these guys.

 

[Dave_W]

Susquehanna wrote:
I find this to be awesome news.

Me too!

It's great that the PFBC is starting to get better info on river muskies. They have done some great work with very interesting results on some lakes, but for those of us who mostly fish rivers, this focus is welcome.

Welcome to our forum by the way - we're glad to have you. There's a bunch of us Susky fans and warm water guys on here. Of course, most of our forum membership are trout guys, so we bass and warm water folks are the "Warm Water Insurgents."

Again, glad to have yuh.
DW

 

[nomad_archer]

That is some pretty awesome news. I have never targeted toothies outside of a pike trip to Canada. Those pike were a blast. I am starting to have a desire to leave the trout alone and start chasing some of these WW fish a bit more on the fly. The Susky intimidates the heck out of me as a wade fisherman but I guess this season would be a good time as any to learn.

 

[Susquehanna]

Thanks!
I've been lurking for awhile. I do love Bass fishing and I'm not much in a way for trout.
I suppose I should say, as I have read on here before, trout are for suckers. :lol:

 

[Solitariolupo]

If your interested in musky and in the area I would visit the tionesta fish hatchery. The guys up their will talk your ear off and is very helpful about musky fishing. They are still trying to figure out on how to raise these little guys. The biggest problem is the musky eating each other. I give it up to the stocking program. I've been fishing the river for years and never saw one but the past year I've had some nice ones follow my bait in.

 

[Solitariolupo]

Here's a pic of some baby tigers.

 

[Dave_W]

Susquehanna wrote:
I suppose I should say, as I have read on here before, trout are for suckers. :lol:

Excellent- well played sir.

 

[Dave_W]

About threee years ago the PFBC had a muskie summit. I ("Fishidiot") attended and you can see some of the conversation about new PFBC muskie fingerling program:

here.

It covers some of the issues pertaining to feeding etc. Good stuff.

(Pease don't refresh the old thread - just FYI)

 

[Dave_W]

nomad_archer wrote:
That is some pretty awesome news. I have never targeted toothies outside of a pike trip to Canada. Those pike were a blast. I am starting to have a desire to leave the trout alone and start chasing some of these WW fish a bit more on the fly.

Muskies are a lot harder to catch than pike....but don't believe the old myth about "fish of ten thousand casts." Nevertheless, you really have to put your time in to get a muskie and wade fishing makes it even harder. Muskie flies are impossible to roll cast (at least for me) so you need to be able to double haul and be in a position where you have room to backcast. This can be tough along river shorelines in PA, which are usually vegetated. Fishing from a boat makes muskie fishing on the fly much easier, not to mention the ability to cover water, which increases your odds of encountering a fish.

Nevertheless, you can get 'em wading and muskies are often found in shallow water close to river shorelines.

 

[nomad_archer]

I realize wading for them is well a very tough proposition. But the plans for a boat fit in about 2 years down the road. I think this season I will focus on bass and learning to tie bass bugs before I move up to targeting musky.

 

[dc410]

nomad_archer wrote:
I think this season I will focus on bass and learning to tie bass bugs before I move up to targeting musky.

Catching a musky on my fly rod is definitely something that I would love to do. I always carry a couple of musky style flies (nothing huge - probably in the 7-8" range) and some wire bite guards in my warmwater pack just in case I happen across one. I have certainly not committed the time that is necessary to have a decent chance at one. Just too many big old carp out there to catch! You will have a lot of fun tying bass flies and targeting bass (Smallmouth or Largemouth) this year. Endless opportunities out there to explore and fish. Warmwater fishing is very relaxing and something that I look forward to every year.

 

[SteveG]

This is great news to hear, and I can't fathom why some bass guys wouldn't like these findings. I'm curious as to why the PFBC was surprised that wild fish had higher growth rates than the hatchery ones. Don't they feed pellets to the hatchery fish?

Nomad Archer, if you're targeting bass on water that also has musky, bring a heavier leader just in case. You will see musky, and they will go after bass streamers. You will not be happy about losing one due to lack of preparation. It's also likely that you'll be stricken with musky fever.

 

[Susquehanna]

I made the comment about bass anglers possibly being unhappy about these results because of many past conversations. There is a group of bass anglers out there that believe the stockings of predator fish, both illegal and the pfbc stockings, in the Susquehanna River drainage is part to blame for the smallmouth bass collapse.
Personally i think these are nothing more than grasping at straws and looking for a scapegoat. The smallmouth bass has lived in harmony with flathead catfish and muskellunge in their native range for eons in the Ohio River drainage and beyond.
While we can discuss the possible impacts of the native fish to the Susquehanna, it is likely in poor form to assume these 3 fish cannot co-exist in the Susquehanna.

 

[Solitariolupo]

Susquehanna wrote:
I made the comment about bass anglers possibly being unhappy about these results because of many past conversations. There is a group of bass anglers out there that believe the stockings of predator fish, both illegal and the pfbc stockings, in the Susquehanna River drainage is part to blame for the smallmouth bass collapse.
Personally i think these are nothing more than grasping at straws and looking for a scapegoat. The smallmouth bass has lived in harmony with flathead catfish and muskellunge in their native range for eons in the Ohio River drainage and beyond.
While we can discuss the possible impacts of the native fish to the Susquehanna, it is likely in poor form to assume these 3 fish cannot co-exist in the Susquehanna.

No matter what happens it pretty much ignorance or they are not that well educated on the fish in their waterways. Trout fisherman say stock more trout, bass fisherman just want bass and kill everything else, panfish fisherman just eat panfish. Just keeps going on. Little do they know why the fish comm stock what they do. As for musky they are native to PA and live with every other fish here. That's why I'm all for native stocking plus they can spawn in the wild. I don't get upset when someone catches and keeps a trout cause rainbows and Browns are invasive and are stocked for you to keep. Plus the percentage is low for them to spawn in the wild.

 

[Dave_W]

SteveG wrote:
I'm curious as to why the PFBC was surprised that wild fish had higher growth rates than the hatchery ones. Don't they feed pellets to the hatchery fish?

Yes and no.
Hatchery muskie fingerlings are fed both pellet and minnow diets. Fathead minnows had been the main food source for PA fingerlings. This was done because the fingerlings wouldn't eat pellets under all conditions and a more natural diet was thought to be better for the fish for a variety of reasons. However, fatheads and other live minnow forage are very expensive and the PFBC is currently trying to get a pellet feed that the fingerlings will eat as well as the hope that pellet feed could lead to higher growth rates.

One reason that tiger muskies became so popular a generation ago in hatcheries is that they were more willing to eat pellets and grew faster than purebreds.

Anyway, feeding fingerling muskies is expensive and complicated regardless of food source.

The matter of size is surprising because there isn't a belief that wild fish grow much faster than hatchery fingerlings. In fact, I think many folks assumed that hatchery fingerlings would be bigger than wild ones at 12 months because they had more consistent exposure to easy food (much like hatchery trout vs wild ones at the same age). The fact that the natural born muskies in the Susky are so much larger really is unexpected and somehow suggests that there is something else going on: maybe the wild fish are eating bigger prey species that are higher in nutrients? Or some other factor of river life, maybe earlier fry hatching, is at play?

Who knows? More study is definitely warranted.

 

[Dave_W]

Susquehanna wrote:
I made the comment about bass anglers possibly being unhappy about these results because of many past conversations. There is a group of bass anglers out there that believe the stockings of predator fish, both illegal and the pfbc stockings, in the Susquehanna River drainage is part to blame for the smallmouth bass collapse.
Personally i think these are nothing more than grasping at straws and looking for a scapegoat.

I agree. It's grasping at straws and scapegoating.

Afishinado grew up on the North Branch and can tell you stories about how some locals feel about muskies. :-o

 

[Dave_W]

With respect to the North Branch fingerling growth rates...it's important to remember that a lot more information is needed and that this study's conclusions are drawn from a few dozen fingerlings.

However, with that said, it's still intriguing...so let's speculate some more.

Northern pike are fairly prevalent in the North Branch and muskie biologists have long believed that, since pike and muskies have co-evolved in the same waters for thousands of years, that this has strengthed the muskie gene pool. Pike fry are born earlier in the spring than muskies and so, by the time the muskies are maturing, the larger pike fingerlings can eat the muskies (at least for a few weeks). This reduces the number of young muskies in a river and allows them to evolve into the higher food chain predator that they are as adults - at least this is the theory.

Anyway, with pike predation on wild muskies combined with other predators like SMBs eating the little ones, it might be possible that the smaller muskies and ones that were born later are simply eaten during the summer when temps are warm and bass are snarfing down anything that fits in their mouth. Such predation by pike in the early spring and bass in the late spring/summertime may select for the survival of bigger fingerlings leaving these bigger juveniles still alive the following year when the survey data is gathered by the PFBC biologists.

Anyway, just speculating here...

 

[Susquehanna]

That is an intriguing theory.
One that I cannot argue against.

The answer may be not be so elaborate. Flathead catfish in the Susquehanna River grow at a rate nearly 2x that of the Ohio River. While I cannot speak about the Smallmouth Bass in the Susquehanna as to growth rates, I will however be researching the topic, it is entirely possible that they too, have a greater growth rate. All things considered the Susquehanna is fed by many limestone fertile waters and the amount of life in it astonishing. Perhaps the fish are just gorging themselves at a rate that is not fed to their hatchery counterparts and are just conditioned to feed more.

I tend to be much more partial to your answer though, it just sounds more advantageously educated. ;-)

 

[Dave_W]

Susquehanna wrote:
Perhaps the fish are just gorging themselves at a rate that is not fed to their hatchery counterparts and are just conditioned to feed more.

Yep.
The heavy growth rates seem to be in the spring and summer months and it may be that a fingerling muskie in the North Branch simply is exposed to more food opportunites relative to his size than PFBC fish in their rearing tanks and ponds.

Anyone who has ever waded along slack water areas of big PA rivers in spring and summer can't help but notice the enormous amount of small fishes of every size and shape that seem to be everywhere: juvenile suckers, fallfish, and shiners, combined with all sorts of other small baitfish are poring out of feeder creeks and spawning areas...means that a young muskie can really stuff himself. Moreover, these prey species are growing at the same time that the muskies are so the muskies can gradually eat ever larger prey species during the prime months of April thru summer. The North Branch study suggests that wild muskie fingerlings are between 6-9.5" at mid summer. By this time, they can be eating baitfish on a daily basis that are 2-3" in length. I wonder how this compares to the minnow/pellet diet fed to fish in PFBC hatcheries by the same time in summer? Wouldn't surprise me if the wild fish really are eating better.

Anyway, if you're interested in the study, you can read it
here.