|
|
Location: Rhinelander | Interesting read.
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=13&...
Attachments
----------------
 23176a.jpg (37KB - 149 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Didn't read anywhere in the article where they identified the reasons for the decline since 2006. Nor rather they planed on rearing walleyes to fingerling size before planting them. Our DNR learned the hard way that planting 1 million walleyes in the fry stage accomplished nothing more then a free meal for every specie of fish over 3 inches long in Saginaw Bay. The survival rate jumped significantly and the fishery took off when raised to 3 to 5 inch size.
Edited by walleye express 1/6/2015 1:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Major reasons for the decline is habitat degradation, competition from LM Bass, over harvest,
and a skimpy stocking program for about the last 10 years. They will be stocking extended growth walleyes, I believe, because of the bass issue. The DNR took the size limit of bass there a couple years back, and the system is still over run. |
|
| |
|
New User
Posts: 1
| Lake Minocqua had been my "home" lake for almost 30 years and over the years I have seen it change in many ways. I agree with Steve Worrall that in order to address the issue we need to figure out what caused it in the first place. I disagree with him completely on the assumption that competition from LM bass (or SM for that matter) is contributing in any meaningful way. Bass have always been a part of the system and will always be. I believe the bass are filling a void left by the absence Walleye.
My first year on the lake I had the opportunity to help the DNR fisheries technicians place and monitor fyke nets for the purpose of studying and monitoring Walleye populations . I have done so numerous times since then (the lake is fyke netted about every 5 years). The decline I have seen is stunning and it has always made me curious about the cause. Over the years I have spoken with various DNR personnel at the local, regional and state level and I had collected a variety of paperwork in order to assess the problem for myself. While I found it impossible to get anybody at the DNR to actually admit there was a problem (normal and usual fluctuations they would say) much less commit to a cause for it there was plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that the lake (and the entire chain) was/is crashing. It is my personal opinion that the decline can be contributed to a confluence of problems - decline in water quality, substantial overharvest (intentional and unintentional, non-tribal and tribal) and habitat degradation in addition to a variety of lesser issues all of which serve to put pressure on the overall Walleye population.
The studies will tell you that that recruitment is the issue - that year zero fry are not making it to year 1 fry. I agree. If you buy that predation by bass is the primary culprit then you may conclude that stocking larger fingerlings may be the answer. I submit to you however that the problem is far more complex and dire than that and that a solution if it is to be found will be far more comprehensive and obtrusive that simply throwing bigger fish at the problem.
I am not optimistic. While I believe that a harvest moratorium is long overdue (I have advocated it for 20 years or more) a short-cut solution is bound to fail. The Minocqua chain does not exist in isolation. I have argued with a relative who lives on Lake Tomahawk for years that the decline we were seeing on Minocqua 20-25 years ago would eventually hit Lake Tomahawk. He thought that Tom was to big and too high quality to be effected in the same manner. He is not making his argument anymore. What is happening to the chain today will hit the entire Northwoods in the years to come. Unless we make a wholehearted effort to fix the problem not just cover it with a Band-Aid we will lose the Walleye fishing opportunities we have enjoyed and all the economic and social benefit that goes with it. |
|
| |
