muskiedreams

I am talking about getting people who are opposed to it to attend the public county meeting to let them know that there is a strong opposition to herbicide treatments.

It was just a small area treated in June. That is only the beginning. If an effort against it isn't made now, it may only be a matter of time until they are putting chemicals in the entire lake. The company that is advising and doing the treatments makes more money that way.

URGENT!!! ** CHAUTAUQUA LAKE IS UNDER CHEMICAL ATTACK** YOUR VOICE IS IMPORTANT I am appealing to all LOU members in the Chautauqua Lake area who are against this to, if possible, attend this meeting and spread the word to others to show strong support for our concerned friends against further herbicide treatments. For those of you who are not aware, there was a group of rich lakefront owners who organized and were able to talk the local town and county legislators into funding and gaining a permit to treat a small portion of Bemus Bay with two herbicides as a so called "research study". They have plans to possibly expand the treatments to lake wide. I have previously posted some more details of this in recent posts to the NY Muskies Inc. topic pinned to the top of the LOU Musky, Tiger Musky & Pike Forum. Before they gain too much steam it is important show support against more herbicides being used in the lake. If we don't, Chautauqua Lake could end up similar to Waneta and Lamoka Lakes. There will most likely be very significant and possibly irreparable damage to all vegetation, fish, bait fish and other life that relies on and resides in the lake. I just received (and pasted below) a message from Jane Conroe, informing me of a meeting of the Chautauqua County Legislature where they will discuss and (I believe) vote on further funding allocated for more herbicide treatment. Jane and others have been diligently working on bringing together other individuals and groups in support of stopping any further herbicides from being used in the lake and there will be experts and representatives from other concerned groups there who will speak in opposition. There needs to be a good showing of support at this meeting against further treatment. I have also pasted below, a copy of the "Scientific review" Jane sent to me of the study that was prepared by SOLitude Lake Management and submitted as justification for the Bemus Bay herbicide application permit. By the way SOLitude is the same company who was paid to do the treatment. Conflict of interest? Also the same company that is applying the herbicides in Waneta and Lamoka Lakes. Email From Jane Conroe This morning’s paper confirms that per the county executive’s recommendation, the county legislature will have an opportunity to vote to financially support the herbicide program in Chautauqua Lake. This is the first opportunity the public will actually have to speak out against the unnecessary use of herbicides in our lake. This is an all call. Please come to the Wednesday, July 26 meeting of the County Legislature. It takes place on the second floor of the Gerace Building in Mayville. The public portion of the meeting begins at 6:30PM where members of the public are invited to speak about items on the agenda. This morning’s Post Journal reports that $100,00 (of bed tax dollars) is being recommended by the county executive to be given to the Management Alliance. Of that, $10,000 will be given for the herbicide application in Bemus Bay which will be doubled because this is a response to a Chautauqua Region Community Foundation challenge grant of $10,000. Know that included with this $10,000, Vince explains that the CLA should also get more money to extend their services longer in the summer. The CLA has not asked for these additional funds. Vince further explains, “…a tremendous smell. There were algal blooms. It was a very bad issue.” The application of herbicides into the lake will not reduce smell or algal blooms. Please come and bring as many people as you can to show the county government that we DO care about Chautauqua Lake and that we are willing to protect her. Several NYSDEC officials have spoken up and they are waiting for the public to show them that someone really does care. The clamoring for the use of herbicides has not been challenged by any of us publicly, until now. There will be people willing to speak, so for those not comfortable doing such, please still come. The presence of people jamming the hallway to the legislative chambers is a good message that says, “We all love this lake. She, Chautauqua Lake, does not need unnecessary herbicides that kill the native vegetation and do nothing to remove the tremendous small or algal blooms.” Further, if anyone is interested, I will send you a copy of the “Scientific Review of the document, “Aquatic Macrophyte Control at Bemus Bay, Chautauqua Lake June, 2017 Survey Report,” prepared by SOLitude Lake Management” which Becky Nystrom, Cassandra Brower and myself prepared for the NYSDEC at their request. It is the proof that the lake management company being used to do this and intended future applications should not be working in our lake. Please come, Jane Scientific Review TO: Mr. Paul McKeown, Supervisor, Regional Natural Resources, NYSDEC Region 9 FROM: Jane Conroe, Rebecca Nystrom, and Cassandra Brower RE: Scientific Review of the document, “Aquatic Macrophyte Control at Bemus Bay, Chautauqua Lake June, 2017 Survey Report,” prepared by SOLitude Lake Management DATE: July 14, 2017 This letter is to inform the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation of concerns we have with data and its analysis in the document, the Aquatic Macrophyte Control at Bemus Bay, Chautauqua Lake. For purposes here, it will be called the “Survey Report.” As two of the scientific reviewers of the recently completed Chautauqua Lake Macrophyte Management Strategy (MMS) and a staff member of the Soil and Water Conservation District, we believe this review of the Survey Report is important to the future of Chautauqua Lake as well as the future use of the MMS. The MMS has been reported to be a guiding document for the permit application of 2,4-D and Endothall in Bemus Bay. The MMS states on page 8-9, “Currently, NYSDEC permits the use of 2,4-D only for management of emergent plants.” It further states on page 8-10, “The use of 2,4-D is not recommended for the management of rooted macrophytes in Chautauqua Lake since its use in New York State is limited to emergent macrophytes. It may be appropriate for treating new infestations of water chestnut or other invasive species if deemed necessary.” The MMS clearly states the intended use for 2,4-D, yet this permitted action placed over 4800 pounds of 2,4-D into the water where no emergent plants were present. When reviewing the survey methodology, the abundance/density scale that was used for the rake tosses was developed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and modified by Cornell University. This scale was developed to estimate overall plant abundance. However, the modifications done by Cornell University were apparently not used by Solitude based on the descriptive information on p. 2 of their report. The Cornell modifications changed T, Trace to “a small handful or less”; S, Sparse to “two hands full” and M, Medium to “an arm full.” When the modified scale is used, correlations of these somewhat qualitative observations correlate very well to more labor-intensive dry-weight biomass measurements. This inconsistency makes comparison to other data sets difficult, if not impossible. Using the non-modified scale, plant density symbols were then assigned at each sample site and reported in the chart labeled, Aquatic Vegetation Survey. The scale is meant to be used to rate the Overall Aquatic Plant Abundance, which is listed in the sixth column of that chart. According to the methodology, this was also used to determine relative density of each species which is traditionally done as an estimated percentage of the entire rake. This subjective, letter-labeling of individual species density makes comparison to other rake tosses impossible, especially to the post-treatment samples that are to be taken at the same locations. It should also be pointed out that protocol for sampling is two rakes tosses and only one was done. We have concerns regarding the classification of the two target species, Eurasian water milfoil and Curly-leaf pondweed as “dense” abundance at the same GPS point. This occurred at five points where the consultant classified the rake toss as “dense-difficult to bring into boat”, but then also classified both species as “dense” within that one rake toss. Three of those five sites also had additional plant species present. We cannot visualize how, for example, Site 23 has an Overall Plant Abundance of dense, and then milfoil is labeled as dense, along with dense for curly leaf pondweed, moderate for common waterweed, and sparse for coontail. How can one rake toss bring back a rake that was so full of milfoil that it was difficult to bring into the boat, and that same rake was also so full of pondweed that it was difficult to bring into the boat and then that rake also had a rake-full amount of common waterweed and a handful of coontail? Additionally, this use of the classification method can skew data to indicate a greater abundance of these “dense” locations on one species when they are cohabitated with other species. The lack of using percentages of the different species per rake-full creates further doubt of the accuracy of the classifications, No plant-Dense, of all of the data points placed on the individual species maps. The calculations for percentage of aquatic macrophyte abundance in Table 1 also appear to be misleading. The percentage of sites was not divided by the total number of sample sites (205), but instead only by the total number of sites where that specific plant species was found. This can lead to misleading data portraying a greater coverage of a plant species across the whole sample area. For example, based on the data in Table 1 of the Survey Report, only 25.8% of all sites sampled in the Bay indicate medium to dense growth of Eurasian watermilfoil, an identified species of concern generating the need for herbicide application. The table figures add up to 34%. For the other species of concern, curly-leaf pondweed, only 20.9% of all sites sampled in the Bay indicate medium to dense growth. The table indicates 45%. On Page 3 of the Survey Report, the Results/Discussion state “At the time of the survey (May 24-25, 2017), Eurasian milfoil and curly-leaf pondweed were documented at 75% and 46% of the surveyed data points, respectively.” These stated percentages are correct but misleading. Milfoil was found at 75% of the 205 sites with 152 of those sites having no plants, sparse or trace amounts of plants In analyzing the maps, the majority of the “dense” classifications for the two invasive species fall in the same location on the North side of the bay. When overlaid with the herbicide application areas, a common reference location is the small peninsula that extends from the shoreline into the bay on the north side. It would have been convenient if the map generator could have kept a consistent scale between maps. This would be another aid in the comparison to post-treatment data. It appears however, that the areas of dense recordings are only on the fringe of the actual herbicide application area. If this is true, it leads to the question of using the zones to determine the treatment vs. control areas. The zones in the MMS were delineated because of differences in their characteristics. When designing an experiment with controls, different treatments should be applied to the same subject, in this case zone, so that the differences in treatments cause the change, not the original existing conditions. This fundamental flaw in the existing testing conditions again throws doubt on the comparison to the post-treatment data. In this process, we believe that proper identification of the entire plant community is critical. Three native species were likely misidentified in the Survey Report. Potamogeton richardsonii likely is Potamogeton praelongus, Najas flexilis likely is Najas guadalupensis, and Potamogeton foliosus likely is Potamogeton pusillus. The Survey Report states, “The goal of the management program is to reduce and prevent the further spread of exotic-invasives Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed from the existing infestations throughout the lake.” The data presented in this survey doesn’t correlate that there is a high or even medium density that could be considered an “infestation” of the target species, except in one area on the north side of the Bay. The Survey Report also states, “The foci of the survey were to document current plant conditions and sediment depths…” The sediment depths are reported however the purpose for accumulating those is not clearly stated or analyzed. Additionally, vocabulary that includes “likely contributing factors” and “higher … than expected” should not be included in the conclusion of such a report. Thank you for this opportunity to bring these observations to your attention. Sincerely, Jane Conroe, retired science educator, NYS CSLAP volunteer and Member of MMS Technical Review Committee Rebecca Nystrom, Professor of Biology and Member of MMS Technical Review Committee Cassandra Brower, District Technician for the Chautauqua Soil and Water Conservation District

Nice going!! What a team Hard to beat!! Hope your hand is OK. Ouch

Musky Fly Tournament Thought I would post this for those of you who chase muskies with a fly rod. Hosted by Nittany Valley Musky Alliance, Muskies Inc. Chapter 64. https://www.facebook.com/events/1371718829581657/

I believe the Three Rivers Chapter of Muskies Inc. has a tournament on Saturday and Sunday. I don't have any details. You can probably find out more on their website.

The Fishing Hall of Fame and IGFA each have their own submission rules and procedures. You have to submit to each one individually. For state records, I believe you have to submit to the state. And it may depend on what category(s) you are submitting for. Examples: largest for species, species for Lb test, fly rod, tippet. Just a few years ago, the IGFA added a C&R category (at least for musky, not sure about other species) where weight is not required, just length and girth with pictures using their official measuring device.

Edited out the "fun loving" in my post.

If it was in May during spawning season this is what they were likely doing. The Thousand Island Biological Station (TIBS), which is managed by Dr. John Farrell of SUNY ESF, has been collecting eggs and milt from spawning muskies in the spring in order to hatch the fry in the lab then return them to the nursery locations. Then they will check for young of the year (YOY) at those locations in the fall. Since the gobies have been predating on the eggs, there has been very poor recruitment of YOY in the known musky spawning sites. They are trying this to see if it will help. This is a very big concern which may affect the future of muskies in the SLR. It is great that we have Dr. Farrell and TIBS as well as the OMNR doing this and other important work in the SLR. It is also possible that they may have been inserting a transmitter for a radio tagging study, but that would require quite a lot of equipment for the surgical procedure. The Niagara Musky Association just started a radio tagging study in the Upper Niagara River and Lake Erie this past spring with the help of the DEC. They implanted 10 transmitters in muskies and installed several receivers in the area. This is part of a larger plan with the goal of identifying and improving viable natural spawning sites in the fishery in order to help support the self sustaining fishery for years to come. There are other receivers scattered throughout lake Erie and the river that were installed by other groups that will also help determine the movements of the fish. There is a similar network of receivers in Lake Ontario and the SLR.

Nice B-Day presents. Maybe the musky gods didn't recognize you without the face hair and the backward baseball hat.

Lamoka Outing and Curly Leaf Pond Weed in Waneta Lake This Spring Toothy and I were at Waneta on May 28th, the day after inland musky opener. There was a lot of curly leaf pond weed all the way out to about 10-12 feet. I'm sure some of you were there ans saw this. It was very thick at the north and south ends and tough to cast in less than 10 fow. Last week Jim heard from Zach who was there and said that there was dead weeds floating everywhere in big mats, making it difficult to fish. I was just there on Sat. with Todd and there was 2 other boats that joined me for an outing to try to find muskies in Lamoka (more on that later). In the afternoon we went to Waneta lake. The curly leaf pond weed was all gone. The only weeds we saw was some eurasian watermilfoil in 5 to 6 fow and less. There was also some algae bloom happening. I did some checking on the pond weed. Here is a link to a description of it. https://www.lakegeorgeassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/curly-leaf-fact-sheet.pdf That explains what happened at Waneta. The pond weed came early as explained and died off last week as normal. I just hope this doesn't have a big affect on the native plant population and have a negative impact on years to come. As the summer progresses I would appreciate members reporting on how the plant population progresses. It wasn't the greatest day for the outing at Lamoka, in terms of fish activity. Of the three boats, which each gave it 3 to 4 hrs (2 boats casting and 1 trolling) no muskies were caught or seen. There was only about 4 or 5 pickerel and a couple largemouth bass caught but we might have had the same results at Waneta. The vegetation we saw there was some eurasian watermilfoil in 5 to 8 fow, cabbage in the north half at 5 fow and less and south of mid lake was kind of barren except some lily pads close to shore. The cabbage was brown so I am not sure if it was healthy. We didn't go to the far south end (less than 8 ft). There was also some green snot algae on some of the weeds in the shallows. It would be great if we could document a few muskies out of Lamoka this year. Since the DEC didn't turn up any in the trap netting they did this spring, If we could turn some up, that would help to make a case to possibly start a new stocking program there since it is still unclear if the lake can support muskies. So if any LOU members are inclined to fish for or happen to catch any muskies there this summer, please post the info here or PM me with pics (best if pics show recognizable landscape), date, gender (if possible), measurement, how caught, depth, structure etc. Also if there are any fin clips, that would tell them the age and if it is stocked or naturally spawned. Please no hoaxes. We don't want to see resources wasted on an unworthy cause. Thank you for any support you can provide here.

Is this photoshoped? I see an extra foot, another shoulder and arm and what looks like part of someone's head hiding back there.

Main Line Heavy mono is tough to cast and will not allow you to get your lures very deep because of the resistance due to diameter and it floats which also hinders ability to get lure depth. Also, the more line you have out, the more belly there will be in the line which will add to the give of the inherent line stretch to reduce your hook setting power. Pike and musky have a bony mouth so you need all the hook setting power you can get. Braid has very little stretch and due to the smaller diameter per lb test, there will be less belly in the line so you will have much greater hook setting power. So the best choice for your main line is braid. If you do decide to use mono for your main line for pike, it would be best to not go too heavy and use a leader. This may depend on what lures and depth you are fishing. Leader Fluorocarbon or steel is debatable. One argument is that you will get bite-offs with fluorocarbon. It is definitely not as cut and abrasion resistant as steel, so if you use it you need to check for damage often and especially after a fish or contact with structure. Any damage from contact with structure will weaken the line so it can break easier. So if you are fishing in a way where you are often contacting structure, you might be better off using steel. I like to use single strand steel. You can do a haywire twist to terminate it. Stranded wire can become frayed and crimps used to terminate it can fail. So if you use it, you need to periodically inspect it for damage. If you use single strand wire, it should be replaced if you get a tight kink. Pike and musky are not as line shy as many other kinds of fish. So, often, steel does not cause them to shy away but under some conditions it can be a factor. Using non-coated stranded wire will be less visible than coated. Using single stranded steel will be less visible than both, it is less sensitive to abrasion and being able to terminate it with a haywire twist is more secure. Under some conditions fluorocarbon may be needed to minimize visibility. I haven't used it much because I don't want to take a chance on killing a musky by leaving a lure in its mouth. So some anglers here can give more advice about it in terms of what lb test, what brands (not all are equal), and how to terminate it.

Now he knows why it is worth going for hours or days without a rip.