Up for debate at the spring hearing this year is a reduction to a three fish walleye limit on the system.
I like it as studies have shown there is a high catch rate of walleyes on the system, especially immature females. Look at battle on Bago, how many fish were brought in over the slot, not that many. The only thing that protected those 16 to 20 inch fish out there till last summer was the huge Shad hatch in 2016.
The WDNR has acknowledged that trawling assessments alone are not sufficient and use electro-fishing and fyke netting to supplement the data gathered from trawling. They also acknowledge the impact of spawing conditions, prey availability, etc on population size and exploitation rates. They have some very good reports on how they determine population size and exploitation rates, particularly for the ceded terroritory.
trawler info can be skewed though as well. My father went on a trip last year with the DNR. They run the mud and if you were to go by that day's numbers, you would think the perch were extinct. I'd have to wager a bet as well that a year where the fish aren't stacked in the mud, your numbers will be low. dragging a net in 18-20 ft down the middle of the lake isn't an exact science by no means.
I heard lot's of talk about perch population being WAY down. 4 years ago I'd agree. the last 2, they have exploded. catching a 100 per trip of 6-7 inch fish, yet the same day my father was on that boat, they had just a handful. Just a little food for thought.
Maybe a study should be done on sheephead and how they are always so strong. The whitebass as well, people can take those by the cooler full and that resource never seems to become depleted although it does seem that the WB are less than what they once were from 15 years ago. Size too, 45 years ago we used to catch 14-16 inch bass regularly, 100's of em. Now a 11-12 inch is kind of the norm. you don't see those big slobs as much anymore. I don't eat either of them, but the lake is ever changing.
I have and most would agree, they prefer a full box. When there were alot more fish those fish were not unhealthy, they just didnt reach 30 pounds at maturity. Fortunately the coho fishery has taken over the last 2 seasons. That may be the single most important factor in the survival of the charter industry. Those fish are now consuming the overabundant alewife. Granted they take full advantage of the mysis shrimp, but the year classes of coho are healthy. Not many people are going to make a 2-4 hour trip to catch 1-3 fish and people most definitely dont like to pay $500 for a charter for a couple fish. All I'm saying is 10 years ago there were an awful lot of fish in the system and they were not starving.
nihsif, thanks for posting that stuff. I have read the 2018 plan.
Why are they reporting "tenths" of a fish in the trawling graph?
I am going to assume they are not counting pieces of a fish. :)
The only thing that comes to mind is they are dividing total fish found by the number of sampling areas (46) ? This would give the average number of fish per given area or "density".
Why would you do that? Wouldn't the trawl be a complete "yearly" number of fish?
How can you be tallying a "tenth" of a fish?
Labs, my point is the amount of studies, trawls, shocking, etc. Is only a scratch on the surface. They make an average over acres. Its a crap shoot. If they net a tiny amount of alewife in a particular area they multiply that by acres to determine a number. Total guess. Thats not science that's total randomness. More accurate estimates could be attained by charter captains observations from their electronics. Like i said the dnrs work is incomplete at best. I value your opinion and have mine based on +- 300 trips over the last 12 years.
I don't doubt their findings. There is no way it is 100% accurate but I bet it a darn good glimpse AND no one has better.
But my hang up keeps going back to: is the over exploitation based on waste AND OR charity.
They could clean this up in two easy steps if they wanted.
First, mandatory visible angler markings. When you buy a license you get a small 1x1 visible patch you must wear on your person. Stop burdening the wardens with cat and mouse games about whether people are illegally fishing without a license. It would also make them think twice about doing it as they would stand out.
Second, a pack of 5 metal tipped zip ties attached to a plastic header that has a QR code and or bar code. Most people now days have smart phones and QR scanner apps. Make these available at all fishing related places "unrestricted".
Scan the code and have at your fishing. If you catch a walleye you want to "keep" make sure you tag it through the mouth. When you're done with that pack scan in another, just make sure its 24hours later.
Again, easier enforcement as a warden wouldn't have to sit and wait for the angler to go over the daily to pick up on illegal intentions.
What would be wrong with this?
I see easier enforcement and more accurate harvest numbers. What am I missing?
Wisconsin has an outstanding staff of fisheries biologists. They know what they are doing. I have great faith in their results and recommendations.
Those of you who think you know better based upon isolated observations are dreaming...
It's fine to question data but attempting to support another position based upon random sightings and speculation ain't going to win anybody over...no different than stating deer numbers are down seeing that you saw fewer deer on your 40 on opening day.
Blackbrd, my guess there are more walleyes because of the club stocking? I wish I was able to fish more and be more knowledgable/witness but that would make the only sense.
Have you ever caught tagged fish? What percentage of your total walleye caught have been tagged?
SamFox, in all reality it starts way before then. These are "back-end" accounting methods. Meaning, they are witness to the result not witness to the cause.
If I was going to make a bet, and I know I am putting my neck on the block here but, wait for it....... i bet the majority of people are violating the freezer limit AND OR giving fish away.
If this is not the case, run for the hills.
Brad, I understand you are willing to believe whatever the DNR says. But to put it nicely, their data is vague and does not show the big picture about what is going on in the Winnebago system or Lake Michigan for that matter. Have you ever fished 60-100 feet of water off of Two Rivers say in October and see the IMMENSE amout of forage on your graph. Not some but tons and those are not smelt they're alewife. The DNR says there is not enough to support the mediocre stocking effort put forth....Really!!! What is the explanation for why there are more walleyes now than there has ever been in the Winnebago system with 10x more fishing pressure and more tournaments than ever. You can look at DNR data, but it will never accurately relay the entire picture. Maybe they should consider data from people who are out there on a regular basis/daily to finish painting an accurate picture. It's about dollars, salaries and agendas, not the fisheries or the sport.
Well whether the bag limit is 5 or 3, that is the easiest solution, the problem is we have not exhausted all other possibilities.
1. Have we done all the habitat projects that are on the list. I know of 3 marshes waiting for work.
2. Have we tried to restore the fish that spawn in the fox?
3. Have we looked at the lake spawn, ways to improve?
We as a society have become complacent, let’s do what’s right not just take the easy way out.
