Little Bay de Noc Fishing Reports

Captain Ken Lee · Senior Member

Growth Rates...

slammer · Senior Member

Cool chart Ken, thanks!!! Did not know that!!! I wished I grew that slow!!!
Slammer!!!

benzie rover · Member

Thanks for posting that Ken. I love fisheries data. I've collected a quite a lot of papers myself. I actually did quite a bit of age analysis of fish scales back in grad school for my thesis. We never worked with walleye, mostly trout, but occasionally we got some panfish to sample as well. I always found it very interesting how old large bluegills are. The big slabs (9"+) are 10+ years old, with some of them reaching 15 years old. Just like you, I stopped eating those old fish out of respect. Although technically a healthy population will not be impacted by harvesting these old giants, provided there is good habitat, but it will occasionally distort the age classes and give you a smaller overall population. The fecundity (viable egg count) is way higher in the middle-large fish, but really old, big fish have a lower reproductive rate because the viability of their eggs is much lower. This same principle is true of walleye populations as well. The 20-24" females have the most success when spawning, but those 28"+ monsters are not as helpful as we'd like them to be, but I still try to release those giants out of respect (and I prefer eating upper teen fish). In the name of honest data analysis, it should be noted that the same fisheries managers that gathered that growth data also determined that the LBDN slot limit was not factor in maintaining the population. That was their scientific recommendation, but human emotion trumped this and demanded to let the giants go, and oddly, the DNR actually gave in and put it back on, whereas they seem to balk at similar attempts for local regulation of trout and salmon fisheries. But anyway, I digress. I personally would advocate for a 3 fish/person limit with out a slot, but lots of folks would not like that change, regardless of how good it would be for the population overall so it won't go anywhere I am sure. Anyway, thanks for sharing data - keep it coming.

Fish on,

Matt

Captain Ken Lee · Senior Member

Matt, if we lived in a perfect world where all things were utopia...maybe your perceptions of all those papers you've read would all be correct. However, we live in an area where crazy organizations like the "Nature Conservancy" are protecting nesting locations for birds (cormorants) that can eat up to 7lbs of fish per day. And we have had several hundred thousands of pounds of walleye illegally harvested from our bays since at least 2005. Our sportfishing harvest is the lowest it's been since records have been kept. Our annual sportfish harvest of walleyes is less than 5,000 / yr when it used to average 29,000 / yr. We are trying to rebuild a walleye population by offering some protection for female walleyes over 23 inches. I don't know why 23 inches was chosen as a size to protect, but that's what was in place when we moved here 20 yrs. ago, and it seemed to be working just fine until greed took over and netting of walleyes became profitable for a few individuals. If no other factors were involved...then maybe we could just rely on the "scientific" data and everything would be just fine.

In nature...if just1% of walleye eggs survive to adulthood, 1% of 500,000 (large female) is still way more than 1% of 150,000 (smaller female avg.). If the people in charge of egg collecting practiced what the research suggests, then they would only take eggs from those prized 20-24 inch females. I have watched the egg take for many years and eggs are taken from large 10 and 11 lb females just as eggs are taken from smaller 3 and 4lb. females. As long as the eggs are ripe...they're taking them to the hatchery. I personally would take the genetics of a large female that's made it to 15-20 yrs old over a smaller fish any day, but that's just an opinion, not sure if there's any studies into that. The same fisheries managers that said the slot limit was not a factor in maintaining the population also said that it was not a detriment to the fishery...so why get rid of it if the people wanted it?