Home   |  Message Board   |  Information   |  Classifieds   |  Features   |  Video  |  Boat Reviews  |  Boat DIY
Do you think ice fishing is damaging open water fishing? - Page 5 - Walleye Message Central
Walleye Message Central

Go Back   Walleye Message Central > Walleye Message Central > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-17-2021, 07:21 PM
Mtfish Mtfish is offline
Keeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by REW View Post
If a fish is removed from a body of water and the natural course is not sufficient to replace that fish - the removal of said fish - is affecting the fishing on that body of water.

The time of the year - that a fish is removed from the water is irrelevant.

Take care
Once again, REW hit the nail on the head.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #42  
Old 06-17-2021, 07:56 PM
LV guy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Originally Posted by REW View Post
If a fish is removed from a body of water and the natural course is not sufficient to replace that fish - the removal of said fish - is affecting the fishing on that body of water.

The time of the year - that a fish is removed from the water is irrelevant.

Take care
Once again, REW hit the nail on the head."

LOL. Once again REW oversimplifies reality. A mature female removed from the population after spawning affects the overall population by one fish whereas a mature female removed from the population prior to spawning may affect the overall population of the lake by hundreds of fish. This is one of the reasons the walleye season is closed in MN from the end of February until early May.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-17-2021, 10:45 PM
Agronomist_at_ia's Avatar
Agronomist_at_ia Agronomist_at_ia is offline
Keeper
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: NW IA
Posts: 453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LV guy View Post
LOL. Once again REW oversimplifies reality. A mature female removed from the population after spawning affects the overall population by one fish whereas a mature female removed from the population prior to spawning may affect the overall population of the lake by hundreds of fish. This is one of the reasons the walleye season is closed in MN from the end of February until early May.
While I understand your logic, and agree with it. It doesn’t hold true for a lot of lakes.

For instance if you take SW MN & NW IA. Both these areas have a lot of shallow prairie lakes, which walleye do not naturally reproduce in. So they are totally dependent on stocking by the DNR to sustain a population. A female with eggs in these lakes does not matter, unless it is a designated lake that the DNR uses to harvest eggs and sperm from the walleye for stocking purposes.

The population on these lakes is pretty much dependent on stocking and harvest regulations. Which sets the quality of the fish in the lake.

I’m all for the put & take lakes….that is why we have the DNR using tax payer funding to preform these task. I just would like to see a bit more management with them on regulations with limits and fish size so we stop seeing the rape and pillage of a year class that gets to eater size after being stocked. Then have to go another 2 years before it’s decent again. In our area they proved they can do it with walleyes on the lakes they regulate to harvest eggs and sperm from for stocking efforts.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-18-2021, 07:53 AM
'Taterguy 'Taterguy is offline
Minnow
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agronomist_at_ia View Post
Iím all for the put & take lakesÖ.that is why we have the DNR using tax payer funding to preform these task.
I thought the the monies to pay for put and take came from the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund? I suppose this could be construed as a "user tax".
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-18-2021, 12:11 PM
Sportdog's Avatar
Sportdog Sportdog is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Southwest Alabama
Posts: 6,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Taterguy View Post
I thought the the monies to pay for put and take came from the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund? I suppose this could be construed as a "user tax".
I wouldnít swear to it but I think you are correct. As long as those bodies of water are properly managed there is nothing wrong with fisherman funded put and take. Usually that management is an ongoing process that needs tweaking to maintain a healthy fishery.
__________________
Once more into the fray.
Into the last good fight Iíll ever know.
Live and die on this day.
Live and die on this day......
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-18-2021, 02:30 PM
Agronomist_at_ia's Avatar
Agronomist_at_ia Agronomist_at_ia is offline
Keeper
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: NW IA
Posts: 453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Taterguy View Post
I thought the the monies to pay for put and take came from the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund? I suppose this could be construed as a "user tax".
Not sure if MN is different then Iowa, and I’m not sure how it is funded or what goes where to pay for what. Or what the fees for a fishing License goes towards. I assume there is some sort of TAX or License fees we pay to fund the DNR.

Last edited by Agronomist_at_ia; 06-18-2021 at 02:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-18-2021, 03:59 PM
Anonymouse Anonymouse is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 653
Default

WI used to lead the nation in fisheries science.
WI was where fish science peeps came to learn their business and take it back home (sorry MIN, but yer peeps learned it here, first).
WI had a large permanent base of very respected & very well-funded professionals working full-time on developing fisheries science but about the time when Scooter Wanker & his Koch Brothers fueled cronies took over in 2011 the DNR was trying to change catch limits - because the long-running science was telling them that the lakes were being hammered by catch numbers and limits should be imposed (a good 30%-50% over-fishing is going on, statewide, and it's even worse in the ceded territories where the Tribes control the numbers of fish taken).

The non-indigenous fishermen who have been whining for decades about not getting their fair share of the fish that BELONG to those tribes are taking home everything they lay a hook into.
C&R is a forgotten ideal in the northern half of the state.
(For those of you unaware of the ceded territories, the indigenous tribes had their land stolen but managed to hold onto their rights to hunt and fish in those areas BY TREATY - because those doing the stealing just did not realize that hunting and fishing rights would someday be a multi-BILLION dollar industry.)

Solution?
Fire the scientists - can't have resort owners and the tourist industry (YUGE republican donors in this state) being impacted by reducing the fish murder rate of Flatlander tourists.
With Evers back in charge the DNR science division is slowly recovering it's macho & hiring back more full-time scientists, but you don't just replace the highly trained cadre of professional researchers with studies that had been running for DECADES, overnight.
Nor is the legislature, which is still controlled by the gerrymandered republican Assembly and Senate, at all amenable to increased funding for the DNR science team that Evers is trying to rebuild.
They never net a tax dollar they didn't want returned to their uber-rich donors.

A few of the formerly employed scientists have created their own private voluntary science groups here in WI to continue studying the problems, but it's just not feasible to fund large-scale fisheries research privately or with volunteers.
Fisheries science worldwide took a hella hit because of the short-sighted political aspirations of the science-denial republicans in this state.
It's not just WI that has been impacted, it's the while dammened globe.

Last edited by Anonymouse; 06-18-2021 at 04:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-18-2021, 07:44 PM
LV guy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agronomist_at_ia View Post
While I understand your logic, and agree with it. It doesnít hold true for a lot of lakes.

For instance if you take SW MN & NW IA. Both these areas have a lot of shallow prairie lakes, which walleye do not naturally reproduce in. So they are totally dependent on stocking by the DNR to sustain a population. A female with eggs in these lakes does not matter, unless it is a designated lake that the DNR uses to harvest eggs and sperm from the walleye for stocking purposes.

The population on these lakes is pretty much dependent on stocking and harvest regulations. Which sets the quality of the fish in the lake.

Iím all for the put & take lakesÖ.that is why we have the DNR using tax payer funding to preform these task. I just would like to see a bit more management with them on regulations with limits and fish size so we stop seeing the rape and pillage of a year class that gets to eater size after being stocked. Then have to go another 2 years before itís decent again. In our area they proved they can do it with walleyes on the lakes they regulate to harvest eggs and sperm from for stocking efforts.
That's not the case here on Lake Vermilion. Millions of walleye eggs are taken from Lake Vermilion to stock lakes all over the state. I'm fine with that, and the lake can handle it with the healthy population of walleyes we have here. A female with eggs matters on this body of water and I stick by my earlier point that it DOES matter when a fish is removed from the lake.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-18-2021, 07:52 PM
Anonymouse Anonymouse is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LV guy View Post
I stick by my earlier point that it DOES matter when a fish is removed from the lake.
That wasn't the issue.

It matters on SOME lakes, but on lakes with no natural reproduction it matters not one whit.
Freeze-out lakes would be an extreme example.

There are a LOT of shallow lakes that occasionally freeze up right to the bottom (drought, followed by a very harsh winter) and have to be completely restocked afterwards - even the minnows and panfish. The only reason they ever had fish in the 1st place was from waterfowl transfer of eggs.

Last edited by Anonymouse; 06-18-2021 at 07:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-19-2021, 08:17 AM
LV guy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Duh
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.