The ice fishing Montana boards are sponsored by:

Author Topic: Swan Lake walleyes  (Read 11623 times)

Offline wingnutty

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #30 on: Dec 23, 2015, 11:26 AM »
I have to just chime in here and say that people who honestly think that there is some conspiracy theory going on within FWP to 'trick the public into thinking introductions are happening' are probably not well-grounded in reality.  Those types of conspiracy theories are not healthy to any debate and are completely off-base and disrespectful. 

Most people who are overly critical of FWP biologists don't really understand the position well and don't realize that these folks are being pulled in 10 different directions by 10 different groups of people many of whom are diametrically opposed to one-another.  There is simply no way they can please everyone, or really even hardly please anyone given the constraints under which they operate.  They are mandated by a litany of laws and policies to do many of the things that they do, and often the local biologists don't personally agree with the required actions they must take, but like any job, sometime you have to do things you disagree with on a personal level.  Overall they put in long hours, countless amounts of grief and almost zero appreciation while doing an excellent job of managing our fisheries. 

I didn't see a long line of support voiced when FWP came out against CSKT gill netting Flathead Lake?  Also don't hear much support when they do actively manage a non-native fishery for public recreational value.  Maybe those who so readily point fingers at decisions they disagree with should also voice support and appreciation when FWP supports positions that they do agree with?

I like to fish for perch, walleye and crappie as much as the next guy (I never even fish for trout), but there are so few in-tact bull trout fisheries left in the state that managing some of them for these species is warrented, imo.  "Bucket biology" happens a lot, whether it is a direct result of actively dumping fish, or an indirect route of previously dumped fish finding their way into a new system, it is increadibly common and almost every water in the state has been impacted by it.  I still hear guys actively support bucket biology and I've personally heard multiple people say that "LMR would be a much better perch fishery if there were northerns in the lake".  Fact is nobody knows the impact new introductions will have on a fishery until it happens and most often the intended result isn't achieved. 

On a personal level, I do support managing noxon for a warm water sport fishery, but I also support managing the swan as an intact bull trout fishery. We all have different opinion on things and sometimes decisions go our way and other times they don't but that doesn't diminish the fact that overall FWP and it's biologists work hard every day for sportsmen and shouldn't be accused of actively undertaking treason against us.

Offline Papa John

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 612
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #31 on: Dec 23, 2015, 11:27 AM »
“…what the heck is a Carp Cop?...”

One of the terms of endearment that I and all Wild Resource Law Enforcement Officers are referred to at some time or another in our careers…

Among other common names…

Moose Marshall, Prairie Pig, Forrest Fuzz…and many others that I cannot include in this post due to Site rules and policies and common decency… Ó¿Ò...è¿è...

I haven't heard these before. Pretty funny and you picked the best one. Maybe meet you on the ice some day. Christmas blessings........

Offline Papa John

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 612
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #32 on: Dec 23, 2015, 11:31 AM »
Wingnutty: Very wise and concisely written. I concur.

Offline whiptail

  • Iceshanty Sponsor
  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • *
  • Posts: 302
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #33 on: Dec 23, 2015, 11:41 AM »
Thank you Carp Cop for that info.
Whiptail
Pete's Tackle Shop

Offline TCubed

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • Columbia Falls, MT
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #34 on: Dec 23, 2015, 02:47 PM »
Why do I see a padlock in the future of this string??????? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Offline Born Late

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 808
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #35 on: Dec 23, 2015, 03:15 PM »
Well said, Wingnutty.

I still hear guys actively support bucket biology...

Yup, while simultaneously hearing that all sportsmen/women need to stick together no matter what.  Sorry, bucket biologists, but I have far more trust in FWP than I do in you.
YOU are the only one who can decide if the ice is safe enough for you.

Offline BK_Fisherman

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #36 on: Dec 23, 2015, 03:40 PM »
After reading through this entire thread PerchAssualt (Mike), MT_btagger, and Wingnutty all provide logical sound input in their posts, and even Whiptail’s posts are based on something….not something I believe but to each their own!

Fishermanj,

While some of your points may warrant concern, much of what you say on here is completely unfounded and inaccurate.

Quote
So Swan lake... do I need to go there.  FWP has been netting and slaughtering the fish in this lake for many years.

Yes, if by fish, you mean invasive species such as lake trout. Netting has been conducted by the USFWS not FWP for years in order to preserve one of the last bull trout strongholds.

Quote
The numbers are amazing.  Also there is an exact money amount of what one planted bull trout or salmon is worth, why does no one care about the money being spent on the rehabilitation of bull trout and then the same people who planted them are catching them in nets?

Surely then, you have gone out on the boat and pulled the nets right? If you had, you would know that the by-catch is minimal and acceptable. Secondly, the nets are sinking gill nets placed on the BOTTOM typically in the 100-foot+ ranges to target lake trout that are SPAWNING. Therefore, Kokanee by-catch is minimal due to the fact that they are stratified in the water column feeding on daphnia. Oftentimes, a significant amount of the bull trout captured in the nets can be released due to the short time frame in which a full netting evolution takes place in order to minimize mortality rates.

In addition, bull trout don't need to be planted Swan because they are NATIVE, and the kokanee would be totally gone from Swan had the USFWS not been aggressively pursuing lake trout to significantly minimize the numbers. Cut open any lake trout that comes out of Swan and it will be filled with those high dollar planted kokanee you are referring to, maybe you should send the lake trout a bill for reimbursement.

Quote
this might be way of topic but it just kills me.  So in the greater flathead (region 1) name two lakes you can go to and catch a nice size NATIVE species.

How about:

1. Swan Lake (My avatar is of a 12LB Bull Trout I caught and released ice fishing out there last year, not to mention that you can have double digit days catching bull trout all of which are over 20" and fight like hell).

2. Rogers Lake Arctic grayling are a unique fish because remnant populations were native to only two of the lower 48 states-Michigan and Montana. Grayling were apparently isolated in both of these areas by the last period of glaciers, which ended 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Michigan's grayling were extinct by 1936, but Montana populations continue to persist in a fraction of their historic range.

Quote
If I want to catch a trout I have to buy a very expensive reservation license and drive over 200 miles round trip to maybe not be blown off the lake!  It makes no sense.

If you're looking to catch trout there are more than ample opportunities in Region 1.

Quote
What if they made it free to fish for non-native fish?

It would work great for about a year and then there would be no money to maintain any of the state fishing access sites, boat ramps, campgrounds, etc.

Quote
What about the walleye that are netted yearly in the flathead river sloughs, like fennon, church and half moon?  Or maybe lake 5 for that matter ive even heard claims of them coming out of the Stillwater river as well as tally lake.

Have you ever read anything about the 1989 Environmental Assessment that was completed by Montana FWP? They voted for a policy mandating NO stocking of walleye west of the divide citing biological and social concerns, right???? Therefore, there are supposed to be NO walleye west of the divide.

In 2004, FWP agreed to hear a proposal to stock sterile walleye in closed-basin lakes west of the continental divide. The proposal was strongly opposed by several conservation and sportsman’s groups including Trout Unlimited and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, reinforcing the 1989 decision.

Noxon Rapids Reservoir is the only exception, and in my opinion it shouldn't be.

Quote
Moral of this rant, there are more little bachelor groups of walleye in local waters then most would ever admit.  Also there are plenty of people who catch these fish and release them nice and quietly.  Its hard for sportsman to trust the FWP and do what ever they ask (turn in walleye caught)  I would bet money that if and I emphasize they word "if" someone caught a walleye out of swan lake they would either eat the fish or release it in hopes of one more fish that may spawn and hopefully someday put another bend in their rod!

Again, there are no walleye that have been planted west of the divide, so these fictional "bachelor groups" you are referring to could only have originated from illegal introductions.

Secondly, by releasing any walleye you catch in Swan you would be relegating yourself to stiff punishment, and contributing to the demise of native fish in hopes of a poor walleye fishery after they eat everything in the lake. Sure you will have your rod bending for the first 3 years when they explode and are eating well, and then you will witness a trophic cascade. The fisheries will crash because there isn't the minnow base or nutrients (also noted by MT_btagger) in Swan to support a thriving walleye fishery, and you will end up with a lake full of scrawny 13" walleye that are topped out....definitely worth it right?????

I can't possibly address all of the misinformation that you have presented in your posts, if you are going to be spreading the garbage you call information all over this forum then you may want to know what you are talking about or at least have some semblance of the issues at hand.

@Whiptail (Pete) Man, you need to move to Alaska if there is really this many government conspiracies going....you do make some damn good tackle though!

Offline wingnutty

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #37 on: Dec 23, 2015, 09:01 PM »
I was talking to someone the other day who is very thrilled with the proliferation of crappie in our local waters.  What this person doesn't understand is that in a relatively short time we'll all have the opportunity to go out and catch a bucket of 6" crappie!  Yippie, stunted crappie!  Add that to the countless local lakes that are full of stunted 5" perch  :-\

Surely most of us are smart enough to realize that the proliferation of crappie in our waters is a direct result of bucket biology >:(  This kind of crap is getting old, but there is simply no way to stop it.  At the very least true sportsmen of Montana should actively discourage this type of stupidity.  Shamefully, there are still a lot of folks out there who not only support bucket biology, but openly support it and will tell you so (usually after looking over their shoulder to make sure nobody else is within earshot).  As fishermen we can disagree on a lot of issues, but we should be united in our stance against bucket biology and our support for FWP doing everything they can to prevent it and hold those responsible accountable. 

Offline vicster

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 578
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #38 on: Dec 23, 2015, 10:54 PM »
I am definitely opposed to bucket biology, and in the case of Swan lake it is truly a tragedy. I'd rather see fwp put their efforts into finding whoever put lakers in there.
 It isn't a good lake for Walleye to thrive, not very fertile and a fairly small forage base.  It will be interesting to see if they even establish a population there.
  The lake trout occupy a similar niche as bull trout and will out compete Bullys every time.  Swan was one of the Bull trout strongholds, probably the only water in the state with a healthy population of Bulls.  Healthy enough that you could not only target them, but even keep one a day if you chose to previous to the appearance of lake trout. FWP should offer a bounty on lakers if they really want to make a difference in that watershed.  It really makes me wonder about why they make a bigger deal about two Walleye than a growing population of lakers, all the while planting and protecting non-native rainbows and brown trout... 

Offline fishermanj

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #39 on: Dec 24, 2015, 02:07 AM »
BK_fisherman what have I said that is inaccurate?  maybe we have met for I sit in on most meetings and public hearings that envolve these subjects?

Offline PerchPounderMT

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 996
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #40 on: Dec 24, 2015, 08:53 AM »
Maybe when the MT F&G takes responsibility and stops blaming "bucket biologists" for the eyes in CF/Hauser and Holter people will give their efforts more a bit more credibility.I think blaming the fisherman of MT for the introduction of a "nonnative" species "BS" that was planted by the MT F&G qualifies as a conspiracy.
Dont ask

Offline MARK WEED

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 4
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #41 on: Dec 24, 2015, 01:20 PM »
After reading all the posts on Swan lake and noxon 2 things come to mind. #1 who determines what the by catch rate is and what is acceptable? killing one bull trout while trying to save them doesn't make sense, has anyone seen how many have been killed while netting Swan for the last 5 years? Not a conspiracy theory but coincidence that they were at the end of their netting survey and now they have a reason to leave the nets in and probably more money to continue. As for Noxon and fishermen standing up and saying something,  1700 surveys were turned into the FWP 1696 for managing as a warm water fishery and 4 against. It didn't change anything.

Offline 12BHNTN

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #42 on: Dec 24, 2015, 09:28 PM »
Bucket biologists, arm chair coaches, what's the difference? Individuals that think they know more than those educated and trained. FWP, let the ignorant screw it up for all and save a ton of license dollars trying to fix things.  In the end we'll have a bunch of screwed up fisheries, stunted walleye, few perch, and yet there will be know-it-all fishermen that say FWP are the ones at fault. There will always be half that want something different and are willing to screw it up for the other half.  That is the way society is going...self serving.  I love to catch and eat walleye but will kill every reproductive female walleye I am legally allowed to help keep the system in balance...Montana waters just can't feed all those mouths.  If you think otherwise, try taking some fisheries courses and quit listening to your beer buddies.

Offline coldcreekchris

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 805
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #43 on: Dec 24, 2015, 10:34 PM »
for me personally this has been an educating thread....while I stand by my disgust of certain species introduced to western waters by self motivated..selfish.... individuals that think  they know more and better than a trained biologist ....I don't always agree with mfwp...but do have respect for them and the jobs they do....like wingnutty..I have also heard the occasional bb talk from the likes of average joes to business owners....so I do think that bb may be more common than some might think....what I don't understand...and without getting into "conspiracy theories" is MWWP's attitude about going after these infractors....you'd think that they could easily get a shout out on the nightly news..saying there is a 10 g reward for info leading to the dumpage of such and such...we have all seen the media campaign for TIP MONT....so why aren't they using  the same type of media to catch the individuals that dumped fish into so called waters???? people are loose lipped..especially with a few g's on the line.....putting aside what I believe about certain fish in certain waters and how they got there aside.....I think it is very odd on the way MFWP is going after the so called infractors....maybe they think it would be so hard to prove....but you know damn well...if you were privy to any other violation...fish and game would be there in a heartbeat....I am so confused... :-\btw....I did enjoy that 15 pound pike I caught out of the flathead river this summer....and that 5 gallon bucket of 13" crappie out of Blanchard..as well as the occasional 13 inch hog perch out of...not tellin....but there are still streams and lakes where the cuts and bulls run.. please folk that think that f it...there are no more riparian fisheries so screw it...STOP....there are still native fisheries left....please respect that before they are all gone...

Offline Elkhnter

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 688
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #44 on: Dec 24, 2015, 10:54 PM »
Here is what I am going to tell you about illegal walleyes. They are there to stay and the only way to get rid of them is to kill the whole lake and start over. Don't think that's going to happen so now you have another species to fish for. Just saying! It happens all over the country and hasn't ruined a lake yet..... ;)
Marvin

Offline coldcreekchris

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 805
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #45 on: Dec 24, 2015, 11:05 PM »
well I guess I always loved walleye....guess our grankids  will be catching the world record outta flathead lake in a decade or so from now....sigh.... :(...can you imagine the walleye going into the shallows of east bay and elmo..with water temps pushing 80 in the summer....its all over.... :'(

Offline wingnutty

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #46 on: Dec 24, 2015, 11:32 PM »
Here is what I am going to tell you about illegal walleyes. They are there to stay and the only way to get rid of them is to kill the whole lake and start over. Don't think that's going to happen so now you have another species to fish for. Just saying! It happens all over the country and hasn't ruined a lake yet..... ;)

I'm not sure I understand you comment about not ruining a lake yet?  Most certainly bucket biology has significantly harmed fisheries.  I also agree that there is no way to get rid of them at this point.  So either FWP pours $ into continual gill netting, or live with a severely compromised system.  Problem is that giving in just entitles the bucket biologists more and spending $ reducing numbers comes out of already tight budgets.  Super frustrating and I"m sure if one were to evaluate the fisheries budgets it would be pretty eye opening at how tight of financial margins they are required to operate within.

Problem with enforcement of bucket biology is that it is almost impossible to prevent unless you actually catch someone in the act.  Even turning someone is isn't gonna do anything unless you have verifiable proof.  Someone takes a cooler of walleye and dumps them in a lake and unless you have video or photo evidence, how are you ever going to prove that they did it?  You can't, there is just no way that anyone can be held accountable, which is why nobody ever is.  It is very likely that even FWP is probably aware of people who have or still are doing bucket biology, but you just can't stop them unless you watch them 24/7.

Offline coldcreekchris

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 805
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #47 on: Dec 24, 2015, 11:44 PM »
agree wingnutty....I was thinking it must be so hard to prove...but still...I think the nearer the time of inception...the better chance they might have....do agree totally with ya ..just cause things are messed up..doesn't mean that people can do whatever they want....transporting fish from bodies of water is illegal and whether the chances of getting caught is slim....you know damn well the MFWP is looking for a scapegoat.. even if many have done it before ...as an example if you get caught.. you will almost certainly be looking at a multi thousand dollar fine and a decade of privliges lost..

Offline albo

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 780
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #48 on: Dec 25, 2015, 12:07 AM »
it wasn't bucket biologist that put Mysis shrimp in Flathead or stocked Rainbows, lake trout, brown trout, brook trout ,golden trout, lake whitefish, kokanee, large and small mouth bass, northern pike, black bullheads and walleyes throughout the state. Just because you can name genus and species for a million plants and animals doesn't mean you are going to make smart decisions on application, only that you can identify 9 out of 10 species.
if you're too busy to go fishing, you're too busy

Offline coldcreekchris

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 805
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #49 on: Dec 25, 2015, 01:25 AM »
once again..good point albo...you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows......you spieled off my frustrations and acceptances of MFWP in a nutshell....but I am just saying just cause the situation is such...don't let the average yahoo do whatever...

Offline PerchPounderMT

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 996
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #50 on: Dec 25, 2015, 11:41 AM »
So its ok when the Montana Fish and Game transplant the species and completely ruins the fishery but when somebody else does it it's unacceptable?
Dont ask

Offline wingnutty

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #51 on: Dec 25, 2015, 12:06 PM »
So its ok when the Montana Fish and Game transplant the species and completely ruins the fishery but when somebody else does it it's unacceptable?

Yeah it sucks that mismanagement has messed up fisheries, but I also think that almost all of those mistakes were made in the distant past and that FWP has learned from their mistakes and you don't see a lot of introductions happen today.  Things that are done nowadays undergo a lot more scrutiny. In fact, I'd say its almost gone too far the other way, where FWP is afraid to to introductions for fear of the unknown.  Not to say mistakes won't happen in the future, because they most certainly will, what when humans are involved and all, but we also shouldn't let fear of mistakes prevent any action (the current state of...fisheries mgt, forestry mgt, ...pick your field and/or issue because this situation is very pervasive within society and government now).



 
Quote
it wasn't bucket biologist that put Mysis shrimp in Flathead or stocked Rainbows, lake trout, brown trout, brook trout ,golden trout, lake whitefish, kokanee, large and small mouth bass, northern pike, black bullheads and walleyes throughout the state. Just because you can name genus and species for a million plants and animals doesn't mean you are going to make smart decisions on application, only that you can identify 9 out of 10 species.

Yup, very true.  Sometimes no matter how much something is studied and analyzed, the affects can't truly be known...sucks, but such is life.  I will say I'd trust the judgement of a decent fisheries biologist over that of a fisherman ~95% of the time, but a degree and title doesn't make anyone right 100% of the time...in fact, I always say that given almost any situation or issue in life, hindsight will show that even a knowledagble person makes the correct decision only 70-80% of the time, as humans we just simply cannot foretell future implications with certainty...yet ;)

Offline PerchPounderMT

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 996
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #52 on: Dec 25, 2015, 12:41 PM »
What it boils down to is the current Montana Fish and Game agenda revolves around trout and they aren't going to endorse or condone any species that isn't on their agenda. They go on and on about walleye and pike in Canyon ferry Holter Hauser and lower Missouri and how destructive they are but it's still one of the best trout fisheries in the state.
Dont ask

Offline fishermanj

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #53 on: Dec 25, 2015, 11:04 PM »
The catch rate for bull trout in nets in swan lake are 1 to 10.  This came straight from Fraleys mouth in an interview on the radio about a year ago.   It has also been stated by Fraleys that they net 4 or 5 walleye out of Fennon slough every year. 

Why would the FWP ever release the information about these 2 walleye ever being netted?  There is no reason to except for the fact that it is considered bucket biology and can be used to access funds need to continue to net the lake. 

The walleye caught in Fennon are never talked about!   I can go to the river near Fennon slough and catch bulls all winter and spring.

I have also caught many 6-12 lbs. bull trout in flathead lake up to 160' deep!

I have also sat on the ice on swan lake and have had 10 fish days fishing for Bulls.   

There also is written proof about accidentally stocking walleye in Nixon.   

According to bk_fisherman I am full of lies and misconceptions.  Truth is I am active in our local fishing community, I am also a fisherman in the fact that I love to go and catch fish.  As long as my wife or kids can catch a fish, I am happy.   I don't have to only fish walleyes or only fish cutties I love fish that's all.  I will gladly compare mounts and pictures of size and species.   The fish are there so go catch them and have fun.

Offline whiptail

  • Iceshanty Sponsor
  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • *
  • Posts: 302
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #54 on: Dec 25, 2015, 11:16 PM »
Right on fishermanJ couldn't have said it better, follow the DOLLAR!
Whiptail
Pete's Tackle Shop

Offline Born Late

  • Team IceShanty Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 808
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #55 on: Dec 26, 2015, 10:12 AM »
Why would the FWP ever release the information about these 2 walleye ever being netted?  There is no reason to except for the fact that it is considered bucket biology and can be used to access funds need to continue to net the lake.

No reason?  You provided another reason in your question. It makes sense that FWP would want to hit hard when the walleye numbers are low and there's at least a chance of eliminating or limiting the spread of an illegal introduction.

I don't believe FWP is a perfect agency nor do I see anyone else here suggesting that they are. Some decisions we now consider poor only because we have the benefit of hindsight. And, I have little doubt that over the years stocked fish ended up in waters where stocking was not intended. However, I have to call BS on the suggestion that FWP is using bucket biology as an excuse to access funds.  Bucket biology depletes funds and that's on the bucketheads, not FWP.
YOU are the only one who can decide if the ice is safe enough for you.

Offline MARK WEED

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 4
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #56 on: Dec 26, 2015, 01:24 PM »
40 to 50 years ago the fish and game drove around eastern mt. and dumped 50 gallon cans of pike, bass, perch, walleyes in any impoundment they came across. They also took fish from the hatcheries and placed them in lakes, streams and reservoirs with no separation of species. Noxon reservoir received truck loads of bass, from the Miles City hatchery the same year it flooded the cause ways. No culling was done in regards to species before they were dumped and Walleyes were right there with the Bass. If you ask the FWP if that happened they will say its possible, but will they tell you even if Noxon isn't an "Illegal transplant by bucket biologists" it is an unauthorized transplant, and they must be eliminated.

Offline IcemCF

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 14
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #57 on: Dec 26, 2015, 07:03 PM »
Fishermanj, you spout false facts, if you are going to make claims on here make sure they are accurate. You are wrong, 4 or 5 walleye are not netted out of the sloughs every year. A female was caught multiple years back, and no walleye have been caught out of Lake Five for multiple years. And as for bull trout bycatch in swan, there is a difference between bycatch and bycatch mortality. I can't even possibly cover all of your inaccuracies claimed throughout this whole thread, I just hope noone on here is ignorant enough to believe you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but do not just make up facts to support your opinion.

Offline wingnutty

  • Team IceShanty Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #58 on: Dec 26, 2015, 08:26 PM »
FishermanJ, can you provide documentation that 4-5 walleyes are netted out of the sloughs each year?  Just curious?

Offline fishermanj

  • IceShanty Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Swan Lake walleyes
« Reply #59 on: Dec 27, 2015, 08:45 PM »
The Fennon slough walleye came straight from Jon Fraleys mouth.

The large hen caught years ago,was netted in church slough.

Lake five was hit hard by the old region one fish biologist.  I agree they got them all out.  I fish it often and have for many years.

so riddle me this please, they place nets deep like 60-100' deep right?  This is done to try and catch only lake trout right?  I understand that bull trout will and do live in these depths as they love to eat salmon, why on gods great earth would a walleye be that deep?   The water is not that warm in swan lake, there are plenty of natural break lines that hold forage for a walleye!  I do know the habits of a walleye for I live to fish for them.  What I don't know is why a walleye in a lake like swan would be hanging out that deep,  I also don't know if it would even survive that deep!  Oh yeah and by catch or by catch mortality?  Really!  So a bull trout can be caught in water around 100' deep and survive?  They are awesome fish, I love to catch them, but they are weak and they simply can not take the pressure change that a lake trout can, if you fish for them you will know this.

I agree some of my statements are hear say, but so is this argument over walleyes in swan!   I could send out a hundred walleye pictures with no background, hell I take pride in no background pictures, it can give away a lot of information!

We are all entitled to our opinions, my opinion is, it is a lie, if the FWP wanted to get rid of walleye in swan lake they would shock them in the spring when the water temps hit 40 and the fish Are spawning.  My other opinion is that this whole scheme is over funding for 10 or more years of gill netting the lake! For better or for worse, time will tell.







 



Iceshanty | MyFishFinder | MyHuntingForum
Contact | Disclaimer | Privacypolicy | Sponsor
© 1996- Iceshanty.com
All Rights Reserved.