SURVIVAL RATE????

[wax_worm]

stamp idea would work. by the stamp to catch and keep walleye. if u dont have stamp you dont keep the walleye or target that species. trout/salmon stamps, migratory game bird stamps... just like everything else in the reg. book, dont have you cant do it. its for the better so y not spend the money on it, its goin to better ur fishing experience and ur child, even grand childeren and so on.

Difference between the stamps you list and a walleye stamp is that the those you list involve species that don't always reside within Indiana borders.  Walleye in Inland lakes do.  Ducks, geese, doves migrate south so some of the stamp money is federal dollars.  Trout and salmon (other than the few lakes they stock) are in lake michigan which is stocked by IN, IL, MI, WI and while most return to spawn where they were hatched they have proven with tags that some fish 'wander' to other states to spawn.  Be a tough sell to impose a stamp for walleye that says you can't keep one with out it without reducing the cost of a normal license that currently includes walleye.  If you take walleye out of the normal license target species, then how do you justify charging the same amount.  Then where does the 'stamp' program end?  Are bass next, then perch and crappie?  Seems like a slipperly slope to go to 'stamps' for a fish that is not 'shared' like trout and salmon are.  Just raise the cost of the license for all and use that money to improve the walleye stocking size and other projects.

[abishop]

I wouldn't mind paying more than 17 bucks for a license. What I do have a problem with is the way that put piers up for the handicapped. In a mud hole where you might catch a fish. If they are looking to spend some of the given monies to benefit the fishermen than at least do something that WILL help and benefit all and the handicapped. Put in better launches, a public fishing pier, cleaning stations, portable johns, etc. etc. etc... The ramp they put in at Bass lake the other year is horrible. I think there is about 4 inch difference from one side to the other. Makes it hard to trailer a boat for the novice. When subcontracting work make sure it is a reliable person doing the work. Not just someone on craigslist. If they were to raise our licenses to 50 dollars it would be nice to let the public know where the extra revenue will be spent. I am done...

[bret]

$17/year for statewide fishing privileges is a tremendous value!

[IceJunkie0602]

I wouldn't mind paying more than 17 bucks for a license. What I do have a problem with is the way that put piers up for the handicapped. In a mud hole where you might catch a fish. If they are looking to spend some of the given monies to benefit the fishermen than at least do something that WILL help and benefit all and the handicapped. Put in better launches, a public fishing pier, cleaning stations, portable johns, etc. etc. etc... The ramp they put in at Bass lake the other year is horrible. I think there is about 4 inch difference from one side to the other. Makes it hard to trailer a boat for the novice. When subcontracting work make sure it is a reliable person doing the work. Not just someone on craigslist. If they were to raise our licenses to 50 dollars it would be nice to let the public know where the extra revenue will be spent. I am done...

I know what your talking about.  The front tires of my truck should not be in the water to launch a boat at the dnr ramp. I would pay extra.  Like anything else you don't get to choose where the extra money goes.  You just get to hear where it Went

[angolajones]

I don't like how this conversation has turned.  If the monies collected were better managed, there could be some instant improvements.  If the DNR stocked bigger walleye, they wouldn't need to stock as many as they do fry.  Not sure what the cost difference would be on say 1,000 fingerlings vs. 1,000,000 fry. 

I'm all for fewer government regulations and here we have people proposing more. 

For lakes that are basically put and take, yes harvesting all legal fish caught will have a deleterious effect.

[bret]

It would be nice to improve the walleye fishery without throwing more money at it.  I personally think the proposed 16" minimum size limit would help tremendously.

[wax_worm]

I don't like how this conversation has turned.  If the monies collected were better managed, there could be some instant improvements.  If the DNR stocked bigger walleye, they wouldn't need to stock as many as they do fry.  Not sure what the cost difference would be on say 1,000 fingerlings vs. 1,000,000 fry. 

I'm all for fewer government regulations and here we have people proposing more. 

For lakes that are basically put and take, yes harvesting all legal fish caught will have a deleterious effect.

I think we all wish the govt agencies across the board would spend tax money and license money more wisely, but the cost differnce has to be significant.  The fry are turned loose after very little money is spent on food for them.  It is not cheap to raise them to 7-8 inches which probably takes nearly a year and is the size where the survival rate is best.  How many fry do they need to start with in the hatchery to get 1000 fingerlings?  Guess to low and you come up short on the fingerlings, guess to high and your food cost goes up and blows your budget.  Space is also an issue.  1mil fry probably don't take much more space than a few thousand fingerlings.  Not an easy puzzle to solve. 

Maybe Bret is right an the 16" size limit will help some lakes, but not bass since the idea is to give them another year to spawn.  A 14 inch eye is pretty small and seems alot of the fish we used to see on here from bass were right at 14 or slightly bigger.  Maybe the ones that do survive the fry stocking there are being caught out as soon as they are big enough.   

[Rabidgupy]

Tough call for sure anyway you look at it. I always liked the way Michigan did their program with the Sportsmans card then the licenses depending on what you wanted to do bit pricier overall but some outstanding hunting and fishing to be had. I'd pony up more if it went to a good cause and not to some politician.

[h2.0shaver]

The truth is that walleye theirselves are kinda their own enemy.  Their carnivorous behavior, and their immediate abandonment of milted eggs are just a few examples of  their tragedy.  This is why gravel or rocky bottoms are important.  The crevices of the gravel hide the eggs from preditors ex= crayfish. Current isn't necessary but its believed that it helps to push the eggs farther down into the crevices and also areate the eggs . Eggs on a clay bottom lake are Easy pickins. Wind swept/gravel lakes are more adventitious to a successful spawn due to this.  In a fertile lake, 1 out of 1000 fry survive to fingerling size. Then at fingerling size, only 5 to 10 % survive to be a keeper fish.  I cant imagine the actual numbers of a non fertile lake. We will assume 7.5% at fingerling size, since at fingerling size fertility means nothing.  Looking at the numbers and putting it in perspective, catching a walleye is special.  If you frequently do catch walleye, consider yourself fortunate that you either live near a great walleye fishery or you re just lucky. The most intriguing and elusive fish to me.

[river_scum]

16"?, shoot go 20" min. limit! much rather catch bigger than more.  you mite just catch more too? they would have more time to consume prey fish like shad and young of the year pans. wouldnt it help out more all around? i often wondered why our limit was set so short. like someone said, not much meat on a 14.


great posts/insight all! very interesting.

[abishop]

14 to 18 are the best eaters. If 500 out of 1,000,000 make it to legal size , I guess this is about right?

[imob34]

16"?, shoot go 20" min. limit! much rather catch bigger than more.  you mite just catch more too? they would have more time to consume prey fish like shad and young of the year pans. wouldnt it help out more all around? i often wondered why our limit was set so short. like someone said, not much meat on a 14.


great posts/insight all! very interesting.

Indiana considers our walleye stocking a put and take program not a trophy program, so they set the limit at 14", which is normally a two year old fish, and apparently what they consider an adult fish,  I really hope the 16" limit goes through I'd like to see what happens when more fish get to live to the larger size

[Moose416]

I had a good conversation with a property owner on Bass Lake last week. This fellow has been an active part in the lake association for years and an avid angler.  From what he told me they have worked out an agreement that the South Basin of the lake, where there are very few homes and shallower, will not be sprayed for weeds but rather left to allow cover for the fish.  They are working towards the 16" size and the 25 limit on panfish.  IMO this would go a long way to improve fishing for all the species on Bass and limit the boaters in the area the fish need to mature.

[IceJunkie0602]

16"?, shoot go 20" min. limit! much rather catch bigger than more.  you mite just catch more too? they would have more time to consume prey fish like shad and young of the year pans. wouldnt it help out more all around? i often wondered why our limit was set so short. like someone said, not much meat on a 14.


great posts/insight all! very interesting.

14"ers are walleye candy. You can get plenty of meat off of one. I don't know about raising the length limit.  If they are continually stocking walleye it means they cannot reproduce well.  Every lake is different.   I think we should invest in sustainable artificial habitat instead of investing in fry and fingerlings year after year.

[I Walton]

This is the most thoughtful and interesting thread. It illustrates out biggest problem. We are a varied group of fishermen with no consensus. Some want bigger size limit, some want to spend more money ect. But all want to catch more and bigger walleye. Much of this discussion centers around Bass Lake, which is not home to a native walleye population, therefore will always be a put and take lake. One program that will most likely be successful in the 7 to 9 inch fingerling planting and the studies will bear that out. I have fished the Chippewa Flowage in Hayward, WI for years and the DNR and the Ojibwa Indians have been releasing Hundreds of thousands of fry for years with limited success so they are now only releasing thousands of 6 to 9 inch fish and the jury is still out on how successful the program is. The other problem is that every 14 inch walleye that gets caught ends up in the frying pan. I would bet that many smaller walleye also end up in the pan. I remember my dad worked with a conservation club and they would raise pheasants and release them around Anderson to provide a breeding population  but to no avail as it was not the right habitat and I think the Bass Lake walleye programs are facing the same problem. 

[imob34]

14"ers are walleye candy. You can get plenty of meat off of one. I don't know about raising the length limit.  If they are continually stocking walleye it means they cannot reproduce well.  Every lake is different.   I think we should invest in sustainable artificial habitat instead of investing in fry and fingerlings year after year.

It's well know by the DNR that they do not reproduce well in Indiana waters. There too much silt and our water temps rise too quickly in the spring. That is why they continue to stock large numbers yearly, if they stopped stocking walleye they would disappear eventually, and the DNR does not want that, in surveys around the state when fisherman are asked what kinds of fish they would like stocked in their local lakes walleye are top on the list by a huge margin

[sprkplug]

Studies have shown that predation of Walleye fingerlings by existing predatory fish is greatest right after release. Typically, a truck pulls up and off loads a large amount of fish at just a few areas. Many times what you end up with in these situations is a huge amount of stressed and disorientated Walleye, swimming around in a  relatively small area. It's an absolute slaughter...a buffet for the Bass, Pike, Muskie, Catfish, and larger Walleye that may already be present.

Many think that a fish will instinctively swim off and hide, but that is not always the case. These hatchery fish are accustomed to shallow ponds, with no predation worries, they're stressed due to handling and collection, and they simply don't have a plan for survival, immediately after release.

Data from these same studies suggest that if protection is afforded these fingerlings for a short period of time, (some claim just a couple of days is enough), such as netting off an area where the fish are to be released, that the survival rate rises quite dramatically.

[frozengator]

Wow!  As others have posted it sounds like  private fundraising or a "walleye stamp" would be helpful.

I would have to agree whith this, if it was done right and when they stock they use some with size. Fingerlings will not cut it, I don't care how many millions you put in.

Abishop, are they still stocking? My info only shows up to 2010.

[walleyepac]

16"?, shoot go 20" min. limit! much rather catch bigger than more.  you mite just catch more too? they would have more time to consume prey fish like shad and young of the year pans. wouldnt it help out more all around? i often wondered why our limit was set so short. like someone said, not much meat on a 14.


great posts/insight all! very interesting.

The problem with that is some male walleye never reach that size depending on what body of water they're stocked in

[frozengator]

Why did they pick Bass lake for the amounts they put in? I see other lakes that have better succsess rates and they only put in a fraction to what they put in Bass?

[walleyepac]

Now you're on to something!

[MDeppe]

It would make sense to me to improve the lakes habitat.  Why not add rocks on top of the ice.  When the ice melts it makes a suitable spawning site for the walleye on bass lake.  It would be a one time cost.  The money saved would certainly justify the money spent to establish the fish spawning bed. I would volunteer to bring few rocks maybe the fisherman could do it themselves.  Then have the state keep fisherman from that area during spawning.  Just an idea.

[abishop]

I would have to agree whith this, if it was done right and when they stock they use some with size. Fingerlings will not cut it, I don't care how many millions you put in.

Abishop, are they still stocking? My info only shows up to 2010.

I was told by a co that they stock every year. Haven't gotten any current info. Think this might be back in 2010. Next time I see someone I will ask. If this is true then all the walleye caught are at least 3 plus years old and therefore ought to be all of legal size. I caught quite a few that were 11 in the spring. IDK hope they have continued??

[abishop]

It would make sense to me to improve the lakes habitat.  Why not add rocks on top of the ice.  When the ice melts it makes a suitable spawning site for the walleye on bass lake.  It would be a one time cost.  The money saved would certainly justify the money spent to establish the fish spawning bed. I would volunteer to bring few rocks maybe the fisherman could do it themselves.  Then have the state keep fisherman from that area during spawning.  Just an idea.

Excellent idea. I was informed that there is a rock bar out there. I have never found it though.

[MC_angler]

I was told by a co that they stock every year. Haven't gotten any current info. Think this might be back in 2010. Next time I see someone I will ask. If this is true then all the walleye caught are at least 3 plus years old and therefore ought to be all of legal size. I caught quite a few that were 11 in the spring. IDK hope they have continued??

Abishop, like I posted earlier (might have missed it?) why not directly contact the DNR Biologist in charge of Bass Lake? Their contact information is readily available  http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3590.htm. I'm sure if you emailed the District 1 biologist he'd give you some answers

[walleyepac]

Last yr they(state) only got 1/2 of what they normally get due to an early spawn due to unusual warm temps at brookville so I'm sure you got shortchanged like everyone else, I'm sorry I think that was 2 yrs ago

[wax_worm]

It would make sense to me to improve the lakes habitat.  Why not add rocks on top of the ice.  When the ice melts it makes a suitable spawning site for the walleye on bass lake.  It would be a one time cost.  The money saved would certainly justify the money spent to establish the fish spawning bed. I would volunteer to bring few rocks maybe the fisherman could do it themselves.  Then have the state keep fisherman from that area during spawning.  Just an idea.

Adding rocks is not going to create a succesful spawn without some current or moving water to prevent siltation from suffocating the eggs.  Also if you just drop a bunch of rocks and it draws the walleyes there to try to spawn, everyone will be out there fishing those rocks trying to catch them.  There is no closed season, so when they are spawning (or trying to) in a small area, you have a recipe for doing more harm than good, because fishermen will catch way more adults than what few if any result from trying to spawn in poor habitat without current.

[sprkplug]

It would make sense to me to improve the lakes habitat.  Why not add rocks on top of the ice.  When the ice melts it makes a suitable spawning site for the walleye on bass lake.  It would be a one time cost.  The money saved would certainly justify the money spent to establish the fish spawning bed. I would volunteer to bring few rocks maybe the fisherman could do it themselves.  Then have the state keep fisherman from that area during spawning.  Just an idea.

It's a little more complicated than that. Fish eggs need oxygen of course, and this is usually absorbed through the membrane itself. In order for the O2 to pass through the membrane, the eggs themselves have to be kept clear. Some species accomplish this by fanning the eggs,  some rely on a current or wave action to do the work for them, and some, like Yellow Perch, lay egg strands attached to something, like vegetation, to keep them out of the silt.

Placing a rockpile in order to hold the eggs out of the silt sounds good in one direction, but look at what else that rockpile is going to do....it will attract baitfish of all kinds, and crawfish. Two extremely voracious predators of fish eggs. I don't see how it would hurt anything, but I also can't imagine it helping things very much.

Oops....Wax beat me to it.

[abishop]

Abishop, like I posted earlier (might have missed it?) why not directly contact the DNR Biologist in charge of Bass Lake? Their contact information is readily available  http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3590.htm. I'm sure if you emailed the District 1 biologist he'd give you some answers

Thanks

[abishop]

Just got off the phone with Tom, he said that 2 years ago they did not put any in the lake. There is a 2 percent survival rate. It takes 2 1/2 years to grow to 14 inches in Bass Lake. Other lakes 2 years. They are trying to control the milfoil weeds on Bass. Last year there wasn't much. The lake association is thinking about not spraying weed control by the pocket area where there aren't any homes. The number 1 fish there pound/per/ acre is gills followed by shad, shiners, walleye, perch. Cats were the biggest fish in the 70's and 90's because there were a lot of 10 pounders. Crappie also had a banner year a couple years ago. It costs appx. 200 dollars a year to stock 1,000,000 to 1,300,000 fry. They are making spring and fall stockings. All fished released at the ramp which gives them a better chance to survive cause the fish that are eating them right away will be full and the others will establish a safe zone. Tom was very helpful and is sending me a creel study and other info on Bass Lake. He also said that they put 6-8 inch fall fry into LOW 23,000 per year. At Maxi they put in 100 fingerlings per acre. and in the fall the larger fingerlings 7-9 inchers @ 18,000 total. This seems like a whole bunch of walleye to get at Maxi. Maybe I miss understood.