Be extra careful out there. I watched a DNR boat lay out a survey net this morning. They are long.
Does it seem early for the nets?
I was surprised at the location of one of them. It was on the end of what I consider a fall (October) trolling shoreline. Seems too early for walleye to be in that close to shore.
Put the nets where the fish are not inhabiting and then it makes their low walleye numbers idea look better. Just a guess
Be extra careful out there. I watched a DNR boat lay out a survey net this morning. They are long.
Does it seem early for the nets?
I was surprised at the location of one of them. It was on the end of what I consider a fall (October) trolling shoreline. Seems too early for walleye to be in that close to shore.
SAME week EVERY year…for over 30 years now. The basin nets were added in the late ’80’s ( if I remember correctly?)–the rest is about the same back over 30 years.
And on another point brought up–the survey nets are put in the SAME locations every year–year in and year out. That is so over the years they can compare and create trends. The shoreline nets, cover ALL depths from 2-3 ft. to 15-20ft. -up and down the drop-offs ( most of the time, the same net can cover that depth range as they are very long and have several mesh sizes built in)etc. The off shore nets cover structure related areas as well as mid-lake/basin areas–again always in the same spots so over a period of years, trends can be developed one way or another. They cover a full spectrum of the lake….no doubt.
Water temps play very little role if anything in the big picture on where the fish are or aren’t and how many are captured. For example–Contrary to most thinking, the WARMER water/fall air temps keeps MORE walleyes shallow ( less than 6ft.) than not. So–in other words, if the fall is warm and the shallow nets show less fish, it is NOT because of the warmer fall or that they should have put the nets in later or ???
Just a few reality points on the survey subject at Lake Mille Lacs.
Thanks for the history Steve. On paper it does make sense to trend the same spots over the same time frame but it leaves out a lot of variables as you point out.
For example, if there is a correlation between water temps and location then maybe it would be more meaningful if they normalized the numbers based on water temperature. Similar to a seasonal adjustment in new home sales, or labor statistics.
Kyhl, I am only guessing, but I am sure they keep track of weather-related factors when putting in the nets and during the duration of them being in the water. Though they may not publish this information with the results, I am sure they keep track of it.
Things like ambient air, water temp, cloud cover, etc.
They do all of those things when they do the roadside surveys for pheasant counts each August. Same routes used every year. Over the years some of those routes have seen changes because a road may become paved or whatever, but its still used.
I think the DNR tries to keep as much of the process the same as they can, at least what is within their control anyway.
Good to know. Thanks.
I just refreshed my memory by reading last year’s survey summary online and re-scanning the “blue ribbon” report. I did not see a mention adjusted data. Only raw data.
I would be curious to see temp adjusted counts over time.
Kyhl, I am only guessing, but I am sure they keep track of weather-related factors when putting in the nets and during the duration of them being in the water. Though they may not publish this information with the results, I am sure they keep track of it.
Things like ambient air, water temp, cloud cover, etc.
They do all of those things when they do the roadside surveys for pheasant counts each August. Same routes used every year. Over the years some of those routes have seen changes because a road may become paved or whatever, but its still used.
I think the DNR tries to keep as much of the process the same as they can, at least what is within their control anyway.
This is very good info to consider when we start pointing fingers at the DNR for mismanagement of the lake. Most employees and contractors for the DNR are doing their job very well. When information is being withheld from the public, you need to point really high at the only politically appointed position in the DNR for answers. Then point a level higher ant the person who appointed him.
Good information Steve. I would like your opinion on the effect of the large population of large smallmouth currently in the lake. It seem to me that they have changed the traditional walleye locational patterens to some extent. They do have the reputation of being the bully of the block. Some traditional walleye reefs have been kinda taken over by smallies. Could they be skewing the walleye numbers?
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein
Good information Steve. I would like your opinion on the effect of the large population of large smallmouth currently in the lake. It seem to me that they have changed the traditional <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye locational patterens to some extent. They do have the reputation of being the bully of the block. Some traditional walleye reefs have been kinda taken over by smallies. Could they be skewing the walleye numbers?
Even if the walleyes were displaced by smallmouth or even if they were not in the usual places due to water temps or ??–the survey nets cover every potential “area type”/”locational patterns” etc.–so the overall picture comes out–no matter. So–no–the overall numbers would NOT be skewed due to smallmouth pushing walleyes out of one area to another…( in some years, off shore nets have been better than others and to the contrary in other years where the shallower/shoreline related nets have shown bigger numbers–over the past 30-40 years of surveying)
I have said and been quoted for many years–“they ain’t got wings and they ain’t got shovels.”
As far as the smallmouth themselves…having an effect on the walleye numbers? Simple fishery biology/common sense 5th grade math shows, you can not have it both ways. Simply, the lake can NOT sustain/support the numbers of walleyes that traditionally lived in the lake IF you add 1000’s of times more adult smallmouth to system the forage base has to support.
So–it surely is counter productive to protect the smallmouth IF the lake is being worked on to the build the walleye numbers back up. The biology is NOT debatable in this sense. Only one species can be dominant–in big numbers–per the historical forage numbers/traditional population history.
So–smallmouth or walleyes? That is the question….for tomorrow’s Lake Mille Lacs.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
