04-13-2011, 02:46 PM
[quote wormandbobber]
Just a little thought from Minnesota's state DNR:
[/quote]
And, here is some information on a popular Montana walleye fishery:
Too many walleyes?
"For a lake to produce such a high catch rate, say biologists, it would likely have become a “predator pit,” a term for when too many predators overwhelm a lake’s ability to provide food. That’s the concern at Canyon Ferry Reservoir, where a growing walleye population could be on the verge of exploding and thus outstripping available food. The result, say FWP officials, could be stunted walleyes and a decline in other popular game fish.
“Our concern,” says Ron Spoon, FWP area fisheries manager at Helena, “is that we will end up with fewer trout, fewer perch, and a bunch of little walleye snakes.” Impounded in 1954, Canyon Ferry Reservoir has for decades been one of the state’s most popular fishing lakes. FWP stocks it with rainbow trout, which thrive in the cold, deep waters. A healthy, naturally reproducing perch population provides exceptional ice fishing most winters.
In the early 1990s, some local anglers began asking FWP to stock walleyes at Canyon Ferry. The agency resisted, citing a Montana State University study that said a new walleye population would quickly outgrow the available prey (perch) population and begin eating newly stocked trout. Eventually, the study concluded, Canyon Ferry would be filled with lots of walleyes, but they’d be small, and the trout and perch fishing would suffer.
The stocking debate proved moot, however, when walleyes began turning up in FWP survey nets. (Debate continues as to how the fish got into Canyon Ferry.) Regardless of their origin, however, the walleyes quickly prospered. By the late 1990s, anglers were regularly catching the glassy-eyed fish at a reservoir once renowned solely for its trout and perch fishing.
FWP survey nets now show the walleye population at high levels, with many fish approaching spawning age (five years old). That could produce a massive year class this spring or in 2004 and lead to an overabundance of predators. In response, the agency has instituted a 20-fish limit to knock down walleye numbers. Spoon says the agency has a responsibility to protect the fish species sought by Canyon Ferry’s many trout and perch anglers. The new walleye limit, he adds, should also help decrease both the peaks and the inevitable crashes of the perch and walleye populations.
Still, the high limit has angered some local walleye anglers. Mike Sedlock of Helena says he doesn’t trust the FWP’s netting results. He believes the population is declining, not increasing, and that the 20-fish limit could harm the walleye population. “People aren’t catching walleyes here like they were a few years ago,” says Sedlock, a Walleyes Unlimited of Montana regional director. “I know what FWP is saying about their surveys, but something doesn’t jibe.” Spoon explains the walleyes have temporarily stopped biting due to a massive year class of perch, which walleyes prefer to anglers’ offerings.
“I know it’s hard to believe when you fish all day and don’t catch a single walleye,” he says. “But our nets confirm the fish are there and their stomachs are full of perch.”
Could it get worse?
When FWP says it doesn’t want too many walleyes in a reservoir, the most obvious question by anglers is, “What could it hurt?”
The answer, according to biologists nationwide, is that an overpopulation of walleyes or any predator fish can actually worsen the fishing. “You guys up there don’t know what you’re asking for,” says Wayne Nelson-Stastny, a South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks fisheries biologist at Lake Oahe. “You don’t want the fishery we had in the late-’90s.”
The problem, says Nelson-Stastny, was a predator boom. Oahe’s walleye population had increased during the mid-1990s as the predators fed on abundant rainbow smelt, the reservoir’s primary prey fish. Walleye fishing those years was excellent, with catch rates averaging 0.34 fish per hour and size averaging 18.5 inches.
Then the fishery tanked. First, the smelt population crashed, in part because it grew so big the fish began cannibalizing each other. Then, in 1997, exceptionally high water forced the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to release massive amounts of water from the reservoir, flushing millions of smelt downstream.
“All of a sudden we had all these walleyes with nothing to eat,” says Nelson-Stastny. “They started to starve.” At first, catch rates rocketed, nearly tripling to 1.1 fish per hour as the walleyes hungrily attacked lures and baits. But soon the malnourished fish stopped growing; average size dropped to 14.7 inches. “They were emaciated,” says Nelson-Stastny, “with thin, rubbery fillets you couldn’t even eat.”
Despite the high catch rates, anglers weren’t interested in fishing for eel-shaped walleyes and went elsewhere. Fishing pressure at Oahe dropped by nearly 75 percent, from nearly 2 million fishing hours in 1996 to just 540,000 fishing hours in 2000. “Actually, a lot of guys around here headed up to Fort Peck, where they could catch some decent-sized fish,” Nelson-Stastny says.
Montana fisheries managers aren’t the only ones keeping a close eye on the Oahe fiasco. Power says North Dakota doesn’t stock Sakakawea in years when natural reproduction appears strong, to avoid producing too many predators.
“Every year we carefully watch our stocking rates,” he says. “It’s a real balancing act. We know what happened on Oahe, and that really scares us.”
More respect
No angler wants to see Montana lakes filled with scrawny walleyes. And, despite some disagreement with how FWP manages walleye waters, most anglers understand the agency has little control over weather and water levels. They also know fishing can’t be great, or even good, every day. What may matter more to walleye anglers than catch rates and stocking levels could simply be getting more respect from state fisheries officials.
“I think in the eyes of many department biologists,” says Sedlock, “a walleye fisherman is a second-class citizen. I think there’s still this mentality that Montana is a trout state, end of story.”
Adding to that perception is the belief that the FWP headquarters in Helena doesn’t pay much attention to eastern Montanans’ concerns. “One of my big questions,” says Steve Harada, Walleyes Unlimited of Montana president, “is whether we are getting our fair share of FWP funding out here.”
FWP officials say that, based on population and angling participation, both eastern Montana and walleye fisheries statewide receive an equitable proportion of agency funds.
“Warmwater anglers are definitely getting their fair share,” says Chris Hunter, FWP fisheries chief.
But Hunter and other FWP officials note that the agency could do more to improve relations between it and the walleye fraternity. The agency was sluggish in its support for the Fort Peck hatchery and for a new warmwater fishing stamp, both strongly favored by Walleyes Unlimited members.
“There were sound financial reasons for our withholding support for both,” says FWP northeast region supervisor Jim Satterfield. “But the walleye folks were really impressive in how they made those things happen, and in hindsight I think we might have done more to help them out.”
In recent years, the two sides have come much closer together. “We really do want the same thing anglers want, which is better fishing,” notes Wiedenheft, the northeast region fisheries manager. The agency has invited walleye anglers to help with survey nettings at Canyon Ferry and other reservoirs and with egg-taking operations at Fort Peck. Walleyes Unlimited has reciprocated by buying equipment for walleye management and installing perch habitat. The group’s extensive website [url "http://www.walleyesunlimited.com/"]walleyesunlimited.com[/url] even features an “Ask the Biologist” section, where anglers can get answers from FWP staff to their fishing and management questions.
“Some of our guys don’t get that FWP is really trying,” says Mark Henckel, outdoors editor for the Billings Gazette and a longtime WU member. “But it only makes sense that biologists wouldn’t want to produce a poor fishery."
Doesn't all this stuff sound familiar?
[signature]
Just a little thought from Minnesota's state DNR:
[/quote]
And, here is some information on a popular Montana walleye fishery:
Too many walleyes?
"For a lake to produce such a high catch rate, say biologists, it would likely have become a “predator pit,” a term for when too many predators overwhelm a lake’s ability to provide food. That’s the concern at Canyon Ferry Reservoir, where a growing walleye population could be on the verge of exploding and thus outstripping available food. The result, say FWP officials, could be stunted walleyes and a decline in other popular game fish.
“Our concern,” says Ron Spoon, FWP area fisheries manager at Helena, “is that we will end up with fewer trout, fewer perch, and a bunch of little walleye snakes.” Impounded in 1954, Canyon Ferry Reservoir has for decades been one of the state’s most popular fishing lakes. FWP stocks it with rainbow trout, which thrive in the cold, deep waters. A healthy, naturally reproducing perch population provides exceptional ice fishing most winters.
In the early 1990s, some local anglers began asking FWP to stock walleyes at Canyon Ferry. The agency resisted, citing a Montana State University study that said a new walleye population would quickly outgrow the available prey (perch) population and begin eating newly stocked trout. Eventually, the study concluded, Canyon Ferry would be filled with lots of walleyes, but they’d be small, and the trout and perch fishing would suffer.
The stocking debate proved moot, however, when walleyes began turning up in FWP survey nets. (Debate continues as to how the fish got into Canyon Ferry.) Regardless of their origin, however, the walleyes quickly prospered. By the late 1990s, anglers were regularly catching the glassy-eyed fish at a reservoir once renowned solely for its trout and perch fishing.
FWP survey nets now show the walleye population at high levels, with many fish approaching spawning age (five years old). That could produce a massive year class this spring or in 2004 and lead to an overabundance of predators. In response, the agency has instituted a 20-fish limit to knock down walleye numbers. Spoon says the agency has a responsibility to protect the fish species sought by Canyon Ferry’s many trout and perch anglers. The new walleye limit, he adds, should also help decrease both the peaks and the inevitable crashes of the perch and walleye populations.
Still, the high limit has angered some local walleye anglers. Mike Sedlock of Helena says he doesn’t trust the FWP’s netting results. He believes the population is declining, not increasing, and that the 20-fish limit could harm the walleye population. “People aren’t catching walleyes here like they were a few years ago,” says Sedlock, a Walleyes Unlimited of Montana regional director. “I know what FWP is saying about their surveys, but something doesn’t jibe.” Spoon explains the walleyes have temporarily stopped biting due to a massive year class of perch, which walleyes prefer to anglers’ offerings.
“I know it’s hard to believe when you fish all day and don’t catch a single walleye,” he says. “But our nets confirm the fish are there and their stomachs are full of perch.”
Could it get worse?
When FWP says it doesn’t want too many walleyes in a reservoir, the most obvious question by anglers is, “What could it hurt?”
The answer, according to biologists nationwide, is that an overpopulation of walleyes or any predator fish can actually worsen the fishing. “You guys up there don’t know what you’re asking for,” says Wayne Nelson-Stastny, a South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks fisheries biologist at Lake Oahe. “You don’t want the fishery we had in the late-’90s.”
The problem, says Nelson-Stastny, was a predator boom. Oahe’s walleye population had increased during the mid-1990s as the predators fed on abundant rainbow smelt, the reservoir’s primary prey fish. Walleye fishing those years was excellent, with catch rates averaging 0.34 fish per hour and size averaging 18.5 inches.
Then the fishery tanked. First, the smelt population crashed, in part because it grew so big the fish began cannibalizing each other. Then, in 1997, exceptionally high water forced the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to release massive amounts of water from the reservoir, flushing millions of smelt downstream.
“All of a sudden we had all these walleyes with nothing to eat,” says Nelson-Stastny. “They started to starve.” At first, catch rates rocketed, nearly tripling to 1.1 fish per hour as the walleyes hungrily attacked lures and baits. But soon the malnourished fish stopped growing; average size dropped to 14.7 inches. “They were emaciated,” says Nelson-Stastny, “with thin, rubbery fillets you couldn’t even eat.”
Despite the high catch rates, anglers weren’t interested in fishing for eel-shaped walleyes and went elsewhere. Fishing pressure at Oahe dropped by nearly 75 percent, from nearly 2 million fishing hours in 1996 to just 540,000 fishing hours in 2000. “Actually, a lot of guys around here headed up to Fort Peck, where they could catch some decent-sized fish,” Nelson-Stastny says.
Montana fisheries managers aren’t the only ones keeping a close eye on the Oahe fiasco. Power says North Dakota doesn’t stock Sakakawea in years when natural reproduction appears strong, to avoid producing too many predators.
“Every year we carefully watch our stocking rates,” he says. “It’s a real balancing act. We know what happened on Oahe, and that really scares us.”
More respect
No angler wants to see Montana lakes filled with scrawny walleyes. And, despite some disagreement with how FWP manages walleye waters, most anglers understand the agency has little control over weather and water levels. They also know fishing can’t be great, or even good, every day. What may matter more to walleye anglers than catch rates and stocking levels could simply be getting more respect from state fisheries officials.
“I think in the eyes of many department biologists,” says Sedlock, “a walleye fisherman is a second-class citizen. I think there’s still this mentality that Montana is a trout state, end of story.”
Adding to that perception is the belief that the FWP headquarters in Helena doesn’t pay much attention to eastern Montanans’ concerns. “One of my big questions,” says Steve Harada, Walleyes Unlimited of Montana president, “is whether we are getting our fair share of FWP funding out here.”
FWP officials say that, based on population and angling participation, both eastern Montana and walleye fisheries statewide receive an equitable proportion of agency funds.
“Warmwater anglers are definitely getting their fair share,” says Chris Hunter, FWP fisheries chief.
But Hunter and other FWP officials note that the agency could do more to improve relations between it and the walleye fraternity. The agency was sluggish in its support for the Fort Peck hatchery and for a new warmwater fishing stamp, both strongly favored by Walleyes Unlimited members.
“There were sound financial reasons for our withholding support for both,” says FWP northeast region supervisor Jim Satterfield. “But the walleye folks were really impressive in how they made those things happen, and in hindsight I think we might have done more to help them out.”
In recent years, the two sides have come much closer together. “We really do want the same thing anglers want, which is better fishing,” notes Wiedenheft, the northeast region fisheries manager. The agency has invited walleye anglers to help with survey nettings at Canyon Ferry and other reservoirs and with egg-taking operations at Fort Peck. Walleyes Unlimited has reciprocated by buying equipment for walleye management and installing perch habitat. The group’s extensive website [url "http://www.walleyesunlimited.com/"]walleyesunlimited.com[/url] even features an “Ask the Biologist” section, where anglers can get answers from FWP staff to their fishing and management questions.
“Some of our guys don’t get that FWP is really trying,” says Mark Henckel, outdoors editor for the Billings Gazette and a longtime WU member. “But it only makes sense that biologists wouldn’t want to produce a poor fishery."
Doesn't all this stuff sound familiar?
[signature]