Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Foss
understandable and i agree over time it will probably equal out. But here comes the issue. How long does that take? It can take a very very long time for things to occur naturally. so lets say another 7or so years before the two big year classes start dying and then slowly you MAY start seeing greater numbers of young of the year. but for the most part they will probably be fed on by the gigantic pike. But lets say healthy numbers survive. It will take another 6 years to get the first batch of fry back to the size they are now. then it will take another generation of walleye to start evening out the equilibrium between species in the lake. So your looking at 30-40 years. And your not even sure that it will balance itself out.
I would never suggest anything be done to manage the lake without solid research to back any management strategy......
Although I know a particular lake in calgary that has a perch problem that a bucket full of walleye would love to be in.......
|
I see good news in your post, not doom. You're suggesting that things will remain pretty much as they are for the next 7 or more years, and that without the fishery collapsing, it will correct itself over time with no need for outside interference.
It's been shown that PCR can support young of the year and fingerlings to maturity in the past, that tells me it can do it again if the biomass base is available for their growth. Yes there are lots of predators, but EVERY lake has lots of predators.
Opening up PCR to harvest will simply speed up the process of removing the two main year classes, drastically if it isn't strictly controlled. It won't fundamentally change the rate at which the walleye population replenishes itself, it's still going to take the same amont of time. All that's been accomplished is to decrease the walleye population artificially and move the timetable for change ahead by a few years. I don't see the point in that.
I don't see adding a bunch of forage fish as an option either, Ronbill makes a good argument for that being a failure, and again, there's limited biological carrying capacity.
So what are the remaining options? Stocking again? At this stage, I think it would be pointless, it's already at max capacity. It might be a very viable option in the future to help supplement the walleye's natural recruitment rate if the quality of the fishery really suffers.
The only other option is exactly what Ronbill suggests, and that's trying to improve the quality of the water and boost the bottom links of the food chain. I don't know how you do that, but that's something that I could support.
It's all well and good to want to do something, but doing something just for the sake of doing it is not sound reasoning, nor is a personal preference for the type of fishing that exists in a certain lake.