What do you think?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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".

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???

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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......

Math after 10:30 is dangerous business.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonH

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.

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.

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

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!

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!

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

Good to see things have calmed down a bit. It got nasty there. Nice post Paul, good to see someone with an open mind. I'd like to see all this cabin fever postin, go towards something a bit more positive. like maybe sharin some tricks to catchin those fish we're arguin about, or favorite luers or something. anywho, Ice is breakin up down here just south of the border. its been rainin like crazy. Hows it up there?
Oh, and I'd like to go on record and say. That hats not so bad blue. Ive seen much worse. like any hat that says PACKERS, CARDINALS, OR BREWERS. I almost dont even want to mention the cheese triangle. Yeah thats right I said it.
Bring on spring.

I don't understand the disgust over BR's hat. I don't see what is wrong with it at all. Maybe my wife would know, she's my fashion expert. She actually taught me that a baseball cap has got to have the brim bent in a nice curve, otherwise you are not cool.

I wear a "standard issue" baseball cap when I fish, and I was considering getting something like BR's hat, actually. I need something to keep the sun off my ears and neck. After hours and hours on the lake, my ears start to look like lobsters on the side of my head. All I need is skin cancer of the ears....

After reading these posts, I'm going to have to haul my wife off with me to shop for a wide brimmed hat, lest I get something utterly uncool (according to you all) like BR's hat.

Please post your links to cool looking wide brimmed hats, I'm watching :)

Skin cancer is a real concern for all of us. I too have gone to a wide brimmed hat. I've read that dermatologists found an increase in the occurance of skin cancers as the baseball cap replaced the wide brimmed hats worn by farmers and others who work outdoors. Also, my wife is constantly reminding me to put on sunblock. Kind of a pain, but the manufacturers are coming out with stuff that's a lot easier to apply and nowhere near as greasy. We all worry about hitting stuff on the flowage, but skin cancer is a significantly larger danger and how often do we not wear protective clothing or sunblock. I know I'm guilty of not taking all the precautions I should as I'm sure many of us are. Thanks for bringing up this subject Randy. And Blue...personally I like the hat!

Mike wanted some tips for the nice walleyes, here is one that can be effective.

I like a jig and minnow but cast the same direction as the drift. It slows the bait down and if you happen to find some lumber, you drift over the snag and eventually behind it.

As a bonus you can drift with a bobber and night crawler or minnow on the other side of the boat at the same time, but need to watch the drifting bobber close because it is also a good technique for losing a pole. At times the drifting bobber can do very well, for walleyes, and smallies. But the best part about the drifting bobber is that you occasionaly run into a school of big perch, or a nice crappie as they both like the bait moving. I usually use the night crawler because of these perch.

This technique works very well in Beaver Flats, but lots of lumber there too. If you hit a walleye throw the marker and drift the same area again. If a second walleye is caught consider anchoring and throwing towards the buouy.

Paul

Paul

Sure, I abandon my computer for a few days and George hatches a plot to send me to sensitivity training!

Paul, I'm really happy to see someone else offering an upbeat assessment of the current walleye fishery. At a time when people are planning their summer vacations, and knowing that it's likely to be a tough year, I'm sure the businesses that depend on the TFF don't appreciate people posting comments about how the walleye fishing has gone to you know where in a handbasket. I also agree with your assessment of the prospects for creating a trophy walleye fishery here.

I'm well aware that most people who were around at the time spearing began believe it's responsible for both the walleye decline and the smallmouth explosion. But you also point out the widespread animosity that existed toward the tribal spearers at the time, and in that environment, do you really think there was any willingness on the part of most anglers to even consider an alternative explanation?

Of course, you're right that the truth will never be known. Regardless of what Randy might want to label as "FACTS", we don't actually know what the walleye or smallmouth populations were in 1984, immediately before spearing began. But to accept the idea that spearing caused the smallmouth population increase, it's necessary to believe that the removal of primarily larger walleyes significantly reduced predation on juvenile smallmouth, and I don't think that idea holds water, because young of the year smallmouth aren't anywhere near their optimum prey size. The timing also has to be considered - smallmouth fry are most vulnerable as they begin to venture away from their nests, and this occurs at about the same time that the mayflies are hatching. Back in the days when the smallmouth were a fraction of their present numbers, it would have made little sense for large walleyes to waste their time hunting down relatively small, scattered pods of a few hundred tiny smallmouth fry when huge clouds of larger, slower-moving mayflies were hatching elsewhere in the lake. And on top of that, you have to believe that the effect was so huge and immediate that the very first year of spearing resulted in a year class of smallmouth that produced over 5,000 harvested fish 4 years later. Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that the combined harvest from spearing and hook and line fishing has ever been as high as the 1975 harvest by anglers alone - in fact, all the available evidence suggests that the reverse is true. And if, in fact, the population was still near 100,000 adults in 1985 and supported by good juvenile year classes, all the research indicates that it should have been capable of supporting harvest well above documented levels without significant long-term effects. I think the apparent impact of spearing had more to do with removing a sizeable number of larger fish from the population before the season opened and hook and line anglers had a crack at them. The obvious effect would be to increase prey availability for the survivors, and this has repeatedly been demonstrated to have a significant effect on catch rates. This might lead anglers to perceive a much greater immediate impact on the population than was actually the case.

Since nobody else has mentioned it, there's some important developing news that may give Randy his wish ("...what harm is there in modifying our limits? Why is nothing [being] done"?). It seems the Lac du Flambeau will be holding a referendum to decide whether to abandon their 1997 agreement with the state that allowed the DNR to maintain a 3-fish walleye bag limit. Here's a link to the article that appeared in the Lakeland Times:

http://www.lakelandtimes.com:80/main...ectionID=9&S=1

I checked the dates, and noticed that this article appeared only 1 week after Randy's comments. Since Randy would be the first to admit that it's impossible for two seemingly related things to happen at roughly the same time unless one caused the other, perhaps he owes us an apology. :rolleyes:

I've been searching for additional details, but haven't seen any.

As for some of those other "FACTS":

"FACT" 1: The title of the photo album in question is "Who is Blue." Obviously the intention was to share some good pictures of myself. It turns out that when you're taking self-timer pictures in a boat, you get the best results under bright sunlight on a calm day. On the other hand, when you're trying to catch walleyes, those conditions tend to produce the worst results. Would I rather catch a smallmouth than a walleye? In absolute terms, yes, but not when I'm in the mood for a fish meal. And I'm amazed he didn't point out that I have a bass boat! Oh my! I think everybody who knows me is well aware that the largest proportion of my time is spent fishing for muskies, but I can guarantee that I spend more time fishing for walleyes on the TFF every year than Randy does. And I could easily claim that his opinion is the one that's biased, because unlike me, it seems obvious that he's only interested what's good for the walleye population, regardless of how it impacts other species.

"FACTS" 2 and 3: As I noted above, we don't know what the walleye and smallmouth populations were in 1984, and we don't know what they are today. It takes more to make something a fact than labeling it as one - even if you use all capital letters.

"FACT" 4: Freak is on target. In a comparison of over 200 lakes in northern Wisconsin, researchers found absolutely no statistical evidence that lakes with abundant smallmouth populations had less abundant walleye populations, and extremely detailed dietary analysis studies have found insignificant prey overlap between the two species. And that interpretation of Jeff's comments was way off base. It's a public document, so of course it's going to be phrased in a diplomatic way, but I was at the meeting, and here's a proper translation: "Some of those fears were allayed after discussion about known interactions between these species" actually means, "We spoke at length about the abundant research demonstrating that this is not an issue. Most of the attendees accepted this, but a few were unwilling to believe a word we said." And "a majority view that smallmouth bass probably have not adversely affected the walleye fishery in the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage" means, "because we knew this wasn't a concern, we ignored it when we formulated the plan". The DNR understands the significance of the TFF walleye fishery, and if the smallmouth posed a risk to the walleye population, it would have been taken into consideration.

As for eagleeye's video, as I indicated in my comments on that thread, I like Godsmack, but I think anyone would be hard-pressed to explain the thematic connection between a video that clearly depicts a group fishing outing and a song entitled "I Stand Alone". Judging from eagleeye's response, I don't think he took any great offense. And it seems a bit hypocritical for Randy to criticize one of the two people who not only watched the video start to finish, but then took the time to express their appreciation for the effort eagleeye made to share it - especially considering that he wasn't one of them.

I made a comment that natural systems are very complex, and that simple explanations are often incomplete or incorrect. I ran across some interesting research that illustrates that point. It seems that many lakes in our region experienced very poor walleye year classes in 1992 and 1993, and credible research has linked this to - of all things - the June, 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillippines. A Minnesota researcher found that as much as 57% of the annual variation in walleye recruitment can be explained by June temperatures. The volcano's ash cloud lowered global temperatures by as much as 1 degree Fahrenheit at the peak of its effect, and May-July temperatures in Minnesota in 1992-93 were actually 3 degrees below the long-term average. Interestingly, the study mentions that the previous regional trough in walleye recruitment occurred in 1979, which is pretty close to the "about 1980" estimate I used in my hypothesis. If you combine poor climate conditions with cannibalization or a prey shortage, you get an even better opportunity for exactly the kind of exceptionally weak year classes I suggested.

The hat, may it rest in peace, came from the good folks at Columbia - it did a great job of keeping the sun off my upper parts, at a very reasonable price. Unfortunately, it was straw and got crushed to death in my rear storage compartment.

Another good read from blue. Randy, I think he may sound arrogant because he knows what hes talking about. Its obvious to me that he has spent a fair amount of time researching the subject. And I can understand how someone could get aggrovated while debating with someone who obviously hasnt... No offense. Ive been going to the flowage since I was a kid, but Im not gonna pretend to know why the fishing evolved the way it did. I'll admit that I always thought spearing had hurt the walleye, because thats just what Ive always heard. In light of this thread, I now think otherwise. But I gotta be honest... I never cared. I have way more fun on the flowage these days. We still limit on walleye for dinner every day we're up there. And have a blast catching smallies the rest of the time.


Thanks for the tips paul. We actually drift the flats often. We used to use jig and a minnow more. But for some reason we got away from it. We usually cast spinners tipped with a grub, like a berkly power grub, or something like it. I usually get more action on the smaller spinners. Even the "mini" ones. Ive caught some of the biggest fish on the smallest spinners. But that grub is the key for us. Tube jigs aint half bad either. Try flippin one next to a stump on a hot summer day. you'll find those fish when they're hidin'.

I'd enjoy any other favorite techniques. Thanks. mike

Just to add to Blue's comments relative to the '92-'93 poor year-classes for walleyes; a 2005 Canadian study titled 'The Status of Walleye in Lacs des Mille Lacs: a Fall Walleye Index Netting Summary' by the Ministry of Natural Resources in Northwest Ontario cited a 2002 study which said...

The 1992 and to a lesser degree the 1993 year-classes were weak which can be attributed to cooler temperatures following the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippine Islands in 1991 (Schupp 2002)

Looks like the Canadians saw like results and came to the same conclusion.

Paul, sounds like our tactics are pretty similar. In regards to the bobber trailing behind the boat, we leave the bail open and tuck a bit of the line under a rubber band. When there is tension on the line it simply comes undone from the rubber band and the line freely spools off. We still occasionally donate a rod to the flowage gods as nothing is foolproof.

Blue, not really sure where to start..... Unbelievable how a volcanic eruption in the Phillipines can affect walleye recruitment in northern Wisconsin. I guess everything in nature has a cause and affect, everything except walleye and smallmouth populations in the TFF.

I am willing to admit my bias towards a certain species of fish in a body of water. When we fish locally around Milwaukee we pursue all different species. When I travel 300 miles north for my two yearly trips to the TFF, I prefer to catch walleye. It's the one species that's really in short supply in the local lakes and fishing the TFF is the only real opportunity I have all year to catch walleye.

The article you referenced deals with hook and line bag limits related to what percentage of the allowable catch is taken by tribal spearing. I'm not really sure how that relates to a slot limit allowing more fish to grow over 20" or a lake growing it's population of walleye by reducing the percentage of the allowable catch actually harvested. By the way, I wish you would have accurately quoted the entire statement, not just the part that worked for your argument.

Lastly, in regards to your insinuation that local business owners don't appreciate people posting comments about the walleye fishing going to #### in a handbasket. Why no quote here???? Why not quote the sentence where I said the walleye fishing stinks??? Why not find the sentence where I said it's just not worth making the trip anymore because the walleye are gone?? Why not quote the sentence whetre I said the walleye fishing has gone to #### in a handbasket??? I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist! The majority of the information I've used to make my argument has been taken directly from the TFF Fishery Management Plan and my own personal experiences. Here's a quote from one of my earlier postings, "Hard not to be happy on the flowage, it's a beautiful place". I apologize for any business losses that may have resulted from such a comment.

I do want to see more, big walleye in the TFF. I'm sure that will just cripple the TFF economy. What was the economy like when the TFF was a "walleye sweatshop" before spearing? I seem to remember a few more resorts back then.

As a side note, your quote "he's only interested in what's good for the walleye population" seems a bit contradictory to my quote, "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".

Overall summary..... I always enjoy myself while on the TFF and can say with 100% certainty, it is my favorite place in the whole world. It was my grandpa's favorite place, it is my father's favorite place and I hope someday it will be my children's favorite place. Because of this, I have taken a greater interest in the TFF fishery as I have experienced it's changes over the past 30 years. It's still a great walleye fishery but I am concerned about the direction in which things are going. If something needs to be and can be done to help the walleye fishery I think it needs to be investigated.

Blue, I'm sure you're going to want to spout back with some comments disqualifying my argument telling me how I'm wrong again. That's fine. If you feel a need to have the last word, go ahead and take it. In all my years fishing the flowage I haven't come across a single person I didn't like, I don't need to change that now.

Good day!