What do you think? [Archive] - Outdoor Network Forums

DonH

02-17-2009, 09:12 AM

I've mentioned this before. I've been going to the TFF since 1960. Several guys and myself camped on islands for many years once we reached adulthood. Then as our kids grew up, they joined us on these camping trips. Now we rent a large cabin (with age comes wisdom), but we often sit around a campfire at night talking about the "good old days". I can tell you with absolute certainty that the crawfish population has crashed. I used to catch them and toss them into a fire for a snack. Virtually every walleye we caught years ago had crawfish in their gullet (I cleaned the fish and I always checked). We all remember this. Caught walleyes all over the flowage and they almost always had crawfish in their gullet.

Blue Ranger has pointed out that crawfish is probably not their preferred prey, and he's probably right, but the fact is that in this body of water, that's what they were feeding on. Maybe the yellow perch population was not strong enough to totally support the walleye population?

Enter the smallmouth into this equation and the effect on the crawfish population has been dramatic. We used to see hundreds with a flashlight along shore of the islands we camped on at night. The last time we camped (3years ago), not only did we not see a single crawfish, we tossed some guts along shore to attract some, and none showed up. Not a one.

So along with smallmouth bass taking over the same habitat (I have some rockbars that we only caught walleyes on for decades, and now we're catching as many or more smallmouths on these spots than walleyes), they have also changed the foodchain. I agree that the walleyes may need some help. Whether it's a slot limit, or size limit, that decision is beyond me. Maybe it's as simple as an enforced bag limit. If you care about the TFF, you follow the law as to the amount of fish you take. No more catching your limit, taking it to shore and going back out to catch more. The bag limit needs to be enforced and if the DNR can't do it, then we who care must report those that are breaking the law.

And that is my 2 cents worth. Have a great day.

ski2313

02-18-2009, 10:48 PM

Maybe Tom502 can chime in on this? I know he has good information on the TFF management plan.. if I remember correctly, it was going to be managed going forward for #'s of walleye and not size.

BlueRanger

02-19-2009, 12:52 AM

Here's a link to the full text of the plan:

http://www.turtleflambeauflowage.com/Turtle-FlambeauFMP3-07.pdf

Randy

02-19-2009, 03:11 PM

Interesting Read.

I'm a little discouraged by the high priority there seems to be on "harvesting" walleye out of the TFF. Granted, I like a walleye shore lunch just as much as the next guy, but by no means does the enjoyment of my experience hinge on eating my catch. If a slot limit or decreased bag limit eventually leads to more and bigger fish, is there anyone out there who would be opposed?

George

02-19-2009, 08:19 PM

I've witnessed the enactment of a slot limit on a lake in Canada. Lac Des Mille Lacs in Ontario. The limits are a 4 fish limit for walleyes, northerns and smallies. Walleyes have no minimum size limit but you are allowed only one fish per limit over 18.1" (46cm). (Ontario doesn't have a possession limit. Your daily bag limit and possession limit are the same. Don't go over, the MNR has come into cabins and counted the filets in the frying pan!) Northerns have no minimum size limit but a slot of 27.5" (70cm) to 35.4" (90cm). You are allowed only one fish over 90cm. Currently, there is no size or slot limit on smallies. When this all began, many thought that life as they had known it had come to an end. However, in 6 or 7 years the results have been nothing short of spectacular. Sure at first it was a little tough, but once you get through those intial years, the advantages of the slot become obvious. Last summer I can't begin to count the number of 18" to 26" walleyes and 32" to 35" northerns I threw back. How much fun is that! Do we eat fish? Sure. Do we bring fish home? Absolutely. But the reason a lot of us fish is a love of the act of fishing, not necessarily the act of catching. If you judge your enjoyment of fishing by what you catch, more often than not you are going to be dissapointed. If your reason for fishing is to fill your freezer, go to to Snow's IGA...it's cheaper and whole lot less frustrating. But if you're like me and just love being out on the water and anything that bites is a bonus, (okay maybe not the deer flies and mosquitos) then I feel the slot limit is the way to go. I've seen the results and am convinced.

esox1

02-19-2009, 08:55 PM

I have heard from other anglers who are more informed that the slot limits do seem to work--How would they work with the spearing of any and all size walleye;s though? maybe they would not help at all---I do have to agree with those about the smaller walleye being more desirable to eat----Our group throw back all walleye 20" and larger. we catch quite a few every year although we catch them on the other Mercer area lakes and not the TFF. But those TFF 12-15 inch walleye are just fine for us to eat---But the Crappie--Now that's what I am after -- in my book beats all the others for Taste!

MuskieRandy

02-20-2009, 09:30 AM

I was at the stakeholders meeting they talk about in the Fishery Management Plan. At that meeting there wasn't much talk about slot limits. My sense is that the DNR isn't all that inclined to a slot limit.

The fishermen there basically said they want a decent numbers fishery with the occasional big walleye. (As opposed to a low numbers, trophy fishery)

So I just went back and read the report, and what it says basically is that as long as the walleye goals are being met, they will stick with the current limits.

The current goals (from the plan) are:
WALLEYE: A population of moderate to high density with a moderate proportion of quality-size fish

Objective 1.1: 4 to 8 adult walleye per acre in spring population estimates
(Adult walleye are defined by DNR as all fish over 15 inches long and all smaller fish for which gender can be determined.)

Objective 1.2: Of all walleye 10 inches and longer captured by fyke netting in early spring, 30-50% should be 15 inches or longer (PSD = 30-50%).

In the meeting, the guides present said that they have no trouble getting the bigger walleyes, while a number of "regular" fisherman stated that they are getting a lot of small walleyes, so it seems the bigger fish are there, but only the guides have it "figured out". The report mentions this fact.

Anyway, back to the goals..... The first says "moderate proportion of quality-size fish". I suppose that is open to interpretation. I would say that if the average fisherman only gets a 18"+ walleye every hundredth walleye, that might mean the goal is not being met. If the guides get limits of 18"+ every time out, does that mean that in fact the big walleyes are there, and the goal is being met?

Also, I suppose they have to consider the flowage ecosystem. Maybe the TFF can't support huge numbers of big walleye like the Great Lakes, Wisconsin river, or whatever. This may factor into the decision on the limits. In other words, a slot limit may be somewhat ineffective in this particular body of water.

I'm not a fish biologist, so I'm just throwing these questions out for discussion....

BlueRanger

02-20-2009, 04:10 PM

Nice to see somebody presenting a thoughtful perspective on this topic. I also give points to Esox1 for realizing that just because a certain type of regulation worked on one lake, that doesn't mean it's the right approach for every lake. And that's the level of thought that's missing from this discussion. But first a quick side note to Esox1 - they don't allow spearing of "any and all sized walleyes". Actually, there's a 20" maximum size limit, except 1 fish may be between 20-24" and 1 fish may be any size. Read the regulations here:

http://glifwc.org/regulations/WI_Spearing.pdf

Back to the topic - it's easy to cite numerous examples of other lakes where various types of regulatory changes produced wonderful results. There are also cases where the very same types of regulations have resulted in unexpected and disastrous consequences. Thankfully, success stories are more numerous than failures, because today's fisheries managers are well-educated, have a good and growing body of fisheries research to draw on and hence tend to make good decisions when they begin with adequate data and realistic goals. But that's the missing element in the anecdotal stories recounted here.

Take George's case as an example. What were the population conditions that lead biologists to impose those slot limits on Lake Des Mille Lacs? Obviously the population was thought to be deficient in some way, or they wouldn't have changed anything. Was it overall numbers, size structure, or a combination of the two? And what were the presumed causes? If you're going to advocate a minimum size limit, a maximum size limit, a harvest slot, a protected slot, or a change in bag limits, start by understanding what undesirable population conditions your proposed solution is designed to counteract, and present the data to show that the TFF fits those conditions. Whether it worked somewhere else is irrelevant.

One well-known fact about walleyes is that population density (abundance) is often not reflected in angling success. There is a wealth of data indicating that lakes with very stable walleye populations can produce dramatic changes in catch rates from year to year, depending on weather, prey abundance, and a variety of other factors - I'm sure gas prices had a significant effect on last season's harvest. And walleyes are one of the more difficult species to catch to begin with. So how many and what size any one person is catching, or the total number being harvested, often provides little or no insight into what's actually swimming in the lake.

I believe the TFF is completing a transition from a period of walleye overpopulation that peaked in the 1970's, when overabundant walleyes suppressed other species and provided easy angling due to inadequate prey availability. It wasn't a walleye factory, it was a walleye sweatshop. It may have been great for walleye anglers, but it wasn't ecologically sound. What we'll have going forward is a more diverse and balanced fishery that will provide more stable long-term angling opportunities for a variety of species. Spearing may have been part of the catalyst for this change, but I suspect that increased angler harvest due to modern boats, motors and electronics, improvements in angler knowledge and improved access to the Flowage played a much greater role. We're going to see a walleye population that fluctuates around an average of around 5 adult fish per acre, which is still well above the regional average, with 20-30% annual harvest keeping the population stable but also limiting the opportunities for fish to grow to trophy sizes.

In this environment, larger walleyes are going to be harder to catch, because they'll have better access to preferred natural prey - it's tough to catch 20" walleyes on 3" minnows when they have plenty of 6" perch to eat. And on most of the trophy waters MuskyRandy mentions, that's not how they catch the big fish. Start throwing or row-trolling 6-8" Rapalas once in a while and you'll find that the TFF is not completely lacking in bigger fish, although I've never caught a real trophy walleye there. That reminds me of a trip to Wollaston Lake in Saskatchewan several years ago, when my buddy and I and two guys in another boat spent a couple hours one afternoon pulling 6 lb. walleyes out of a big weed flats every 2-3 casts - on M&G Musky Tandem spinnerbaits.

If any change in the walleye regulations is proposed (I think the odds are about 2-1 against), the purpose would be to add a few trophy size fish to the mix, and the likely options would be either a maximum size/1 over limit (for example, a daily bag limit of 3 with only 1 fish over 19") or a protected slot/1 trophy limit (3 fish daily, no harvest of 19-25" walleyes, only 1 may be over 25"). Those numbers are just examples, but I don't think they'd be too far off. There's no point to a minimum size limit or harvest slot, because there's never been a lack of natural recruitment in the lake and the fish reach sexual maturity before they reach a size that's desirable for most anglers to keep. I do think we'll see a proposal to increase the musky size limit to 45-50" in an effort to increase the numbers of adult fish and try to restore a naturally reproducing population. I don't expect the smallmouth and panfish regulations to change.

Also, a note on crayfish. Try pulling up one of those commercial traps sometime - okay, maybe you shouldn't, but I didn't know what the float was for and I took a peek - and you'll see that there's not much to worry about. Again, just because they're not wandering around in the open at night (would you, with a bunch of 3 lb. smallies swimming around?) doesn't mean they're not there.

Randy

02-20-2009, 05:15 PM

Thank God the days of walleye overpopulation on the TFF are behind us. I wasn't around for it, but sounds like it must have been brutal! Damn those walleye sweatshops!

Could it be more obvious that response was written by a smallmouth fisherman??

I don't think 4 1/2 hours is an acceptable time to harvest a walleye. I don't think 1.5 walleye / acre over 15" is acceptable.

It's great the guides are still catching large walleye and lots of them. What about the person who only gets to visit the TFF once or twice a year and isn't tuned into their specific pattern? What about young anglers who aren't as skilled and don't have the patience to wait four hours for their bobber to go down? What about those of us who can't afford side imaging units to locate schools of fish and underwatre structure?

It appears from the vissioning session the majority of attendants were there for walleye. The majority of people I've come across on the TFF are also after walleye. Knowing the walleye population and average size has decreased, what harm is there in modifying our limits. I'm no fish biologist but if an angler is foced to throw back fish between 16" and 20" how can that not lead to a larger population of fish over 20" In the same respect, if the daily limit is decreased to two, how can that not lead to a larger walleye population? Why is nothing be done?

bunczak

02-20-2009, 05:29 PM

I normally fish walleyes on the WI river and make a trip to the TFF most years. The part of the WI river that I fish has a 15" minimum size limit with a 20-28" protected slot, 5 fish per day, one over 28" allowed. This works very well, it means that "eaters" have to be at least 15" and as many of you know, walleyes put on quite a bit of meat between 13" and 15", but protects those larger females (which I don't want to eat anyhow-for the good of the fishery and mercury issues), while allowing someone to keep a trophy to put on the wall.

The regulation has worked so well on the WI river, that it was kept after the initial pilot period and I believe it has been expanded further up the river.

The only negative is that since almost every walleye that is 15.000001" or larger gets kept, you can catch 30 -50 fish on a good day and have very few "keepers". I don't look at this as a big problem, since I am very excited to catch that many walleyes.

I have to agree with Blue Ranger about the size of lures and sizes of walleyes. On a particular stretch of the WI river, where many complain that there are very few fish over 15", I have had very good success on large walleyes in the fall on #13 rapalas. 13" eyes don't usually hit a bait that large, but 20+" ones certainly do- along with some bonus muskies.

BlueRanger

02-21-2009, 01:07 AM

I don't think 4-1/2 hours to catch a walleye is acceptable either. But that's an average, and I made a decision a long time ago that I had no intention of being an average angler. You should also take note that those numbers are for the entire season - that same year, the catch rate for the month of May was 1.2 hours/walleye. And if you don't think 1.5 walleyes per acre over 15" is acceptable, consider that in the TFF, that's 21,000 fish (Jeff used 14,000 acres for his calculations). If you can't get a few of them to bite, you're doing something wrong. It might surprise you to know that in 1975, when the population estimate was 50% higher and the estimate for walleyes over 15" was 3.4 per acre, the creel census found an average catch rate of 6.7 hours per walleye. Seems to me that if we apply your dad's logic, those numbers prove that if we want better walleye fishing, what we really need is further reductions in the walleye population. But it reinforces the point I made in the last post - when it comes to walleyes, what people catch and what's actually in the lake are two very different things.

My dad is lucky if he makes it up there 4-5 times a season, and although he's far from helpless on the water, I don't think of him as a serious fisherman. He just enjoys spending some quiet time in his boat, and unless he's fishing with me, about the farthest he ever gets from the dock is Springstead Landing to put in and take out. But he goes out and throws jointed Rapalas at nearby shorelines for a couple hours every evening, and almost always brings home some nice walleyes. Last year, most of them were 17-18" and his biggest was 26". Last summer, they had my 8-year-old niece up there for a week, and she spent a lot of her time sitting on the end of the dock with a worm and bobber, hauling in plenty of nice perch, bluegills, sunfish, walleyes, smallmouth and even a 3 lb. sucker. Point is, you don't need to be a guide or fish the lake every other weekend to do well - or maybe the moral of the story is that you should be fishing in front of our dock...but not all at once, please. Boy, now I wish I hadn't mentioned it.

As for me, I'm certainly not a "smallmouth fisherman". I fish for largemouth, smallmouth, musky, northerns, walleye, crappies, perch, trout and salmon, in various places and at different times of the year. I've caught trophies of every one of those species EXCEPT smallmouth - in spite of catching and releasing thousands of them over the past several years, I'm still looking for a 6 lb. fish. I consider myself equally good at catching all of those species, and have been doing so successfully since I was less than half my current age and doing it from a 12' Mirro with a 6HP 1966 Evinrude, a pair of oars and an old Lowrance flasher, or standing on some rocks along the Lake Michigan shoreline, or waist deep in one of the tributaries, or off the public dock at a 5 acre pond a couple miles outside of town. When it comes to the TFF, I may have some built up some advantages in water time and equipment in recent years, but I've had no trouble catching walleyes there since day one about 18 years ago, when I didn't have the fast boat and fancy sonar and only had time to get up there a few weekends (back then, the regular 2-day kind) a season. I've certainly improved my skills and knowledge of the lake every year, but in my opinion, the fishery has also improved for every species with the possible exception of muskies, and with them it's hard to tell because musky fishing conditions have been less than ideal during significant parts of the last couple seasons.

As for the hypotheticals, there are quite a few answers to the "what harm could come of it" question, and one is that a 2 walleye daily limit could put the place you sleep when you come to visit out of business, because for some unknown reason, even anglers who have never caught a 3-fish limit in their life will still choose to go somewhere else where it's at least technically possible. As for adverse impacts on the fishery itself, there a variety of possibilities. Here's one from a recent article written by a friend of mine who's the outdoors editor at the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

"Most of Minnesota’s major walleye lakes have slot limits — regulations that generally require anglers to keep small fish and one token trophy and throw back larger, breeding-sized fish. However, slot limits can vary greatly from lake to lake.

Not only have slot limits added complexity to the regulations, there is research showing protecting large numbers of breeding fish might be detrimental to young walleyes. A recent Lake Mille Lacs report suggests cannibalism contributed to a significant loss of the 2006 hatch of walleyes, which began as the largest year class ever recorded in Mille Lacs. The report concluded 18 percent of Lake Mille Lacs walleye diets in 2006 were small walleyes.

“Lower survival of young fish may be a recruitment response to the increased number of large fish since Treaty regulations began in 1997,” the report states."

In other words, more big fish in the population may lead to fewer keeper-size fish overall. Some anglers are also complaining that walleye populations have become much more prone to boom and bust cyclical fluctuations since the implementation of the slot limits.

I think we have a very good fisheries biologist who will take a sensible approach based on the comprehensive survey results. I have no inherent objection to any type of new regulation, but I think the survey data will show that the walleye population is in very good shape and no changes are required. That's just my prediction, and we'll find out in a year or so if I'm right or wrong.

Bunczak, here's a Wisconsin Sportsman article that mentions the Wisconsin River slot limit. It's clear from the article that this is not a permanent change yet. What they did was extend the expiration date of the experimental regulation because they needed additional time to determine whether it's working, and it sounds like there are some doubts.

http://www.wisconsinsportsmanmag.com/fishing/walleyes-fishing/WI_0308_01/index2.html

George G

02-22-2009, 04:01 PM

As long as there is spearing allowed I don't think doing a slot size and other restrictions is going to help, the flowage is doing fine. Catch and eat or catch and release all the folks I meet at the flowage seem to be happy. Just let the DNR do their thing and I think all is well. I support what the DNR's yearly plan is .

Randy

02-23-2009, 02:59 PM

Hard not to be happy on the flowage, it's a beautiful place.

I think there is still a decent walleye population in the flowage, I'm just not sure how many big fish there are. If the conditions are right I plan on taking Blue's advice and presenting larger lures to the fish. I just need a TFF trip that doesn't include a massive cold front to try it. Our normal trip usually has us arriving in shorts and t-shirts and leaving in long johns and coon skin hats.

Paul Rothenberger

02-23-2009, 03:02 PM

I can tell you with certainty as can Don Hill and several other long time TFF flowage fisherman that this has never been a trophy walleye lake. Even before spearing the maximum length achieved on the flowage is about 25". This was during the days of zero fishing pressure when we would go the entire memorial weekend and not see another boat. The size of flowage walleye has to do with genetics and this is included and discussed in the last DNR survey on the fishery. I would not be in favor of slot limits on the flowage even though I do like these limits on other lakes. It could be utilized for Muskies and Smallies but not walleyes.

Regarding the crawfish population, I remeber the old days before spearing and before small mouth when the crawfish were everywhere. However, the 24" walleye was still the top end. I have never seen or heard of a trophy walleye ever being caught on the flowage. Some of you have received or looked at the family pictures we posted from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. You will notice bigger stringers in terms of quantity of fish. Many 3 to 4 Lb walleyes in that 20" range. With 10 people going annually from 53 to 88, we would have landed the occassional trophy if they existed but they never have. Trophy Muskies in that time span (yes), trophy crappies (several), trophy perch (yes), monster rockbass (yes), but the walleye genetics limit the size.

paul

Randy

02-23-2009, 03:34 PM

Had a conversation with Porky and Don Pemble last fall and if I recall correctly (drinks were flowing) their biggest TFF walleye were well over 25". My grandpa had one on the wall just shy of 28". Dave from the old Cedar Lodge caught a 16 1/2 pounder years ago. I have to imagine that fish would be well over 30"

I have to believe if there is a real lack of large walleye it's got to be a result of fishing pressure and spearing.

Why don't we all chime in with our biggest walleye and when it was caught.

24 3/4" late 80's

luv2brw

02-24-2009, 08:48 AM

Saw my buddy catch a 24 inch walleye in May 2008.

I netted a 27 1/2 inch walleye for my uncle in 1982, he caught it using 1/2 of a nightcrawler.

My best is 22.

George

02-24-2009, 10:02 AM

My biggest walleye caught on the flowage was a 34" 17 pounder. Oh...you wanted the truth? Okay, it was 26" and right around 6 pounds. I caught it in the fall of 1986 on a minnow with a split shot and #2 TruTurn hook off the rock bar between 1st bay and the river channel. It was released. You have to believe me on this one because I didn't have a camera with me. If you don't believe, then it was 34" and 17 pounds! :)

DonH

02-24-2009, 02:40 PM

My biggest walleye is just shy of 25". Ive had a couple of huge fish on that I lost, but that's the biggest that I've caught.

In October of the year we were married, I lost a huge fish with my wife in the boat. That was also her last October trip to the TFF. We were staying in the Honeymoon Cabin" at O'Meara's resort. The toilet didn't flush and the shower didn't drain, so I guess walking aroung in the cabin with boots on wasn't her cup of tea.

So I have this huge fish on using a homemade jig with a stinger hook. I used 8lb. for my main line and 6 lb. for the stinger. Theory being, if I snag with the stinger, that line breaks and I get my jig back. Works pretty well as I do that to this day. On that day however, that fish wouldn't come up. I got her below the boat and I'd gain some line, then I'd lose some line. Finally the stinger line did break...but I got my jig back!

Replying to Paul R. I agree. Fishing this lake for all those years and a biggest walleye of only 25". I've heard stories of tons of really big fish at the dam near Lake of the Falls during spawning, and I'm sure this body of water has lots of really big fish. I just don't think the percentage would stand up when compared to other walleye lakes, so it probably is genetics to a degree. It is also harder to land a big fish here unless you are geared up for big fish. I've had several fish take me into snags and break off and some of them felt pretty heavy. One comes to mind with my dad years ago.

There are no coincidences in nature. Everything has a cause and an effect. A coincidence is Blue Ranger coming to the TFF 18 years ago. That puts his arrival at about 1991. This is the precise year when smallmouth bass started being caught at sizes over 12" to 14". (He never saw the walleye factory this place was, and also never witnessed the absolute absence of smallmouth bass.) Spearing had been going on for a few years and they grabbed that opportunity, found a nitch and here we are. Remember, in the early years of spearing, the numbers were huge (6,000 to 6,500) with much different size limits. Earl Tomak used to tell me that the eagles ate good afterwards due to all the wounded fish that died. These fist never appeared in the official final counts. Spearing was not a catalyst for the change, it was the change. The coincidence is too clear cut to be anything else. 4 years after the start of spearing, we suddenly have smallmouth bass all over the place? It has to be that.

I fished this place from 1960 to 1990 and really, honestly can't recall catching one legal smallie in all those years (I'm not even sure I caught a smallie at all). Since 1991, I can't recall even an outing when I haven't. I've mentioned this before. In 1985, my brother-in-law caught a 14.5" smallie and had it mounted. That's not even legal today.

Lastly - the crayfish population crash. No, they have not evolved in 14 years to recognize their main predator, and change everything they do, where they roam for food, where they burrow and live, where they mate, etc. (this is a creature with a brain the size of a pinhead - it took early man thoudsands of years to make the transition from living in trees to living on the prairie). The reason you don't see them in nearly the numbers you used to is because they have been eaten. They are gone. I know Blue Ranger found some in a trap and deemed the population healthy and well, but remember, he wasn't here in the 60's, 70's, or 80's. If he had seen what some of us saw, I think he might better understand how drastic the changes have been to this lake, and the catalyst was just a couple early years of spearing.

jjeyes19

02-25-2009, 12:13 AM

I've been fishing the tff for about the same amount of time blue ranger has. Unfortunately I primarily fished for musky for the first 8 years or so, my personal best is 51 3/4". I could also tell him where to catch some huge smallies 5 & 6 pounders, we've been doing it for a couple years now, but I just cant bring myself to spilling the beans.There's a nice rock hump in front of blues' house and I have caught some walleyes there also. 2 years ago my wife caught a 26" walleye off a sand bar and my aunts personal best is over 30" and she has been fishing there over 40 years now. So...40 years 1 fish over 30". Oh last year she caught a 26" in a huge weed bed in 4' of water, at best. I like catching fish, I like catching big fish, we all do. I have noticed though over the past several years that the smallies are everywhere. There's a small private lake nearby and i'm not going to mention it but sometime in the 70's they did a servey of fish on the lake and at that time there were no smallmouth in it, only walley, musky, largemouth, crappies and panfish. Now its hard to catch a largemouth and the samllies have taken over. Eco systems are what they are, and are in place for a reason, someone decides they know better and begin to change that. Its great there is a board for the tff but maybe there best interest are for them and not everyone as a whole. When an entity begins decideding 1 population is more important than another it throws that eco system off and I think that is what is occurring now. Hopefully it will balance itself out at some time...Also if anyone can say I remember hearing there was a very bad winter in the early 90's that they though fish were killed from lack of oxygen and to much freezing of the ice, if anyone can talk about that

BlueRanger

02-25-2009, 01:31 AM

DonH might not have been catching any smallies before 1990, but the 1989 creel census estimated a harvest of 5199 smallmouth averaging 12.0 inches. A review of the historical survey/creel census data led our fisheries biologist to conclude, "Based on 1989 creel data, the population likely increased in abundance during the early 1980's and became a more significant species in the fishery thereafter." Makes sense, since a 12" fish in the TFF is about 4 years old. That means a significant proportion of those smallmouth caught in 1989 had hatched prior to 1985 (the first year of spearing) - which pretty much rules out treaty harvest as the initial cause, unless the Ojibwe spearing arsenal included time machines.

And somebody ought to tell that commercial crayfish operation to stop wasting their time placing hundreds of traps in the TFF, since our resident expert says there aren't any to be caught. Funny thing is, they keep coming back every year - I can't imagine why. For that matter, it's odd that the smallies are still so healthy despite having eaten all of their preferred prey.

As for adaptive changes in behavior by the crayfish population, brain size has nothing to do with it (an inane comment to begin with, since the simplest organisms - like bacteria - evolve at the fastest rate). It's not about individual crayfish changing their behavior, it's about changes in the population over time, and that's purely a function of reproductive success. If you have a population where there is no significant natural predator, a lot of crayfish will do just fine foraging out in the open while their cousins are busy crawling around in rocks and cover. The difference could be a genetic trait or a simple function of location. But add some smallies to the mix, and guess which ones are going to be doing most of the reproducing? Given that crayfish reproduce 1 year after hatching, 14 years represents 14 generations of crayfish, more than adequate for a significant restructuring of the population.

jjeyes19, I thought everybody knew where I lived! I remember the fish kill, but don't remember exactly what year it was. We weren't up there at the right time to see it for ourselves, but our neighbors said a lot of big walleyes and smallies washed up on our shoreline just after ice-out, blown over from the Horseshoe area. The local theory was that it was caused by oxygen depletion from unusually thick ice that winter. Maybe REB will chime in - he saw it firsthand. As for my biggest walleye, it was a 26" caught 3 years ago in boulders in less than 2' of water. I caught it off one of the islands in Horseshoe in May, while smallmouth fishing with a 6" white soft plastic jerkbait. I've caught a lot of nice 20-24" walleyes, especially in recent years. Most of them were caught on size 12 or 14 gold Husky Jerks. And I've caught plenty of 5 lb. smallies, but I've never seen an honest 6 lb. fish caught by anybody, so you're probably wise to keep that spot to yourself.

BlueRanger

02-25-2009, 09:06 AM

I probably should have mentioned this, too - crayfish know whether there are predators in the vicinity. Crustaceans have some of the most highly developed chemoreception (what we'd call smell and taste) organs in the animal kingdom, with the ability to detect concentrations in the range of a few parts per billion - the equivalent of one drop in an olympic size pool.

Randy

02-25-2009, 09:18 AM

Blue, I've debated with my father about the crayfish population as well. I do recall seeing tons of crayfish along rocky shorelines and those crayfish just don't seem to be there anymore. Whether that means they moved to safer areas or there's a drop in the population I'm not sure.

In regards to the smallmouth explosion the TFF has experienced in the past 20-25 years..... The 1989 smallmouth harvest by anglers was 5199 with an average length of 12". A 12" TFF smallmouth is approximately 4 years old. The indians first started spearing in 1985, four years before the 1989 smallmouth harvest of 5199 fish. I've never been great at math but the numbers seem to lead this common man to an obvious explanation.

As a side note, when we were kids we used to soak crawlers off the pier at Idle Shores. One year in the mid 80's (don't recall the exact year) we started catching little smallies. The next year the smallies were a little bigger and we started catching them all over the flowage. It's gotten to the point now where some of our good walleye spots produce mainly smallmouth bass.

The If huge spearing numbers of walleye in the mid 80's didn't directly result to the smallmouth comeback, what is the explanation?

timk

02-25-2009, 02:34 PM

I ( with my family ) have been going to the flowage since 1960 ... though I was two back then . The biggest Walleye's I caught were in the Mid 1980's .. 1 each year apart ( Late September - the two biggest on Minnows ) were a six pounder .. a nine pounder ( approx 29" ) and a eleven pounder ( 31" ) ... my brother has caught two over eight pounds ( one in the sixties .. the other one the year I caught the 11 pounder . Two years ago I caught one ( Night Crawler ) about 26 " ... though the weight was low . Also ... we would catch much larger walleye as a average back then too . we would always catch them in the 17 to 21 " range ... very few now average that length .. many 14 to 16" ( and I release almost 100 % of my fish .. ) . As for the Smallmouth Bass ... very late eighties or early 90's .. and very few at that . As for the Crayfish ... many more back then on the shoreline at night . Oh yes .... the stumps were bigger too ( at least in height ) !!!!

George

02-25-2009, 03:21 PM

Just a thought with respect to Randy's comments. I've caught both walleye and smallies in the same areas. And nothing I've read anywhere seems to suggest that the two species cannot coexist. One explanation for catching smallies where you used to catch walleyes might be that as the more aggressive feeder you might be catching the smallie instead of the walleye. That doesn't mean the walleye isn't there, it just may mean the smallie is beating him to your offering.

mikesgotone

02-26-2009, 01:37 AM

I remember the first time my uncle caught a smallie, he thought it was a walleye. He wanted to put it on the wall.(funny thing is, he already had a walleye on his wall from the flowage, 28") after much debate we finally convinced him it was a bass. that was the first day of that trip about fifteen years ago. guess what we fished for the rest of that trip. I dont know about the cray fish, or the walleye population. what I do know is that, I only get 2.5 days of fishing on the flowage per year.(my favorite 2.5 days) and we catch trophy size smallies every year. we also catch tons of snakey northerns every year(every bit as tasty as the walleyes by the way, just more annoying to eat) and then there's the walleyes, when we catch em, its a bonus. and we do catch em, but they're far from trophys.
My point is that, different from most of the regulars that post on here.
I love the healthy population of beautiful smallmouth bass. they're fun as hell to catch. and outfight any fish pound for pound any day.
so whats the argument? unless you have an obsession with walleye days of old. the turtle flambeau flowage is a terrific place to fish, whether its walleyes, smallies, muskies,and I know youve seen the panfish. wow.
Just my thoughts. and what thoughts they are in the droll winter months in the recession beaten suburbs of chicago.... cant wait to get back there.
and blue. Im gonna have to find out where you live. if you see a tan sylvan chasin your blue ranger, stop and say hi. I could learn a thing or two.
bring on spring!!!!!!!

Randy

02-26-2009, 10:34 AM

Don't get me wrong George, I've caught walleye and smallmouth on consecutive casts so I know they can coexist. I simply enjoy catching walleye more than I enjoy catching smallmouth bass so I don't want to see the walleye get overrun by smallies.

A lake can only support only so many fish, especially fish that feed in similar areas on simlar things. Seeing as the smallmouth bass are the more agressive feeders I can see the TFF turning into a "smallmouth sweatshop" with walleye becoming the secondary fish. Some lakes in Manitoba that had thriving walleye populations have seen drastic decreases after smallmouth bass were agressively stocked.

Adding to the shift from walleye to smallmouth could be spearing and angler harvest. I don't have the numbers but I'd be curious to see what percentage of the walleye population was harvested last year out of the TFF vs. the percentage of the smallie population. Over time, if smallmouth are primarily a catch and release fish while walleye are being harvested (rightfully so, they are yummy) and natural reproduction remains constant how could there not be a shift in the population?

Having said all of that, my research has brought me to two conclusions. First off, I need to start enjoying TFF smallmouth more. They're a ton of fun to catch but in the past I've always been disappointed to learn that tugging at the end of my line was a smallie and not a walleye. Secondly, we need to change our pursuit of the TFF walleye. Our family has been visitng the flowage for years and we have a pretty good understanding of the fishery. We often find ourselves fishing the same spots we've been fishing for years wondering why sometimes we aren't catching as many fish. Maybe the walleye we're after are now feeding in different areas. It's just so hard to fish new water when you only get to spend six days a year on the flowage!

Now let's keep those biggest walleye stories rolling in. It'll help take our mind off of the 4-8 inches of white stuff we've got heading our way!

George

02-26-2009, 11:07 AM

Randy I understand completely. I have been on the flowage since 1954. You get your 6 days to fish and that's it. Now that I live a lot closer than I used to I can fish it a lot more and have the luxury of getting "skunked" trying new places. And you raise a point I didn't think of. I keep a few walleyes to eat, but I release all the smallies. It may also have to do with the 15" size limit. Now in Canada we do keep a few smallies to eat and they're good. Haven't eaten one out of the flowage, so I can't comment. Maybe the next time I catch a legal one I'll drop him in the livewell and give it a try. Also, I encourage you to grab your ultralight and go smallie huntin'. Its about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on!;)

Looks like the weather this weekend is going to favor the snomobilers. That's okay, sleddin' on the flowage is just beautiful.

George

Randy

02-26-2009, 01:04 PM

Good idea on the ultralight George. They put up an amazing fight with medium/light action tackle so I can only imagine the fun on an ultralight. Our group has a travelling trophy for the largest walleye each year and my dad (Don H) and I were talking about starting up a trophy for the largest smallie too.

I can tell you firsthand that TFF smallies are quite tasty. They're a bit more difficult to filet as their skin is tougher so I'd recommend sharpening your knife first. Heck, if you can't beat em, eat em!

DonH

02-26-2009, 01:21 PM

Aaahhh, Randy, are you giving in? I'm only kidding. We were actually talking about this issue a couple nights ago. This "issue" being appreciating the smallmouth for what it is, which is a really fun fish to catch.

I'm all for a healthy diverse fishery. I just hope diverse doesn't end up meaning billions and billions of smallies and only a couple of walleyes. My dad was an extraordinary walleye fisherman, and he was a bit focused on them. I'm pretty sure I got my love of walleyes from him.

It is pretty amazing when you think of it. The fish fights like crazy, runs below the boat, tough to get in the net, yet as soon as I find out for sure it's a smallie rather than a walleye, my happiness factor drops several points. Pretty sure this is something I'll have to fix because I have a feeling the smallie isn't going away.

So I plan to take George's advice and fish for them with ultralight tackle. That should be a blast...and just maybe I'll hook a walleye or two.

jjeyes19

02-26-2009, 09:56 PM

Lets say your going out for the day fishing on the tff. Most people have stated including myself that they only have a limited time to fish be it 2 or 3 days. So, you want to make the most of the time you have. So for grin and giggles lets use baraboo lake as our example. Considering the fact there should be 4 to 8 adult walleyes per acre at a minimum length of 15" and one should be caught every 4.5 hours. I'm not sure how many acres baraboo is so will just say 20. That means there are between 80 and 160 walleyes at least 15". So if you fish 8 hours you should catch 2 fish, but will say you catch 3 to give you a limit. Now here's the fun part. I gaurantee you caught at least 25 - 30 northern during that time and probably at least 10 smallies, so what does this tell us.... I'll tell you! What fish spawn later. Walleye do. Which fish is more aggressive. Not the walleye. So you could say that maybe all the walleye fry are being eaten before then can grow large enough by not 1 but 4 fish (northern, smallies, musky, walleye). And lets not forget the harvest from spearing, thus not effecting the fry but effecting the amount of catched fish becausing they were speared. The depletion of the walleye population was inevitable. But the path we are on will deminish our current status. Only 11% of all walleyes are 18" or bigger. The average size has gone done over the past 20 years. We have a catch and release for musky and smallmouth because they are considered trophy calliber fish, and have size limits. We cannot be nieve to think that the population can't become so depleted like leach lake or some other lake where you wont be able to fish for walleye's in the future.

BlueRanger

02-26-2009, 11:36 PM

If Don and Randy can learn to appreciate smallies, maybe there's hope for the world. I do have an alternative hypothesis in response to Randy's question from a couple days ago. It's somewhat complicated - but most natural systems are, which is why simple and "obvious" explanations, although enticing, are often incorrect or at least incomplete. I ran out of time last night, and now that I've finally managed to drive 14 miles home from downtown St. Paul (2-1/2 hours, which on a good day could have had me munching on some great fudge at Molly's in Winter) I'll try to lay it out.

First of all, walleyes suppress smallmouth populations by preying on their young of the year - and it's primarily the youngest year-classes of walleyes that would be taking prey of that size. That 12" average size in 1989 implies that many of the smallies harvested were larger, hence older than 4 - which means at least one unusually successful smallmouth hatch (relative to what had been the historical norm up to that point) occurred prior to the first year of treaty harvest in 1985. That suggests to me that a survey of the walleye population around 1984 would have shown very weak numbers of the youngest year classes. But the magnitude of the smallmouth increase also suggests that the number of adult smallmouth spawning was significantly higher than in previous years, which would mean that some improvement in smallmouth survival had actually begun at least 4-5 years earlier - around 1980.

We know that the walleye population in 1975 was incredible - 7.1 adult walleyes per acre, more than twice the regional average. We also know that the TFF has relatively low biological productivity, thanks to two factors: limited light penetration due to its tannin-stained and frequently turbid water, and limited nutrient inflows. In that context, 7.1 adult walleyes per acre seems unsustainable.

We also know that in 1975, anglers harvested an estimated 21,000 adult walleyes from the TFF. That was a time at which the revolution in fishing technology (boats, motors, electronics, lure selection, etc.) and angler knowledge (TV shows, In-Fisherman, etc.) was just beginning. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that harvest continued at a similar pace after 1975, or perhaps even increased.

That sets the stage. The year is somewhere around 1980. One of two things takes place: Either the walleye population overshoots its prey supply and wipes it out through excessive predation, or the prey species suffer a few years of poor reproduction due to environmental conditions, or a combination of the two. The walleyes cope by doing what they typically do in this situation - cannibalizing their own young at high rates. This leads to a few very weak year classes of walleyes - which creates an opportunity for recruitment to significantly improve in the remnant smallmouth population, as well as the other prey populations. Meanwhile, fishermen don't notice any immediate change - the older year-classes of walleyes are still present in good numbers, and there are several remaining strong year-classes coming up to replace the adults harvested. And since they're lacking natural prey, they're easy to catch.

Fast-forward to about 1984. The last strong walleye year-class hits desirable size. And that first stronger year class of smallies is now spawning. At this point, we're at the bottom of the cycle - prey species are already rebounding, and so is walleye recruitment. The following year, the fishing suddenly becomes tough, since natural prey is abundant and there aren't enough new fish to replace last year's harvest. And the damage is permanent. Over the next few years, angler harvest and spearing further reduce the adult walleye population, to the point that the best it can do is replace the fish that are harvested each year, give or take a few. And if you're a tribal member, you picked a really bad year to start spearing, because you get all the blame.

Cut the walleye limit to 1 fish daily, and within 10 years we'll be back to 1975 - a lake full of walleyes, and little else. And then it will crash again. If they could survey the lake and do a creel census every year, they could tweak the limits to keep the population stable - but they can't. So they're going to keep things more or less the way they are, and things will stay more or less as they are - which is to say, a relatively stable multi-species fishery that's one of the best in the state, with trophy opportunities for several species - just not walleyes.

jjeyes19, umm, you might want to drive up in April, head over to the falls and see what spawns first. Hint: walleyes. I'm not going to touch the rest of that.

mikesgotone, it's easy to find. Stop by any time you see the boat at the dock, the back seat is usually empty - especially May, I'll be up there most of the month doing my own smallmouth population assessment.

Randy

02-27-2009, 10:32 AM

That's a far amount of speculation to a question for which we will never have a concrete answer.

Many anglers, including myself, believe the smallmouth explosion was a result of walleye depletion caused by spearing and/or overharvest. This would have provided an opportunity for the smallmouth bass to better establish themselves in the TFF. Whether that's correct or not doesn't matter. The reality is there are less walleye and more smallmouth today in the TFF. I'm fine with that as long as the walleye population remains stable providing a balanced fishery. If the walleye population continues it's downward trend then I think something needs to be done. On top of that, if the average size of a TFF walleye also decreases something needs to be done, ie a slot limit (the whole reason this discussion started).

Now if someone can just simply tell me how and where I can catch more big walleye out of the TFF we can stop all this nonsense!

BlueRanger

02-27-2009, 03:02 PM

"If huge spearing numbers of walleye in the mid 80's didn't directly result to the smallmouth comeback, what is the explanation?"

I gave you one that works very well. And it's no more speculative than guessing at how many walleyes were killed during the first few years of treaty harvest. But I'm pretty sure tribal harvest never took 21,000 walleyes out of the TFF in a single season.

People also like to claim that spearing had a disproportionate effect on large walleyes, but the numbers don't completely back that up either. In 1975, 8.1% of the walleyes surveyed were over 19". That number dropped off significantly in the 1989 survey, to 3.8%. But the scenario I outlined would be expected to produce that result with or without spearing. And only three years later, in the 1992 survey, it was right back at 8.1%. And my model would also predict that result - it's all about year-class strength. Interestingly, harvest rates in 1992 were worse again, as in 1975 - this time, it was 7.2 hours per walleye. The 19"+ number was down again in 1997, to 4.6% - and harvest rates were up, at 4.3 hours per fish. They were also higher in 1989, at 4.8 hours/fish. So having more big walleyes may not be what you want if you're looking for good catch rates. As I keep saying, bigger walleyes can afford to ignore 3" minnows when they have 6" perch available. If you're strictly a jig-and-minnow guy, like it or not, you're going to do best on a lake full of mostly 14-16" walleyes. Regardless, the proportion of bigger walleyes is always going to go up and down as a result of variations in year-class strength. But a population of modestly high density is going to be much more stable than a population of exceptionally high density, because while it will encounter annual variations in reproductive success due to changing environmental conditions, it should remain roughly in balance with its prey base and avoid any huge crashes. I think the 19"+ proportion will be fairly high again in this year's survey, perhaps even above the 1975 and 1992 levels -we had a couple excellent year classes early this decade that will be above the 19" mark this year. So stock up on the Husky Jerks!

Randy

02-27-2009, 04:37 PM

I hate to say it Blue but your theory is much more speculative than the spearing/angler harvest theory. "The walleye population overshoots its prey supply and wipes it out through excessive predation or the prey species suffers a few years of poor reproduction due to environmental conditions, or a combination of the two. The walleye cope by doing what they typically do in this situation - cannibalizing their own young at high rates." Although this scenario is plausable, I wonder if there is any evidence to back it up.

On the other hand there is data referencing the number of walleye speared and harvested from anglers during the mid 80's. Is it that outlandish to think spearing and angler harvest may have provided smallmouth bass an opportunity to better establish themselves in the TFF?????

BlueRanger

02-27-2009, 09:56 PM

First of all, walleyes were already being harvested in large numbers back in 1975, and the population was apparently sustaining that harvest level. Secondly, your dad is entirely correct when he says the smallmouth population at that time was almost nonexistent. During the 1975 survey, only 17 smallmouth were sampled from the entire flowage, compared to 250 in 1997. If those numbers seem small, I should note that the survey locations and timing are heavily biased toward sampling walleyes - during the time when the surveys occur, most of the smallmouth aren't in areas that lend themselves to electrofishing. Still, I think it's fair to assume that the 1975 smallmouth population was something less than 1/10 of the 1997 population.

To believe the spearing argument, you have to believe that a tiny smallmouth population produced a successful spawn of immense proportions after just one spearing season, and that all those 1989 smallies really were cookie-cutter 12" fish from a single year class. And they obviously didn't harvest every adult smallmouth in the lake that year, because they're still here. So even if they took 50% of them, you're talking about something like 10,000 adult smallmouth surviving from a single hatch. That's highly improbable, primarily because spearing didn't have any effect on the young walleyes that would feed heavily on fish the size of juvenile smallmouth. I think the size of the smallmouth hatch or hatches that began surviving in the mid-80s is clear evidence that the adult smallmouth population was already quite a bit larger than it had been in 1975, meaning natural reproduction had begun to improve significantly at least 4-5 years earlier.

Randy

02-27-2009, 11:21 PM

I'm not saying the smallmouth population appeared miraculously after two years of spearing. My belief is that over time the spearing of walleye and high angler harvest numbers have provided smallmouth bass the opportunity to increase in numbers. If you are not willing to consider that as a possibility I may need to recalibrate my expectations of having an intelligent discussion.

BlueRanger

02-28-2009, 11:50 AM

That's exactly what you've been saying.

"The indians first started spearing in 1985, four years before the 1989 smallmouth harvest of 5199 fish. I've never been great at math but the numbers seem to lead this common man to an obvious explanation."

"If huge spearing numbers of walleye in the mid 80's didn't directly result to the smallmouth comeback, what is the explanation?"

And I think the whole premise of your latest statement is probably wrong. In terms of numbers, it's likely that the smallmouth population peaked during the 1990s and is lower today, due to the much larger average size brought about by the 1995 changes to the minimum length and daily bag limits and the increased practice of catch and release.

Randy

02-28-2009, 08:30 PM

You lay out a scenario that is 100% SPECULATION. It's a cute little story about walleye eating their own young leaving no juvenile walleye to eat young of the year smallmouth and the smallmouth population exploded because of it. It's a real good read but does anyone out there remember an entire year class of walleye missing from the flowage? Are juvenile walleye the only thing that eat young of the year smallmouth?

I present REAL numbers that show a REAL increase in the number of walleye taken out of the TFF in the time frame when smallmouth bass were on the rise. Clearly I'm wrong. There is no possible way in which spearing and angler harvest had any impact on the rise of the smallmouth. The TFF had been consistently dominated by walleye for at least 50 years. Indians and anglers take record numbers of walleye out of the TFF during the mid/late 80's. Smallmouth bass seen an increase (based on your assumption) of at least 1,000% from 1975 to 1997. There is no possible way in which the two are linked! Thanks for clearing that up Blue.

EarthwormOrganics

02-28-2009, 09:06 PM

You can twist the numbers all you want guys and it is awesome to hear the stories of yesterday. The big problem is that everyone wants to play god with our natural resources and only mother nature can make the rules. Look at the bass explosion from Canada to Superior and even the TFF. Bass are growing in numbers in many places. The walleyes on the TFF are still very plentiful. Definately time to stop trying to fix something that isn't broken. Nature will ALWAYS find ITS own balance. Numbers may have been better in the past but nobody will change the fishery as a whole.

Throwing back big fish is the only way to help your odds and help the numbers for reproduction. Eating more bass is what we've tried to do.

I would also like to know how the perch bite has been this year? We haven't had time to fish this year with the little guy taking up all our time. It just seems that in the past few years the perch have gotten less and less? That concerns me a little more. If the primary food source goes down, you will see dramatic changes. Worse yet it will take a few years before the affects are really noticed. So please, someone tell me that they are hammering perch out there somewhere.

We have to look past the prize to play the game.

Thanks for all the awesome knowledge shared in this post.
Feel free to start a new one about the perch bite and maybe some of the other species that need to be monitored.

BlueRanger

03-01-2009, 12:16 PM

"I present REAL numbers that show a REAL increase in the number of walleye taken out of the TFF in the time frame when smallmouth bass were on the rise."

Where? I had to reread the entire thread to make sure I wasn't missing something. The only numbers you introduced to this discussion had to do with a couple old fish hanging on somebody's wall. And the REAL numbers, at least the ones I obtained from Jeff Roth, show a clear DECREASE in walleye harvest during that period - which I thought was what you and your dad had been complaining about for the last 3 years.

"Does anyone out there remember an entire year class of walleye missing from the flowage"? Actually, I said several consecutive very weak year classes. Plenty of people have described how the lake quickly changed from producing stringers of 20" walleyes to mainly much smaller fish, and guess what? That's evidence of several consecutive very weak year classes.

No, juvenile walleyes aren't the only thing that eats juvenile smallmouth, but they were the only thing present in adequate numbers to keep smallmouth numbers suppressed - with the possible exception of yellow perch, which would only serve to bolster my prey-depletion hypothesis. And if the walleyes weren't responsible for keeping the smallmouth population at low levels, it becomes completely idiotic to argue a connection between spearing and the smallmouth increase - or didn't you think of that? You can't have it both ways.

But I give up. I've offered you the best hypothesis of a trained biologist/ecologist and statistician with on-water and underwater field research experience, who is very familiar with the substantial body of published literature concerning walleye and smallmouth bass population dynamics and dietary interactions, and is a professional fishing writer/editor whose work was read by nearly half a million anglers in 43 countries last month. I based it on a thorough review of all the available research data for the TFF, obtained directly from the biologist who manages the fishery and enhanced by quite a bit of his personal commentary. And what you call "speculation", he thought was "an accurate perception of the changes that have occurred in the TFF fishery over time".

mikesgotone

03-01-2009, 08:21 PM

The blue ranger by a nose. I dont know any of you, so I dont take sides. I've been reading this discussion every day. I look forward to it. Even though sometimes blues numbers get my brain so twisted I fall out of my chair and take a nap to get my brain back. now, whats up with the perch???

Randy

03-02-2009, 11:02 AM

So the lake no longer produces stringers of 20" fish and now yields mainly much smaller fish. Blue says this is evidence of several consecutive very weak year classes. He also says the weak year classes are in no way connected to the fact that indians spear walleye while they are trying to reproduce. How could that possibly lead to a weak year class?

Another thing, the first couple years of spearing saw numbers about three times as large as the numbers we see today. Also, there weren't any regulations on size. But once again, if you want to believe Blue that had nothing to do with poor year classes or less big walleye in the lake. Fascinating!

BlueRanger

03-02-2009, 09:06 PM

Nature is complicated, and looking at it through simple eyes often misleads. It may seem intuitive to assume that more eggs would equal a larger year class. But you'd be wrong, as usual. I've explained this to you before, so this time I'll let someone else say it for me:

"Since fish produce such a large number of eggs, an 8-pound female walleye would produce around 200,000, it takes only a handful of adults to maintain a population. In fact in walleye populations the maximum production of young walleyes usually occurs when there are low to intermediate densities of adults. At high adult densities walleye recruitment is usually reduced. This occurs because of competition between adult and young walleye or because of cannibalism (i.e. adult walleyes eating young walleyes). Therefore, you do not need to protect the maximum number of adults in order to have good recruitment."

Taken from here: http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000032

And as everyone who actually reads my posts is aware, your last sentence completely misstates my position. I'll refresh your memory:

"Fast-forward to about 1984. The last strong walleye year-class hits desirable size. And that first stronger year class of smallies is now spawning. At this point, we're at the bottom of the cycle - prey species are already rebounding, and so is walleye recruitment. The following year, the fishing suddenly becomes tough, since natural prey is abundant and there aren't enough new fish to replace last year's harvest. And the damage is permanent. Over the next few years, angler harvest and spearing further reduce the adult walleye population, to the point that the best it can do is replace the fish that are harvested each year, give or take a few.

Clearly, I have not claimed that angler harvest and spearing had no effect on the adult walleye population - in fact, I explicitly said that it has. What I have been arguing is this: The increase in the smallmouth population had nothing to do with the adult walleye population, but with the juvenile walleye population. And the enormous increase in the smallmouth population that was already evident in 1989 (relative to 1975) is a strong indicator that it had already begun several years before spearing started, and would have occurred with or without spearing.

Randy

03-03-2009, 09:03 PM

So you do believe spearing and angler harvest led to walleye depletion giving the smallmouth bass an opportunity to grow in numbers. Thank goodness, I was starting to think you were just being stubborn.

BlueRanger

03-03-2009, 10:03 PM

Did anybody else think that was what I said? This time, I really am giving up.

BlueRanger

03-03-2009, 11:42 PM

Okay, so how about some information from the surveys that might actually improve your success rate? In the 1997 survey, they identified 6 key walleye sub-populations spawning in different areas, and did population estimates for each area. The largest sub-population, and this will surprise more than a few people, actually spawned in Baraboo - over 19,000 adult walleyes. The Turtle River was second, at about 15,000, followed by Beaver Flats, Horseshoe, Bonies Mound and the Manitowish River, in that order. By the way, I think jjeyes19 was off by quite a bit in his estimate of the size of Baraboo. Looking at it relative to the map scale, I'd guess the basin itself is pretty close to 300 acres. Now, I don't think you'll find 19,000 fish in Baraboo during most of the season, although I do consistently see a lot of suspended fish on my sonar during the summer months, and rarely see anyone trying very hard to catch them. However, they're definitely packed in there in the early spring and late fall, and if you check out my sideimaging album, you can see where some of the deep rock reefs are located.

They also looked at relative angling pressure for these areas, and I think their findings provide some useful insights if you're looking for the best odds for catching walleyes, at least during the post-spawn period and late fall (I'm sure they disperse all over the lake during the summer, going where the food is, but walleyes often make kind of a mock spawning run in late fall when water temps drop into the mid-40s). It turns out that while 27% of the total population spawned in the Turtle, that area received 36% of the total angling pressure during the season, probably due to the resorts. Baraboo was the opposite, having 36% of the spawning fish but only 27% of the fishing pressure. Beaver Flats and Horseshoe were also relatively underpressured, while the Manitowish was relatively overpressured and Bonies received fishing pressure roughly equal to its share of the population. Something to consider, and it will be interesting to see if this year's survey results include a similar analysis and if so, whether anything has changed.

Randy

03-04-2009, 12:06 AM

Having a little trouble picking up on sarcasm there Blue?

Anyway, interesting figures on the spawning walleye. That seems like a crazy amount of fish for Baraboo!

MuskieRandy

03-04-2009, 07:26 AM

jjeyes and Blue, you are both way off. The original Baraboo basin is 104 acres, and that includes the little "bowl" pothole attached to the NorthEast side.....

I determine this by taking a topographical map of the flowage and drawing a complex polygon around the old shoreline, and letting the computer generate the polygon area......

BlueRanger

03-04-2009, 08:04 AM

Math after 10:30 is dangerous business.

DonH

03-04-2009, 01:46 PM

it's often incorrect. Take for instance all the numbers about populations, sub-populations, bio-mass, etc. All guesswork.

Here's a direct quote fron an article concerning the population of walleyes in Mille Lacs. The Minnesota DNR has devised a complex computer model called the VPA (Virtual Population Analysis) -
"But even the biologists who devised the VPA have little confidence in its ability to generate an accurate population estimate. The problem is, every piece of information fed into the VPA has a wide margin of error, most of which cannot be accurately measured. So the combined error is unknown, and so is the usefulness of the VPA. The DNR continues to "tune" its model in an attempt to improve its accuracy, but the underlying problem of insufficient or unreliable data cannot be solved anytime soon."

Since this was written in 2002, it pretty much calls all those cute figures we've been seeing in this string into question.

I also spoke with Jeff Roth a year or two ago and he agreed with me as to my theory on the timing of the smallmouth population explosion and the beginning of spearing. He also directed me to a DNR agent in Minesota to discuss issues with spearing on Mille Lacs.

Blue Ranger keeps talking about weak walleye recruitment in the early '80s that started the smallmouth population increase. My question is this, the TFF was around for over 5 decades before spearing started. In all those years, there had to be several even consecutive years of bad walleye recruitment. Heck, they were even stocking smallmouth bass, but no, nothing changed. Maybe some bad years of walleye fishing, but the walleye always remained the top predator in the TFF. I was speaking with Paul R. last week. From 1953to 1988, he remembers catching 1 smallmouth bass. It was so rare, he remembers exactly where he caught it. After 1988, they stopped going to the TFF for several years, and when they came just about 4 or 5 years ago, they were stunned. Smallies all over the place.

I know Blue Ranger says 1989 was when the enormous increase in the population of smallmouth bass was noticed, but you'd think Paul might have nailed at least 1 in 1988. I mean the population increase was enormous. Blue Ranger says so.

If there was some smallie spawning going on before spearing, it was nothing compared to what happed after spearing started.

I would love to hear from Don Pemble as to when he started catching smallies, but I totally understand if he feels best to not pick sides.

jjeyes19

03-04-2009, 07:31 PM

Look I was never trying to be accurate with the size of baraboo, I was just using it for the example, but i'm glad the size was clarified for me.THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE PEOPLE! During the 70's and 80's there was no such thing as a size limit. How many muskies were over 50" then, my guess is not many considering the pictures i've seen are all under 40". I'm not saying there wasn't good size fish there just wasn't an abundance of them. The bigger the fish the more they can eat and the bigger the fish they can eat. So big muskies now, lots of smallies, and whatever other creatures are swimming around is the main cause of depletion of quantity of other fish.

BlueRanger

03-04-2009, 08:08 PM

Next time you want to try to mislead people with some techno-jargon you clearly don't understand, make sure that the person you're arguing with doesn't understand it either.

The term Virtual Population Analysis encompasses any technique used to infer current or historical fish populations from a variety of related data which may be precisely known or estimated. It's called virtual because it's not based on actual observations of the population. It's widely used by fisheries management agencies around the globe, and is rooted in mathematical models dating back nearly 100 years. It is known to be imperfect, as your quote indicates, but it's the best - in fact, only - option available when you can't do an actual population survey every year to obtain more accurate numbers.

Lake Mille Lacs supports a huge level of sport and treaty harvest (both spearing and gillnetting) of walleyes, and the MN DNR must determine the safe harvest before allocating it each year - this year's walleye safe harvest is set at a whopping 541,000 pounds, with 126,500 pounds allocated to treaty harvest and the remaining 430,500 pounds allocated to the state, which must now determine the appropriate angling size and bag limits. When you're talking quantities like that and it's not practical to actually survey the population on an annual basis, it's pretty obvious that the use of a VPA model is a necessity, even when you know it's imperfect - the alternative is to make no annual adjustments based on things you are able to measure or estimate - like the prior year's harvest.

The Wisconsin DNR also uses a VPA model (although they don't specifically call it that) to determine safe harvest for every lake in the ceded territory where the actual mark-recapture survey data is more than two years old - which currently includes the TFF. The model they use is intentionally designed to be more conservative than what would result from an actual survey, in order to avoid over-exploitation. They fine-tune the model over time by comparing its projections against data from the actual population surveys that are completed each year.

An interesting field where a lot of careers and academic reputations have been made and destroyed, but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion, because all of the numbers I introduced were taken from actual mark-recapture surveys. Unlike VPA, these are based on actual sampling of the population. With these surveys, as with all statistical sampling methods, the probability of error is directly linked to the sample sizes and can be accurately calculated, and the underlying assumptions that determine the validity of the analysis are well known to the biologists conducting the survey and are carefully taken into account when they plan the survey methodology. Guesswork it is not.

Next time, stick to what you know.

BlueRanger

03-04-2009, 10:08 PM

This topic has been extensively researched through data analysis of over 200 northern Wisconsin lakes surveyed over a 13 year period. The only gamefish found to strongly interact with walleye populations were largemouth bass, which prey heavily on juvenile walleyes. Musky populations were actually strongly positively correlated with walleye populations - in other words, lakes with high musky populations also had high walleye populations and vice versa, suggesting that both do well in similar environments and there's no significant interaction between them. There was no statistical evidence that either smallmouth bass or northern pike abundance had any relationship to walleye abundance. Look it up:

Fayram, A.H., M.J. Hanson, and T.J. Ehlinger. 2005. Interactions between Walleyes and Four Fish Species with Implications for Walleye Stocking. Journal of the American Fisheries Society 25:1321-1330.

Randy

03-04-2009, 10:28 PM

Earlier in this thread you defended your heavy bias towards smallmouth by stating "As for me, I'm certainly not a smallmouth fisherman". I just took a look at some of your pictures and here's what I found.... Not a single picture of a walleye. Two pictures of smallmouth bass with the following captions, "The pound for pound champion" and "The only thing better than a lake full of these is having lots of time to go out and catch em".

Fact: Everything Blue Ranger has written has been from the perspective of an individual who prefers smallmouth bass over walleye.

Fact: The lake now has less walleye than it had before spearing started.

Fact: The lake now has more smallmouth bass than it had before spearing.

Fact: Smallmouth bass and walleye compete against each other for food and space.

If you look at the 2007 TFF Fishery Management Plan 51 of the 54 attendees had a high interest in walleye. Only 15 of the 54 attendees had a high interest in smallmouth bass. Oddly enough the same number of participants (15) had little or no interest in smallmouth. Those of us who enjoy the TFF walleye want to protect them and we were having a little discussion about doing just that. If you don't have a genuine interest in the topic you really don't have to chime in and start correcting people!

Blue, I just spent a little time reviewing some of the old threads and reading your posts. You really spend a lot of time telling people how they're wrong and how you're right. You give people credit for good posts (posts you agree with) and lambaste the bad ones (posts you disagree with). You even criticized the song choice on the vacation video eagleeye posted! I personally am a little tired of your "know it all", arrogant approach. My advice to you... lighten up and little bit and you just might find someone to fill that empty seat in your boat. Oh, you may also want to revisit your choice of hats.

DonH

03-05-2009, 03:43 PM

That surprises me. I had no idea I was mis-leading people. It is what it is. A simple quote from a document concerning the ineffectiveness of a strategy currently in use to estimate the wallaye population of a given lake. Bad data going in equals bad data going out.

I really had no idea that same basic strategy is being used in Wisconsin, but that does indicate how weak all this science is.

Anyway, if that's techno-jargon, then here's my next techno-question. In the mark-recapture surveys, how are the fish initially caught, and then re-captured? Please don't tell me nighttime shoreline shocking.

Sticking to what I know...that is an ugly hat.

Freak

03-05-2009, 05:12 PM

This is taken straight out of the Turtle Flambeau Flowage Fishery Management Plan from March, 2007. Prepared by: Jeff Roth

“Smallmouth bass became a major component of the fish community during the late 1980s. Flowage smallies are particularly robust in appearance (very heavy for their length). The high quality of these fish and their relatively high vulnerability to angling keeps the sport fishery thriving at times when angler catch rates of walleye decline during the “dog days” of summer. But we suspect bass population density is lower than most anglers realize. Our most recent estimate was that there was approximately one smallmouth bass for every five adult walleyes in the Flowage. This is not readily apparent to anglers because smallmouth bass usually are so much easier to catch than walleye.”

“Smallmouth bass generated a mixed reaction from participating stakeholders, though 71% characterized their interest in the smallmouth bass fishery as moderate or high (Table A1). Some participants who did not care for smallmouth bass initially feared that smallmouths ate or competed for food with walleyes to the detriment of the walleye population. Some of those fears were allayed after discussion about known interactions between these species. Subsequent goals and objectives were developed based upon a majority view that smallmouth bass probably have not adversely affected the walleye fishery in the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage (or many other places for that matter). A bias for size over number of smallmouths is reflected in the objectives, and management strategies should acknowledge the relatively strong tendency among a majority of Flowage stakeholders to catch and release smallmouth bass.”

George

03-05-2009, 05:32 PM

Nice job Freak. Glad you brought that info. to this discussion. As for Blue's postings, I find his stuff to be well researched and factual. It seems like every year about this time when cabin fever is at its zenith we always get into this "discussion" on Walleyes vs. Smallies. With repect to this "discussion"...there are those who need to remember the old saying...Nothing wrecks a good arugument like somebody who knows what they're talking about!

George

Randy

03-05-2009, 05:43 PM

Freak, anything in my last posting that wasn't real?

Bob and Tom

03-05-2009, 06:27 PM

Sticking to what I know...that is an ugly hat.

Oh, this is the worst-looking hat I ever saw. What, when you buy a hat like this I bet you get a free bowl of soup, huh? Oh, it looks good on you though.

Randy

03-05-2009, 09:00 PM

George, I too believe Blue's postings are well researched and factual. I simply don't care for the arrogant/know it all manner in which he presents them. Part of a meaningful discussion involves listening to the point the other person is making. I'm conviced Blue reads most postings looking for errors to correct and ideas to debate that conflict with his own beliefs or information.

I always try to look at both sides of an issue before making an informed decision. As I've researched the topics on this thread and read his postings I have come to the realization that the actual truth probably lies somewhere between our contrasting beliefs. In all honesty, it doesn't matter! Like I said before, my true concern is the future of the TFF. I want to see a lake that provides a balanced fishery with the opportunity to catch big walleye. I don't know what, if anything, needs to be done to achieve this goal. That is the question that started this thread.

In response to Freak..... if the DNR was convinced smallmouth bass haven't affected the walleye fishery they wouldn't have used the word "probably". If the DNR had truly convinced TFF anglers smallmouth weren't a threat to walleye they wouldn't have used the phrase "some of those fears were allayed". Because of the DNR's wording I believe this topic is 100% up for debate.

George

03-06-2009, 06:33 PM

Okay, so does this mean we all have to chip in to send Blue to a charm school? :)

LundAngler

03-08-2009, 10:52 AM

I get a kick out of watching you guys argue about something new every year. It seems like everyone is an "expert" in the field of fish biology. Truthfully, even the real experts I've talked to (UWSP biology professor and a UWEC zoologist) will admit that fish science is more an art than it is a science. If it was a perfect science, the DNR would not have made as many mistakes as they have over the years. Obviously, the TFF has evolved with regard to smallmouth fishing, and it will continue to evolve and change as "man" tinkers with God's work. While I enjoy reading Blue's posts for the intellectual content, I suppose I should ask, "what are the credentials behind this intellectual dynamo?" I love going to the TFF to pursue the walleyes, but when I can't find them, it's nice to get some action from the smallmouth. In my opinion, if a fisherman is not happy catching a certain fish, regardless of the type, they need to really rethink their hobby. As the snow melts, maybe we can focus on more positive things...like fishing. Pray for rain!

Randy

03-09-2009, 09:37 AM

Went to the Sports Show this past weekend and the itch is getting pretty bad!

LundAngler, it's not that I don't like catching smallmouth bass. I simply enjoy catching walleye more than I enjoy catching smallmouth. I don't think that will ever change but this year I do plan on targeting some TFF smallmouth when the walleye aren't biting. As we all know, they're a ton of fun to catch and for those of you who don't know, they're pretty tast too! My new smallmouth philosophy..... If you can't beat em', eat em!

Paul Rothenberger

03-09-2009, 04:35 PM

Wow,

I leave the country for two weeks and comeback to this discussion? At anyrate, anyone who personally fished through the beginning of the spearing years can tell you that it had a huge effect on fishing. Through the 50's, 60's, 70's there were many down year classes for walleyes. I can only remember one small mouth ever being caught by our group prior to the spearing years. It was a healthy fully mature female caught in Rat Lake and she was as fat as can be. While she surely reproduced that was it, 1 small mouth in about 40 years. This fish was caught in the late 70's.

Despite Blue Rangers impressive stastical analysis and research on the subject, I have noticed that the people who fished the flowage through this time period all believe that the spearing and small mouth bass population explosion have a direct correlation. I have neither the time nor the desire to try and prove this through a stastical means. And I acknowledge the possibility that the small mouth bass may have been on the uprise with or without spearing.

However, some here might recall the riots in Mercer, and the early years of spearing when it was first started. The big 4 wheel drives, huge spot lights, and the huge harvest of fully developed egg laying walleyes from the islands. The effect within a few years of taking these spawning fish was amazing. Again I will state that anyone who fished through these years can tell you what it was like in the mid 80's. It is possible that we went through the "double wammy" so to speak during those early spearing years. A bad year class coupled with heavy spearing of adult walleyes. Spearing has lost its appeal compared to those early years. Many Indians wanted to exercise their rights when it was new, and who really knows how accurate the early spearing documentation was. In any event the small mouth population began to increase at about this time. What is the effect on harvest, when you take the fish prior to them spawning?

In conclusion, I agree with Don H and others who believe that the small mouth increase and spearing are correlated. However, it is imposible to prove either way. Maybe the smallies were coming up anyway and it is just a coincindence that the timing of this just happened to mimic the spearing.

Most importantly though is that the fishery is very healthy at the current time. The walleye population is back and we get to catch some huge smallies as well. A great "problem" to have.

In reference to the slot limits I will reiterate that I do not think they are required at the current time, but would clearly be willing to try it for a few years to see if the fishery gets even better. In reference to a trophy walleye lake it will never happen. As I said there was zero fishing pressure in the 50's, 60's, 70's etc. and the trophy walleyes were not there. I know that there are posts here relating to the occassional 28" or 30" fish and I am not disputing those. However, if you look at "Al's place", later "fort Flambeau" or other resorts you will notice very few large walleye mounts. If you ask about the ones that are mounted, many came from lake Superior as well as the old Northern mounts from the 50's that also came from lake Superior, like the one in Donners.

We have a great fishery and lets keep it that way. Regarding my largest walleye ever from the flowage, i do not have the exact length or weight. My guess would be less than 6 lbs and maybe 26". Through the years I have caught several around 24" or 25" and they still exist today. My cousin mounted a walleye head (they used to do head mounts years ago) and I think it was about 26" and 5.5 LBS.

A true trophy lake will yield many 8-13 LB fish annually even with heavy fishing pressure. This is not the case for the flowage. If you want a huge musky though, many 50" plus fish have come from the flowage.

Paul

mikesgotone

03-09-2009, 06:59 PM

Good to see things have calmed down a bit. It got nasty there. Nice post Paul, good to see someone with an open mind. I'd like to see all this cabin fever postin, go towards something a bit more positive. like maybe sharin some tricks to catchin those fish we're arguin about, or favorite luers or something. anywho, Ice is breakin up down here just south of the border. its been rainin like crazy. Hows it up there?
Oh, and I'd like to go on record and say. That hats not so bad blue. Ive seen much worse. like any hat that says PACKERS, CARDINALS, OR BREWERS. I almost dont even want to mention the cheese triangle. Yeah thats right I said it.
Bring on spring.

MuskieRandy

03-09-2009, 07:25 PM

I don't understand the disgust over BR's hat. I don't see what is wrong with it at all. Maybe my wife would know, she's my fashion expert. She actually taught me that a baseball cap has got to have the brim bent in a nice curve, otherwise you are not cool.

I wear a "standard issue" baseball cap when I fish, and I was considering getting something like BR's hat, actually. I need something to keep the sun off my ears and neck. After hours and hours on the lake, my ears start to look like lobsters on the side of my head. All I need is skin cancer of the ears....

After reading these posts, I'm going to have to haul my wife off with me to shop for a wide brimmed hat, lest I get something utterly uncool (according to you all) like BR's hat.

Please post your links to cool looking wide brimmed hats, I'm watching :)

George

03-09-2009, 09:54 PM

Skin cancer is a real concern for all of us. I too have gone to a wide brimmed hat. I've read that dermatologists found an increase in the occurance of skin cancers as the baseball cap replaced the wide brimmed hats worn by farmers and others who work outdoors. Also, my wife is constantly reminding me to put on sunblock. Kind of a pain, but the manufacturers are coming out with stuff that's a lot easier to apply and nowhere near as greasy. We all worry about hitting stuff on the flowage, but skin cancer is a significantly larger danger and how often do we not wear protective clothing or sunblock. I know I'm guilty of not taking all the precautions I should as I'm sure many of us are. Thanks for bringing up this subject Randy. And Blue...personally I like the hat!

Paul Rothenberger

03-09-2009, 11:20 PM

Mike wanted some tips for the nice walleyes, here is one that can be effective.

I like a jig and minnow but cast the same direction as the drift. It slows the bait down and if you happen to find some lumber, you drift over the snag and eventually behind it.

As a bonus you can drift with a bobber and night crawler or minnow on the other side of the boat at the same time, but need to watch the drifting bobber close because it is also a good technique for losing a pole. At times the drifting bobber can do very well, for walleyes, and smallies. But the best part about the drifting bobber is that you occasionaly run into a school of big perch, or a nice crappie as they both like the bait moving. I usually use the night crawler because of these perch.

This technique works very well in Beaver Flats, but lots of lumber there too. If you hit a walleye throw the marker and drift the same area again. If a second walleye is caught consider anchoring and throwing towards the buouy.

Paul

Paul

BlueRanger

03-09-2009, 11:41 PM

Sure, I abandon my computer for a few days and George hatches a plot to send me to sensitivity training!

Paul, I'm really happy to see someone else offering an upbeat assessment of the current walleye fishery. At a time when people are planning their summer vacations, and knowing that it's likely to be a tough year, I'm sure the businesses that depend on the TFF don't appreciate people posting comments about how the walleye fishing has gone to you know where in a handbasket. I also agree with your assessment of the prospects for creating a trophy walleye fishery here.

I'm well aware that most people who were around at the time spearing began believe it's responsible for both the walleye decline and the smallmouth explosion. But you also point out the widespread animosity that existed toward the tribal spearers at the time, and in that environment, do you really think there was any willingness on the part of most anglers to even consider an alternative explanation?

Of course, you're right that the truth will never be known. Regardless of what Randy might want to label as "FACTS", we don't actually know what the walleye or smallmouth populations were in 1984, immediately before spearing began. But to accept the idea that spearing caused the smallmouth population increase, it's necessary to believe that the removal of primarily larger walleyes significantly reduced predation on juvenile smallmouth, and I don't think that idea holds water, because young of the year smallmouth aren't anywhere near their optimum prey size. The timing also has to be considered - smallmouth fry are most vulnerable as they begin to venture away from their nests, and this occurs at about the same time that the mayflies are hatching. Back in the days when the smallmouth were a fraction of their present numbers, it would have made little sense for large walleyes to waste their time hunting down relatively small, scattered pods of a few hundred tiny smallmouth fry when huge clouds of larger, slower-moving mayflies were hatching elsewhere in the lake. And on top of that, you have to believe that the effect was so huge and immediate that the very first year of spearing resulted in a year class of smallmouth that produced over 5,000 harvested fish 4 years later. Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that the combined harvest from spearing and hook and line fishing has ever been as high as the 1975 harvest by anglers alone - in fact, all the available evidence suggests that the reverse is true. And if, in fact, the population was still near 100,000 adults in 1985 and supported by good juvenile year classes, all the research indicates that it should have been capable of supporting harvest well above documented levels without significant long-term effects. I think the apparent impact of spearing had more to do with removing a sizeable number of larger fish from the population before the season opened and hook and line anglers had a crack at them. The obvious effect would be to increase prey availability for the survivors, and this has repeatedly been demonstrated to have a significant effect on catch rates. This might lead anglers to perceive a much greater immediate impact on the population than was actually the case.

Since nobody else has mentioned it, there's some important developing news that may give Randy his wish ("...what harm is there in modifying our limits? Why is nothing [being] done"?). It seems the Lac du Flambeau will be holding a referendum to decide whether to abandon their 1997 agreement with the state that allowed the DNR to maintain a 3-fish walleye bag limit. Here's a link to the article that appeared in the Lakeland Times:

http://www.lakelandtimes.com:80/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=9155&SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&S=1

I checked the dates, and noticed that this article appeared only 1 week after Randy's comments. Since Randy would be the first to admit that it's impossible for two seemingly related things to happen at roughly the same time unless one caused the other, perhaps he owes us an apology. :rolleyes:

I've been searching for additional details, but haven't seen any.

As for some of those other "FACTS":

"FACT" 1: The title of the photo album in question is "Who is Blue." Obviously the intention was to share some good pictures of myself. It turns out that when you're taking self-timer pictures in a boat, you get the best results under bright sunlight on a calm day. On the other hand, when you're trying to catch walleyes, those conditions tend to produce the worst results. Would I rather catch a smallmouth than a walleye? In absolute terms, yes, but not when I'm in the mood for a fish meal. And I'm amazed he didn't point out that I have a bass boat! Oh my! I think everybody who knows me is well aware that the largest proportion of my time is spent fishing for muskies, but I can guarantee that I spend more time fishing for walleyes on the TFF every year than Randy does. And I could easily claim that his opinion is the one that's biased, because unlike me, it seems obvious that he's only interested what's good for the walleye population, regardless of how it impacts other species.

"FACTS" 2 and 3: As I noted above, we don't know what the walleye and smallmouth populations were in 1984, and we don't know what they are today. It takes more to make something a fact than labeling it as one - even if you use all capital letters.

"FACT" 4: Freak is on target. In a comparison of over 200 lakes in northern Wisconsin, researchers found absolutely no statistical evidence that lakes with abundant smallmouth populations had less abundant walleye populations, and extremely detailed dietary analysis studies have found insignificant prey overlap between the two species. And that interpretation of Jeff's comments was way off base. It's a public document, so of course it's going to be phrased in a diplomatic way, but I was at the meeting, and here's a proper translation: "Some of those fears were allayed after discussion about known interactions between these species" actually means, "We spoke at length about the abundant research demonstrating that this is not an issue. Most of the attendees accepted this, but a few were unwilling to believe a word we said." And "a majority view that smallmouth bass probably have not adversely affected the walleye fishery in the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage" means, "because we knew this wasn't a concern, we ignored it when we formulated the plan". The DNR understands the significance of the TFF walleye fishery, and if the smallmouth posed a risk to the walleye population, it would have been taken into consideration.

As for eagleeye's video, as I indicated in my comments on that thread, I like Godsmack, but I think anyone would be hard-pressed to explain the thematic connection between a video that clearly depicts a group fishing outing and a song entitled "I Stand Alone". Judging from eagleeye's response, I don't think he took any great offense. And it seems a bit hypocritical for Randy to criticize one of the two people who not only watched the video start to finish, but then took the time to express their appreciation for the effort eagleeye made to share it - especially considering that he wasn't one of them.

I made a comment that natural systems are very complex, and that simple explanations are often incomplete or incorrect. I ran across some interesting research that illustrates that point. It seems that many lakes in our region experienced very poor walleye year classes in 1992 and 1993, and credible research has linked this to - of all things - the June, 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillippines. A Minnesota researcher found that as much as 57% of the annual variation in walleye recruitment can be explained by June temperatures. The volcano's ash cloud lowered global temperatures by as much as 1 degree Fahrenheit at the peak of its effect, and May-July temperatures in Minnesota in 1992-93 were actually 3 degrees below the long-term average. Interestingly, the study mentions that the previous regional trough in walleye recruitment occurred in 1979, which is pretty close to the "about 1980" estimate I used in my hypothesis. If you combine poor climate conditions with cannibalization or a prey shortage, you get an even better opportunity for exactly the kind of exceptionally weak year classes I suggested.

The hat, may it rest in peace, came from the good folks at Columbia - it did a great job of keeping the sun off my upper parts, at a very reasonable price. Unfortunately, it was straw and got crushed to death in my rear storage compartment.

mikesgotone

03-10-2009, 12:53 AM

Another good read from blue. Randy, I think he may sound arrogant because he knows what hes talking about. Its obvious to me that he has spent a fair amount of time researching the subject. And I can understand how someone could get aggrovated while debating with someone who obviously hasnt... No offense. Ive been going to the flowage since I was a kid, but Im not gonna pretend to know why the fishing evolved the way it did. I'll admit that I always thought spearing had hurt the walleye, because thats just what Ive always heard. In light of this thread, I now think otherwise. But I gotta be honest... I never cared. I have way more fun on the flowage these days. We still limit on walleye for dinner every day we're up there. And have a blast catching smallies the rest of the time.

Thanks for the tips paul. We actually drift the flats often. We used to use jig and a minnow more. But for some reason we got away from it. We usually cast spinners tipped with a grub, like a berkly power grub, or something like it. I usually get more action on the smaller spinners. Even the "mini" ones. Ive caught some of the biggest fish on the smallest spinners. But that grub is the key for us. Tube jigs aint half bad either. Try flippin one next to a stump on a hot summer day. you'll find those fish when they're hidin'.

I'd enjoy any other favorite techniques. Thanks. mike

George

03-10-2009, 06:45 AM

Just to add to Blue's comments relative to the '92-'93 poor year-classes for walleyes; a 2005 Canadian study titled 'The Status of Walleye in Lacs des Mille Lacs: a Fall Walleye Index Netting Summary' by the Ministry of Natural Resources in Northwest Ontario cited a 2002 study which said...

The 1992 and to a lesser degree the 1993 year-classes were weak which can be attributed to cooler temperatures following the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippine Islands in 1991 (Schupp 2002)

Looks like the Canadians saw like results and came to the same conclusion.

Randy

03-10-2009, 10:48 AM

Paul, sounds like our tactics are pretty similar. In regards to the bobber trailing behind the boat, we leave the bail open and tuck a bit of the line under a rubber band. When there is tension on the line it simply comes undone from the rubber band and the line freely spools off. We still occasionally donate a rod to the flowage gods as nothing is foolproof.

Blue, not really sure where to start..... Unbelievable how a volcanic eruption in the Phillipines can affect walleye recruitment in northern Wisconsin. I guess everything in nature has a cause and affect, everything except walleye and smallmouth populations in the TFF.

I am willing to admit my bias towards a certain species of fish in a body of water. When we fish locally around Milwaukee we pursue all different species. When I travel 300 miles north for my two yearly trips to the TFF, I prefer to catch walleye. It's the one species that's really in short supply in the local lakes and fishing the TFF is the only real opportunity I have all year to catch walleye.

The article you referenced deals with hook and line bag limits related to what percentage of the allowable catch is taken by tribal spearing. I'm not really sure how that relates to a slot limit allowing more fish to grow over 20" or a lake growing it's population of walleye by reducing the percentage of the allowable catch actually harvested. By the way, I wish you would have accurately quoted the entire statement, not just the part that worked for your argument.

Lastly, in regards to your insinuation that local business owners don't appreciate people posting comments about the walleye fishing going to #### in a handbasket. Why no quote here???? Why not quote the sentence where I said the walleye fishing stinks??? Why not find the sentence where I said it's just not worth making the trip anymore because the walleye are gone?? Why not quote the sentence whetre I said the walleye fishing has gone to #### in a handbasket??? I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist! The majority of the information I've used to make my argument has been taken directly from the TFF Fishery Management Plan and my own personal experiences. Here's a quote from one of my earlier postings, "Hard not to be happy on the flowage, it's a beautiful place". I apologize for any business losses that may have resulted from such a comment.

I do want to see more, big walleye in the TFF. I'm sure that will just cripple the TFF economy. What was the economy like when the TFF was a "walleye sweatshop" before spearing? I seem to remember a few more resorts back then.

As a side note, your quote "he's only interested in what's good for the walleye population" seems a bit contradictory to my quote, "My true concern is the future of the TFF. I want to see a lake that provides a balanced fishery with the opportunity to catch big walleye".

Overall summary..... I always enjoy myself while on the TFF and can say with 100% certainty, it is my favorite place in the whole world. It was my grandpa's favorite place, it is my father's favorite place and I hope someday it will be my children's favorite place. Because of this, I have taken a greater interest in the TFF fishery as I have experienced it's changes over the past 30 years. It's still a great walleye fishery but I am concerned about the direction in which things are going. If something needs to be and can be done to help the walleye fishery I think it needs to be investigated.

Blue, I'm sure you're going to want to spout back with some comments disqualifying my argument telling me how I'm wrong again. That's fine. If you feel a need to have the last word, go ahead and take it. In all my years fishing the flowage I haven't come across a single person I didn't like, I don't need to change that now.

Good day!