Behavior of Tiger Muskie in Newman Lake, Spokane County, Washington

1
Behavior of Tiger Muskie in Newman Lake, Spokane
County, Washington
Randall Osborne, Marc Divens, and William Baker
Fish
Management Division
Warmwater Fish Program
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
2
Muskellunge Esox masquinongy
Northern Pike Esox lucius
Tiger Muskellunge Esox
masquinongy x E. lucius
3
Objectives

• Evaluate tiger muskie behavior in Newman Lake
  using bi-weekly tracking data and compare it to
  behavior described in Mayfield Reservoir
• Evaluate short-term (48-hour) behavior of Newman
  Lake tiger muskie in terms of travel rates and
  use areas
• Evaluate limitations of various tiger muskie
  tracking protocols
• Evaluate tiger muskie behavior and its effect on
  sampling efficiency

4

• Newman Lake
• Spokane County
• 1,200 acres
• Mean depth of 5.8 m
• Maximum depth of 9.1 m
• Primarily a warmwater fishery (largemouth and
  smallmouth bass, sunfish, yellow perch, and carp)
• Limited trout fishery (spring catchables)

5
(No Transcript)
6

• Transmitters
• Ultrasonic
• 64 mm in length 16 mm in diameter
• 69 83 khz
• 36 month battery life

7
Tracking Protocols -- bi-weekly intervals (2004
2006) -- hourly intervals for 48 hours (2006
2007)
8
Results
9
Bi-weekly Tracking
Lake Area Used
10
Bi-weekly Tracking
Movement between 2-week locations
11
Bi-weekly Tracking
Comparisons between Newman Lake and Mayfield
Reservoir

• Tiger muskie from both waters exhibited the
  same general patterns
• Use areas occupied larger areas in
  winter-spring
• Movement moved more during winter-spring
• Mean distance traveled between observations in
  Newman Lake was about twice that observed in
  Mayfield Reservoir for each period.
• Winter-spring Newman (892 m) vs. Mayfield (503
  m)
• Summer-fall Newman (671 m) vs. Mayfield (268
  m)
• Percentage of movements gt 100 meters
• Mayfield 30 of winter-spring, 57 of
  summer-fall
• Newman 90 of movements in both periods

12
Hourly Tracking
Travel Rates - Overall

• Wide Range of individual rates
• Short sections of shoreline or particular bays
• Traveled long distances and at high speeds

Travel Rates by Season
13
Hourly Tracking
Use Area by Season (48-hr)
14
Depth at Location (m)
15
Travel Rates Day vs. Night
16
Limitation of Various Tracking Protocols

• Mayfield and early Newman were tracked at
  bi-weekly intervals
• Bi-weekly tracking suggests relatively small
  proportion of lake is used
• Hourly tracking revealed that actual lake area
  used was much greater.

17
(No Transcript)
18
Sampling Efficiency

• WDFW Standard Protocols

Contour line 150 ft. out from shoreline
19
Sampling Efficiency

• WDFW Standard Protocols
• Spring
• 59 gt 150 ft. contour
• Summer
• 75 gt 150 ft. contour
• Fall
• 68 gt 150 ft. contour

Contour line 150 ft. out from shoreline
20
Sampling Efficiency

• WDFW Standard Protocols
• Spring
• 59 gt 150 ft. contour
• Summer
• 75 gt 150 ft. contour
• Fall
• 68 gt 150 ft. contour
• Specific protocols for sampling tiger muskie
  populations

Contour line 150 ft. out from shoreline
21
Conclusions

• TMK behavior is lake-specific
• Choosing proper tracking protocols is important
• TMK behavior at Newman Lake was unique and
  unexpected
• Why?
• Limited abundance of preferred prey in Newman
  Lake?
• Further studies in progress - Curlew Lake
• Bioenergetics modeling