|
|
Posts: 1636
| Just to put things into perspective... the Northwest Angle of Lake of the Woods is not much larger than Lake Vermilion - within' reason. I am talking the Canadian side of the lake most people fish and refer to as, The Northwest Angle... not the Minnesota side. Obviously if you include the areas up by Skeet and down by Big... the acreage increases. Lake of the Woods is about a million acres in size they say... but, honestly... it is kind of like fishing several different lakes. If pressure is noticeable on Lake Vermilion... you will notice it in the Northwest Angle. I do appreciate the increased number of people who fish for Muskies... but, I do understand what some are saying about the pressure.
Edited by Reelwise 7/26/2018 2:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
| Yes, pressure is very much a factor. We have a decreasing number of fishable spots due to the loss of weed growth, with an increasing number of fishermen. Bad combination!
Do you think that is that a bad combination for us? Or a bad combination for the health of the muskie fishery?
Let's suppose for a minute that the population is relatively stable, meaning there are the same number of fish available to be caught each year. If you spread those fish out across more people, it would definitely decrease angling success for each individual person, while maintaining collective success the same as it ever was...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
| I can guy named Jack and I used to say, "If we boat two muskies a day throughout the season we are doing pretty good". We fished a ton together.
All the big fish being caught today are probably over 15 years old/maybe 20 and close to the end of their life cycle. That's about the time when the Rusty's came to eat all the cabbage beds - about 15 years ago. Watching the weeds disappear over about two to three years from the mouth of the Tranquil Channel down past the Windigo's was fascinating and scary. I remember hanging with Doug, Jack, Dave, Dave, John and a few others and all of us were saying, "This cannot be a good thing".
The true results of the impact will be in 5 to 10 to 15 years. I suspect there are less muskies around. Our trolling results the past few years have leaned towards that. But again time will tell. And I do agree that tactics need to be changed to continue catching them.
We used to catch muskies trolling basically Oct 1 to ice up. Now the window is smaller because the forage are not moving out to the first break once the water begins to cool (i.e. From the weed lines out to the first break which is about 9 to 10 feet). Now the window is when the ciscoes spawn, which is at the end of Oct into early Nov.
Also there were many times (a few times per day) when the screen on the depth finder would go dark, then all the rods would go dead. Guess what, there would be a shiner on every hook of a Jake. I haven't had that happen since the Rusty's. That is my concern with respect to a forage problem.
All I am going to say is in 1999, Doug J got 17 muskies over 50 inches and a ton more in October alone. Me and my friends got a bunch that year as well. I boated four over 50 in one day! It was fantastic!
People can take shots at this, but I spent the last 30 years fishing LOTW and not as a tourist. But someone that fished at minimum 70 to 80 days per year. From Nestor Falls to the Angle. And up to 120 when I guided. Been blessed to fish with some very fine anglers that put their time in as well.
Years ago I was accused of scare tactics to get people to not come up. I was sharing an observation. Well they did come and now others complain about pressure.
So again I am sharing an observation, that's all. And I will be happy to admit I am wrong! And hope I am wrong. But the MH results last week have me more concerned than ever.
Lake of the Woods is still my favorite place to fish and consider my cabin my home. In fact its the only place I fish, except for Florida. 30 years ago next week (8/2) I caught my first 50 incher off a little island with cabbage on it. Next week my 13 year old nephew is coming to fish, and hope he gets one off that spot. But that spot has not been the same since the cabbage is gone.
If you plan to go to LOTW, all I wish is for everyone to have a safe trip.
Edited by Dan Klis 7/26/2018 11:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
| Nice post Dan.Lotsa truth in it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
| dickP - 7/26/2018 10:24 AM
Nice post Dan.Lotsa truth in it.
I hope you are well! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
| The true results of the impact will be in 5 to 10 to 15 years. I suspect there are less muskies around.
Anecdotal observations are important, especially from experts with so much time on that water like Doug, Dick, and Dan. I think it's useful to compare those observations to other evidence as well. There are some indications that the numbers of small fish are actually up, which suggests some good recruitment in the last 5-6 years even after the arrival of the rusty.
Attachments
----------------
 smallfish.jpg (33KB - 270 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | I don't think muskies inc data is a good reflection of number of small muskies in LOTW unless the # of anglers and angler hours were the same, or equalized by a hours/fish ratio. Might as well be anecdotal |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I agree! Need what fishery biologists call catch/unit effort. How many hours did it take to catch a fish. Looking at the chart I would sort of be worried with the last dip. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Just wait until the 2018 results are posted... 
Edited by Musky Brian 7/26/2018 5:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Interesting that on both charts shown there is a dip in 2008. That also happens to coincide with the last recession that we had going on. Is the dip related to fishery population changes or a change in fishing pressure? I suspect fishing pressure?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | dougj - 7/26/2018 7:34 PM
Interesting that on both charts shown there is a dip in 2008. That also happens to coincide with the last recession that we had going on. Is the dip related to fishery population changes or a change in fishing pressure? I suspect fishing pressure?
I was thinking the same thing and should've said it...there were not many boats up there 08 or 09 from what I recall. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 214
| I hope I am not jinxing my self but the last 2 years we have "seen" a ton of 50" plus fish I have changed things up from when I started on the Wood 24 years ago but have been going to the Angle for the last 18 and have been very happy. I have had many, many 50" plus fish in my boat over the years even a "Legal" the first year they changed the size limit to 54" and last year had a true giant on up to the boat that got off " Fish stories" but to people who know me it's true. Hopefully this August I can prove it  All I am saying is you need to adapt and go way out of the box !! Fish eat but you need to be where the fish are
Darren |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | dougj - 7/26/2018 7:34 PM
Interesting that on both charts shown there is a dip in 2008. That also happens to coincide with the last recession that we had going on. Is the dip related to fishery population changes or a change in fishing pressure? I suspect fishing pressure?
....and gas prices were through the roof and at record highs in 2012. Also very high in ‘11 and ‘13. Another potentially limiting factor that may have been responsible for less people and could explain the dips.
Edited by Musky Brian 7/26/2018 9:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 571
| Perhaps it's anecdotal evidence, but one thing is certain: the muskies inc. figures are not supportive of a doom and gloom narrative. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
| Pressure a key factor.Darren hit it in part.When under pressure some move around and dance to different tunes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDh_gHDvkk |
|
| |
|
Posts: 36
Location: se wi | More numbers to look at for you number crunchers...
http://www.redwinglodge.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Red-Wing-Lod...
For us fishing the 3rd week of July was pretty tough this year. We had 8 in the boat up to 48 with 4@35", 2@38" and a 44" to round things out. We've been fishing here around that timeframe for 20ish years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | We're up here now. First day was tough. Only saw 13 fish, buy ten of them ate. Of those we got hooks into 5. Some of our traditionally best spots showed us very few. So we keep checking stuff we've never fished before an lo and behold. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 300
| That doesn’t sound all that tough to me Propster. That sounds like a pretty good day to me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 571
|
Thanks for sharing this.
If I had more time, I'd get more in-depth, but I just spent about 30 minutes running some quick numbers here.
In the Muskies Inc. logs there are 31,922 muskies registered from LOTW, dating back to the 1970's. Here are the historical size breakouts by %, compared to the overall total of fish caught:
30-34.9": 21.8%
35-39+: 32.0%
40-44+: 28.7%
>45”: 17.5%
(Caveat: I understand that the MI numbers might not be completely accurate or precisely representative, but there is obviously a huge sample-size and of course we are speaking in generalities here--at a minimum, I think it is fair to assume that the MI data is indicative of general trends).
Caveat aside, if there is a recently-developing trend toward diminished natural reproduction and/or recruitment, I’d expect to see amongst the more recent figures that the % of caught fish < 40”, (and particularly the % of fish < 35”), would be notably lower than the historical percentage for caught fish in that same size range.
So now, I'm looking at the Red Wing %’s during the past decade. There is a total of 5,883 catches during this timeframe, (I removed the fish < 30” from the total on their spreadsheet), so it is a fairly substantial sample-size. The 10-year averages from Red Wing are as follows:
30-34.9": 19.1%
35-39.9": 35.7%
40-44.9": 28.2%
>45": 15.4%
There is a very low % of 30-34.9” muskies caught out of Red Wing in 2017 (only 7%), and this does stick out like a sore thumb. This might either be an anomaly, or cause for concern. But otherwise, it is remarkable, to me anyway, how closely the Red Wing %’s over the past 10-years mimic the historical Muskies Inc %’s. (ALL the numbers are within <3 % points). In fact, if you only categorize by % of fish caught > and < 40”, it’s almost EXACTLY the same: 54.8% of fish caught out of Red Wing in the past 10-years are < 40”, as compared to the historical MI average of 53.8%.
2017 aside, if we can assume that Red Wing’s numbers are generally representative of the entire lake (which I suppose may or may not be a safe assumption), based on the information above, it seems like the size distribution of muskies being caught, recently, is about the same as it’s been, historically. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | jvlast15 - 7/28/2018 7:47 AM
That doesn’t sound all that tough to me Propster. That sounds like a pretty good day to me.
That was 3 guys, 16 hours. That's tough fishing. Today was worse, though we did get a 51.5 |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 |
Nice link Dick, agree 100%... and it's across the board too.With increased pressure there is certainly more movement... and mortality.
How times have changed… it was not an everyday occurrence to see another muskie boat while fishing out of the Northwest angle in the mid-80s.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 331
Location: Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Would be interesting to hear from the folks that fish in the Kenora area as to whether they have noticed a drop off in reproduction success in the last 30 years?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 901
| I was up last week 7/21 - 7/28. We fished everything from Monument Bay up to Wiley Point, including the Skeet area and Tranquil Channel. Saw very few musky boats. I can count on one hand the amount of musky boats we saw. I know the 4th week of July is kind of late, but we were very surprised (and very happy) with the lack of boat activity.
2 of us fishing 10 hours per day, we boated 36, 39, 41, 41, 42, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51.
We were happy with our results of fish in the boat ... follows however are another story. We used to figure about 1 follow per hour and for every 5 follows we catch a fish. There has really been a noticeable decline in the number of chasers we get.
Our fish per hour seen was not even close this year. I can honestly say I went 3 days without a follow. (1 day without a follow was almost impossible when I started going there 17 years ago.) Front of boat, back of boat, didn't matter. The most fish we contacted in 1 day was 7.
On day 3 of no follows I finally had a chaser in the front of the boat at 9 pm and I converted her on the figure 8 which turned into my 51.
Converting a 51 after 3 days of no follows makes things better, but not great!
It's really concerning to me the lack of follows. We fished everything from the normal shallow rocks, weeds, sandy bays, etc. We even pitched to some underwater reefs with nothing to show.
The days of 20 chasers a day and playing marry go round with all those fish are gone ... at least for us as our chaser numbers are way down over the past 3 years.
I am hoping the fish are just using different areas or are out deep chasing bait fish and the gloom and doom of lack of production isn't correct, but I am concerned it probably is.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Somebody brought this up a few pages ago but one thing I find a bit suspect about the crayfish/spawning theory is that it would impact Muskies but not so much the other fish. I’m not a biologist, but I can’t see how all spawning fish wouldn’t be effected by this as well if this was truly the big issue. Are walleye guys also experiencing worse results up there?
Edited by Musky Brian 7/30/2018 4:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 132
Location: Missouri | Musky Brian - 7/30/2018 4:31 PM
Somebody brought this up a few pages ago but one thing I find a bit suspect about the crayfish/spawning theory is that it would impact Muskies but not so much the other fish. I’m not a biologist, but I can’t see how all spawning fish wouldn’t be effected by this as well if this was truly the big issue. Are walleye guys also experiencing worse results up there?
It would depend on the specific location that each species spawns and if the vegetation that species needs is present or not (water depth, vegetation type, substrate).
For example, species like walleye, smallmouth bass and largemouth bass don't even need vegetation to spawn. So actually you could see a decrease in muskie recruitment and no change in the bass or walleye recruitment IF.....IF crayfish destroying vegetation was in actuality causing poor muskie spawning (I don't really know if it is or isn't)
Also if newly hatched fish of each species need vegetated nursery areas to survive after hatching or do they just drift in open water. That could impact recruitment success
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 132
Location: Missouri | I should add. The other day I was reading a recently published article on Rusty Crayfish eating Lake Sturgeon eggs from rocky substrates. So it's also possible in the right situations that the Rusty's could eat fish eggs of certain species in certain locations. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Any reports from this week yet?
Looks like a fairly aggressive cold front just came in and I see overnight lows hitting the 40s.
T-minus 6 days for me |
|
| |
|
Posts: 901
| The buddy I was with last week stayed this week for week 2 and he said it's been tough ... and that was before the cold front hit!
I'm going back on Sunday for a week. Last I looked it looks hot and stable next week. Hope that turns things around.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 153
| Musky Brian - 7/30/2018 4:31 PM
Somebody brought this up a few pages ago but one thing I find a bit suspect about the crayfish/spawning theory is that it would impact Muskies but not so much the other fish. I’m not a biologist, but I can’t see how all spawning fish wouldn’t be effected by this as well if this was truly the big issue. Are walleye guys also experiencing worse results up there?
A good friend fishes with Bob Strand (former MN Fisheries Biologist) and he asked Bob about Muskie spawning, this is what my buddy texted me. “Muskies spawn over soft bottoms. They prefer low organic matter that produces Oxygen. They NEVER spawn over bare rock as unlike other fish species (trout, salmon, smallmouth) their eggs aren’t sticky and won’t adhere to the bottom (ie Rock). They need a surface the will ‘cradle’ the eggs protecting them from the current.
Muskies do not spawn over open water reefs.....
The Rusty’s probably affect smallmouth bass over any other species. Not catching many smaller bass these days.
Walleyes maybe not so much as prefer gravel and current. Walleye population on LOTW seems good, but a little concerned about the numbers of slot fish and big ones. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I agree with Dan on the Smallies. Used to catch lots in the 8-10" range, didn't see many this year. Still a good population, but I fear!
Here's what bothers me most about muskie reproduction! on the LOTWs. Muskies seems to have very selective environmental conditions that they do well in. Muskies have been stocked in a large number of lakes across the US. By and large there's been very little natural reproduction that has occurred in any of those stocked lakes even though it seems from a biologist viewpoint that the lake looks like it has the proper conditions for muskie sawn. When a lake suffers a large biological change, I begin to wonder if the fish can adapt to it? Sure hope it's more than weed beds that make muskies reproduce on the LOTWs!
I've fished the LOTWs for over 50 years and have seen lots of changes! Hope the next change is to get rid of Rusty Crayfish!
Edited by dougj 8/1/2018 5:06 PM
|
|
| |
