Walleye Discussion Forums
| ||
| View previous thread :: View next thread | |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] Regional Walleye Fishing -> Winnebago Walleyes -> Mortality Rate on Winnebago Tournaments |
| Message Subject: Mortality Rate on Winnebago Tournaments | |||
Joel "Doc" Kunz |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| Jim Ordway |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| AvgJoe |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Guest |
| ||
| AveJoe... are you avaliable to do my Taxes ??? J/K.... | |||
| |||
| Ben Dover |
| ||
| 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!  | |||
| |||
| eye Lunker |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Jim Ordway |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Sunshine |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| butch |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Purple Skeeter |
| ||
Member Posts: 885 | x Edited by Purple Skeeter 6/28/2006 7:56 PM | ||
| |||
| Sunshine |
| ||
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] | ||
| |||
| thumper |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Joel "Doc" Kunz |
| ||
| 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. | |||
| |||
| Sunshine |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Jim Ordway |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Shep |
| ||
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. | ||
| |||
| Brad B |
| ||
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 | ||
| |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [25 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's
News | Video | Audio | Chat | Forums | Rankings | Big Fish | Sponsors | Classified Boat Ads | Tournaments | FAQ's