# Willard (opinion)



## skeet4l (Sep 11, 2007)

I’ve kept quiet about the opening of the channel for some time now but I think it’s time I constructively add my $.02 in an effort to educate those of us (sportsmen) that seem to be oblivious to the ramifications of participating in the removal of the spawning “hen” walleye from the South Marina Inlet. For those that aren’t aware, walleye “agitate” to release during the fertilization process and then move on reducing the survival rate rather than sticking around to guard or protect their eggs like so many other species do. Allowing anglers to selfishly remove our spawning females when they’re most vulnerable and most often prior to completing their cycle is a detriment to the preservation of our resource no matter how successful the fertilization and incubation process. My observations over the years have been that a small percentage of the walleye population spawn in the South channel, however, improved environmental conditions i.e. early inlet flow coupled with consistent elevated temps dramatically increase active populations in the channel as the staging process is carried out throughout the spring thaw. Many times in the case of erratic spring temps the bay will never experience the stability to jumpstart the walleye migration and they’ll never make it to the inlets prior to spawning, as temps then rise rather quickly these late bloomers will spawn in the lake better dispersing and protecting our hens which quite honestly is my preference due to the presence of silt in the channel. Some of the reasons given to me for the opening were increased walleye numbers and to offer opportunity to some that otherwise may have been unsuccessful, I do not share the same opinion, opportunity should be measured as a whole and not for a brief period of time during spawning activities. If it’s opportunity we’re after then do what’s needed to bring the numbers up in the Bay and dedicate just a day or two in the channel releasing the hens and educating anglers rather than sacrificing the season run. The decision to open the channel may very well affect us for years to come which is evident in the historical records dating back some 25 years. Skeet


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Here is a response from Drew Cushing. Drew is a Biologist with the DWR.
This is his statement on another forum concerning the opening of the channel to fishing.


Hello everyone.

I just wanted to take a minute or two to let folks know how/why this regulation was changed this year. I would like to also clarify a few misunderstandings as well.

The regulation was changed because our biologists who manage Willard Bay, have gone to great length and effort to understand the various fish populations (walleye and wipers included) indicated that walleye harvest is way down and the population is high. There have been egg survival studies that are specific to the willard inlet at the south marina. Due to the heavy sediment there walleye that do enter the south marina and spawn don't contribute to the walleye population in Willard Bay. The eggs just get covered with silt and die.

The DWR law enforcement wanted to NOT penalize all anglers for the illegal activities of some knuckle heads. They felt and still feel that they can curb the illegal behavior by having a consistent presence. From the sounds of of several of the posts here, the DWR enforcement folks are indeed out there daily.

The DWR advertised this as a potential regulation change in the news, we presented it at the RAC and Wildlife Board as well. Not one person........and I literally mean not one person spoke up, sent any email, or letters to the DWR opposing this. Although we had the biology behind us and the commitment from our Law Enforcement folks to enforce the laws we were wondering how the public would react to the potential change. The DWR felt comfortable with the change when no one opposed it.

My question to everyone is what constitutes an emergency here?

Is the emergency now, due to a lack of public involvement by anglers last fall? Because this is a social issue and not a biological issue we needed to hear from the anglers at the proper time and place to react to a social desire. We can't read your minds. We can measure fish and respond to law breakers but we need YOU to be involved appropriately.

This is very much like not voting and then being a chronic complainer about what initiatives passed and who was elected.


The reason the DWR supported this opening is to provide additional opportunities for anglers. Biologically this opening is/was a non-issue. That said, our job within the DWR is to also manage conflict. It looks like we failed here.....largely because we didn't hear from the anglers when it really mattered.

The DWR would very much appreciate your presence at the RAC's and Wildlife Board to address this and any other issues in the future. After all these are your fisheries....Our job is to understand the biology and manage your fisheries the best that we can. We need your feedback to understand the social side of our fisheries.


If anyone would like to call and discuss this further. Please call me at 801-230-6119. This is my cell number and I would be very happy to discuss this with anyone at any time.

Drew Cushing


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Skeet, it is sure nice to read a reasonable posting on this subject and not the frothing rants we saw on "the other leading forum". Here are my thoughts on the subject FWIW.


1. The Willard anglers that didn't bother to check the proposed changes or say anything about it in the RAC's or the Wildlife Board meetings should be ashamed of themselves. Mr. Cushing was right. Nothing was said in the meetings and the change was listed in the Pre RAC packets posted on major fishing sites. At the same time, the DWR should have probably had the issue included in their angler survey to generate opinion and awareness.

2. I don't have any reason to disagree with the DWR's take that the changes won't adversely affect the biology of the lake. That would put the opening or closure in the realm of a social issue. 

3. Since it likely is a "social" issue, what have been the effects of the opening?

A) It requires a phalanx of Conservation officers to enforce the law at the inlet. Heaven help them catch poachers elsewhere.
B) It has caused some/much ill will between the DWR and some Willard anglers.
C) A lot of fish are getting snagged, either intentionally or not.
D) It has given folks opportunity to fish, but in a circus atmosphere "free-for-all" that is probably not family friendly and may, at least a little, encourage some folks to violate the law. 

With all those factors considered, I'm left wondering if it wouldn't be best to close it down again, even though I do believe what the DWR states regarding the biology questions.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Catherder said:


> Skeet, it is sure nice to read a reasonable posting on this subject and not the frothing rants we saw on "the other leading forum". Here are my thoughts on the subject FWIW.
> 
> 1. The Willard anglers that didn't bother to check the proposed changes or say anything about it in the RAC's or the Wildlife Board meetings should be ashamed of themselves. Mr. Cushing was right. Nothing was said in the meetings and the change was listed in the Pre RAC packets posted on major fishing sites. At the same time, the DWR should have probably had the issue included in their angler survey to generate opinion and awareness.
> 
> ...


Not a big walleye fan, but I totally agree with your reasoning.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Considering the inlet is a poor place for the walleye to spwan (their eggs get covered in silt) I would say keep it open to fishing. 

Many anglers simply do not have big bass boats, sonar units, and bottom bouncing rigs to fish for them. This gives them a chance to hold a walleye.

I don't think anyone can claim the sky is falling until the sky has actually fallen on this one.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Skeet,

I thought your post was well reasoned and well thought out and appreciate your civility in posting it. However, I don't agree with your conclusions. Catching (not snagging) walleye in the channel during the spawn will have NO detrimental impact on the overall population of walleye in Willard. This is scientific fact stated by the DWR. It might have a favorable impact, but that is yet to be determined. I'm inclined to accept the DWR statements as fact and trust their thinking that opening the channel may in fact be a good thing for the Willard walleye. We will never know if we don't at least try.

While there are a few exceptions (very few in my opinion), John Q Public doesn't have the education or the fisheries management experience that our paid officials posses no matter how many fish they have caught in their lifetime. Ninety nine point nine percent of the complaints on this issue are being driven by emotion, not scientific facts.

Agree or disagree, I care not. That's MY story, and I'm sticking to it.

:O--O:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I dont fish walleye at willard but I think to say those walleye dont contribute is BS biology. I believe those walleye are just going back to where they grew up. Just like salmon do.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I dont fish walleye at willard but I think to say those walleye dont contribute is BS biology. I believe those walleye are just going back to where they grew up. Just like salmon do.


Except Walleyes don't do that. But then you're entitled to your own B.S.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Fishrmn said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > I dont fish walleye at willard but I think to say those walleye dont contribute is BS biology. I believe those walleye are just going back to where they grew up. Just like salmon do.
> ...


Oh snap!

For the 1st time ever on this forum I agree with Dubob. :shock:


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natal_homing

Huh?!? Walleyes aren't listed.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Not all, but most walleyes go back to where they come from to spawn. 

I can think of a jillion walleye spawning areas in IL, WI, MN, Lake Erie, Columbia River, Ontario, Saskatchewan...others, that have large numbers of adult walleyes during the spawn but after laying their eggs they are gone until next spring. Where I come from on the Mississippi River tagged walleyes will get thru a dam and then later when they spawn they'll swim back up the river to below the same dam 

Just Google "walleye" and "homing".


Top of the page!!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Its to bad this area will be open to a bunch of snaggers when there most vulnerable.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

One thing that we do know. The opening of the channel will be re addressed next year. 
There has been enough public out poor to make that happen.

The DWR's Biologists feel that opening the channel will not have an adverse effect on the Walleye spawn but with all of the people asking for it to be closed back down during the spawn, who knows what next year will bring.

What I like about all of this is that it shows that the DWR does listen to anglers and considers what the public has to say about issues like this one.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The spawning areas are optimum conditions. Walleyes are attracted to them. Walleyes go back upstream because the conditions are right. They'll go up any stream, or spawn on a windswept shoreline. They DON'T go back to their natal spawning grounds. 

They have to trick salmon to spawn in a new stream. If salmon don't make it back to their natal spawning grounds, they won't spawn, and if it happens for enough years the strain that was indigenous to a particular strain is lost.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I believe those walleye are just going back to where they grew up. Just like salmon do.


Yep; no bovine excrement in that statement. Nope; none at all.
-_O-

Give me a freaking break!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> The spawning areas are optimum conditions. Walleyes are attracted to them. Walleyes go back upstream because the conditions are right. They'll go up any stream, or spawn on a windswept shoreline. They DON'T go back to their natal spawning grounds.
> 
> They have to trick salmon to spawn in a new stream. If salmon don't make it back to their natal spawning grounds, they won't spawn, and if it happens for enough years the strain that was indigenous to a particular strain is lost.


Google "walleye" and "homing"


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

o-||


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

> In other words, 54% of the walleye did not home.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Google "walleye" and "homing"


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I did. The quote is from the first article that I read. 54% of the population that was studied does not home. Regardless. The population at Willard has been studied. The UDWR has studied the Walleyes IN WILLARD. Here's what they say about spawning:


> The regulation was changed because our biologists who manage Willard Bay, have gone to great length and effort to understand the various fish populations (walleye and wipers included) indicated that walleye harvest is way down and the population is high. *There have been egg survival studies that are specific to the willard inlet at the south marina. Due to the heavy sediment there walleye that do enter the south marina and spawn don't contribute to the walleye population in Willard Bay. The eggs just get covered with silt and die. *


So, if 46% of nothing returns to spawn at their natal streams, there AIN'T NOTHING returning to the South inlet to spawn in their natal stream. After all, let's use studies that are relevant to the situation.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > I dont fish walleye at willard but I think to say those walleye dont contribute is BS biology. I believe those walleye are just going back to where they grew up. Just like salmon do.
> ...


*Google "walleye" and "homing"*

Top of the page!!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Good stuff goob

I think fishrmn should do some reading

If there are walleye in that canal then there is defiantly a good bet they were born there. Now the output might not be as good as what returns along the rocks in the main lake but who cares. The part thats sad is this is the time the largest walleye in the lake are the most vulnerable. I would rather see them spawn and have their eggs go to the carp then see them plucked by snaggers. Once they go back to the lake there is at least some chance there will be some trophy potential. 

It used to piss me off to see all the snaggers in the provo river snagging out of the trees


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

> The regulation was changed because our biologists who manage Willard Bay, have gone to great length and effort to understand the various fish populations (walleye and wipers included) indicated that walleye harvest is way down and the population is high. There have been egg survival studies that are specific to the willard inlet at the south marina. Due to the heavy sediment there walleye that do enter the south marina and spawn don't contribute to the walleye population in Willard Bay. The eggs just get covered with silt and die.


Here's some reading for you.

When I read the study about Walleye it doesn't track Walleyes from birth to where they spawn. It shows that 46% of the fish seem to prefer to return to a good spawning ground. Which means that 54% just go wherever is close at hand. It doesn't mean that there is a good chance that any of the fish that go up into the inlet at Willard Bay were born there. The pertinent study shows that the Walleyes that spawn in the inlet at Willard Bay are wasting their time, their efforts, and their eggs.


----------



## skeet4l (Sep 11, 2007)

Snagging aside, the hens need to be returned to the Bay. Speaking off the cuff, I'll probably ramble but here goes, I'm going to refer to "back in the day" before I or my father owned a boat. We used to look forward to easter weekend when we could drive around the Bay to the old pump houses on the Northwest side which have since been removed, walk up over the **** to the rocks, and once figuring out what direction the walleye were headed throw #5 silver and black rapala's easily pulling two limits of 3-4 lb walleye in just a few hours work, we used to throw jigs as far as you could on the south side and do just as well. When I was a kid I'd walk the rocks after a windstorm and pull many live walleye out of the holes between the rocks with a pair of pliers, we also used to fish the lightpole corner on the west side after dark when the walleye were in there so thick you could here the water come alive because there were literally hundreds in there spawning, you'd shine your flashlight down in the water and see eyes lit up everywhere. If you want opportunity, be willing to work for it, smaller 16-22 inch males eat just as well as females and are more abundant. Let's talk accss, back in the day the lower road was a muddy mess just like it is now, once in a while you'd be able to drive the top of the **** all the way around. The only difference today is the numbers just aren't there and the Gizzard shad are now their primary food source spending most of their time schooling in the lake and not in the rocks like the spotted shiner used to. I will tell you this though, I've seen a return of the shiners and hope they make a comeback because they unlike the Shad hide out in the rocks and never get to a size that can't be taken by walleye. Did you know that with Shad walleye literally starve in the months of Dec-Feb? The problem with these two types of forage food is they compete with each other just like walley vs wipers, one will lose. I made a suggestion to add more perch but I don't think that will ever happen, put a forage fish in there that anglers can also enjoy, there's more opportunity for you. Once again it's about balance and the biologist can speak to this better than I. One more suggestion I'll make is to give out numbered tags for walleye and limit many of the anglers that constantly take out limits of fish and give them to their neighbors, do you think our biologist can budget or account for those unknown numbers? there's one that'll cause some backlash. Skeet


----------



## skeet4l (Sep 11, 2007)

Something I missed, all those hens that are taken out will not be around next year to spawn elsewhere. Skeet


----------



## Envenomation09 (Oct 22, 2012)

But even though their eggs may not survive, people are still harvesting many of the big walleye going into that inlet and some use illegal methods does that outweigh the pros of the situation?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Since those hens are spawning without contributing to the population of Walleye, it doesn't matter whether they are returned or not. The hens that are spawning elsewhere in the reservoir are the ones that are replenishing the number of Walleyes. In fact, by removing the Walleye that are wasting their spawning efforts in the inlet, you leave food resources for the remaining fish that spawn effectively. 

Let the biologists set the regulations and quit worrying about how you feel about the situation. There is enough recruitment without effective spawn in the inlet. Emotions shouldn't be the deciding factor.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Illegal methods are that, illegal. It is up tho the DWR to enforce their rules.
Legal catching in the channel will not change the amount of Walleye that exist in Willard.
I don't like to see fish being poached but closing the channel because of snagging just doesn't make sense to me.
If the walleye that were being caught in the channel had a proven adverse effect on the fishery in general, I would agree with the closure. The DWR has told us that opening the channel won't affect the reproduction in Willard Bay.
That's good enough for me.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

It can affect the size of the walleye remaining in the lake. That channel is a safe zone for some of the largest fish in the lake. 
Let them have a fighting chance
Not everyone wants to catch 12" fish


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> It can affect the size of the walleye remaining in the lake. That channel is a safe zone for some of the largest fish in the lake.
> Let them have a fighting chance
> Not everyone wants to catch 12" fish


And you know this how?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Is it not easy to see that fish that are spawning are mature fish? Typically the female fish are the largest. If they are allowed to return to the lake unharmed they might live another year. 

How is that so hard to comprehend?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

It ain't hard to comprehend. What some folks are having a hard time comprehending is that it doesn't matter. There are enough large females that spawn in other parts of the reservoir to provide enough eggs, fry, and recruitment to continue to have a good Walleye population in Willard Bay. In fact, the fish that waste their spawning effort in the inlet, are thereby taking food and resources away from those fish that spawn elsewhere in the lake.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> It can affect the size of the walleye remaining in the lake.


Meaningless statement without hard data to back it up; you presented none. Without hard data your statement is nothing more than an opinion. Hard data would substantiate how you know this.


swbuckmaster said:


> That channel is a safe zone for some of the largest fish in the lake.


And just exactly how have you determined that the channel is a safe zone? Again nothing but an opinion without hard data to back it up.


swbuckmaster said:


> Let them have a fighting chance.


They do have a fighting chance. At this particular stage in their life (the spawn) they are NOT very interested in feeding so any urge to strike at that lure being dragged in front of them isn't a great temptation.


swbuckmaster said:


> Not everyone wants to catch 12" fish


But some do - so what's your point?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

dubob said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > It can affect the size of the walleye remaining in the lake.
> ...


dubob
this will sound harsh, but only because of your last post
the channel has been closed to fishing how was that not a safe zone for mature walleye to spawn in? They spawn they live another day and they go back in the lake. Its 2+2=4 thinking! Everyone wins in this situation unless you depend on snagging and harassing spawning fish! Heck maybe they need to open up strawberry river inlets to kokanee fishing. Those fish wont bite a hook either when there spawning and they are going to die after they spawn. If you know how to use a fly rod just right you'll catch loads of kokanee in the mouth.

The fact that there is spawing fish in that channel means some of the eggs hatched. Here's your facts! http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outd ... -spawn.htm

You are correct they dont want to bite! THATS WHY THEY SNAG THEM!

My point is you can go catch what ever you want in the lake. lets protect the spawning walleye. I used to love catching spawning fish when I was young and dumb. Its freaking easy! I caught all sorts of spawning fish. I caught 46 macks in one night over 20 lbs with a buzz bomb about 20 years ago. Do you think its right for me to come in and catch that many easy fish in one night? They do the same thing with these walleys. If you think that doesn't affect the size of fish in the lake your up in the night. Its like hunting bucks in the rut with a rifle. I would think someone that's been around as long as you would know better. Thank goodness I came to my senses 20 years ago and don't target any spawning fish anymore.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> It ain't hard to comprehend. What some folks are having a hard time comprehending is that it doesn't matter. There are enough large females that spawn in other parts of the reservoir to provide enough eggs, fry, and recruitment to continue to have a good Walleye population in Willard Bay. In fact, the fish that waste their spawning effort in the inlet, are thereby taking food and resources away from those fish that spawn elsewhere in the lake.


its not that hard to comprehend. Who cares if they waste their eggs! Its not about them wasting their eggs! Its about protecting a bunch of larger mature fish.

They are not wasting food and resources away from the fish that spawn elsewhere. They are no different then any other fish in that lake except they are mature and have a place to go unmolested at a vulnerable time of year for easy harvest. Some of those fish could very well end up being some of the larger fish in the lake. All they need is age.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Swbuckmaster,

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual reader that you still don't understand the difference between opinion and fact. Therefore, I'm wasting my time and yours by continuing to respond to your posts. -O\__-

You posted a link (http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/...ing/freshwater-tips/walleye/walleye-spawn.htm) that you claim is a fact, when it really isn't fact based. It took me less than a minute to come up with another link (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8659(1962)91[355:HBOSW]2.0.CO;2#preview) that referenced an actual published study on the "Homing Behavior of Spawning Walleyes". Here is the abstract from that document. Please pay particular attention to the second sentence of the abstract which I've italicized.


> Abstract
> 
> Study of marked adult walleyes returning to a spawning site in Many Point Lake, northern Minnesota, showed evidence of homing behavior rather than a strictly random return in successive years. _The homing behavior, however, was not shown by the majority of the fish, and among those which evinced homing behavior the pattern of return was irregular._ Possible causes of variation in homing in different years and circumstances which could produce an apparent homing effect are discussed.


This goes hand in hand with and agrees with the statements by Drew Cushing from the UDWR about the basis for the DWR decision to open the channel last year. It was a decision based on scientific fact and reason, not on emotions like most of the posts on this and other websites dealing with this issue.

Your statement that ". . . some of the eggs hatched. . ." is NOT fact based. Actual studies by the state have already shown the opposite is true but your emotional stance on this issue will not allow you to accept the presented facts.

You also said "THATS WHY THEY SNAG THEM!" That's a law enforcement issue - not a biological issue, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with factual reasons to open or close the channel. But again, your emotions are getting in the way of the facts.

And this comment by you - "I caught 46 macks in one night over 20 lbs with a buzz bomb about 20 years ago. Do you think its right for me to come in and catch that many easy fish in one night?" - is puzzling. If that was within the legal limit for that fish species during that year I have absolutely no problem with it. If, on the other hand, that was NOT within the legal limit, then you have just admitted to a fish law violation on a public forum. If that's the case, then it's probably a good thing that the statute of limitations for that sort of thing has long been passed. -_O-


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Its about protecting a bunch of larger mature fish.


And why do they need to be protected? It's not because they contribute to the spawn. They don't. It must be so that YOU can catch them instead of someone else.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I could care less if the carp ate all the eggs of those fish. 
Its about ethics. Its about pulling dwr away from other stuff to baby sit a bunch of snagging tards.

By the way it aint about me catching them over some one else. I dont fish willard for walleyes. Its about ethics and saving a few for guys who like to catch the larger fish legally.

Snag away fellas!


----------

