Fish surveys look strong

[Lee Borgersen]

Saturday, March 29, 2001908 Volume 19, Issue 13

Fish surveys look strong


Lake Vermilion’s walleye population remains at near-record levels, according to a just-released gill net report from the Department of Natural Resources. The latest figures should spell good news for anglers when they hit the water for the walleye opener, just six weeks from today.
“The fish are there and that should indicate good potential for fishing this spring,” said DNR Large Lake Specialist Duane Williams, based in Tower. “Weather could still be a factor, but there’s a pretty good abundance of 14-18 inch walleyes out there,” he said.

In fact, walleye numbers are looking strong in most area lakes, according to Tower Area Fisheries Manager Doug Thompson. “We’ve had a number of recent years with good reproduction,” Thompson said. Recent warmer than average springtime and summer temperatures have boosted the survival of walleye fry and allowed young fish to grow quickly during their first several months, helping them obtain the reserves of fat needed to survive the winter months.

Those milder years have left most area lakes with strong 2002 and 2003 year classes, putting large numbers of walleye in the perfect size range this year.

All together, the Lake Vermilion gill net survey averaged 19.1 walleye per net. That’s slightly below the 2002 record of 20.0 fish per net, but Williams said the difference is statistically insignificant. “It’s safe to say, the population is about as high as it’s ever been,” he said.

And the walleye numbers look promising for the next several years. According to Williams, 2006 was another very strong year class and electrofishing results on young-of-the-year fish this past fall suggest that 2007 was a near record for fish reproduction and survival.

Poorer year classes in 2004 and 2005 probably won’t be noticeable to most anglers, at least for another year or two, when those fish would normally be entering the prime size range.

The outlook for other species on Vermilion is mixed. An average of 0.6 northern pike were captured per net during the 2007 survey, a number that is below the long-term average of about 1 per net.

Yellow perch were also down in 2007, to 15.6 perch per net, thanks in part to a very weak 2004 year class. The long-term perch catch has averaged nearly 30 fish per net on Vermilion.

On the other hand, smallmouth bass numbers appear to be significantly higher than average. A DNR electrofishing survey (smallies are hard to catch in nets) recorded 59 fish per hour, well above the historical average. Those numbers are helped, according to Williams, by strong year classes in 2005 and 2006.

The DNR’s recent surveys of other area lakes have found similiar trends, and generally strong walleye numbers. Fall Lake, one of several area lakes surveyed in 2007, averaged 11.9 walleye per net, which is right on the long term median for that historically strong walleye producer. “Fall Lake is in the top 25 percent of lakes in its class,” said Thompson, who noted that Fall’s strong natural reproduction has produced a very healthy and stable walleye population, despite the fact that the DNR ended artificial stocking of the lake back in 1990.

Thompson said the ending of stocking has no apparent effect on the lake’s walleye population.

A good lake for northerns

If you’re looking for northern pike, a 2007 DNR survey suggests Crooked Lake, in the BWCAW, may be a good bet. The latest gill net survey averaged 4.9 northerns per net, which puts it well into the top 25 percent for lakes in its class. “The northern catches have increased over time,” said Thompson, although that assessment is based on only three surveys over the past 25 years.

The average northern caught during the most recent survey weighed about three pounds, with a 23 inch average length. The largest northern caught measured 38.5 inches.

Crooked Lake also has a fair walleye population, with an average of 6.7 fish per net during the most recent survey.


  More:

Various species of fish get dumped from a trapnet to a holding tank before getting measured as part of a lake survey. 

 


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Ace]

Thanks for posting all this information SMG. I was at a meeting with the DNR when all this info was released.
The news is very incouraging to anyone that fishes Lake Vermilion.

One important tid bit that caught my eye was that since the Muskies were introduced back in 1987. The Walleye numbers have been on the up swing. Both in numbers and in the size stucture. That just might cool some of the anti Muskie sentiments, from some of the local Walleye fishermen.

Smallmouth numbers are way higher than I have ever seen them. I'm looking forward to another great year, fishing on the Big V. The Northern Pike numbers are a little misleading if you don't know the lake very well. Numbers on the east end of the lake have always been low but the west end pike population is above average.

This is the fifth year of special regulations on our Pike fishery. The 24 to 36" slot was introduced to help build a trophy Pike fishery.
In my estimation it has been very effective so far. Most of the Pike I catch are well into the protected slot, and
fish in the high 30's have become quite common. Pike in the 40+(inches) range are a
very good possibility, for even the novice pike angler.

As for the Walleyes on this years opener. Vermilion has always been a great opening day destination. Weather has not been much of a factor on the opener. Don't get me wrong, it's been a factor for the anglers over the years. The Walleyes however just don't seem to care if it's nasty out, they bite anyway.

"Ace"

[JackpineRob]

Its kind of funny how they brag up the "natural reproduction" in Fall Lake, when Vermilion just down the road has quite a few more walleyes per net lift.  Based on the pressure that Fall Lake gets, it should be getting some additional stocking help.  With the summer homes, federal campground, 3 landings and resort activity - all on a narrow lake less than 7 miles long - there's a whole lot of fishermen hitting that lake during open water.

I grew up on the lake, and there is no doubt that the walleye numbers aren't what they were in the 70's and 80's.  Not that the numbers are bad - but the fishing could be a whole lot better - and it has been in the past.

[greatoutdoors]

The fishing was better when they were dumping raw sewage into Shagawa many years ago.

Every water body fed by Shagawa (Fall, Newton, Pipestone Bay, Basswood River, Crooked, etc) received the benefit from the very fertile water flowing through.

Shagawa had far greater reproduction and growth rate at that time.

By cleaning up the lake and making it presentable to humans, made it worse for the fish.

[JackpineRob]

I agree and disagree GO.  No question the fertility was there back in the day, but the tertiary treatment plant came online in the early 70's, and the fishing was very good from Shagawa all the way to Pipestone for quite a while afterwards.

Fall, Newton and even Pipestone Bay received walleye stocking for many, many years.  Since the stocking was discontinued, Fall has fewer walleyes, Newton isn't a shadow of what it was, and only Pipestone Bay seems much as it has always been.

Of course, no one seems able to quantify the effects of the rusty crayfish...  Some of our traditional evening walleye spots are just overrun with the varmints.  They are big, aggressive, and eat everything they can get their pinchers on!

It sure is nice now not having to deal with the nasty green algae blooms that I remember as a little tot.  The water actually stunk at times.

[greatoutdoors]

I agree with the water stinking in Shagawa years back.

The water fertility (phosphates??) could have hung on for quite a few years after the new plant kicked in.

I had a class at VCC (Ely JC at that time) in the early 70's. I think it was UWS had done a study on Shagawa fish and the effect the sewage had on it.

According to them, Shagawa lake had the second fastest Walleye growth rate in Minnesota next to Upper Red Lake during the sewage years.

PS-Rob, why don't you and a few other residents of Fall Lake try getting the rusty crayfish out of there, or at least cutting the population down.

[Ace]

Removing the rusty crayfish is easier said than done.

We have had them here in
Vermilion for about 20 years now, and there is no getting rid of them. All you can do is let them eat themselves out of house and home. The population will eventually level off and the lake will recover.

They reproduce in such great numbers, that it is virtualy impossible to stop them once they get started. The local crawfish population here on Lake Vermilion, has all but vanished. Rustys are much more aggressive and it's a rare day that you see any of the indiginous species any more.

I doubt that they have had a negitive effect on the Walleyes anyway. They have been a real boom for all the cawdad eatting fish here. I rarely catch a Walleye, bass or perch that doesn't have a rusty in it's gut. The Big V was never known as a Jumbo perch fishery before the rustys came. We now have the largest perch I have ever seen, mostly because of the rusty crawfish that are now a big part of their diet.

The rustys biggest impact will be on panfish like the bluegill and other sunfish.
The destroy so much of their habitat, by eating all the weed growth. Anything that grows in hard bottom goes first. Cabbage beds are the first to go. Rustys don't do as well on soft muddy bottom so those type of areas will survive.

There are lakes in Wisconsin that have begun to recover after 20 or 25 years. They eventually eat everything to a point where the population crashes and the weeds begin to grow back. I would think better water quality would be a good thing, perhaps the fishing pressure or harvest
levels should be looked at.

I find it hard to believe that cleaning up the habitat could be a bad thing. There has to be other factors at work that are effecting the Walleye spawning, or their surviveability. I doubt that clean water is the culprit.

"Ace"

[greatoutdoors]

Ace,

Vermilion is a far larger lake than Fall so I don't know if anything would work there, but you could try a test in a small area.

You would need about 20 large commercial cone traps for a start.

Load them with fish guts, and set them about 100 feet away from each other along the shore line.

Do this for several weeks, working your way along the shore and you will be suprised at how many you will get.

If you had a few other property owners that would do likewise, splitting up the lake into sections, the number of crayfish will be greatly reduced in a short period of time.

Trapping minnows in Tofte Lake (with a permit) several years ago yielded over 5 gallons of crayfish in one trap.

I loaned one trap to a Shagawa lake resident and he caught almost 800 in one week.

He made one mistake, emptying the trap daily into a 55 gallon drum on the shoreline.

Pheeeew!

[HD]

I got what might seem like a stupid question.......or maybe 2

How big are these crayfish?

Are there any smallmouth in this lake?




Hunter