trolling legal in sawyer co, in 2011

[ff oldtimer]

what does everone think about this law that passd yesterday to legalize trolling in sawyer,iron price,and ashland county in 2011.i think it stinks to high heaven.

[Tanner Wildes]

Im all for it!! I voted for it, and I am happy it passed!!

Tanner

[Jason Sloan]

We certainly wouldn't want any widely accepted sport fishing techniques made available to the highest concentration of lakes in the world! I voted yes, hope it passes and becomes law in 2011. Local vote shot it down, so we'll see.

JS

[Lakeshore Lure Co.]

I am glad to see it got the thumbs up too.

[jkahler]

Pretty dumb that it's illegal IMO. It should help with live bait fishing/trolling motor use too.

[Chipguide]

I am not against trolling in general, but on the Flowage I think it's a bad idea. Allowing trolling will increase the fishing pressure significantly. So it makes no sense to drop the bag on walleye (now 2), and then allow trolling if you are trying to sustain and grow the population. More fish will be caught, more bags will be filled, there will be more folks "weeding them out so to speak", there's simply no debate there. I experienced this first hand last year when a camper came in with a beautiful "24in walleye breeder, (what a shame), 2 smaller eyes, and 3 northerns his first day out. He was so happy, put his name on the board, etc.. Next day I saw him trolling, went up to his boat and explained that it was illegal, he had no idea and also admitted that was how he caught his fish the day before. He did not troll for the rest of the week and subsequently never caught another walleye. As an experienced fisherman myself, and yes I have 2 tackle boxes full of trolling gear, I just don't think the Flowage is ready for that kind of pressure. Unfortunately here is how trolling will directly effect the Musky population also. There will be more "skis" caught by accident, and more caught by walleye fishermen for example who generally do not have the gear to catch and release a "big fish" properly. The survival rate of these fish will decrease, especially as the water temp warms and oxygen levels deplete. As far as supporting my claim, Iv'e witnessed big Musky, Walleye, and Pike on lakes that allow trolling belly up shortly after being caught and an attempted release was made. Finally from a social standpoint, I just can't imagine 4 or 5 boats with 6 lines out each, trolling over Pete's bar for example, or between the Bannanas, these popular spots are going to become traffic nightmares.

Just my opinion here, and believe me I hope I am wrong, let's see what unfolds.

Good luck for the opener boys!

[millertime]

This may be unpopular, but I hate the thought of a large fish being called a breeder. That 15" female has more viable eggs than that 25" fish does or will ever have again. The key to more walleye in the system is to let all walleyes breed at least once.

[Ty Sennett]

millertime, a larger walleye actually does carry more mass of eggs therefore is more viable to the resource. Probably more important than the amount of eggs is the genetic size you will take out of a system if you do keep only large fish from a system. It would take decades to regain a large fish population after it is depleted if it ever can be restored. More than likely the large size class gene once taken out will never return. Take the crappie population diversity from the last thirty years on the Chip for instance. We more than likely will never see the 15-16 inch crappie that were once plentiful in the late 70's. They were removed from the system and with them their gene for large size went with. The only aspect to blame for this depletion of large specimens is ourselves.

You can't keep taking the superior genetic specimens from a system without some form of negative impact.

I agree with you that letting the fish breed is very important. That is probably the most important part in keeping a walleye fishery going strong.

Have a good night,

Ty

[Chipguide]

Hey Millertime,

You are on to something there. From a biological standpoint Females reach maturity and their highest fertility levels between the ages of 3-5, this is not to say that they are done breeding though. In fact their fecundity (amount of eggs produced) may increase as they get older. A large female can produce up to 600,000 eggs. Now here is the tricky part, depending on the amount of forage available in a particular system, the fecundity, and length of female walleyes can change significantly. In my opinion, and after many years of fishing walleyes on on the Chip, a 3 year old female might me 15" on the low end. but you are probably looking at 17" at the beginning of their sexual maturity and about 23" at the end of their prime breeding age. Either way, why take a 25-26-27" hog home to put in the pan. And your right, chances are their eggs might not incubate and produce fry, but they sure are a ball to catch, and that experience and resource should be shared.

Save a walleye and eat a bass. No shortage of them on the west side.

I think i'm getting cabin fever waiting for the opener, I know those post-spawn walleyes are gettin hungry. It should be a good one, time to shine up the rapala's.

[Ty Sennett]

Whoa, someone listened in class. Nice work Chipguide. There is also a latitude part of the equation that comes into play and a eautrophic vs.oligotrophic vs. mesotrophic variation. The one thing I do remember from class was the competition for spawning area study where larger females pushed the smaller females out to deeper water where secondary spawning areas became the only choice for smaller females resulting in poor reproduction of smaller egg mass to size structure fish.

So, basically if you are using walleye to strip in the spring size structure isn't important but if natural reproduction is involved larger fish become important because of egg mass and the fact that larger walleye will retain a stronghold on the primary spawning areas. I'm sure if you google it something will pop up. I had an overdose of this stuff in college so I'm paraphrasing. I would guess I was not accurate on all my gibberish.

Good luck,

Ty

[Chipguide]

We've got away on tangent here, (my fault), back to trolling.
Hopefully, if it sticks, they will keep it to one line. I would hate to see boats with planer boards on the Chip. 3 fisherman, 9 lines spread out, really? The Chip geographically, is not designed to accommodate this method of fishing. In my opinion it's just going to take away from the experience, and conflicts between casters and trollers will arise. Locally they shot it down, 34 voted yes and 93 no, so maybe there will be a reprieve.

Just my .02

[jkahler]

9 lines? Seriously? I think some of you guys are a little out of touch with trolling. Where I live you can troll and I never see people using that many lines.

If they limit it to one line then you can't drag a sucker and cast. Lame. WI is freaking weird...

[Chipguide]

Well Jk, not out of touch at all, and yes 9 lines is a ridiculous amount, I was just trying to make a point. Let me be more realistic, for 2 fisherman in a boat, 3 lines, maybe 4, trolling the channel up to Crane. Do you really think there is room? How about Tyner? Hay creek Narrows? It will be a zoo around Hermans. (The Landing). Can they legally troll under the bridge? 1st pass, 3rd pass? Wait, might be fun to watch them troll 2nd. I am talking about the Flowage. Again any trolling on the Chip, in my opinion, is not biologically, geographically, or socially viable. Just because you can, does not mean you should. Please give me one example how trolling will benefit the Chip?

I'm not closed minded, convince me, give me science, facts, not conjecture, and I will join the pro-trolling movement.

[Ty Sennett]

Very well said Chip Guide.

Ty

[jkahler]

Personally I wouldn't troll the Chip, it's not laid out well for it and would be pretty frustrating with multiple lines (in my opinion, i'm not an expert troller).

That said, the Chip is busy and a poplular destination so I see how it could become a clusterfxxx there.

Do people casting on Vermillion have trouble with trollers cutting them off/getting tangled up, etc?

*my one example is sucker fishing while casting and using a trolling motor. Or late fall.

[bigbronc23]

LOL.... WOWWWWWW to that discussion!!! haha... a guy has to bring a Websters Dictionary to the fishing boards now a days to understand everything!! Two thumbs up to you though Chipguide, I agree with you... although I WOULD like to be able to have the trolling motor down while soaking suckers in the fall... (I would ALSO love to watch someone troll through pass 2 haha)

[Esox Chaser]

First of all I'd just like to say how reassuring it is to read some of the previous posts to see that some of you guys were paying attention while taking your various biology courses. As a recent college grad parent it's nice to see that not everyone spent all of their time in school drinking beer and chasing girls. Obviously education got in the way once in a while! ;-)

I do agree with a couple of the previous posts regarding the shear hassle of trying to troll on the flowage. I would pay money to watch someone try to troll through and around some of the structures out there. I still say the only people that will benefit from trolling on the Chip are going to be the bait shop guys who will be selling the Grandma's and Jake's and all the other lures that people will be leaving on Pete's and the Church Bars and stuck in Second Pass! If you watch the trollers who are out working lakes where trolling is allowed they are almost always working over open water not over structures like Pete's. Once they spend a couple of days of leaving a couple hundred dollars worth of lures and tackle stuck in the bottom the "thrill" will be gone!