What do you think?

[jjeyes19]

So is it time to ask ourselves if it is time to put some restrictions for a slot limit on the tff. 18" - 20" walleyes are nice we catch an abundance of them every year. But there was a time when a 5 - 8 pounder was not unusual. I know I would like to catch 1 in that range if not bigger some day and not have to go trolling to bay de noc. I personally hate trolling. There are an abundance of small mouth which are fun to catch and I know theree are 5 - 8 pounders caught with regularity, problem is just like the damn northerns they eat everything in sight. I don't dislike smallie's, I do dislike northerns, I just think with a little effort we can make the tff an excellent trophy lake for walleye's too. I know it disturbs the amount of fish we can keep, but we can still have fun catching them, and it wouldn't take many years for it to start showing the affects. We have musky's and smallie's lets go for the trifecta. Something for everyone to ponder over the winter months, not trying to start any controversy just looking to hear some thoughts. Its getting very boring and cold, may is to far away!

[Joe271828]

If Sm bass are abundant, why not just use similar rules for Walleyes? Bag limit 2, 14" min. Throw in a only one over 22" for trophie protection if ya want. But I'm thinking 2 over 14" and ya got your meal.

If your thinking of feeding a family of 12, take 6 ppl fishin.
Addionitionally, now I'm not completely sure on this as I have never needed to consult the rulebook on it. I think your allowed to have 2 bag limits per day, although ya can't have more than the bag limit in the boat at any given time. This way those camping/staying somewhere on the TFF could catch more if they need/want. Just my two cents.
But then again, I think the bass limit should be 15" too. Crappie should be 10" on ALL lakes 100acre or larger, and a bag limit of 5 for crappie as well. Not sure about how everyone else feels, but I'd rather keep less but larger fishes.
And anything that eats mosquitoes shoudl be prized higher than gold !!!

[DonH]

I agree with jjeyes19 that the size of the average walleye caught on the TFF has become smaller. Our biggest & heaviest stringers (photos that went on the wall at Idle Shores Resort) were all caught BS (before spearing). We still catch 20+ inch walleyes though not nearly as often, and as my son says, we take a photo followed by a quick release.

I do have to correct Joe271828. You are allowed to catch 1 bag limit per day. You are allowed to have possesion of 2 bag limits (in your freezer for instance), but the daily limit is just that, 1 single bag limit, which on the TFF is 3 walleyes and 2 smallmouths. The DNR ran a sting operation a couple of springs ago ticketing people who caught their limits, took it to shore and then went back out for additional fish. On the TFF there is also a 15" size limit on smallmouth, not the 14" you mention.

Also don't quite understand why you would rather take less but larger fish. The flavor of a 17" walleye so far exceeds the flavor of a 20+" walleye it isn't even funny. Last large walleye I ate was a 24+ incher, and I was astounded by how poor it tasted in comparison to the regular sized fish we usually ate.

This is also just my 2 cents.

[jjeyes19]

I dont want to eat a 24" walleye! Before spearing was mentioned and is a valid point, I dont know if there will ever be a time again when there isn't that type of harvest. I guess my point was if you have a slot say 18"-26", most walleye's in that size range will be females. More big females more eggs more fish...eventually. It gives the fish a chance once they get into that slot a chance to continue to grow and produce, and eventually a chance to get to 30". Musky has a 50" limit, why cause everyone was keep 36", what does that do, it could over time stunt them whatever. They put a limit on the fish to let them grow, so let them.

[gdi]

When I started coming up to the TFF as a kid ther was a 5fish per day and a 16" size limit. My dad keept fosh 18 to 22 most went 20's I guess. There was never a day that he colud not produce a stringer of fish in that range,even in August. Only used spiiners nver a jig just casted and caught.

I think a size limit would help I myself am tired of catching fish under 16 with a few over that.

A lake I fish in ILL had a size limit of 22 to keep 2 per day now that the lake is well established they lowered the soze limit to 18 to 22 slot to keep, what a fishery. Great to catch nice size fish.

Just my 2 cents


gdi

[Brian P]

Fishing has definitely changed for the worse on the TFF. A lot of us were talking after the tournament in Jan about just that. A slot would be a start in the right direction. There was a lot of talk about how many more crawfish were in the lake when the walleye fishing was great. I don't know if there are still crawfish trappers active. I can't believe the small mouth are eating all the walleye bait in the lake. The DNR needs to be more active to ensure the limits are not abused.

[DonH]

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]

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]

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

http://www.turtleflambeauflowage.com...eauFMP3-07.pdf

[Randy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...01/index2.html

[George G]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.