04-13-2011, 02:36 PM
[quote mike4cobra] Keep believing they want a diverse warm water fishery up here. Take a look at the stocking report, and after you get through the billions of trout, try that argument again. Give me a break.[/quote]
Just a little thought from Minnesota's state DNR:
"Over the years, the mixture of ever-increasing walleye mania and the lure of tourism bucks has produced an over-reliance on stocking. As a result of this emphasis on hatchery production, many anglers wrongly believed that stocking was a panacea for poor fishing, that any lake could be a walleye lake, and that the walleye could not thrive without artificial propagation.
None of that is true. Simply put, stocking a lot of small fish does not guarantee catching a lot of big fish. Furthermore, native Minnesota walleye have flourished since the Ice Age without our help. But having relied on the stocking program for several decades, the DNR has found it difficult to convince anglers of other effective management tools.
Still, the effect on the state's total fishery is limited. One fish manager estimated that perhaps only 5 percent of the walleye that anglers catch come from a hatchery. The rest were the result of natural reproduction. "We survive on Mother Nature's bounty," he said, "which is a heck of a lot cheaper than stocking fish."
In the words of one DNR report: "There is no evidence that the walleye population of the stocked natural walleye lakes sampled were increased over that which might occur naturally without stocking." The point is this: Given the great cost of raising walleye, why put them in lakes where walleye already spawn successfully or where stocked walleye do not improve fishing?
There is evidence that stocking can be harmful as well. Stocked walleye may compete for food with other game fish, particularly largemouth or smallmouth bass. The result may be fewer or smaller bass. And because the bass is a more efficient predator of small sunfish than the walleye (which feeds more on perch), the introduction of walleye may contribute to stunting of the panfish. These are all issues that are just now being studied. It seems, however, that stocking is not the benign activity it once was assumed to be.
Despite its limitations, stocking is a useful tool for some purposes:
[ul][li]Walleye are introduced to lakes that have been "rehabilitated" (that is, where the previous fish were deemed undesirable and removed). Where habitat is suitable, these introductions often establish self-sustaining fisheries.[/li][li]In one of the most popular and effective uses of stocking, walleye fry are put in heavily used lakes that occasionally winter-kill. These lakes - many of them in southern Minnesota - are fertile, and walleye fry quickly grow into "keepers." The fish may be given some protection with aerators to increase winter oxygen, but still, stocking these lakes is a gamble. The risk is losing great numbers of game fish before they can be caught. The payoff is desirable game fish where otherwise nongame fish would swim. Heavy use by anglers makes the gamble worth taking.[/li][li]Walleye are also stocked in lakes with all the elements necessary for survival except suitable spawning areas. This approach works in lakes that once were natural walleye producers but that since have succumbed to farm runoff and lakeshore development. As fertilizers, septic-tank seepages and other sources of nutrients have enriched waters, algae proliferate and smother walleye eggs. In this instance, stocking is a prosthesis for an injured body of water.[/li][/ul]
Occasionally, walleye are stocked to bolster the number of catchable fish where heavy use or poor reproduction justifies the expense. This is extremely expensive, however. Only occasionally is it a good investment."
So, a couple things:
1) Even in Minnesota where walleye are native, biologists feel like stocking walleye is not productive in most waters.
2) Walleye are stocked in Minnesota like trout are stocked in Utah....lakes that winterkill, lakes that don't allow for natural reproduction etc. I wonder if it has anything to do with the whole "native" idea? Or, does it simply have to do with the conditions their lakes possess?
[signature]
Just a little thought from Minnesota's state DNR:
"Over the years, the mixture of ever-increasing walleye mania and the lure of tourism bucks has produced an over-reliance on stocking. As a result of this emphasis on hatchery production, many anglers wrongly believed that stocking was a panacea for poor fishing, that any lake could be a walleye lake, and that the walleye could not thrive without artificial propagation.
None of that is true. Simply put, stocking a lot of small fish does not guarantee catching a lot of big fish. Furthermore, native Minnesota walleye have flourished since the Ice Age without our help. But having relied on the stocking program for several decades, the DNR has found it difficult to convince anglers of other effective management tools.
Still, the effect on the state's total fishery is limited. One fish manager estimated that perhaps only 5 percent of the walleye that anglers catch come from a hatchery. The rest were the result of natural reproduction. "We survive on Mother Nature's bounty," he said, "which is a heck of a lot cheaper than stocking fish."
In the words of one DNR report: "There is no evidence that the walleye population of the stocked natural walleye lakes sampled were increased over that which might occur naturally without stocking." The point is this: Given the great cost of raising walleye, why put them in lakes where walleye already spawn successfully or where stocked walleye do not improve fishing?
There is evidence that stocking can be harmful as well. Stocked walleye may compete for food with other game fish, particularly largemouth or smallmouth bass. The result may be fewer or smaller bass. And because the bass is a more efficient predator of small sunfish than the walleye (which feeds more on perch), the introduction of walleye may contribute to stunting of the panfish. These are all issues that are just now being studied. It seems, however, that stocking is not the benign activity it once was assumed to be.
Despite its limitations, stocking is a useful tool for some purposes:
[ul][li]Walleye are introduced to lakes that have been "rehabilitated" (that is, where the previous fish were deemed undesirable and removed). Where habitat is suitable, these introductions often establish self-sustaining fisheries.[/li][li]In one of the most popular and effective uses of stocking, walleye fry are put in heavily used lakes that occasionally winter-kill. These lakes - many of them in southern Minnesota - are fertile, and walleye fry quickly grow into "keepers." The fish may be given some protection with aerators to increase winter oxygen, but still, stocking these lakes is a gamble. The risk is losing great numbers of game fish before they can be caught. The payoff is desirable game fish where otherwise nongame fish would swim. Heavy use by anglers makes the gamble worth taking.[/li][li]Walleye are also stocked in lakes with all the elements necessary for survival except suitable spawning areas. This approach works in lakes that once were natural walleye producers but that since have succumbed to farm runoff and lakeshore development. As fertilizers, septic-tank seepages and other sources of nutrients have enriched waters, algae proliferate and smother walleye eggs. In this instance, stocking is a prosthesis for an injured body of water.[/li][/ul]
Occasionally, walleye are stocked to bolster the number of catchable fish where heavy use or poor reproduction justifies the expense. This is extremely expensive, however. Only occasionally is it a good investment."
So, a couple things:
1) Even in Minnesota where walleye are native, biologists feel like stocking walleye is not productive in most waters.
2) Walleye are stocked in Minnesota like trout are stocked in Utah....lakes that winterkill, lakes that don't allow for natural reproduction etc. I wonder if it has anything to do with the whole "native" idea? Or, does it simply have to do with the conditions their lakes possess?
[signature]