From yelling at the the officials to a lot of pats on the back…like Utah weather, give it a second and it will change.
I say it was a good weekend.
If the biologists determined the walleye harvest was way down, did these biologists even consider increasing the harvest limit from 6 to say 10 or even double to 12?
Kim – this question all depends on how many walleye were currently being harvested. If anglers were only harvesting 4, with a limit of 6, then increasing the limit would not have done anything. It’s the same problem we saw (see) with the Provo River. You can increase the limit as high as you want, but if anglers don’t keep any fish it doesn’t make a difference. However, if you make a regulation change, such as allowing bait (Provo River) or open up the inlet channel to angling (Willard) then you automatically increase mortality.
Saugeye? Who would’ve thunk it??? (that was for you, tubedude…)
2,689 views…I am sure these threads are not helping the problem 
On the other hand, remo, if a lot of those views are by scum anglers (as you imply) then they’ve also read that the DNR is monitoring the place daily, in uniform and plain clothes. Just maybe, “the word” got out that it’s a place to avoid.
Ya, maybe.
**My “sources” confirm that with the increased attention from DWR the habitual harvesters are not showing up much. There are still a lot of anglers fishing for the walleyes but more of them are “normal” fishermen, just trying for a few legal catches…and releasing any fish that are snagged.
Before all of the publicity, there were several organized groups who hit the inlet virtually around the clock…but especially at night when they had less visibility. It was estimated that more than 100 walleyes a night were illegally harvested and left the lake in buckets before daybreak. And before the increased DWR presence there were countless more being taken during daylight hours. Some individuals were observed returning soon after taking home a limit. And calls made to the poaching hotline often got no timely response.
There have recently been a lot of citations issued…and some to the folks who most deserved them. That usually serves to force them to take their business elsewhere. Criminals do not like to draw attention to themselves…or to get caught and punished.
I was pretty open about my displeasure with having the inlet opened. But I never questioned the decision of DWR. I know their biologists and some of the officers and I trust that their intent was as they stated…to enhance angling potential. My big concern was and always will be the illegal activities and the poaching of over limits and oversize fish.
I am satisfied that DWR has done all within their abilities to turn the situation around. There will never be zero snagging or excess harvest. But attempting to enforce regulations goes a long way to reduce the problems.
**
How long do the walleye typically stay in the channel to spawn?
The channel use be closed from march 1st till the last saturday in april so that time frame pretty much covers the time frame of the spawn.
I have a decent understanding of how long they run in the area that I am in, but not sure about that part of the state.
The other night I made suggestions to CO’s that they make the inlet a 2 fish limit under 20" with NO fishing after dark from say March 1st to May 1st. What do you guys think of this?
Sounds like a good suggestion, I especially like the part about no fishing after dark in the channel.
It would keep people form over harvesting(legally and illegally) and reduce the chance of snagging when no one can see them due to darkness. Watchful eyes in visible light will help keep people honest. It would also save the big females.
+1 wiperhunter I think that would be a great idea for Willard!
Hello everyone.
I just wanted to take a minute or two to let folks know how/why this regulation was changed this year. I would like to also clarify a few misunderstandings as well.
The regulation was changed because our biologists who manage Willard Bay, have gone to great length and effort to understand the various fish populations (walleye and wipers included) indicated that walleye harvest is way down and the population is high. There have been egg survival studies that are specific to the willard inlet at the south marina. Due to the heavy sediment there walleye that do enter the south marina and spawn don’t contribute to the walleye population in Willard Bay. The eggs just get covered with silt and die.
The DWR law enforcement wanted to NOT penalize all anglers for the illegal activities of some knuckle heads. They felt and still feel that they can curb the illegal behavior by having a consistent presence. From the sounds of of several of the posts here, the DWR enforcement folks are indeed out there daily.
The DWR advertised this as a potential regulation change in the news, we presented it at the RAC and Wildlife Board as well. Not one person…and I literally mean not one person spoke up, sent any email, or letters to the DWR opposing this. Although we had the biology behind us and the commitment from our Law Enforcement folks to enforce the laws we were wondering how the public would react to the potential change. The DWR felt comfortable with the change when no one opposed it.
My question to everyone is what constitutes an emergency here?
Is the emergency now, due to a lack of public involvement by anglers last fall? Because this is a social issue and not a biological issue we needed to hear from the anglers at the proper time and place to react to a social desire. We can’t read your minds. We can measure fish and respond to law breakers but we need YOU to be involved appropriately.
This is very much like not voting and then being a chronic complainer about what initiatives passed and who was elected.
The reason the DWR supported this opening is to provide additional opportunities for anglers. Biologically this opening is/was a non-issue. That said, our job within the DWR is to also manage conflict. It looks like we failed here…largely because we didn’t hear from the anglers when it really mattered.
The DWR would very much appreciate your presence at the RAC’s and Wildlife Board to address this and any other issues in the future. After all these are your fisheries…Our job is to understand the biology and manage your fisheries the best that we can. We need your feedback to understand the social side of our fisheries.
If anyone would like to call and discuss this further. Please call me at 801-230-6119. This is my cell number and I would be very happy to discuss this with anyone at any time.
Drew Cushing
Big problem for me as one is work prevents me from making these meetings usually. E-mails are there but as we talked, they do little good when it comes to show time.
Next, reading TD’s post on hundreds being harvested at first before action, how did this happen? You had to of seen people taking advantage of big fish in a bucket.
While talking with Drew he told me there was a 25% harvest rate at willard last year. 75% of keepable walleye were being released. While I am happy I can go out and pound a lot of 18-20" fish this year, its not sustainable. A 18" walleye can eat alot of forage, and there are way too many it that age class. The up and coming age classes just cant compete with those fish. I want to have a good walleye fishery at willard for years to come, not 2 great years and 5 bad ect. We would all do the lake a favor by keeping a limit of fish this year. Just to let people know, that many big walleye WILL impact the decisions of how many wiper are planted every year. The DNR will not plant in numbers if the return on investment isnt there. So keep some fish and keep willard healthy…[fishin]
Mike – anglers are a funny lot. Most of the time, their logic is backwards. We always want to associate fish with mammals, and fish are not mammals.
We always want to use the logic of determinate growth vs. indeterminate growth. When a mammal is born, it is predetermined that the mammal will grow larger as it gets older (to a point). We think that fish are the same, and they are not. Fish may grow for a time, then stop. Later it may grow again. It may also “grow” smaller. It all depends on habitat and surrounding environment as well as the fishes eating habits (diet).
Basically, anglers think that catch-and-release promotes opportunities for fish to grow larger. In some cases it does. In other cases (Lee’s Ferry???) it actually hurts more than it helps. When mortality is low and reproduction is high, you end up with too many fish. How do you increase mortality and lower your population size? One way is to liberalize harvest – increase the limit. However, if anglers won’t harvest more fish (Lee’s Ferry, Provo River, Willard Bay) then you still have a low mortality rate. Another way is to allow bait fishing (Provo River) which automatically increases mortality rates even when fish are released. In the case of Willard Bay, you allow fishing in the inlet. Mortality increases (even if the public doesn’t like it), walleye population is lowered, and the overall fishery health is better.
I view this situation as nothing more than jealous anglers. Just like with lake trout and bass, many anglers hate to see those vulnerable fish targeted and harvested. But in the larger scope of managing a population of fish, it’s small potatoes.
While what you say is true, I think many people are not as clueless as you might think. Most the upset here was the fact that they were being harvested illegally. Snagging and over night load up. Granted the taking more is speculation, the snagging wasn’t.
Yup. The only time fishing is a “zero sum” game is with sterile hybrids like wipers. With those, EVERY fish you catch was physically put there via stocking, because they cannot reproduce. Even in such a case, releasing fish doesn’t guarantee they’ll invariably get bigger, because of competition with other species that do reproduce.
…I think many people are not as clueless as you might think…
I believe that there are a very good number of anglers that participate on these internet forums that DO understand most of this. It’s not those anglers that we’re speaking of. Like you, I do think there are a lot of educated anglers. But I think you’d also agree that the majority of people that fish in Utah could fall into an category that lacks the knowledge of basic fish biology.
As for the illegal actions of those anglers snagging and overharvesting – I think that all falls into the same category as illegal trespassing across private lands to fish in a stream. Illegal is illegal. Snagging and harvest laws need to be enforced whether the inlet is open to fishing or not. The biology of the decision to open the inlet to fishing is sound. That shouldn’t change. Education on both ends (illegal snagging as well as legal fishing) isn’t going to hurt the situation.
It is quite possible that the opening of the inlet channel to fishing created an opportunity for some anglers to illegally harvest more fish – but you have to wonder if those same people illegally snagging and taking more than a legal limit would have done so regardless of the rule to legally fish in the inlet? Maybe having legal, responsible, anglers fishing the same area has actually helped resolve a problem that many would never have known was happening in the first place??
Maybe closing it for certain months so that is isn’t quite the fishing in a bucket. I imagine it can be a challenge to “not” snag at this time. Similar to certain times at steelhead, when they are piled on top each other.
On the other hand, I guess that citation money can add up[;)]
I like your information PBH, and as I was reading it I had a small question. Why is it that every angler (I use the word every very loosely here) who catches a wiper, it goes right into the cooler to go home, yet when they catch a walleye the numbers are showing that they are only harvesting about 25% of what is being caught? It seems to me that it would be beneficial to have it the other way around…keep every walleye and release 75% of the wipers being caught due to the fact that they are a sterile fish.
Now I’m not even remotely claiming to be super educated on this subject but I am eager to learn. I can see keeping a bunch of wipers if the supply to the lake is abundant, but like has been stated before, every wiper caught has to be physically put there by someone. It wouldn’t bother me at all to see the wiper limit reduced again…now understand that is just MY personal opinion and it usually varies from most others. I guess my thought process on this subject stems from watching, talking, and fishing with other anglers who just CAN’T release a wiper. The majority of fishermen that I talk to about willard would rather lose an important appendage than release any wiper…I don’t fully understand it. Wipers are good, don’t get me wrong, but walleye are equally as tasty (I suppose that is my own opinion also).
What would happen if say our wiper strain was to get infected and we weren’t able to restock any more wipers in willard for awhile? A scenario similar to that of the tiger muskie at Pineview.
Side note: not looking to stir the pot, ruffle feathers, or hurt feelings, just trying to get smarter as an angler…[fishin]
Maybe closing it for certain months so that is isn’t quite the fishing in a bucket?
But – would that help the population of walleye? My understanding is that anglers are not harvesting enough walleye? So, opening it up to fishing that time of year certainly increases mortality and lowers the population, which satisfies the biology. Isn’t that the objective? The social issues need to be addressed. This can be done through two means:
- Education
- Law Enforcement
Why is it that every angler (I use the word every very loosely here) who catches a wiper, it goes right into the cooler to go home, yet when they catch a walleye the numbers are showing that they are only harvesting about 25% of what is being caught?
That’s actually a very simple question to answer. It has already been stated as an issue: EDUCATION
Anglers need to understand the “what’s” and the “why’s”.
The DWR tries – just read DoWhatWeCan’s posts. The problem is that there is a very large group of anglers that simply do NOT want to learn. They want to do what they want, and complain about all the rest. We’ve got numerous threads right now concerning this issue (Willard) that illustrate this point. Lack of education on the subject.
There are many wipers caught and released. There may be some that keep every fish and they are entitled to do so within the limits set. I understand your argument but the release of fish is a personal decision unless dictated by law on that body of water. I am sure some other wiper fishermen will join in but simply some are caught and kept some are released. That I think is true of both wipers and walleye. The population of wipers is down due to no stock. The state has had a difficult time raising wipers but have an ongoing effort.
I agree with much of what FF2 posted - limits are in place for a reason, and not everyone is keeping all the wipers they catch (or walleye).
However, I don’t believe that availability of wiper stocks is the problem with “limited” wipers right now. I think, again, you have to look at the population of predators as a whole in Willard:
Why was the inlet opened to fishing? Because the UDWR felt that the harvest of walleye was not enough.
What happens if there are too many walleye? then forage numbers decrease and predators run out of prey.
How can you compensate for too many predators? Through harvest and stocking. The harvest issue is being dealt with by opening the inlet to fishing. I’m guessing that the numbers of wiper being stocked have also been reduced to help compensate for high population numbers of walleye.
If wiper numbers (hatchery) were an issue, we wouldn’t be seeing additional stocking at places like Minersville, Piute, and Otter Creek.
That’s actually a very simple question to answer. It has already been stated as an issue: EDUCATION
Anglers need to understand the “what’s” and the “why’s”.
The DWR tries – just read DoWhatWeCan’s posts. The problem is that there is a very large group of anglers that simply do NOT want to learn. They want to do what they want, and complain about all the rest. We’ve got numerous threads right now concerning this issue (Willard) that illustrate this point. Lack of education on the subject.
I fully understand that. To me, being an angler means becoming educated and pro active, especially at the waters that you fish. I think Drew is doing a great job at confronting the social media and trying the best he can to educate those who may not want to gather all of the facts before they conclude on their decision. I know there has been some comments on here of people who have changed their opinions after spending some time on the phone with Drew. It shows a lot about his character to publicly give out his personal cell phone number.
The problem I see is that you can’t force people to become educated unless they actually want to learn. It’s a lot of the same frustrations I see from hard working school teachers who have kids that just don’t want to learn and cause disruptions for the rest of the class that do. Is there a right answer…? No matter what, the chances of making everyone happy are very slim…[:/]