Walleye reproduction

[Lostbay]

Would like to hear from Scott M on this, and not to discourage anyone from selective harvest, but how much natural walleye reproduction happens in the Fariboult area? My impression has always been that stocking accounts for most of our walleyes in these lakes.

Again nothing wrong with letting females go, so they may get bigger, you'd rather eat smaller eyes or if that's just what you do...Just curious of their value in spawning locally.

[PurpleFloyd]

That is my biggest beef with the Walleye stocking program. I think it is a waste of time and money to stock any fish into any lake that cannot establish a naturally reproducing population in that lake. If the sole purpose is to put and take it is a terrible idea to put those fish in a body of water and the resources would be better spent putting those fish in lakes where they stand a chance of reproducing.

[flipper]

That aint what he was asking and this aint sillytown.

Oh, and you aint Scott.

[mwal]

Most of these lakes lack spawning habitat. They are not natural walleye lakes and only have them due to stocking some of the lakes in that area require pike stocking as well. Let big ones go if you do not want to eat big one but it will not hurt fishery.

Mwal

[Scott M]

If you look at the walleye stocking regimes in our area and around the state, most of them are on cycles of 1/2 years, 2/3 years, or 3/4 years. There are blanks in the pattern. Those blanks are for evaluation purposes, one objective of which is to document natural reproduction. Across the board, walleye stocked lakes in south central Minnesota occasionally show some trace levels of natural reproduction. The biggest factor is substrate. We see the natural reproduction in rocky or gravelly waters, of which we have very little. Contrast that with western and southwestern Minnesota, and they actually have a few waters with naturally reproducing walleyes (Sarah Lake, Murray county is the shining example), and no surprise, it's linked to substrates.

River connections is the other wild card. There is some natural reproduction in the Cannon Chain. And the Minnesota and Blue Earth Rivers are full of naturally reproduced walleyes.

A good visual is to take a test tube, fill it with water, drop in some silt and muck, then put walleye eggs on top. Now shake it up like a windy shoreline in spring would do. Pretty soon those eggs are covered up and can't be re-oxygenated.

It's not for lack of effort on the walleyes part! A DNR Research team is looking at substrates and searching for walleye spawning habitat. Just last week, they were down on Madison and found a load of walleye eggs on the rocky substrates on the two rock bars mid-lake.

So, in a round-about answer to the OP - MOST of the walleyes caught in the Faribault area, and greater south central Minnesota, came from the State Fish Hatchery in Waterville. Selective harvest for walleye likely means little in terms of reproductive potential. That said, don't use it as an excuse to go bananas keeping big walleyes. There is still a one over 20" statewide limit in effect.

[PurpleFloyd]

That aint what he was asking and this aint sillytown.

Oh, and you aint Scott.

That is why I was being nice.

[PurpleFloyd]

If you look at the walleye stocking regimes in our area and around the state, most of them are on cycles of 1/2 years, 2/3 years, or 3/4 years. There are blanks in the pattern. Those blanks are for evaluation purposes, one objective of which is to document natural reproduction. Across the board, walleye stocked lakes in south central Minnesota occasionally show some trace levels of natural reproduction. The biggest factor is substrate. We see the natural reproduction in rocky or gravelly waters, of which we have very little. Contrast that with western and southwestern Minnesota, and they actually have a few waters with naturally reproducing walleyes (Sarah Lake, Murray county is the shining example), and no surprise, it's linked to substrates.

River connections is the other wild card. There is some natural reproduction in the Cannon Chain. And the Minnesota and Blue Earth Rivers are full of naturally reproduced walleyes.

A good visual is to take a test tube, fill it with water, drop in some silt and muck, then put walleye eggs on top. Now shake it up like a windy shoreline in spring would do. Pretty soon those eggs are covered up and can't be re-oxygenated.

It's not for lack of effort on the walleyes part! A DNR Research team is looking at substrates and searching for walleye spawning habitat. Just last week, they were down on Madison and found a load of walleye eggs on the rocky substrates on the two rock bars mid-lake.

So, in a round-about answer to the OP - MOST of the walleyes caught in the Faribault area, and greater south central Minnesota, came from the State Fish Hatchery in Waterville. Selective harvest for walleye likely means little in terms of reproductive potential. That said, don't use it as an excuse to go bananas keeping big walleyes. There is still a one over 20" statewide limit in effect.

Don't read this as anything except respectful discussion but don't you think by now they have enough legacy of data to know which lakes will sustain reproduction? At least enough to decide that many of the mud bottom prairie pothole lakes can't.

Add the Watonwan as a river that can support reproduction but I often wonder how.

[Scott M]

Yes, they are in the Watonwan, Le Sueur too. Downstream Cedar too. And yes, there is better than half a century of data on where reproduction of walleye exists in south central Minnesota.

If Minnesota eliminated stocking and went to only self sustaining populations for all fish species, there'd be many fewer opportunities around the state and a number of fisheries that wouldn't have been rehabilitated. Eliminating stocking would necessitate much better habitat protection, good luck with that politically. If we had pristine habitat with an undamaged spawning habitat component, we could probably have a few more places with natural reproduction from a number of fish species. Instead, our lands and waters, particularly in south central Minnesota, are drastically changed.

I understand the desire of self-sufficiency, but I'd hate to take that tool (fish stocking) out of the toolbox. Purple, I give you credit for swimming against the tide of all the walleye lovers down here!

[zepman]

Scott,

Any thought on "building" spawning substrate around here like they did on Osakis a decade or so ago? Did the Osakis experiment actually work?

Seems like a pretty inexpensive means (long term) to aid a lake in its own natural reproduction.

It just seems odd to me that we haven't come up with a way to artificially "help" this problem out in lakes that need it.

Good stuff by the way...thanks!

[Scott M]

Battle Point on Osakis had a couple shoals added in the early 1970's. Walleye spawning occurred, but the habitat added was so small as to have very little actual contribution to total hatched fry. Amortization of costs of the project, in 1975 dollars, was like 50 some years. So it was still cheaper to stock walleye fry. I would be curious to see if those shoals have persisted. If Osakis was a smashing success, I'm certain we would have seen this sort of habitat manipulation attempted elsewhere. There has been some stream work done to re-establish walleye spawning habitat, but flowing water and associated small particle movement means those riffle habitats can be maintained. (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational_reports/502.pdf)

Our problem in south central Minnesota is again the substrate. Minnesota doesn't permit installation of substrates where there is a soft bottom in excess of 3" (most commonly folks want to install sand blankets on their property for the grandkids to go for a swim). That describes the situation in a lot of lakes around here. It would be very costly (think about the transportation costs, logistics of undeveloped areas, and raw material costs of class 5 or 6 gravel), likely wouldn't provide a huge contribution of hatched fry, and in most of our substrates would be covered by muck, silt, or detritus in no time.

[Willy]

That is my biggest beef with the Walleye stocking program. I think it is a waste of time and money to stock any fish into any lake that cannot establish a naturally reproducing population in that lake. If the sole purpose is to put and take it is a terrible idea to put those fish in a body of water and the resources would be better spent putting those fish in lakes where they stand a chance of reproducing.

Well, if they did that, the walleye waters would be reduced drastically. Like it or not, walleyes are the most sought after fish in this state. The amount of tourism dollars they bring in is huge.

Stocking as a means to enhance a population is good for that area's economy. Think of the money spent near many "stocked" walleye lakes in Minnesota.

I do love to hear that some natural walleye reproduction happens around here also. I have seen them go through the motions with my own eyes for years. Glad to hear that some are making it. Putting back the spawners is still a good idea IMO.

[PurpleFloyd]

That is my biggest beef with the Walleye stocking program. I think it is a waste of time and money to stock any fish into any lake that cannot establish a naturally reproducing population in that lake. If the sole purpose is to put and take it is a terrible idea to put those fish in a body of water and the resources would be better spent putting those fish in lakes where they stand a chance of reproducing.

[bigsam]

I for one, am FOR the stocking of walleyes in the lakes here in southern Minnesota.

Most of the natural producers are farther away than I care to go on a weekly basis. Can't afford it!

I release any walleye over 20", just on the off-chance that the fish may produce even a couple dozen future walleyes. Also, so that fish may grow into a trophy someday!

But hey, if you want the tourism bucks, quit stocking walleyes and northerns, let the bullheads take over, and build yourself a resort and market it to the Iowegians as an "Up north" destination.

[PurpleFloyd]

Yes, they are in the Watonwan, Le Sueur too. Downstream Cedar too. And yes, there is better than half a century of data on where reproduction of walleye exists in south central Minnesota.

If Minnesota eliminated stocking and went to only self sustaining populations for all fish species, there'd be many fewer opportunities around the state and a number of fisheries that wouldn't have been rehabilitated. Eliminating stocking would necessitate much better habitat protection, good luck with that politically. If we had pristine habitat with an undamaged spawning habitat component, we could probably have a few more places with natural reproduction from a number of fish species. Instead, our lands and waters, particularly in south central Minnesota, are drastically changed.

I understand the desire of self-sufficiency, but I'd hate to take that tool (fish stocking) out of the toolbox. Purple, I give you credit for swimming against the tide of all the walleye lovers down here!

I guess that I look at it a bit differently. Remember, I am not saying they shouldn't stock Walleyes, just to stock them in lakes where they can reproduce. Also, I am not saying not to stock lakes at all that can't reproduce walleyes but rather to stock them with fish that can repop in that water without having to alter it's makeup.

To me, if we concentrated the stocking of Walleyes into waters that have the characteristics that they desire they will do better and will provide a better opportunity for fishermen. Likewise if we take the pothole lakes and concentrate on increasing the Pike,Perch,Crappie and Bluegill populations then we will have a better fishery that will cost us less and give us more back.Throw in Catfish as well.

And to be honest, in these lakes when a good crappie bite or gill bite or a perch bite is on there is no lack of people who want to catch them. it isn't like people would stop going there if the species changed, they just fish for whatever is biting anyway.

Anyway, I am not trying to swim against the tide but to me it just seems like common sense to do as I have proposed. Remember- they aren't reproducing because the lakes don't offer them what they need to be successful.Why spend lots of money to put them into an environment that is not suited to their needs?

[PurpleFloyd]

I for one, am FOR the stocking of walleyes in the lakes here in southern Minnesota.

Most of the natural producers are farther away than I care to go on a weekly basis. Can't afford it!

I release any walleye over 20", just on the off-chance that the fish may produce even a couple dozen future walleyes. Also, so that fish may grow into a trophy someday!

But hey, if you want the tourism bucks, quit stocking walleyes and northerns, let the bullheads take over, and build yourself a resort and market it to the Iowegians as an "Up north" destination.

Northern can reproduce and do just fine. So do catfish, Crappies etc.

[blue_healer_guy]

Purple, im gonna just not say much. the way it sounds you want lakes to look at and jet ski.

[kerryd15]

what purple says makes sense. I believe what he means is if there are 10 lakes in the county stock 3-5 with walleye- maybe the ones that have springs, chances of natural reproduction, and lowest chances of winterkill. How many people drive to north and south Dakota to catch perch? I hope there are lakes that can sustain more than bullheads and sheephead and carp.

[PurpleFloyd]

Purple, im gonna just not say much. the way it sounds you want lakes to look at and jet ski.

Then you aren't reading it right.

[Comit 2]

Oh how the door swings the other way when the discussion is on Walleyes.

Quote:

I understand the desire of self-sufficiency, but I'd hate to take that tool (fish stocking) out of the toolbox. Purple, I give you credit for swimming against the tide of all the walleye lovers down here!

ROFL

Come on Scott, it wouldn't be the state fish if it wasn't the greatest fish in the whole wide world!

Walleye a put and take fish??? Like the Trout in the Trout ponds! NOOOO! That just can't be. (This is where I call you something bad. like "you must love Bass").

[flipper]

The majority of people who fish is where the majority of the license $$$ comes from. They like to fish for walleye. Pretty simple, aint it.

[Comit 2]

Quote:

The majority of people who fish is where the majority of the license $$$ comes from. They like to fish for walleye. Pretty simple, aint it.

Yes, I know. Here in farm land mono culture rules. Why would you plant Soybeans with your corn! I get it. Diversity has been proven time and time again to have no place in Southcentral Mn. Why it's just silly talk coming straight out of Silly town to think any different. Please excuses me. I should learn my place and just stay quite. I think I will close my laptop, open a beer and eat a few pickled eggs.

Sorry and goodbye.

[flipper]

That's not what I said at all. Their seemed to be a question concerning why Walleyes are stocked in lakes where they are not self sustaining. My opinion is that they are stocked in these lakes because that is what most fishermen want. Seriously, I don't think that creates some sort of monoculture, there are many species of fish in all our lakes. I'm not even sure why you felt the need to sneak your musky agenda into a thread that isn't about muskies. Take a deep breath and enjoy all that our resources have to offer us.

[Comit 2]

Ok keep your Walleye agenda out of the Muskie thread. As Purple said: every lake in Southcentral Mn doesn't have to be a lake stocked with Walleyes. For Walleye and only for Walleyes. We can stock Walleye to sustain a population but we can't stock Muskies because they are not native. Hey, this all makes scene to a lot of people around here. Sounds like a great platform to base a argument. maybe you should remember that you are the one who brought up the topic of Muskies on this thread.

I feel no need to defend a fish, a fish, is a fish, is a fish. They have a brain the size of a pea and will never have an original thought in there entire lives. How someone could have such strong and devoted feeling to something barely above an inanimate object is beyond my way of thinking. It's a fish. It is not a fraternity. "I only fish Walleyes. Walleyes are the best fish, there for i'm one of the best fishermen". Sorry all it means is you only fish for one kind of fish.

Stocking Walleye bring money into areas where they are stocked. What, stocking Muskie destroys social infrastructure?

This whole Muskie, Walleye thing makes as much sense as. We are all Ford guys around here so you Chevy guys can just stay on your side of the county line. They are just fish. Fish do not have obsessive compulsive behaviors. Yes, I would like to see Muskies around here. Why is that a bad thing?? It is just a fish!!!!!!

[PurpleFloyd]

The majority of people who fish is where the majority of the license $$$ comes from. They like to fish for walleye. Pretty simple, aint it.

People like to fish. The species imo is less important and my evidence to support that is to look at any lake that gets a good year class of any game fish such as Crappies,Perch,Sunnies etc. When the bite is on the lake fills with boats full of guys ready to fill their cooler with them. The problem is we do next to nothing to protect or repop the lakes with these fish that can reproduce and provide a quality fishery if managed properlg. Instead we have a mentality in this state that it is OK to pull all the fish we can from a particular body of water and then when they are gone people blame the DNR when there are no fish left in the lake and expect them to restock it just so they can do it again.

[kerryd15]

Did anyone hear of people fishing Red lake when there were years on not being able to keep a walleye? Point made....

I keep hearing of these little potholes in south dakota putting out big perch. I am not sure but the small lakes in southern MN seem to be about the same? I am not a biologist. i know they have shrimp and probably other food sources. What is different here that we don't have the shrimp? What is different here that we don't produce the jumbo size perch?

I am pretty certain in our area there were very few people coming to our area from any distance to fish walleye.

[Comit 2]

Quote:

I keep hearing of these little potholes in south dakota putting out big perch. I am not sure but the small lakes in southern MN seem to be about the same? I am not a biologist. i know they have shrimp and probably other food sources. What is different here that we don't have the shrimp? What is different here that we don't produce the jumbo size perch?

I am pretty certain in our area there were very few people coming to our area from any distance to fish walleye.

Just look at the area you mentioned and you might see one of the answers your self. There is not a lot in N and S, Dakota and they could (not so much now with the oil money) use any tourist money they can get. So if you have lakes with jumbo Perch you do a TV shows and have writers write about catching Jumbo Perch in North and South Dakota lakes to draw interest to there lakes. Now in this part of the state we have some of the best farm land in the world and sufficient industry, so tourism is not a big part of (or that important to) the economy in this area. + with the higher population (as PurpleFloyd hit on) in this area once word gets out,,, there is a small window of time before they are fished out. Then people like you ask questions like the one you are asked here.

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

I keep hearing of these little potholes in south dakota putting out big perch. I am not sure but the small lakes in southern MN seem to be about the same? I am not a biologist. i know they have shrimp and probably other food sources. What is different here that we don't have the shrimp? What is different here that we don't produce the jumbo size perch?

I am pretty certain in our area there were very few people coming to our area from any distance to fish walleye.

Just look at the area you mentioned and you might see one of the answers your self. There is not a lot in N and S, Dakota and they could (not so much now with the oil money) use any tourist money they can get. So if you have lakes with jumbo Perch you do a TV shows and have writers write about catching Jumbo Perch in North and South Dakota lakes to draw interest to there lakes.

[Comit 2]

Everything you are saying is OK by me. You do realize you should be talking about Large Mouth Bass not Perch if you want it to work in this part of the state don't you. Emily, Washington and Tetonka all had the state record LM Bass at one time, So that is were the starting point should be. Not Perch.

[laker1]

Just about any lake that is stocked in the state,the DNR fisheries can tell if there is and how much natural reproduction takes place. That is why many lakes they don't stock each so they can determine how much natural reproduction contributes.

If the stocking is by fry,it is very cheap and in many cases very effective.

[blue_healer_guy]

I would take a perch based lake around here than a bass lake. A fish that you can eat!