What do you think?

[jjeyes19]

Lets say your going out for the day fishing on the tff. Most people have stated including myself that they only have a limited time to fish be it 2 or 3 days. So, you want to make the most of the time you have. So for grin and giggles lets use baraboo lake as our example. Considering the fact there should be 4 to 8 adult walleyes per acre at a minimum length of 15" and one should be caught every 4.5 hours. I'm not sure how many acres baraboo is so will just say 20. That means there are between 80 and 160 walleyes at least 15". So if you fish 8 hours you should catch 2 fish, but will say you catch 3 to give you a limit. Now here's the fun part. I gaurantee you caught at least 25 - 30 northern during that time and probably at least 10 smallies, so what does this tell us.... I'll tell you! What fish spawn later. Walleye do. Which fish is more aggressive. Not the walleye. So you could say that maybe all the walleye fry are being eaten before then can grow large enough by not 1 but 4 fish (northern, smallies, musky, walleye). And lets not forget the harvest from spearing, thus not effecting the fry but effecting the amount of catched fish becausing they were speared. The depletion of the walleye population was inevitable. But the path we are on will deminish our current status. Only 11% of all walleyes are 18" or bigger. The average size has gone done over the past 20 years. We have a catch and release for musky and smallmouth because they are considered trophy calliber fish, and have size limits. We cannot be nieve to think that the population can't become so depleted like leach lake or some other lake where you wont be able to fish for walleye's in the future.

[BlueRanger]

If Don and Randy can learn to appreciate smallies, maybe there's hope for the world. I do have an alternative hypothesis in response to Randy's question from a couple days ago. It's somewhat complicated - but most natural systems are, which is why simple and "obvious" explanations, although enticing, are often incorrect or at least incomplete. I ran out of time last night, and now that I've finally managed to drive 14 miles home from downtown St. Paul (2-1/2 hours, which on a good day could have had me munching on some great fudge at Molly's in Winter) I'll try to lay it out.

First of all, walleyes suppress smallmouth populations by preying on their young of the year - and it's primarily the youngest year-classes of walleyes that would be taking prey of that size. That 12" average size in 1989 implies that many of the smallies harvested were larger, hence older than 4 - which means at least one unusually successful smallmouth hatch (relative to what had been the historical norm up to that point) occurred prior to the first year of treaty harvest in 1985. That suggests to me that a survey of the walleye population around 1984 would have shown very weak numbers of the youngest year classes. But the magnitude of the smallmouth increase also suggests that the number of adult smallmouth spawning was significantly higher than in previous years, which would mean that some improvement in smallmouth survival had actually begun at least 4-5 years earlier - around 1980.

We know that the walleye population in 1975 was incredible - 7.1 adult walleyes per acre, more than twice the regional average. We also know that the TFF has relatively low biological productivity, thanks to two factors: limited light penetration due to its tannin-stained and frequently turbid water, and limited nutrient inflows. In that context, 7.1 adult walleyes per acre seems unsustainable.

We also know that in 1975, anglers harvested an estimated 21,000 adult walleyes from the TFF. That was a time at which the revolution in fishing technology (boats, motors, electronics, lure selection, etc.) and angler knowledge (TV shows, In-Fisherman, etc.) was just beginning. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that harvest continued at a similar pace after 1975, or perhaps even increased.

That sets the stage. The year is somewhere around 1980. One of two things takes place: Either the walleye population overshoots its prey supply and wipes it out through excessive predation, or the prey species suffer a few years of poor reproduction due to environmental conditions, or a combination of the two. The walleyes cope by doing what they typically do in this situation - cannibalizing their own young at high rates. This leads to a few very weak year classes of walleyes - which creates an opportunity for recruitment to significantly improve in the remnant smallmouth population, as well as the other prey populations. Meanwhile, fishermen don't notice any immediate change - the older year-classes of walleyes are still present in good numbers, and there are several remaining strong year-classes coming up to replace the adults harvested. And since they're lacking natural prey, they're easy to catch.

Fast-forward to about 1984. The last strong walleye year-class hits desirable size. And that first stronger year class of smallies is now spawning. At this point, we're at the bottom of the cycle - prey species are already rebounding, and so is walleye recruitment. The following year, the fishing suddenly becomes tough, since natural prey is abundant and there aren't enough new fish to replace last year's harvest. And the damage is permanent. Over the next few years, angler harvest and spearing further reduce the adult walleye population, to the point that the best it can do is replace the fish that are harvested each year, give or take a few. And if you're a tribal member, you picked a really bad year to start spearing, because you get all the blame.

Cut the walleye limit to 1 fish daily, and within 10 years we'll be back to 1975 - a lake full of walleyes, and little else. And then it will crash again. If they could survey the lake and do a creel census every year, they could tweak the limits to keep the population stable - but they can't. So they're going to keep things more or less the way they are, and things will stay more or less as they are - which is to say, a relatively stable multi-species fishery that's one of the best in the state, with trophy opportunities for several species - just not walleyes.

jjeyes19, umm, you might want to drive up in April, head over to the falls and see what spawns first. Hint: walleyes. I'm not going to touch the rest of that.

mikesgotone, it's easy to find. Stop by any time you see the boat at the dock, the back seat is usually empty - especially May, I'll be up there most of the month doing my own smallmouth population assessment.

[Randy]

That's a far amount of speculation to a question for which we will never have a concrete answer.

Many anglers, including myself, believe the smallmouth explosion was a result of walleye depletion caused by spearing and/or overharvest. This would have provided an opportunity for the smallmouth bass to better establish themselves in the TFF. Whether that's correct or not doesn't matter. The reality is there are less walleye and more smallmouth today in the TFF. I'm fine with that as long as the walleye population remains stable providing a balanced fishery. If the walleye population continues it's downward trend then I think something needs to be done. On top of that, if the average size of a TFF walleye also decreases something needs to be done, ie a slot limit (the whole reason this discussion started).

Now if someone can just simply tell me how and where I can catch more big walleye out of the TFF we can stop all this nonsense!

[BlueRanger]

"If huge spearing numbers of walleye in the mid 80's didn't directly result to the smallmouth comeback, what is the explanation?"

I gave you one that works very well. And it's no more speculative than guessing at how many walleyes were killed during the first few years of treaty harvest. But I'm pretty sure tribal harvest never took 21,000 walleyes out of the TFF in a single season.

People also like to claim that spearing had a disproportionate effect on large walleyes, but the numbers don't completely back that up either. In 1975, 8.1% of the walleyes surveyed were over 19". That number dropped off significantly in the 1989 survey, to 3.8%. But the scenario I outlined would be expected to produce that result with or without spearing. And only three years later, in the 1992 survey, it was right back at 8.1%. And my model would also predict that result - it's all about year-class strength. Interestingly, harvest rates in 1992 were worse again, as in 1975 - this time, it was 7.2 hours per walleye. The 19"+ number was down again in 1997, to 4.6% - and harvest rates were up, at 4.3 hours per fish. They were also higher in 1989, at 4.8 hours/fish. So having more big walleyes may not be what you want if you're looking for good catch rates. As I keep saying, bigger walleyes can afford to ignore 3" minnows when they have 6" perch available. If you're strictly a jig-and-minnow guy, like it or not, you're going to do best on a lake full of mostly 14-16" walleyes. Regardless, the proportion of bigger walleyes is always going to go up and down as a result of variations in year-class strength. But a population of modestly high density is going to be much more stable than a population of exceptionally high density, because while it will encounter annual variations in reproductive success due to changing environmental conditions, it should remain roughly in balance with its prey base and avoid any huge crashes. I think the 19"+ proportion will be fairly high again in this year's survey, perhaps even above the 1975 and 1992 levels -we had a couple excellent year classes early this decade that will be above the 19" mark this year. So stock up on the Husky Jerks!

[Randy]

I hate to say it Blue but your theory is much more speculative than the spearing/angler harvest theory. "The walleye population overshoots its prey supply and wipes it out through excessive predation or the prey species suffers a few years of poor reproduction due to environmental conditions, or a combination of the two. The walleye cope by doing what they typically do in this situation - cannibalizing their own young at high rates." Although this scenario is plausable, I wonder if there is any evidence to back it up.

On the other hand there is data referencing the number of walleye speared and harvested from anglers during the mid 80's. Is it that outlandish to think spearing and angler harvest may have provided smallmouth bass an opportunity to better establish themselves in the TFF?????

[BlueRanger]

First of all, walleyes were already being harvested in large numbers back in 1975, and the population was apparently sustaining that harvest level. Secondly, your dad is entirely correct when he says the smallmouth population at that time was almost nonexistent. During the 1975 survey, only 17 smallmouth were sampled from the entire flowage, compared to 250 in 1997. If those numbers seem small, I should note that the survey locations and timing are heavily biased toward sampling walleyes - during the time when the surveys occur, most of the smallmouth aren't in areas that lend themselves to electrofishing. Still, I think it's fair to assume that the 1975 smallmouth population was something less than 1/10 of the 1997 population.

To believe the spearing argument, you have to believe that a tiny smallmouth population produced a successful spawn of immense proportions after just one spearing season, and that all those 1989 smallies really were cookie-cutter 12" fish from a single year class. And they obviously didn't harvest every adult smallmouth in the lake that year, because they're still here. So even if they took 50% of them, you're talking about something like 10,000 adult smallmouth surviving from a single hatch. That's highly improbable, primarily because spearing didn't have any effect on the young walleyes that would feed heavily on fish the size of juvenile smallmouth. I think the size of the smallmouth hatch or hatches that began surviving in the mid-80s is clear evidence that the adult smallmouth population was already quite a bit larger than it had been in 1975, meaning natural reproduction had begun to improve significantly at least 4-5 years earlier.

[Randy]

I'm not saying the smallmouth population appeared miraculously after two years of spearing. My belief is that over time the spearing of walleye and high angler harvest numbers have provided smallmouth bass the opportunity to increase in numbers. If you are not willing to consider that as a possibility I may need to recalibrate my expectations of having an intelligent discussion.

[BlueRanger]

That's exactly what you've been saying.

"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."

"If huge spearing numbers of walleye in the mid 80's didn't directly result to the smallmouth comeback, what is the explanation?"

And I think the whole premise of your latest statement is probably wrong. In terms of numbers, it's likely that the smallmouth population peaked during the 1990s and is lower today, due to the much larger average size brought about by the 1995 changes to the minimum length and daily bag limits and the increased practice of catch and release.

[Randy]

You lay out a scenario that is 100% SPECULATION. It's a cute little story about walleye eating their own young leaving no juvenile walleye to eat young of the year smallmouth and the smallmouth population exploded because of it. It's a real good read but does anyone out there remember an entire year class of walleye missing from the flowage? Are juvenile walleye the only thing that eat young of the year smallmouth?

I present REAL numbers that show a REAL increase in the number of walleye taken out of the TFF in the time frame when smallmouth bass were on the rise. Clearly I'm wrong. There is no possible way in which spearing and angler harvest had any impact on the rise of the smallmouth. The TFF had been consistently dominated by walleye for at least 50 years. Indians and anglers take record numbers of walleye out of the TFF during the mid/late 80's. Smallmouth bass seen an increase (based on your assumption) of at least 1,000% from 1975 to 1997. There is no possible way in which the two are linked! Thanks for clearing that up Blue.

[EarthwormOrganics]

You can twist the numbers all you want guys and it is awesome to hear the stories of yesterday. The big problem is that everyone wants to play god with our natural resources and only mother nature can make the rules. Look at the bass explosion from Canada to Superior and even the TFF. Bass are growing in numbers in many places. The walleyes on the TFF are still very plentiful. Definately time to stop trying to fix something that isn't broken. Nature will ALWAYS find ITS own balance. Numbers may have been better in the past but nobody will change the fishery as a whole.

Throwing back big fish is the only way to help your odds and help the numbers for reproduction. Eating more bass is what we've tried to do.

I would also like to know how the perch bite has been this year? We haven't had time to fish this year with the little guy taking up all our time. It just seems that in the past few years the perch have gotten less and less? That concerns me a little more. If the primary food source goes down, you will see dramatic changes. Worse yet it will take a few years before the affects are really noticed. So please, someone tell me that they are hammering perch out there somewhere.

We have to look past the prize to play the game.

Thanks for all the awesome knowledge shared in this post.
Feel free to start a new one about the perch bite and maybe some of the other species that need to be monitored.

[BlueRanger]

"I present REAL numbers that show a REAL increase in the number of walleye taken out of the TFF in the time frame when smallmouth bass were on the rise."

Where? I had to reread the entire thread to make sure I wasn't missing something. The only numbers you introduced to this discussion had to do with a couple old fish hanging on somebody's wall. And the REAL numbers, at least the ones I obtained from Jeff Roth, show a clear DECREASE in walleye harvest during that period - which I thought was what you and your dad had been complaining about for the last 3 years.

"Does anyone out there remember an entire year class of walleye missing from the flowage"? Actually, I said several consecutive very weak year classes. Plenty of people have described how the lake quickly changed from producing stringers of 20" walleyes to mainly much smaller fish, and guess what? That's evidence of several consecutive very weak year classes.

No, juvenile walleyes aren't the only thing that eats juvenile smallmouth, but they were the only thing present in adequate numbers to keep smallmouth numbers suppressed - with the possible exception of yellow perch, which would only serve to bolster my prey-depletion hypothesis. And if the walleyes weren't responsible for keeping the smallmouth population at low levels, it becomes completely idiotic to argue a connection between spearing and the smallmouth increase - or didn't you think of that? You can't have it both ways.

But I give up. I've offered you the best hypothesis of a trained biologist/ecologist and statistician with on-water and underwater field research experience, who is very familiar with the substantial body of published literature concerning walleye and smallmouth bass population dynamics and dietary interactions, and is a professional fishing writer/editor whose work was read by nearly half a million anglers in 43 countries last month. I based it on a thorough review of all the available research data for the TFF, obtained directly from the biologist who manages the fishery and enhanced by quite a bit of his personal commentary. And what you call "speculation", he thought was "an accurate perception of the changes that have occurred in the TFF fishery over time".

[mikesgotone]

The blue ranger by a nose. I dont know any of you, so I dont take sides. I've been reading this discussion every day. I look forward to it. Even though sometimes blues numbers get my brain so twisted I fall out of my chair and take a nap to get my brain back. now, whats up with the perch???

[Randy]

So the lake no longer produces stringers of 20" fish and now yields mainly much smaller fish. Blue says this is evidence of several consecutive very weak year classes. He also says the weak year classes are in no way connected to the fact that indians spear walleye while they are trying to reproduce. How could that possibly lead to a weak year class?

Another thing, the first couple years of spearing saw numbers about three times as large as the numbers we see today. Also, there weren't any regulations on size. But once again, if you want to believe Blue that had nothing to do with poor year classes or less big walleye in the lake. Fascinating!

[BlueRanger]

Nature is complicated, and looking at it through simple eyes often misleads. It may seem intuitive to assume that more eggs would equal a larger year class. But you'd be wrong, as usual. I've explained this to you before, so this time I'll let someone else say it for me:

"Since fish produce such a large number of eggs, an 8-pound female walleye would produce around 200,000, it takes only a handful of adults to maintain a population. In fact in walleye populations the maximum production of young walleyes usually occurs when there are low to intermediate densities of adults. At high adult densities walleye recruitment is usually reduced. This occurs because of competition between adult and young walleye or because of cannibalism (i.e. adult walleyes eating young walleyes). Therefore, you do not need to protect the maximum number of adults in order to have good recruitment."

Taken from here: http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/cgi-bin/...;f=15;t=000032

And as everyone who actually reads my posts is aware, your last sentence completely misstates my position. I'll refresh your memory:

"Fast-forward to about 1984. The last strong walleye year-class hits desirable size. And that first stronger year class of smallies is now spawning. At this point, we're at the bottom of the cycle - prey species are already rebounding, and so is walleye recruitment. The following year, the fishing suddenly becomes tough, since natural prey is abundant and there aren't enough new fish to replace last year's harvest. And the damage is permanent. Over the next few years, angler harvest and spearing further reduce the adult walleye population, to the point that the best it can do is replace the fish that are harvested each year, give or take a few.

Clearly, I have not claimed that angler harvest and spearing had no effect on the adult walleye population - in fact, I explicitly said that it has. What I have been arguing is this: The increase in the smallmouth population had nothing to do with the adult walleye population, but with the juvenile walleye population. And the enormous increase in the smallmouth population that was already evident in 1989 (relative to 1975) is a strong indicator that it had already begun several years before spearing started, and would have occurred with or without spearing.

[Randy]

So you do believe spearing and angler harvest led to walleye depletion giving the smallmouth bass an opportunity to grow in numbers. Thank goodness, I was starting to think you were just being stubborn.

[BlueRanger]

Did anybody else think that was what I said? This time, I really am giving up.

[BlueRanger]

Okay, so how about some information from the surveys that might actually improve your success rate? In the 1997 survey, they identified 6 key walleye sub-populations spawning in different areas, and did population estimates for each area. The largest sub-population, and this will surprise more than a few people, actually spawned in Baraboo - over 19,000 adult walleyes. The Turtle River was second, at about 15,000, followed by Beaver Flats, Horseshoe, Bonies Mound and the Manitowish River, in that order. By the way, I think jjeyes19 was off by quite a bit in his estimate of the size of Baraboo. Looking at it relative to the map scale, I'd guess the basin itself is pretty close to 300 acres. Now, I don't think you'll find 19,000 fish in Baraboo during most of the season, although I do consistently see a lot of suspended fish on my sonar during the summer months, and rarely see anyone trying very hard to catch them. However, they're definitely packed in there in the early spring and late fall, and if you check out my sideimaging album, you can see where some of the deep rock reefs are located.

They also looked at relative angling pressure for these areas, and I think their findings provide some useful insights if you're looking for the best odds for catching walleyes, at least during the post-spawn period and late fall (I'm sure they disperse all over the lake during the summer, going where the food is, but walleyes often make kind of a mock spawning run in late fall when water temps drop into the mid-40s). It turns out that while 27% of the total population spawned in the Turtle, that area received 36% of the total angling pressure during the season, probably due to the resorts. Baraboo was the opposite, having 36% of the spawning fish but only 27% of the fishing pressure. Beaver Flats and Horseshoe were also relatively underpressured, while the Manitowish was relatively overpressured and Bonies received fishing pressure roughly equal to its share of the population. Something to consider, and it will be interesting to see if this year's survey results include a similar analysis and if so, whether anything has changed.

[Randy]

Having a little trouble picking up on sarcasm there Blue?

Anyway, interesting figures on the spawning walleye. That seems like a crazy amount of fish for Baraboo!

[MuskieRandy]

jjeyes and Blue, you are both way off. The original Baraboo basin is 104 acres, and that includes the little "bowl" pothole attached to the NorthEast side.....

I determine this by taking a topographical map of the flowage and drawing a complex polygon around the old shoreline, and letting the computer generate the polygon area......

[BlueRanger]

Math after 10:30 is dangerous business.

[DonH]

it's often incorrect. Take for instance all the numbers about populations, sub-populations, bio-mass, etc. All guesswork.

Here's a direct quote fron an article concerning the population of walleyes in Mille Lacs. The Minnesota DNR has devised a complex computer model called the VPA (Virtual Population Analysis) -
"But even the biologists who devised the VPA have little confidence in its ability to generate an accurate population estimate. The problem is, every piece of information fed into the VPA has a wide margin of error, most of which cannot be accurately measured. So the combined error is unknown, and so is the usefulness of the VPA. The DNR continues to "tune" its model in an attempt to improve its accuracy, but the underlying problem of insufficient or unreliable data cannot be solved anytime soon."

Since this was written in 2002, it pretty much calls all those cute figures we've been seeing in this string into question.

I also spoke with Jeff Roth a year or two ago and he agreed with me as to my theory on the timing of the smallmouth population explosion and the beginning of spearing. He also directed me to a DNR agent in Minesota to discuss issues with spearing on Mille Lacs.

Blue Ranger keeps talking about weak walleye recruitment in the early '80s that started the smallmouth population increase. My question is this, the TFF was around for over 5 decades before spearing started. In all those years, there had to be several even consecutive years of bad walleye recruitment. Heck, they were even stocking smallmouth bass, but no, nothing changed. Maybe some bad years of walleye fishing, but the walleye always remained the top predator in the TFF. I was speaking with Paul R. last week. From 1953to 1988, he remembers catching 1 smallmouth bass. It was so rare, he remembers exactly where he caught it. After 1988, they stopped going to the TFF for several years, and when they came just about 4 or 5 years ago, they were stunned. Smallies all over the place.

I know Blue Ranger says 1989 was when the enormous increase in the population of smallmouth bass was noticed, but you'd think Paul might have nailed at least 1 in 1988. I mean the population increase was enormous. Blue Ranger says so.

If there was some smallie spawning going on before spearing, it was nothing compared to what happed after spearing started.

I would love to hear from Don Pemble as to when he started catching smallies, but I totally understand if he feels best to not pick sides.

[jjeyes19]

Look I was never trying to be accurate with the size of baraboo, I was just using it for the example, but i'm glad the size was clarified for me.THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE HERE PEOPLE! During the 70's and 80's there was no such thing as a size limit. How many muskies were over 50" then, my guess is not many considering the pictures i've seen are all under 40". I'm not saying there wasn't good size fish there just wasn't an abundance of them. The bigger the fish the more they can eat and the bigger the fish they can eat. So big muskies now, lots of smallies, and whatever other creatures are swimming around is the main cause of depletion of quantity of other fish.

[BlueRanger]

Next time you want to try to mislead people with some techno-jargon you clearly don't understand, make sure that the person you're arguing with doesn't understand it either.

The term Virtual Population Analysis encompasses any technique used to infer current or historical fish populations from a variety of related data which may be precisely known or estimated. It's called virtual because it's not based on actual observations of the population. It's widely used by fisheries management agencies around the globe, and is rooted in mathematical models dating back nearly 100 years. It is known to be imperfect, as your quote indicates, but it's the best - in fact, only - option available when you can't do an actual population survey every year to obtain more accurate numbers.

Lake Mille Lacs supports a huge level of sport and treaty harvest (both spearing and gillnetting) of walleyes, and the MN DNR must determine the safe harvest before allocating it each year - this year's walleye safe harvest is set at a whopping 541,000 pounds, with 126,500 pounds allocated to treaty harvest and the remaining 430,500 pounds allocated to the state, which must now determine the appropriate angling size and bag limits. When you're talking quantities like that and it's not practical to actually survey the population on an annual basis, it's pretty obvious that the use of a VPA model is a necessity, even when you know it's imperfect - the alternative is to make no annual adjustments based on things you are able to measure or estimate - like the prior year's harvest.

The Wisconsin DNR also uses a VPA model (although they don't specifically call it that) to determine safe harvest for every lake in the ceded territory where the actual mark-recapture survey data is more than two years old - which currently includes the TFF. The model they use is intentionally designed to be more conservative than what would result from an actual survey, in order to avoid over-exploitation. They fine-tune the model over time by comparing its projections against data from the actual population surveys that are completed each year.

An interesting field where a lot of careers and academic reputations have been made and destroyed, but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion, because all of the numbers I introduced were taken from actual mark-recapture surveys. Unlike VPA, these are based on actual sampling of the population. With these surveys, as with all statistical sampling methods, the probability of error is directly linked to the sample sizes and can be accurately calculated, and the underlying assumptions that determine the validity of the analysis are well known to the biologists conducting the survey and are carefully taken into account when they plan the survey methodology. Guesswork it is not.

Next time, stick to what you know.

[BlueRanger]

This topic has been extensively researched through data analysis of over 200 northern Wisconsin lakes surveyed over a 13 year period. The only gamefish found to strongly interact with walleye populations were largemouth bass, which prey heavily on juvenile walleyes. Musky populations were actually strongly positively correlated with walleye populations - in other words, lakes with high musky populations also had high walleye populations and vice versa, suggesting that both do well in similar environments and there's no significant interaction between them. There was no statistical evidence that either smallmouth bass or northern pike abundance had any relationship to walleye abundance. Look it up:

Fayram, A.H., M.J. Hanson, and T.J. Ehlinger. 2005. Interactions between Walleyes and Four Fish Species with Implications for Walleye Stocking. Journal of the American Fisheries Society 25:1321-1330.

[Randy]

Earlier in this thread you defended your heavy bias towards smallmouth by stating "As for me, I'm certainly not a smallmouth fisherman". I just took a look at some of your pictures and here's what I found.... Not a single picture of a walleye. Two pictures of smallmouth bass with the following captions, "The pound for pound champion" and "The only thing better than a lake full of these is having lots of time to go out and catch em".

Fact: Everything Blue Ranger has written has been from the perspective of an individual who prefers smallmouth bass over walleye.

Fact: The lake now has less walleye than it had before spearing started.

Fact: The lake now has more smallmouth bass than it had before spearing.

Fact: Smallmouth bass and walleye compete against each other for food and space.

If you look at the 2007 TFF Fishery Management Plan 51 of the 54 attendees had a high interest in walleye. Only 15 of the 54 attendees had a high interest in smallmouth bass. Oddly enough the same number of participants (15) had little or no interest in smallmouth. Those of us who enjoy the TFF walleye want to protect them and we were having a little discussion about doing just that. If you don't have a genuine interest in the topic you really don't have to chime in and start correcting people!

Blue, I just spent a little time reviewing some of the old threads and reading your posts. You really spend a lot of time telling people how they're wrong and how you're right. You give people credit for good posts (posts you agree with) and lambaste the bad ones (posts you disagree with). You even criticized the song choice on the vacation video eagleeye posted! I personally am a little tired of your "know it all", arrogant approach. My advice to you... lighten up and little bit and you just might find someone to fill that empty seat in your boat. Oh, you may also want to revisit your choice of hats.

[DonH]

That surprises me. I had no idea I was mis-leading people. It is what it is. A simple quote from a document concerning the ineffectiveness of a strategy currently in use to estimate the wallaye population of a given lake. Bad data going in equals bad data going out.

I really had no idea that same basic strategy is being used in Wisconsin, but that does indicate how weak all this science is.

Anyway, if that's techno-jargon, then here's my next techno-question. In the mark-recapture surveys, how are the fish initially caught, and then re-captured? Please don't tell me nighttime shoreline shocking.

Sticking to what I know...that is an ugly hat.

[Freak]

This is taken straight out of the Turtle Flambeau Flowage Fishery Management Plan from March, 2007. Prepared by: Jeff Roth

“Smallmouth bass became a major component of the fish community during the late 1980s. Flowage smallies are particularly robust in appearance (very heavy for their length). The high quality of these fish and their relatively high vulnerability to angling keeps the sport fishery thriving at times when angler catch rates of walleye decline during the “dog days” of summer. But we suspect bass population density is lower than most anglers realize. Our most recent estimate was that there was approximately one smallmouth bass for every five adult walleyes in the Flowage. This is not readily apparent to anglers because smallmouth bass usually are so much easier to catch than walleye.”

“Smallmouth bass generated a mixed reaction from participating stakeholders, though 71% characterized their interest in the smallmouth bass fishery as moderate or high (Table A1). Some participants who did not care for smallmouth bass initially feared that smallmouths ate or competed for food with walleyes to the detriment of the walleye population. Some of those fears were allayed after discussion about known interactions between these species. Subsequent goals and objectives were developed based upon a majority view that smallmouth bass probably have not adversely affected the walleye fishery in the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage (or many other places for that matter). A bias for size over number of smallmouths is reflected in the objectives, and management strategies should acknowledge the relatively strong tendency among a majority of Flowage stakeholders to catch and release smallmouth bass.”

[George]

Nice job Freak. Glad you brought that info. to this discussion. As for Blue's postings, I find his stuff to be well researched and factual. It seems like every year about this time when cabin fever is at its zenith we always get into this "discussion" on Walleyes vs. Smallies. With repect to this "discussion"...there are those who need to remember the old saying...Nothing wrecks a good arugument like somebody who knows what they're talking about!

George

[Randy]

Freak, anything in my last posting that wasn't real?

[Bob and Tom]

Sticking to what I know...that is an ugly hat.

Oh, this is the worst-looking hat I ever saw. What, when you buy a hat like this I bet you get a free bowl of soup, huh? Oh, it looks good on you though.

[Randy]

George, I too believe Blue's postings are well researched and factual. I simply don't care for the arrogant/know it all manner in which he presents them. Part of a meaningful discussion involves listening to the point the other person is making. I'm conviced Blue reads most postings looking for errors to correct and ideas to debate that conflict with his own beliefs or information.

I always try to look at both sides of an issue before making an informed decision. As I've researched the topics on this thread and read his postings I have come to the realization that the actual truth probably lies somewhere between our contrasting beliefs. In all honesty, it doesn't matter! Like I said before, my true concern is the future of the TFF. I want to see a lake that provides a balanced fishery with the opportunity to catch big walleye. I don't know what, if anything, needs to be done to achieve this goal. That is the question that started this thread.

In response to Freak..... if the DNR was convinced smallmouth bass haven't affected the walleye fishery they wouldn't have used the word "probably". If the DNR had truly convinced TFF anglers smallmouth weren't a threat to walleye they wouldn't have used the phrase "some of those fears were allayed". Because of the DNR's wording I believe this topic is 100% up for debate.

[George]

Okay, so does this mean we all have to chip in to send Blue to a charm school?

[LundAngler]

I get a kick out of watching you guys argue about something new every year. It seems like everyone is an "expert" in the field of fish biology. Truthfully, even the real experts I've talked to (UWSP biology professor and a UWEC zoologist) will admit that fish science is more an art than it is a science. If it was a perfect science, the DNR would not have made as many mistakes as they have over the years. Obviously, the TFF has evolved with regard to smallmouth fishing, and it will continue to evolve and change as "man" tinkers with God's work. While I enjoy reading Blue's posts for the intellectual content, I suppose I should ask, "what are the credentials behind this intellectual dynamo?" I love going to the TFF to pursue the walleyes, but when I can't find them, it's nice to get some action from the smallmouth. In my opinion, if a fisherman is not happy catching a certain fish, regardless of the type, they need to really rethink their hobby. As the snow melts, maybe we can focus on more positive things...like fishing. Pray for rain!

[Randy]

Went to the Sports Show this past weekend and the itch is getting pretty bad!

LundAngler, it's not that I don't like catching smallmouth bass. I simply enjoy catching walleye more than I enjoy catching smallmouth. I don't think that will ever change but this year I do plan on targeting some TFF smallmouth when the walleye aren't biting. As we all know, they're a ton of fun to catch and for those of you who don't know, they're pretty tast too! My new smallmouth philosophy..... If you can't beat em', eat em!

[Paul Rothenberger]

Wow,

I leave the country for two weeks and comeback to this discussion? At anyrate, anyone who personally fished through the beginning of the spearing years can tell you that it had a huge effect on fishing. Through the 50's, 60's, 70's there were many down year classes for walleyes. I can only remember one small mouth ever being caught by our group prior to the spearing years. It was a healthy fully mature female caught in Rat Lake and she was as fat as can be. While she surely reproduced that was it, 1 small mouth in about 40 years. This fish was caught in the late 70's.

Despite Blue Rangers impressive stastical analysis and research on the subject, I have noticed that the people who fished the flowage through this time period all believe that the spearing and small mouth bass population explosion have a direct correlation. I have neither the time nor the desire to try and prove this through a stastical means. And I acknowledge the possibility that the small mouth bass may have been on the uprise with or without spearing.

However, some here might recall the riots in Mercer, and the early years of spearing when it was first started. The big 4 wheel drives, huge spot lights, and the huge harvest of fully developed egg laying walleyes from the islands. The effect within a few years of taking these spawning fish was amazing. Again I will state that anyone who fished through these years can tell you what it was like in the mid 80's. It is possible that we went through the "double wammy" so to speak during those early spearing years. A bad year class coupled with heavy spearing of adult walleyes. Spearing has lost its appeal compared to those early years. Many Indians wanted to exercise their rights when it was new, and who really knows how accurate the early spearing documentation was. In any event the small mouth population began to increase at about this time. What is the effect on harvest, when you take the fish prior to them spawning?

In conclusion, I agree with Don H and others who believe that the small mouth increase and spearing are correlated. However, it is imposible to prove either way. Maybe the smallies were coming up anyway and it is just a coincindence that the timing of this just happened to mimic the spearing.

Most importantly though is that the fishery is very healthy at the current time. The walleye population is back and we get to catch some huge smallies as well. A great "problem" to have.

In reference to the slot limits I will reiterate that I do not think they are required at the current time, but would clearly be willing to try it for a few years to see if the fishery gets even better. In reference to a trophy walleye lake it will never happen. As I said there was zero fishing pressure in the 50's, 60's, 70's etc. and the trophy walleyes were not there. I know that there are posts here relating to the occassional 28" or 30" fish and I am not disputing those. However, if you look at "Al's place", later "fort Flambeau" or other resorts you will notice very few large walleye mounts. If you ask about the ones that are mounted, many came from lake Superior as well as the old Northern mounts from the 50's that also came from lake Superior, like the one in Donners.

We have a great fishery and lets keep it that way. Regarding my largest walleye ever from the flowage, i do not have the exact length or weight. My guess would be less than 6 lbs and maybe 26". Through the years I have caught several around 24" or 25" and they still exist today. My cousin mounted a walleye head (they used to do head mounts years ago) and I think it was about 26" and 5.5 LBS.

A true trophy lake will yield many 8-13 LB fish annually even with heavy fishing pressure. This is not the case for the flowage. If you want a huge musky though, many 50" plus fish have come from the flowage.

Paul