|
|
Member
Posts: 885
| x
Edited by Purple Skeeter 6/28/2006 7:55 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Personally, I think the tourny's release too many fish. I'd much rather we filleted every fish in question then end up with even one floater. Someone eating fish is a great thing... wasting one bothers me a bit.
What's 3000 fish to a population of over 500,000?
Want to reduce the mortality rate? Make sure the scales are open a few hours after the boats launch and encourage anglers to return early. Limit the distance anglers can run. But the most important thing would be to make sure you tell mother nature when you plan on having the tourny because weather conditions will dictate mortality in most events. | |
| | |
| How does everyone view the chart? Looks like a lot of dead fish. Face it the DNR needs to limit the number of tournaments on the Winnebago system. Remember, these are usually the larger fish not "eaters". It's time for a slot limit on Winnebago, similar to the limits on the Wisconsin river system.(and some Minnesota lakes) I believe you can keep one fish over 20" there. Everyone complains about the lack of trophy sized walleyes caught on Winnebago, well this may be the reason why. (along with the annual spring slaughter on the Wolf river). | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 284
| I was very surprised to see those results also. I think a little education and care could go along way.
If you are going to fish tournaments I think you owe it to the fish to have a battery strong enough to run a quality livewell all day long. Also, if the weather is warm like it usually is for this group of tournaments people should have coolers in the boat with frozen jugs of ice to keep the water in the livewell at a reasonable temp. When my first fish goes in the livewell it runs all day and I use ice jugs throughout the day to keep that water cool. I remember the FLW event last July when it was over 90 degrees out. Our fish were jumping all over the place when we came to weigh in. You are always going to lose deep hooked fish, especially on a harness bite time of year but these results are suprising. Also, it seems obvious but all three of these tourneys (especially Merc) have weigh in areas that are shallow hot water. If guys are pumping any of that crap water in their livewells during weigh in their fish will be done almost instantly. My last thought, I know some tournaments played with a fish in water weigh in last year. That is a great idea. The site of 5 or 6 hens laying in a plastic bin while we sit up there and jabber about how we caught them or dodge questions isn't good. Get those fish off the stage and back in the water immediately. Thats always bothered me.
A few years back I had a boat with a livewell plug that would fall out. I fished a tourney on GB and on the way in with 1 28" fish my plug popped out. That fish got the crap beat out of it for over 20 miles and looked just terrible when we got in. I was embarassed to weigh it. From that point forward I've been a lot more careful about the way I handle my fish. Leave early if you have your fish and take it easy on them if there is rough water.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 874
Location: Neenah, WI | It seems that at every tournament I fish I see guys making the same mistakes that end up with dead or dying fish.We've been pretty good at keeping our fish in good shape over the years by just paying attention to details.
1. Plug your overflow so that you don't lose too much water while running.
2. Install a Survivor. It's a water pickup device that costs about 25 bucks and installs in a minute or so.
3. Once you get near the other boats waiting to weigh in, STOP drawing water into your livewell. There's a lot of gas and oil residue that will kill your fish. The water will also be warmer than out on the lake. We always stop a little further out and top the livewell off.
4. We don't add ice until we are done running. Jugs or blocks of ice are great for cooling the water but at high speeds those things can bang the fish up quite a bit.
I agree that too many fish are released. Those that are questionable should be cleaned with the dead ones and donated to food pantries, etc.
Good Luck this season. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Purple, I spoke about this topic recently and for what it's worth, the late tournaments with warmer waters do the most damage for any species. As well, two of these tournaments are really "amature" types where many locals get involved with equipment that is not up to par, I'd like to know how many rigs even used a boat with a livewell much less a boat with a recirc. system in it.
The information gathered from these events is extremely valuable to the DNR and the costs to gather this kind of data in another fashion (creel census) would by far cost more than the 3000 dead fish last year.
Put it into perspective and think about how many people you actually know that kept fish this last year and start adding it up, 3000 is really a drop in the bucket compared to what was learned and harvested by anglers of the estimated 1.4 million walleyes in the system!
I have to agree with many that if there are going to be tourneys in water over a certain temp they should be catch and kill. I see no reason to "reduce" the number of tourneys on th system but I do see the need for beter tournamnet rules and regulation.
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
| What is the advantage of catch and kill at a certain temp? Don't you have the option to do what you want already? Explain to me what good a tournament would be where you killed every fish. It should be all live releases or let the fisherman do what they want with them. When are people around here going to understand that there are reasons that you can't catch anything on that system over 26 inches... | |
| | |
| 3000 fish would actually be less then the 2 day limit for 200 boats with two anglers. 400 anglers X 5 fish is 2000 fish. There are a lot more fish taken during a typical few days of fishing by those fishing for the freezer. 3 and 4 anglers in boats pulling baits catching and keeping fish and tournament angler hours PRE fishing are more of a concern IMHO. Mostly due to my opinion on tag response and delayed mortality rates from the guys who pre fish hard. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| x
Edited by Purple Skeeter 6/28/2006 7:56 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 25
Location: Fox Lake, Illinois | The guys/gals that I know usually pre-fish up to a week in advance. I for one and most of the others that I know don't keep the fish that we catch during the pre fishing except for maybe 1 meal that we get together for. ( that is if we can find anyone to cook ) Once a fish is caught, it is shy about biting again and that can slow down the fishing for anyone after the tournament. Once I find an area with fish, I stay away from fishing it again but will take a drive over to check on my finder to see if the eyes are still there.
Sometimes all of the fish caught are donated to pantrys or to schools. It makes sense to me when the water is warm the mortality rate isn't seen right away, a lot of those fish take time to die, develop problems relating to being handled and released in warm waters. Some tournaments will take the eyes to be released by boat to cleaner, cooler water but I for one think that is too late when the weather is that warm. AND, I've seen some happy people without the ability to fish or are unable to afford fish that are grateful to have the donations. | |
| | |
| I agree with one of the other guests, there should be a slot limit on the Winnebago system and the number of tournaments limited. They have tournaments on lakes in Minnesota with slot limits. Maybe we would start seeing some larger walleyes after a few years of slot limits. Maybe all walleyes between 20-28" should be released. When I overhear river fishermen bragging about having hundreds of walleyes in the freezer after the spring run, it makes me wonder if anyone is practicing catch and release. | |
| | |
| I'll say it and it goes like this. This fishery is awesome, absolutely awesome with the numbers and growth rate of the fish. However, with the current regs, meat hunters in the river (I still cannot believe the DNR lets it happen) and the ever increasing pressure from tournaments, we are in the good old days right now and sooner or later people will realize that its too late and things will crash. Its in the numbers plain and simple.
Protect the spawners and things will probably hold up, but mark my words, it will crash eventually. | |
| | |
| If you now of ANYBODY who brags about hundreds of filets in the freezer, call the DNR tip line. Each person is allowed 10 total in possesion. So, someone with 5 in the freezer can catch a limit of walleye. A person with 10 in the freezer, can keep ZERO.
Edited by Joel "Doc" Kunz 3/18/2006 9:59 PM
| |
| | |
| Hey Guest, Easy with pointing the finger at the river as meat hunters the entire system has plenty of them...not just the river!!! | |
| | |
| Actually, MORE fish are kept on Poygan and Bago during May June and July BY FAR, then the supposed "meat hunters" on the river. Doesn't take much of a math wiz to figure that one out. This is an opinion formed by years of asking the right questions of the right people for works published and to be published. The MELEE goes on when the trolling bite is on for 12 WEEKS, not the few days of good fishing on the down run.
So Mr."guest", please remember to check your info before you blow your horn in such a way as to accuse those who fish the river as "meat hunters". So, the guy who goes trolling day after day with his friends in June isn't a meat hunter???? Mmmmmmmmm Me thinks you're calling the wolf an ugly chicken and leaving him in the hen house. I agree that there are reasons to be concerned for the long term but also trust the guys who are on the home team to lead us in the right direction. KK's a pretty smart guy with lots of good people around him plus help from groups such as WFT. I'm glad that others such as yourself share your concerns for the system. You, I and others around us also share some parts of your concerns. | |
| | |
| Fair enough. You are right. I'm just saying that if the adult population is down, then maybe something should be done to ensure this fishery doesn't crash, especially when people are targeting these big fish while they are in the river and during the tournaments. I do recall someone on this board commenting on buckets of fish over 20 some inches coming out of the river in the spring and how common it is to get a limit over 25 inches. C'mon, is that sportsmanship?
On Upper Red Lake the indians increased the size of the gill nets to bring in larger walleyes when the price of walleye went up and they were struggling on the reservation. The % of larger walleyes increased big time, pretty soon there wasn't enough females to keep up with the take. Look what's happened to one of the best walleye lakes in North America in the last fifteen years.....
Doc, you are right and I agree with you, but let's look at other examples on other large fisheries and do our best to educate so it does not happen here. Especially if it takes a good two years to get something done. The fish are vulnerable on the upper lakes at that time of year and more and more people are learning to target them. How long does a person think that will last? | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1406
| Doc, I don't waste too much time with guests these days.., Although I would differ a bit on your opinion that the adult population is "down" There are a mess of 22-24" fish in the system and a huge portion of those are 10 year old females. Take a few moments and review the numbers of years past particularly the time between 1999 and 2001 and you should see what I am talking about!
We also differ in opinion as in years past regarding a slot as the only thing I would support is a 1 fish over "?" and a daily bag that is acceptable to the DNR. At this time I see nothing that shows we need a "slot range".
One thing people always seem to forget is that it is human nature to want something that is not easily achievable. Ie. the 28"er on the Wolf, a 30"er on the Fox, 5 30"er's on Erie. You see the relationship? All within reach on each body of water but it won't be handed to ya on a silver platter! Heck I'm hearin people bitchin about people that fish within the regs and take 5 jumbo perch off the bay! Jeessshhhh Maybe we should all just fish!
Good Luck
Tyee | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | The only reason to put a slot on the system would be if it were in trouble. Its not.
Secondly, most of the tournament anglers in the big tourny's (300+ boats) on 'bago are local. Eliminating the tournament would NOT lower the number of anglers on the water and it certainly won't eliminate the pressure on the system.
Without naming names and with no ill will intended, I remember seeing photos on this very site of guys who kept about 30 fish from a single trip to BDN last fall. Most of them looked to be in the 20 to 26 inch range, with a few much larger. If your going to ask if its acceptable for 800 anglers to harvest 3000 fish (less than 4 fish per angler), how do you justify 3 or 4 guys taking 30 fish out of BDN?
It is good to know people care, but we do no one any good by jumping to conclusions. And we certainly aren't going to do the lakes and rivers any favors by making uninformed decisions either.
Edited by Brad B 3/20/2006 12:20 AM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| 5 guys fish 10 days and take home 30 fish, and you consider that overharvesting.... in an environment that produces an average size of 25 inches...
I'm always open to a good discussion, but it sure seems like Bago is getting more and more pressure every year... but it does not seem to affect the number of Walleyes being caught.... Hats off again to Kendall and WFT for the fantastic job they are doing! | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 538
| From what I have understood, the DNR seems to think the system is doing fine. We are lucky that this system gets such close attention and care. The major complaints seem to be that their is so much forage in the system the walleyes can feed happily at will and not necessarily when we want them to.
We do not need to try to create a "trophy" fishery thru a misguided slot system. The sytstem provides good sport and meals to all who are interested.
Regarding the mortality, new and improved oxegenation systems can help, but the beating the fish take in transit on this rough old lake really takes it toll.
Take care,
Jim O
Edited by Jim Ordway 3/19/2006 10:23 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Purple -
No, I don't think that's overharvesting. I have absolutely NO problem with what you did what-so-ever. What I said was I don't understand the concern that you have with nearly a 1000 anglers harvesting about 3 fish each, when you harvested twice that many (6 fish each) on BDN. Perhaps I am mis-reading the reasons why you started this topic in the first place.
Fish are food. Not friends.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | In my OPINION something that I thought might be tried to help reduce mortality is a dead fish penalty that starts off with a .1 deduction per fish for one or 2 dead fish and increase to .5 deduction per fish for a box full of dead fish. this would really get guys to thinking and force there hand to try harder to keep there fish alive. I dont know for sure if this would work but it is something to chew on. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1656
| Purple skeeter,
A couple of thoughts.....First I'm curious where you obtained that info? Is there more details associated with it? I'm always interested in learning more about 'Bago.
As for the health of winnebago, I think it is in good shape right now. I think for 'bago to remain a healthy fishery all depends on mother nature. Spawning success is the most influential factor on the future of Lake Winnebago. We need good high water years on the Fox and Wolf rivers so the walleyes can enjoy casual sex and reproduce. We've been fortunate to enjoy some good spawning years over the last decade. I think if we go through some dry years then and only then will we need to look at tools to help ensure fish populations on the entire 'bago system.
Purple Skeeter, do not take this as picking on you, but I do think Green bay could stand more help for walleye populations and habitat restoration. I think the taking of those fish is more detrimental to the population than the number of dead fish from a tournament on 'Bago. We've seen the pictures of stringers of fish both from Bays de noc and Geanos. I strongly encourage catch and release on Green Bay, as well as large fish on 'Bago.
Good Luck | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | All too often people react to dialogues like this with emotions and not scientific facts. It’s always easy for all of us to see things from our own personal perspectives and not see the total picture. It’s also human nature for all of us to be protective for our own interests.
Tournament fishermen do not want to see a reduction in those opportunities. River fishermen do not want to see the quotas reduced during their peek times. Mud trollers do not want to see their options on what fish they can keep eliminated. When rules are suggested that do not effect them, they are all in favor as long as the impact benefits and does not digress their opportunities.
Any time you change the rules, there should be a thorough investigation on the ramifications and possible results. These decisions should always be done by the experts with input from those that will be effected.
Looking at what is done on other lakes is not always the answer. Just because a Minnesota lake has slot limits to promote trophy fish doesn’t mean that we would see more ten pound fish on our system if this practice was installed. It seems to me that I can recall a time when the DNR said that the bago strain of walleye would never produce large numbers of 30 inch fish. If my poor memory is correct, it would make no sense to put restriction in place that would do no good on a specific ecosystem.
I also remember a time when the DNR was very concerned with the bait fish populations on the bago system. I recall reading reports saying that the walleyes could end up starving from lack of forage. Now, after the last few years, many of us are concerned with too much forage in the system that will make our fishing more difficult. We must always monitor the system and watch for warning signs of possible future problems. But Mother Nature always seems to have a mind of her own and does interesting things regardless of our dabbling.
My personal bias suggests that there is nothing wrong with this system and it should be left alone. The populations are awesome and strong. We’ve had great hatches and the future looks bright. Why mess with a good thing?
On the tournament side of things, I’m extremely disappointed to see the kill rates from those tournaments. We need better management of tournament practices by organizers and participants. I’m sure that most tournament fishermen believe that those numbers are unacceptable. Regardless of your position, I assure you that most tournament fisherman have a high regard and love for the Winnebago system. We do not come to rape and pillage the resource. We care what happens and will do whatever we can to sustain this great fishery. I believe that the mortality concerns while prefishing are unwarranted. Almost every fish is released immediately and no one wants to over fish a location that may produce a winning weight. We record, monitor and move on to other areas hoping the fish we find stay put. We would be foolish to over harvest a small pod of fish prior to any tournament. How many locals do you know who leave fish to go find fish? We do it all the time.
As far as the results from the 3 tournaments posted here. I’m personally appalled and in shock. As a tournament fisherman, I believe that these numbers are unacceptable AND we all need to work together to make sure that this does not continue. Being adversaries and pointing fingers at each other does no good. We all need to work together to improve our practices and educate those who do not know how to care for the fishery.
I will continue to support ANYONE who keeps legal fish while abiding by out state regulations. It’s their option and right to keep fish legally. If they are causing harm then the rules need to be changed. My only concern is that I still believe that 20% of the fishermen catch 80% of the fish. Once we get to this level and achieve this prowess, our responsibly and ethics should dictate that we can single handily hurt a fragile fish population. We should know better. With knowledge comes responsibility.
Let the flogging begin. I look forward to constructive criticism but will refrain from reacting to personal attacks.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| Jayman,
I agree…Had to argue that there is always more room for improvement for either Green Bay or Bay de Noc... but where else can you catch a 7+ lb Walleye almost any day of the week from spring through fall with just a little fishing knowledge. I’d be more concerned that the commercial netting-taking place on Bay De Noc is doing more harm with the huge nets in prime Walleye territory.
The number of fish that myself and the guys I fish with that were taken home last year was 1/10 of what we caught and released.... In no way did I or anyone that I fished with even come close to the number of fish that were cleaned at the tournaments held on the bay.... I would have to fish all year and keep every fish I boated to even put a dent in the number of dead fish that get cleaned....
In the last 10 years fishing on Big Bay de Noc, a good percentage of the fish we caught we lip tagged... I spoke with a Michigan DNR Warden last year that said most of the walleyes that are caught on Big Bay De Noc are planted fish similar to the salmon situation on Michigan. He said that there is little natural re-production on Bay De Noc due to water levels being so low the last 10 years...
Just my 2 cents worth..
And the reason I started this post in the first place... I thought it would make an interesting discussion.... as I said when I started this post.. I have no feeling one way or another... It was just news to me the % of fish that ended up dead... never saw these numbers before.
And the fish that got cleaned from the Green Bay Tournaments went to feed an incredible group of Veterans... who were very grateful indeed... They were put to good use!!
Purple Skeeter
Edited by Purple Skeeter 3/20/2006 3:35 PM
| |
| | |
| Dennis, you said, "I believe that the mortality concerns while prefishing are unwarranted. Almost every fish is released immediately"
Depending onthe time of the year and method caught, delayed mortlity rates can actually be quite high. The fish might swim away and splash you in the face and die days later. This happens often during trolling bits and when anglers play out big fish too long, often trying to hide the fact they have a big fish on. It happens with warm surface waters, from deep water and from rough handling during unhooking. Not sure how high on the concern list it is with the biologists, but it IS on the list of factors.
I share your enthusiasm for the reduction in mortality rates at the tournaments and applaud you for saying so.
Jim O you said, "From what I have understood, the DNR seems to think the system is doing fine. We are lucky that this system gets such close attention and care. The major complaints seem to be that their is so much forage in the system the walleyes can feed happily at will and not necessarily when we want them to."
Well believe me, it's cautious optimism. If tag reporting numbers are off, we may be way above the safe harvest estimates in some of the past years. I don't think KK and those in charge rest easilly when considreing all the factors in regards to the lakes future. Things look good but things change too.
"We do not need to try to create a "trophy" fishery thru a misguided slot system. The sytstem provides good sport and meals to all who are interested."
Not sure where you get misguided. If a slot was put on, I would have to trust those in charge that it was for good reason. I don't think that it would even be food for discussion if they didn't see some benefit. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 538
| Fair enough on the Slot issue. Whatever those we have entrusted with the system were to determine would be worthy of discussion.
One problem with slots is that if you were to badly hook a larger fish, you would have to return it to die and waste fish.
Perhaps not a big deal in terms of overall numbers, but this seems to happen too often with aggressive fish, like northerns, that may be too small to keep, and you know they are gull food when you release them. I hate the waste. In the overall percentages, slots would theoretically save a bunch of larger fish that are released by ethical fisherman.
I do oppose trying to turn this system into some kind of trophy fishery. That could lead to many more foul hooked and wasted fish than the current system.
Perhaps I have missed something in the outlooks from the DNR. Doc, I know that you are close to this and perhaps could share dangers that I have missed? I thought the hatches have been, thru the recent years, very good and that we had good opportunities in store?
Take care,
Jim | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 141
Location: Oshkosh, WI | The snapshot of mortality came from an interesting and informative set of tables that is posted from Kendall Kampke on Doc's Wolf River Website. http://www.wolfrivercountry.com/outdoors/files/State%20of%20the%20L...
Two other tables seem more important to consider regarding the overall health of the system are the "Walleye Population Estimates: Fish 15" and larger" AND "Estimated Walleye Exploitation Rates".
I have a couple of questions about these two tables.
I am trying to understand the population estimates for '95, '96, '97, '98 and the relationship between "safe exploitation" and 15inch population. Why are these two things not more closely related?
For example in 95, the population was high and exploitation low, yet in 96, the population fell dramatically. Why?
or from 96 to 97, population of 15" plus fish increased by a factor of 2.5 - a reasonable explanation is that a bunch of fish grew up and hit the 15 inch length. Yet, from 97 to 98 the population dropped by a factor of 2.5, while the exploitation was only a bit above the "safe exploitation" rate of 28%. How can that be "safe" if slightly exceeding it caused the population to drop by a factor of 2.5 - from an estimated 1.3 million fish in excess of 15" to 500,000 fish of this length?
Are there other things that account for this loss of fish not accounted for by "exploitation"?
Are the population estimates that full of error variance?
What is the target number of fish above 15" to maintain a healthy breeding stock?
Unless you can statistically account for more of the variability, I think the definition of "safe exploitation" needs to be a band that ranges from 10% to 28%. And if the data is that full of noise, it is difficult to have much confidence in it.
Part of my problem may be that I don't have definitions for a few terms, e.g. exploitation, recap reporting and Linear 100% recap reporting. I am guessing that exploitation equals fishing harvest - that may be wrong.
As an aside, on 2002 explotation rate, the 75% line is higher than the 50% line - that has to be a typo. | |
| | |
| AveJoe... are you avaliable to do my Taxes ???
J/K.... | |
| | |
| Sounds like they count fish like they count deer.
The D.N.R. has done a great job of improving spawning
habitat under the direction of Walleyes For Tomorrow.
They just have a hard time counting anything!  | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | Doc a question for you. where are the facts behind your statement that walleyes die a few days after release? I am on the water as much as anyone on the winnabago system and quit frankly the only dead fish i usually see are sheephead,carp,! I also have many friends who live on the shorline in neenah area and dead walleyes very rarely show up dead on the shoreline . Dont get my wrong you do see occasional dead walleye here and there but if you counted all the fish caught during tourny's a few here and there certainly dont add up to be making a statement you did or a fact the dnr uses it as a factor. just my humble thoughts
Edited by eye Lunker 3/22/2006 6:09 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 538
| I have read various articles thru the years in In-Fisherman and Walleye Insider that have done delayed mortality studies on tourney fish. As I recall, there was a direct link between delayed mortallity and rough water transport of fish in livelwell. Higher temps were also a factor due to the lessened capacity of warm water to hold oxygen. I am sorry that I do not have those articles at my fingertips to support this, but I will see if I can dig them out.
Take care,
Jim O | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | AvgJoe, you ask great questions that I hope someone smarter than me can answer. It gets difficult trying to decipher the charts of others and their intent.
Like others, I’m leery towards believing that there are high mortality rates on fish that are released immediately. I’d like to be directed towards research or studies that have been done on this subject. I can understand that there would be some problems with warm surface water in conjunction with rough handling but I question other scenario’s.
Showing my hand here ……. I’m always leery with slot limits and will only support such an action if there is solid evidence that it will work. I believe there has been “feel good” slot limits imposed on lakes in Wisconsin and Minnesota that have done little to improve the fisheries.
Changing laws that restrict you to only one big fish may not work. It has been proven that protecting big fish does little good or can actually hurt some fisheries if those fish are beyond their prime for spawning and are only feeding machines. They are taking valuable forage that can be used by the proficient spawners. Unfortunately, sometimes what we want and what is best for the ecosystem are not the same.
I still need to hear from the DNR on whether the Winnebago system can produce a solid population of fish over ten pounds. I still believe that I read somewhere that Kendall stated that our strain of walleye just do not normally grow that big. Again, I’d like to hear form him/them.
I like the idea (always have) of having catch and release only fishing on systems where high populations of fish congregate in a small area and are too vulnerable. I like the fact that people can still fish. The freeze can be filled later. At least we get to fish and enjoy nature. BUT, if Doc is correct about high mortality on released fish, I’d revisit my opinion.
If it ain’t broken don’t fix it BUT if it is in need of repair call in a repair man for an estimate.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | I cant imagine that moratlity rates would be high in cold water environments. I think the warmer the water the easier it is to stess the fish. I think many of us see this with fish in our livewells when the surface temps get a little high these fish become more lethargic and need lots of care and attention to keep them swimming. Useually you can revive them just by cooling the water down. IMHO | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Dennis -
"I still need to hear from the DNR on whether the Winnebago system can produce a solid population of fish over ten pounds. I still believe that I read somewhere that Kendall stated that our strain of walleye just do not normally grow that big. Again, I’d like to hear form him/them."
Our strain of walleye? I doubt Winnebago walleye are all that different than the Green Bay ones since these fish have only recently (a relative term) been separated by the locks on the Fox. Guess I kinda doubt these fish simply CAN'T grow like their relatives on the bay - seems more likely to me that its a forage base/life expectancy issue. But like you said, even if 'bago could produce 10 pound fish with some regularity, that is not necesarily in the systems best interest.
I agree that it would be interesting to hear KK's take on this. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 885
| x
Edited by Purple Skeeter 6/28/2006 7:56 PM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | After reading the following article, I'd have to believe that there is nothing wrong with the system and we should leave well enough alone.
Lake Winnebago fishery thrives
By Jim Lee
Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers
OSHKOSH — Lake Winnebago, the largest inland body of water in Wisconsin, continues to prosper as a fishery.
Whether anglers will be able consistently to take advantage of those abundant resources is a matter of timing and conjecture.
"The 2005 hatch of walleye is the fourth-largest on record for the lake," said Kendall Kamke, Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist at Oshkosh. "Three of the five largest hatches have occurred consecutively since 2003, putting us up to our rod tips in younger walleye, meaning fishing should be good to great for at least the next 10 years."
Before anglers begin aiming their augers, tip-ups, boats and trailers at the 137,708-acre lake, there is a caveat.
Kamke based his report on DNR sampling of the fishery in summer and autumn.
"Index trawling in August 2005 again showed a good food base, perhaps too good as anglers complained about slowed action when mid-summer (and young-of-the-year forage fish) arrived," he said.
That has been Lake Winnebago's curse in recent years.
The walleye base is as good as it's ever been. Daily bag limits — five walleyes, no minimum size — are as liberal as the state allows.
There are times during the spring spawning period when taking a five-fish limit is relatively common. But there have been more times in recent years when enticing a walleye to bite has been much more difficult than their abundance would forecast.
Young-of-the-year drum (sheepshead), gizzard shad, trout perch, emerald shiners and white bass continue to flourish almost on the same schedule as walleye, providing a huge food base.
"There's no shortage of forage in Winnebago that we can tell," Kamke said. "The 2005 drum hatch was a little bit better than 2004. I'd call it an average year class. The only reason anyone cares about that hatch is because it produces great food for walleye, bass, northern pike and muskie."
Gizzard shad also turned up in good numbers in the 2005 DNR survey.
"What I'm afraid that will translate into is probably not the best ice fishing this winter," Kamke said.
"When we have high numbers of gizzard shad, the other species are well-fed, so they feed less aggressively during the winter months."
As a result of a plentiful food supply and moderated angler harvest, walleyes are present in attractive numbers as well as size.
The DNR's 2005 spring survey taken during spawning season found about half the male walleyes were in the 13½- to 16-inch range. The average size of males was 16.3 inches and 1.6 pounds, with 25 percent topping 17.5 inches.
"Currently, the female spawning stock is made up of mostly medium-sized females in the 21- to 25-inch (range)," Kamke said. "These are 7- to 10-year-old fish from the mid-to-late 1990 year classes.
"About a quarter of the females up spawning in 2005 were less than 21 inches, while 15 percent were 25 inches or larger."
The 2005 hatch of white bass was strong but will not be accessible to anglers for several years. In the meantime, bass from the 1999-2003 year class should provide plenty of fish in the 10- to 14-inch range this spring.
Muskies, northern pike, largemouth and smallmouth bass, bluegill, crappie and perch numbers remain on the upswing, with many species benefiting from an increase in aquatic vegetation, according to Kamke.
"There's no reason for pessimism in this fishery," he said. "It's just a great system, and it's doing well."
For walleye anglers, he advises fishing in May and June on upriver lakes (Butte des Morts, Winneconne and Poygan) as those fish move downstream from spring spawning sites in the Wolf and Fox rivers back toward Lake Winnebago.
"Those are the best months for walleye fishing," Kamke said.
Walleyes typically begin a major upriver spawning run in late March or early April, with the peak of spawning occurring in mid-April. In 2005, spawning peaked April 5 to 10, "a week or more earlier than usual," Kamke said.
During July and August, anglers should "follow the hatches out into the big lake, find roving schools of walleyes and work them (often over mud flats)," he said.
"The best anglers are those who don't get hung up fishing the same way. You really need to try new things, new areas and new looks. If you're willing to do that, you can usually return home with a meal of fish, because the fish certainly are there."
Jim Lee is an outdoors writer for Gannett Wisconsin Newspapers. E-mail him at [email protected]
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 744
| One thing no one has mentioned yet is all the money given to WFT, etc. FROM THESE TOURNAMENTS. Not to mention all the indirect money. I don't have numbers, but maybe somebody knows. All I know is there is a "conservation" donation included in every entry fee, usually $10-20. This money is not DNR money, but goes directly to improving the walleye population. In essence, tournament anglers pay for the fish that do die. This "fee" is also appearing in many smaller tournaments also, which is a good thing.
Dave S | |
| | |
| Dennis, I found information below interesting. Especially what is says about an injury to the tongue and in the mouth. We both know about fizzing discussions and mortality talk in regards to fish caught from deep water.
The Survival Question
One of the first questions you should ask when deciding whether to release a fish after being hooked, played, netted or landed, handled and unhooked, is whether it has a good chance of surviving. The ability of the fish to survive will depend on many factors.
Probably the single most contributing factor to fish dying either before or after being caught is because of injury and stress. Some weakened so much by the fight are even made more susceptible to predators.
The term delayed mortality refers to the brief time period after a fish has been released, generally 24 to 48 hours afterwards, when the fish dies without the angler's knowledge. Anglers can eliminate and reduce fish stress and injury by understanding a few important points about fish anatomy and physiology.
Air Bladder - Performing several important functions and generally located between the stomach and the backbone, the air bag tends to keep the equilibrium of density between the fish and the water, as well as act in a flotation / balance capacity.
Circulatory System - Like us, our circulatory system is key to survival and the blood of a fish passes through it's heart to the gills for purification and travels throughout the body. The blood carries oxygen and nutrients and the heart is located close behind the fish's mouth. Remember when unhooking to be as gentle as possible to do as little damage as possible.
Digestive System - The digestive systems of fish are another dangerous spot that you should be aware of. Fish cannot always recover easily from injuries to the digestive system. Starting with the tongue at the front of the mouth, the digestive system includes the esophagus, the gullet and the stomach. Injuries to any of these parts make for a difficult recovery for the fish.
Mucus - This important coating is the barrier between the fish and parasites, fungi, and diseases. Do your best not to disturb this coating and allow the fish to keep as much of it's protective layer as possible.
Also another note. In a long phone conversation with Kendall regarding much of this, the talk of invasive species came up. Chad Cook form the DNR/UW EXtension had a display at the Ice Breaker on the subject. Anyway, Kendall warned me about the "life is good" attitude and having a mind set that says; "After reading the following article, I'd have to believe that there is nothing wrong with the system and we should leave well enough alone". Kendall advised me that we should ALL be more concerned over the impact of invasive species then in slinging opinions on slot sizes and fish nunmbers. If white perch, eurasian ruffe or gobies enter the system, and get established, we may not have any walleyes to worry about. Not my words. SO, I guess the subject of potential slot size, mortality rates and walleye populations is not what we should be directing our efforts towards. I guess boat lifts and locks on the Fox and learning the potential dangers of exotic species and what we as anglers need to do, is where we should be putting our efforts.
Ruffe pose a threat to native fish because they
(1) mature quickly, (2) have a high reproductive capacity, and (3) easily adapt to new environments. Ruffe are more tolerant of poor water conditions and have several anatomical features (well developed sensory organs that allow them to detect vibrations given off by both predators and prey) that give them an advantage over native fishes. Native fish populations–especially yellow perch, emerald and spottail shiners, trout perch, and brown bullhead–have declined in locations where ruffe have become established
The White Perch (Morone americana) is an invading species that has become permanently established in Lake Erie, the Ohio River, and a few inland lakes. Prolific competitors of native fish species, white perch are believed to have the potential to cause declines of Great Lakes walleye populations.
White Perch or White Bass (Why it matters)
While the white bass is native to the Great Lakes, the white perch is an invader that may reduce populations of native fish such as walleye and white bass. Additionally, white bass can interbreed with white perch, which could dilute the gene pools of both species.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Thanks Doc,
We are in total agreement. We should ALL be more concerned over the impact of all invasive species. They scare the bajeebees out of me. I believe they should be the number one item on everyone’s radar. As fishermen, we all should be taking a vocal stand against the reopening of the locks.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 538
| It appears that this discussion has to come to a conclusion that we all can agree on. Lets keep and eye and ear open for any future discussions derived from the recreation boat interests that have expressed interest in re-opening the lock system. The current state and federal budgets likely eliminate funding for the lock system but we must stay pro-active in our opposition.
Take care,
Jim O | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 3899
| I have asked Mark Green, hopefully our next Governor, what his stand is on the reopening of the locks. We all know that the current Governor is in favor of reopening, and has promised financial help, regardless of the State's financial situation. There is a strong backing from the private sector, along with financial backing, to help fund the reopening. As Jim mentioned, we need to stay alert, and pro-active in opposing this. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | No surprise, but Green supports opening of the locks.
Here's the first article I found on it:
http://www.house.gov/petri/press/foxlock2.htm | |
| |
|
Mortality Rate on Winnebago Tournaments