Can't leave you guys alone...
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.
