I don’t know much about the low fish #’s a decade ago or so, and how the recovery has been. It seems from quick searches like eliminating the cormorant population was huge. What other factors were involved?
Shootin the birds was a good start. Maybe check with Steve Fellegy, since he is guiding Leech now he might have some info.
Time. Patience. Acceptance that populations cycle. Slots that’s target more than a single year class…
I don’t know much about the low fish #’s a decade ago or so, and how the recovery has been. It seems from quick searches like eliminating the cormorant population was huge. What other factors were involved?
The low walleye numbers were because of a NATURAL problem (1000’s of YOY fish eating Cormorants )…. NOT man made/created like the Lake Mille Lacs problem.
The bird numbers were taken WAAAAY down ( and are managed to be a stable low number) and stocking a few year classes back to back into the system got the walleyes numbers back fast. A slot limit was and is still in place–first 18″ -26″ protected for several years and now 20″- 26″ protected for the past year and into the future. ( the forage numbers–perch–are way down now according to DNR surveys and obviously by creel surveys–and the numbers of walleyes over 20″-24″ are, on many days in many areas of the lake, dominating the catch–with enough keepers still in the mix to satisfy everyone–so far)
Leech is a VERY good fishery now….but I am concerned about how long term slot limits will effect it–no doubt. I think the slot limit short term is a good thing and Leech is a prime example of that. Now and into the future…the ongoing slot limit worries me.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>nhamm wrote:</div>
I don’t know much about the low fish #’s a decade ago or so, and how the recovery has been. It seems from quick searches like eliminating the cormorant population was huge. What other factors were involved?The low walleye numbers were because of a NATURAL problem (1000’s of YOY fish eating Cormorants )…. NOT man made/created like the Lake Mille Lacs problem.
The bird numbers were taken WAAAAY down ( and are managed to be a stable low number) and stocking a few year classes back to back into the system got the walleyes numbers back fast. A slot limit was and is still in place–first 18″ -26″ protected for several years and now 20″- 26″ protected for the past year and into the future. ( the forage numbers–perch–are way down now according to DNR surveys and obviously by creel surveys–and the numbers of <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes over 20″-24″ are, on many days in many areas of the lake, dominating the catch–with enough keepers still in the mix to satisfy everyone–so far)
Leech is a VERY good fishery now….but I am concerned about how long term slot limits will effect it–no doubt. I think the slot limit short term is a good thing and Leech is a prime example of that. Now and into the future…the ongoing slot limit worries me.
Steve hit the nail on the head. I too worry about the future of leech with the current slot limit. The dominant catch is that 20-24″ range. Knock the limit down to 3 with 1 fish over 20″ and the lake would produce for decades.
It seems to me that all the catch and keep fishing pressure on Leech since the rebound is what actually threatens the fishery, not the slots. If fewer people were keeping their limits the slot wouldn’t be such a big deal.
I get that walleyes taste good and there is a lot of tourism built around the concept of taking your limit from the lake, but limits are set to keep anglers from depleting the resource that anglers shouldn’t want to deplete. What would the fishing be like if keeping a limit of walleyes wasn’t such a big deal?
I have only been working on the lake now for 2 years but I know that the average angler has a hard time finding fish on this lake. If you are an advanced angler there are days that are hard to fish as well. It does have a high population of walleye in the lake according to the most recent surveys. I know watching the fish cleaning buckets and the number of novice fisherman that come through the resort that a lot of people are not catching limits, so i wouldn’t worry too much about a lot of the additional fishing pressure affect the lake. I know it would be nice to have 1 fish over 20″ since there are a lot of them in the water something like almost 3 fish per acre over 24″. They do share a lot of their findings and have a very good fisheries committee for the lake. I know they send constant emails to all the resorts on the fishery status and they also have an office right on the lake. I know they answer all my questions, and have a finger on the pulse of the lake up here.
It seems to me that all the catch and keep fishing pressure on Leech since the rebound is what actually threatens the fishery, not the slots. If fewer people were keeping their limits the slot wouldn’t be such a big deal.
I get that <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes taste good and there is a lot of tourism built around the concept of taking your limit from the lake, but limits are set to keep anglers from depleting the resource that anglers shouldn’t want to deplete. What would the fishing be like if keeping a limit of walleyes wasn’t such a big deal?
Wrong. Harvesting fish is NOT a problem as much as creating a HUGE amount of predation not natural to the carrying capacity of the lake’s forage base.
In fact, MOST anglers, as Josh from Trappers says in another posting, rarely if ever get big amounts of “keepers” on a consistent basis. MOST do not average even two keepers per angler per day over a season of fishing. Over harvest is NOT an issue at Leech Lake. ( a handful of guides and “in-tune” anglers do well however–consistently–but that number is a drop in the bucket overall) UNDER harvest of fish over 20″ is on the way to becoming an inevitable problem–according to science that has been in place for many years( that same science predicted the Lake Mille Lacs crash).
Much of Ontario is 1 fish over 18″. I think that or over 20″ would work well. Protecting these fish over a very extended period is bad. It also caused much of the problem in mille lacs.
Lac Suel has a slot of 18 to 21. 4 fish limit one over 21. YOu catch all year classes of fish. Down south some of the bass lakes are now getting rid of or relaxing slots as they are creating Mille Lacs type situations according to article the last couple year in Bass Times magazine
Mwal
UNDER harvest of fish over 20″ is on the way to becoming an inevitable problem–according to science that has been in place for many years( that same science predicted the Lake Mille Lacs crash).
I couldn’t agree more!
Why is the simple fact of carrying capacity and pounds per acre not even remotely understood?
I pushed a dnr fisheries guy on it and he basically said the dnr what’s to keep all the pics of 25″-29″ walleyes hitting all the forums and pages of anything printed to keep drawing in non resident cash cows. That’s utterly pathetic if that’s even some of the reasoning of the dnr in their management plans for mn on the whole.
Top heavy lakes isn’t in the long term best interests of anything.
The trophy catch and release theory has turned into an idealistic, fundamental, rigid religion. Catch and release is great…., to a point. But fish grow old and die for numerous reasons. Just cause a fish is released, doesn’t mean it’ll live out the next week. I still willingly release a lot of fish, but have come full circle in my own thought process towards catch and release. Kids need to know it’s a manageable resources, where conservation, not preservation is the rule of thumb. To far down the road of preservation vs conservation will open a lot of doors for anti’s to attack the fiber of “sport” fishing.
quote-basseyes: “The trophy catch and release theory has turned into an idealistic, fundamental, rigid religion. Catch and release is great…., to a point. But fish grow old and die for numerous reasons. Just cause a fish is released, doesn’t mean it’ll live out the next week. I still willingly release a lot of fish, but have come full circle in my own thought process towards catch and release”…
THAT is EXACTLY what the Lindners are NOW publicly saying–admitting they were WRONG over the years to preach so much catch and release. Common sense..no PHD. needed….right on basseyes!
But before they preached C&R they were a couple of MANY guides, etc that bonked stringers of trophy fish year in and year out. Its like they did a 180. Bonk limits of the big ones then realize that isn’t the best idea, no don’t keep any fish over 20″. Well, there is a balance and the pendulum swung too far one way from the other.
Steve – what is your opinion of a lac-Seul type slot……. Say an 18-21″ protected range with 1 over? My garage logic degree tells me that a relatively small protected slot of prime spawn producers would ensure reliable recruitment while allowing some nice fish to be clobbered an avoiding a skewed population of large fish.
But then again, what the heck do I know?
Steve – what is your opinion of a lac-Seul type slot……. Say an 18-21″ protected range with 1 over? My garage logic degree tells me that a relatively small protected slot of prime spawn producers would ensure reliable recruitment while allowing some nice fish to be clobbered an avoiding a skewed population of large fish.
But then again, what the heck do I know?
It obviously works. Common sense! To the contrary–just to the south, Rainy Lake ( quietly) is showing BAD signs of long term EXTREME slot limits.
Ironically, the MN. DNR in 1984 came out with a similar “suggested” size range to “protect” at Lake Mille Lacs. In fact, they had free paste on rulers that highlighted that size range as the most important to release. That was during the 15-16 year era that “one over 20” was the rule at Lake Mille Lacs that kept things, according to population studies and creel surveys, very stable at Lake Mille Lacs. Quoting one of the head fishery guys at the Aitkin office in the late ’90s’–“Lake Mille Lacs is a boring lake to manage. Very stable–no issues”. And then Treaty Harvest Management/long term EXTREME slot limits…
You can’t say that treaty harvest is a problem but angler harvest isn’t.
I certainly can get behind the idea that totally protecting medium and large walleyes can be a bad idea – that makes a lot of sense – but the insinuation that catch and release practices cause problems like this is as idiotic as saying that a healthy lake should be full of 28″ walleyes.
You can’t say that treaty harvest is a problem but angler harvest isn’t.
I certainly can get behind the idea that totally protecting medium and large walleyes can be a bad idea – that makes a lot of sense – but the insinuation that catch and release practices cause problems like this is as idiotic as saying that a healthy lake should be full of 28″ walleyes.
Tell us how “angler harvest”, which in total lbs. annually has not changed or in most cases gone down the past 10-15 years at Lake Mille Lacs, is or has been a problem. “Boring lake to manage very stable” is a quote from the head Aitkin fishery biologist pre-Treaty Harvest management era.
“Over Harvest” by itself is rarely an issue and surely is NOT a concern at Leech Lake. Leech Lake is one of if not the best walleye fishery in the state these days. Let’s hope the so called prized big walleyes don’t do it in…..being the “under harvest” of them is ongoing.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but NO ONE is entitled to their own facts.
but the insinuation that catch and release practices cause problems like this is as idiotic as saying that a healthy lake should be full of 28″ walleyes.
you don’t think releasing all the big fish (which is in fact what these slots cause) which now results in the extemely high populations of large fish is a catch and release problem?
I think there is a big difference between a highly restrictive slot and catch and release angling.
The problem with Mille Lacs is not under-harvest, is it?
Say yes, that if we had harvested big fish we wouldn’t be in this situation. That’s only true if the smaller fish weren’t over-harvested. I hear that there is a big year class of fish in the 13-14″ range right now. How did those fish get to that size range? I’m sure the big walleyes ate a bunch of them and have depleted the forage base. But apparently not enough to stop a big year class. What will happen to those fish?
The under-harvest of large walleyes does not exist as an issue without the over-harvest of small fish.
Blaming the slots makes sense, but only because blaming over harvest (by treaty netting and anglers) of a particular size range makes sense. Blaming anglers who choose catch and release is as idiotic as saying a healthy fishery should be full of 28″ walleyes.
Allow me to try again more respectfully: My only point is that lumping catch and release angling into an argument against a slot that doesn’t work is comparing an apple to an orange. It’s a half-truth at best and it’s a big mistake.
Mother Nature doesn’t have slots so we shouldn’t. Simple. Letting fish get too big and over eating the baitfish will ultimately destroy a lake. Until the Dnr realizes protecting the larger fish as the do is not the best biology.
Mother Nature doesn’t have slots so we shouldn’t. Simple. Letting fish get too big and over eating the baitfish will ultimately destroy a lake. Until the Dnr realizes protecting the larger fish as the do is not the best biology.
Did you really mean, “Letting fish get too big…” or did you mean something more like, “Forcing the population structure out of balance via a highly restrictive slot on a lake with high harvest levels…”?
Mother Nature doesn’t have fishing rods or gill nets, either.
I wonder what lake will be next once all the keepers are kept from Leech.If the ongoing slot is worriesome Why Keep Hammering The fish? Coupled with over harvest slot limits can ruin lakes.
I mean by restrictive slots. Not sure what the Dnr has for MN lakes seems like they are trying to get every lake a “trophy lake”. You can’t have that every where. Lakes with the potential have it naturally. Mille lacs for example never had many large fish it was full of small to mid 20″ fish. That is what the lake naturally was able to sustain. Smallmouth were a rare catch. Now it seems they want trophy pike,walleye,bass, and Muskie on one lake with a baitfish biomass not suitable to sustain. Then they think doing that to other lakes is a good thing. The mangagment of protecting a age structure is a short term fix and in that case it can work, however in long term management it has proven over and over it is not sound management.
I don’t know much about the low fish #’s a decade ago or so, and how the recovery has been. It seems from quick searches like eliminating the cormorant population was huge. What other factors were involved?
I have been fishing Leech Lake opener every year since 1990. From then till 2005 the fishing was as good as one could expect. In 2005 there was a waiting list to get a cabin at the resort. By 2007 we were the only group left staying at Brindley’s harbor on opener, quite a change. The fishing was terrible but still better than sitting home! By 2009 the fishing turned out to be one of the best years we ever had. Here are a few posts from my blog: http://davidjanderson.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
The amazing part was the actual amount of fish we caught over 20 inches, the most ever since our group started in 1975. Where did these big fish fish come from? I speculate that they were always there. Huge baitfish populations were more than likely the culprit for the less than stellar fishing the 4 years before. As well, why do you think the cormorants were there?…the food was there, easy pickings. The lake eventually cycled back to some level of normal, whatever that is. Somewhere I read where it is almost impossible to find an adult fish with the antibiotic markers (stocked fish). The problem is that those stocked fish hit the lake just as the peak of the adult fish was back in charge. Interesting that the mid 2000’s perch fishing was also good but not so great the last few years, natural cycles at work for sure.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>nhamm wrote:</div>
I don’t know much about the low fish #’s a decade ago or so, and how the recovery has been. It seems from quick searches like eliminating the cormorant population was huge. What other factors were involved?I have been fishing Leech Lake opener every year since 1990. From then till 2005 the fishing was as good as one could expect. In 2005 there was a waiting list to get a cabin at the resort. By 2007 we were the only group left staying at Brindley’s harbor on opener, quite a change. The fishing was terrible but still better than sitting home! By 2009 the fishing turned out to be one of the best years we ever had. Here are a few posts from my blog: http://davidjanderson.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
The amazing part was the actual amount of fish we caught over 20 inches, the most ever since our group started in 1975. Where did these big fish fish come from? I speculate that they were always there. Huge baitfish populations were more than likely the culprit for the less than stellar fishing the 4 years before. As well, why do you think the cormorants were there?…the food was there, easy pickings. The lake eventually cycled back to some level of normal, whatever that is. Somewhere I read where it is almost impossible to find an adult fish with the antibiotic markers (stocked fish). The problem is that those stocked fish hit the lake just as the peak of the adult fish was back in charge. Interesting that the mid 2000’s perch fishing was also good but not so great the last few years, natural cycles at work for sure.
This is along the lines of what I have always thought about the walleye crash on Leech as well. It was not totally a lack of fish but a lack of easily caught fish. Between shiner runs, perch hatches, crayfish molting, mayfly hatches, disappearing cabbage weed beds etc, etc, in some situations the fish are just not easily fooled by anglers. When fish change from one food source to another, anglers fishing “typical” patterns struggle. Maybe there were fewer “keepers” but there was a walleye population present. Limiting the harvest to four fish surely did help some. Yes there were a LOT of cormerants. Night fishing was still productive for me from’06-’09, which is common in “challenging” walleye systems with an abundance of baitfish.
And what were the fall survey nets consistently saying as the “bite” in the early 2000’s was down and almost non-existent before the stocking and all started?
No doubt, a bad bite nor a good bite can reflect what kind of shape the lake was or is in–based on forage availability. Over the years ( pre-treaty management era), Lake Mille Lacs has been a prime example of that. But IF the fish are there and not biting due to a glut of natural food, they can not hide, on a consistent year to year scale, from survey nets. So the question is…was in fact, the bite off or the numbers of actual fish way off before the stocking/shooting the birds era started?
No doubt there were fewer fish in the lake ’06-’08, especially smaller fish. I think it is a good point however that there seemed to be an abundance of 20″-26″ fish to be caught in ’09 & ’10.
No doubt there were fewer fish in the lake ’06-’08, especially smaller fish. I think it is a good point however that there seemed to be an abundance of 20″-26″ fish to be caught in ’09 & ’10.
Fish caught or not caught doesn’t reflect the fish population–necessarily. Example–On the Opener back in 1957, ONE walleye was caught ( and this went on all season) at our Lake Mille Lacs resort. The following Opener everyone had the their limits by noon …of good fish–that were there the previous year.
Just like in recent years at Lake Mille Lacs, everyone figured the walleye numbers were just fine and surely NOT low based on everyone catching loads of walleyes-day in and day out. But that was not reality due to a forage base all time low… and that all at the same time year after year– survey netting showed VERY low numbers of walleyes relatively speaking to historic averages.
At Leech ,in recent years, the bite has been as good or mostly bigger and better than any and all historic averages. Why? Combo of good numbers of fish present –yes–but also based on forage base ( perch numbers) are at historic lows.
All I’m saying’ is –you can have VERY LOW walleyes numbers and a great bite at the same time.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>nhamm wrote:</div>
I don’t know much about the low fish #’s a decade ago or so, and how the recovery has been. It seems from quick searches like eliminating the cormorant population was huge. What other factors were involved?The low walleye numbers were because of a NATURAL problem (1000’s of YOY fish eating Cormorants )…. NOT man made/created like the Lake Mille Lacs problem.
The bird numbers were taken WAAAAY down ( and are managed to be a stable low number) and stocking a few year classes back to back into the system got the walleyes numbers back fast. A slot limit was and is still in place–first 18″ -26″ protected for several years and now 20″- 26″ protected for the past year and into the future. ( the forage numbers–perch–are way down now according to DNR surveys and obviously by creel surveys–and the numbers of <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes over 20″-24″ are, on many days in many areas of the lake, dominating the catch–with enough keepers still in the mix to satisfy everyone–so far)
Leech is a VERY good fishery now….but I am concerned about how long term slot limits will effect it–no doubt. I think the slot limit short term is a good thing and Leech is a prime example of that. Now and into the future…the ongoing slot limit worries me.
I have been fishing leech for 12 years. We hired a guide for probably 6 of those years. The guides we spoke with always talked about the birds but every once in awhile they would wonder out loud about the rusty crayfish and the possible impact they were having.
Fishing for walleye is absolutely better on leech then she was a few years ago. Perch fishing is not as good as I remember it. I was on cass lake last year and caught some really nice perch. Reminded me of the better years on leech.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
