Global Warming?

I caught the tail end of a segment on WCCO Monday about the DNR saying declining Walleye numbers are do to increased temps.

Did anyone else catch this?

Declining walleye? What did I miss?

Study: Warmer Lakes Could Mean Less Walleye

MEDICINE LAKE, Minn. (WCCO) — It’s clearly Minnesota’s number one game fish. But walleye anglers take note — a recently released study in the Badger state predicts trouble on the horizon.

“The lakes will become more suitable for species like largemouth bass,” said Gretchen Hanson.

Hanson authored the study but now works for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources fisheries. Using computer modeling they looked at 2,100 Wisconsin lakes, factoring in 30 years of changing water temperatures and its effect on walleye and largemouth bass.

“We found walleye reproduction is best in cooler lakes and the largest lakes and that largemouth bass reach the highest densities in the warmer lakes,” Hanson said.

It’s particularly troublesome for walleye in our smaller lakes, which are less tolerant to temperature swings.

By mid-century, it’s projected the number of Wisconsin lakes supporting walleye reproduction will drop from 10 down to 4 percent, while largemouth bass will populate an incredible 89 percent of all lakes — up from 60 percent today.

Still, it’s hard to predict impacts on lakes with a different geological makeup.

“Understanding the specific lake characteristics in a state like Minnesota would be important to understanding how the fish are going to respond,” Hanson said.

Warming water temperature is among the theories factored in to the serious decline of Lake Mille Lacs walleye, where the impacts of fewer fish are already felt by anglers and the sportfishing economy.

The study is somewhat consistent with what University of Minnesota Duluth researchers are finding.

Scientists reported just last week that summer surface temperatures in Lake Superior have increased by 5 degrees over the past 30 years.

Thanks Jon!
That’s a massive increase in Bass, which in turn I assume would have an impact on the lake, forage fish etc…

Was Al Gore right?

Jon Jordan wrote:

Warming water temperature is among the theories factored in to the serious decline of Lake Mille Lacs walleye, where the impacts of fewer fish are already felt by anglers and the sportfishing economy.

Hopefully sample methods are factored into the possible theories. While sample methods stay the same, the ecosystem of the lake changes. AIS, pollution or lack thereof, and habitat change due to construction. In certain lakes the fish will not be found in the same places they were in 30 years ago.

I’m only suggesting that a noticeable walleye decline may not be happening. The fact that a very stable data point like Lake Superior is warming is proof it’s happening.

The earth has experienced global warming after every ice age in the past. We are in one of those periods now. Al Gore blamed it all on human activities and proposed solutions that would redistribute wealth but have little impact on the problem. There are many common sense things we should and can do to limit human impact but making a few people rich isn’t one of them. No matter what we do the trend will continue until the next ice age. Climate change over the course of the worlds history has had major impact on the distribution and diversity of all living things and will continue to do so no matter what we do.

carnivore wrote:

The earth has experienced global warming after every ice age in the past. We are in one of those periods now. Al Gore blamed it all on human activities and proposed solutions that would redistribute wealth but have little impact on the problem. There are many common sense things we should and can do to limit human impact but making a few people rich isn’t one of them. No matter what we do the trend will continue until the next ice age. Climate change over the course of the worlds history has had major impact on the distribution and diversity of all living things and will continue to do so no matter what we do.

^^^^^^ This is so true ! ^^^^^^^

-J.

There’s no actual mention of the what the water temps are now in comparison to historical data. It’s all hyperbole and jumping around the issue. No mention of overharvest of spawning walleye. It just “could be” warming water temps. Well, what’s the data suggesting that?

I wonder how many “Walleye Lakes” used to be full of Trout 150 years ago? Everything changes.

SR

Jon Jordan wrote:

Warming water temperature is among the theories factored in to the serious decline of Lake Mille Lacs walleye, where the impacts of fewer fish are already felt by anglers and the sportfishing economy

Jon Jordan wrote:

By mid-century, it’s projected the number of Wisconsin lakes supporting walleye reproduction will drop from 10 down to 4 percent,

Do they just keep throwing Global Warming against the wall, in regards to MLacs, in hopes that it sticks!?? This article implies Global warming will negatively affect walleye reproduction, which the DNR has said over and over is not an issue on Mille Lacs.

Also, I was of the understanding that most of MN walleye lakes were already maintained via stocking (ie not natural reproduction). Does anyone have the #’s or % of lakes in MN that have little to no walleye reproduction? Also, along these same lines the lakes supporting fishable #’s of walleye extend south to Kentucky and New Mexico. Are they showing a decrease in the survivability of walleye in those areas? Seems like that would be a good canary in the mine shaft so to speak…

Global warming is real, I get it and most people get it. However that doesn’t mean the sky is falling, or we will all be swimming in polar ice cap water in a few years. Man may be at the top of the food chain, but Mother Nature is who really rules the world, and evolution has proven to overcome every obstacle thus far, to think Man created something the earth can’t handle is ridiculously arrogant. The earth has been here for millions of years, and will be for millions more regardless of our actions (maybe short of blowing the whole thing up).

Steve Root wrote:

I wonder how many “Walleye Lakes” used to be full of Trout 150 years ago? Everything changes.

SR

I think the real question here is: Are we ok with that?

If indeed the study is correct, are we going to be happy if the walleye numbers decline?

biggill wrote:

I think the real question here is: Are we ok with that?

If indeed the study is correct, are we going to be happy if the walleye numbers decline?

I ain’t goin’ fishin’ for none of them stinking Green Carp

In all seriousness, I love the sport so much that I would adapt and evolve my techniques for other species..

I have one phrase for the people pushing this study, “Correlation does not imply causation”.
Plus, MN lakes are not be as warm as IA, IL, or MO lakes and rivers, yet ‘eyes survive there.

IMO, this is a scapegoat for DNRs to explain any future failures and the press just runs with it without thinking.

I am trying to do my part. Every time I am by the lake and finish my drink. I bump the ice cubes into the water so the walleyes will reproduce. Why is it when “they” do studies, they never post all the information and notes from the study. They only sum up their findings for you.

Kyhl wrote:

I have one phrase for the people pushing this study, “Correlation does not imply causation”.
Plus, MN lakes are not be as warm as IA, IL, or MO lakes and rivers, yet ‘eyes survive there.

IMO, this is a scapegoat for DNRs to explain any future failures and the press just runs with it without thinking.

I think this is a Wisconsin study. I assume you’re referring to Minnesota lakes?

biggill wrote:

I think this is a Wisconsin study. I assume you’re referring to Minnesota lakes?

I’m not sure where you are going with the question.

Yes, study in WI. It was picked up by the press in MN and applied to MN lakes on the news Monday night.

Sorry, I shouldn’t have left out WI. I’ll rewrite it here.
WI and MN lakes and rivers will not be as warm as IA, IL, or MO lakes and rivers…

Also note, I didn’t say MN DNR, or WI DNR. I left that open on purpose.

Why did the world record eye come out of Tennessee, did it swim there from Canada?

since the goverment is so far up the global warming theorist behind is it logical to conclude the only way to get more cash for continued support of such “studies” is to come up with conclusion that the government wants everyone to hear?

And then we’ll get a winter from the cold side of hell along with record snows just to cool things off next summer and the idea of global warming and walleyes will fall on its nose. It is what it is. If’n ya can change it, step up and have at it.

global warming,what a freaking joke,the other day on the radio the ‘theorists’were pissing themselves over the discovery that the temperature had in fact risen 3/8 of one degree over the last thirty years,WOOHOO!!

what scares me is how many countries are pressuring the USA into forcing its people into believing this gigantic lie,its a way to tax the daylights out of us plain and simple for ‘man made’ weather problems.

I’ll never forget when mount ST Helens blew,they said it threw one thousand times more pollutants into the air in one day than the entire industrial revolution did,and it was going to wipe out any and all forms of life for many years to come within its vicinity,guess what???
the next year or two things were greening up more than ever before and many more types of plant life started showing up that wasnt there before.

I’ll go with what the Good Lord says in the bible,you will always have hot,and you will always have cold, if its good enough for Him,its good enough for me.

I think I just recently read a story of a cruise ship in Alaska getting somewhere they had never been able to go before.
Might have been Nome or some other port city.

I’m 60, I can list 50 things that will kill me before global warming or it’s effects. That said I have grand children who may very well have to deal with some of the issues.

Dutchboy wrote:

I think I just recently read a story of a cruise ship in Alaska getting somewhere they had never been able to go before.
Might have been Nome or some other port city.

I’m 60, I can list 50 things that will kill me before global warming or it’s effects. That said I have grand children who may very well have to deal with some of the issues.

I agree with you in part Dutchboy,but I havent forgotten my history lessons either,ie, around the north pole many years ago,wooly mammoths were discovered with buttercups still in their mouths,so at one time,that was a fairly lush environment up there.

another thing that gets me is ‘they’ want you to believe that if and when the polar ice caps melt,it will cause the oceans level to raise several feet and flood many shore lines that we know exist today.
that said,whats holding that ice up??? any guesses???
the oceans themselves of course,and its called DISPLACEMENT,the water will not raise one foot over the oceans entire surface as it stands now.

want an object lesson to prove it to yourselves?? when was the last time your glass of ice tea overflowed and made a mess when the ice in the glass melted???
sure,its on a much smaller scale,but the principle and the results are the same.

Steve Root wrote:

I wonder how many “Walleye Lakes” used to be full of Trout 150 years ago? Everything changes.

SR

Interesting take on Global Warming.

Yes, Everything changes and with your comment I know from the History of Albert Lea, that Army Lt. Colonel Albert Lea mapping the area prior to any settlement in 1835 recorded catching Trout in Fountain Lake and other area lakes.

It was later Dammed up, which thus was the demise of Trout with warming waters.

Now, they still have Walleye thanks to DNR Stocking, but good Bass and Pike fishing.

Yes, the Earth keeps changing and climate too keeps changing. Just consider that one Volcano blast spews more Carbon Dioxide than all mankind in a year.

Yes, we can do some things to slow down the increase, but Mother Nature can decrease or increase amount in the atmosphere at a rate mankind could never come close to doing!

another thing that gets me is ‘they’ want you to believe that if and when the polar ice caps melt,it will cause the oceans level to raise several feet and flood many shore lines that we know exist today.
that said,whats holding that ice up??? any guesses???
the oceans themselves of course,and its called DISPLACEMENT,the water will not raise one foot over the oceans entire surface as it stands now.

want an object lesson to prove it to yourselves?? when was the last time your glass of ice tea overflowed and made a mess when the ice in the glass melted???
sure,its on a much smaller scale,but the principle and the results are the same.
[/quote]

Sorry, your analogy is wrong. The ice caps on the poles are not floating on the ocean. They are on land. Melting of the polar ice caps will result in higher sea levels. On the other hand, the Arctic Sea ice is floating on water.

Doesn’t matter. Not a person here will deal with it in their lifetime at the rate things are going.

I agree, I was gonna make a long post but its a never ending battle. I feel for so many if you that knew how it was and probably will never see it regain half its glory

Ron wrote:

another thing that gets me is ‘they’ want you to believe that if and when the polar ice caps melt,it will cause the oceans level to raise several feet and flood many shore lines that we know exist today.
that said,whats holding that ice up??? any guesses???
the oceans themselves of course,and its called DISPLACEMENT,the water will not raise one foot over the oceans entire surface as it stands now.

want an object lesson to prove it to yourselves?? when was the last time your glass of ice tea overflowed and made a mess when the ice in the glass melted???
sure,its on a much smaller scale,but the principle and the results are the same.

Sorry, your analogy is wrong. The ice caps on the poles are not floating on the ocean. They are on land. Melting of the polar ice caps will result in higher sea levels. On the other hand, the Arctic Sea ice is floating on water.
[/quote]

not all of that ice is on land Ron,and I will stand by what I said.
and yes,I do know there is much ice on land,in fact it is several miles thick in spots.
there are many hours of footage from submarines that travel under the ice in those areas.

I guess my point is this,too many people fall for the sky is falling everyday and they buy into it like a religion,and,,,there isnt a dang thing we can do about it when mother nature decides to make a move,mankind simply does not,nor ever will have the power to change it.

I will throw another one at you,do with it what you will.
for evolution to be a reality,it must be ongoing.
show me a fossil that is from a creature that has frog legs,the body of human,the arms of an octopus and the head of fly,or any other form you can think up,they simply dont exist.

a fossil of a sea shell a million years old looks exactly like sea shells you find today.
same with many other critters on this earth,and of course,some were wiped out,and yes,there are a few new ones,but they did not evolve.
even Darwin himself doubted his own thoughts,problem is nobody today reads the entire book to the end,and he himself concluded intelligent design. hhhmmmm.

Belletaine.

I apologize for derailing your thread.
sheldon

Iowaboy1 wrote:

Belletaine.

I apologize for derailing your thread.
sheldon

It’s my fault for using the title I did…

I was just hoping to get into the fish population issue.

My apologies to the moderators.

What’s the deal with Kaepernick?