02-23-2015, 07:35 PM
[quote TubeDude][#0000ff]I'm not sure what survey methods are used by DWR to check the dining habits of walleyes. But I do know from first hand observation as well as feedback from fellow walleye catchers that those toothy denizens do indeed dine royally on suckers for a short period after the new hatchlings are dumped in the lake each year.
[/#0000ff][/quote]
Sure, but I think you answered your own question. The walleye are dining on the buffet of an artificial stocking of a bunch of tender, disoriented minnows dumped en masse, into a confined area. No different than chumming. We can all attest that walleye aren't dumb and couldn't resist such a feast. Even still, it appears that a few still make it through and are bolstering the sampled Junie population. Maybe, like rainbows at Strawberry, if they changed up how they planted the minnows, they could get better results.
Two follow up points.
1. If the Junies were reproducing naturally in a suitable habitat, this type of mass predation would be avoided. There would still be predation but it wouldn't be the free-for-all it is now. The web analysis indicated that the eyes in a natural setting would be more likely to dine on mudders, perch, bluegills, and whities than preferentially nail the Junies. I've done far fewer walleye "autopsies" than you, but mudders, panfish, and whites usually is what I find in UL walleye innards, so the study would seem to be supported that way.
2. There are more factors than predation that affect the survival of a species. The competition for resources is a key one. The food web analysis showed that in UL, mudders, perch, panfish and walleye had a fairly complex food web and didn't utilize a lot of resources that Junies like/need. White bass, however, kind of had their own food web, eating small zooplankton and midge larvae when young and then switching largely to cannibalism when bigger. Their food web did apparently cut into the Junie resources some and thus drew the conclusion from the Utah State researcher.
[signature]
[/#0000ff][/quote]
Sure, but I think you answered your own question. The walleye are dining on the buffet of an artificial stocking of a bunch of tender, disoriented minnows dumped en masse, into a confined area. No different than chumming. We can all attest that walleye aren't dumb and couldn't resist such a feast. Even still, it appears that a few still make it through and are bolstering the sampled Junie population. Maybe, like rainbows at Strawberry, if they changed up how they planted the minnows, they could get better results.
Two follow up points.
1. If the Junies were reproducing naturally in a suitable habitat, this type of mass predation would be avoided. There would still be predation but it wouldn't be the free-for-all it is now. The web analysis indicated that the eyes in a natural setting would be more likely to dine on mudders, perch, bluegills, and whities than preferentially nail the Junies. I've done far fewer walleye "autopsies" than you, but mudders, panfish, and whites usually is what I find in UL walleye innards, so the study would seem to be supported that way.
2. There are more factors than predation that affect the survival of a species. The competition for resources is a key one. The food web analysis showed that in UL, mudders, perch, panfish and walleye had a fairly complex food web and didn't utilize a lot of resources that Junies like/need. White bass, however, kind of had their own food web, eating small zooplankton and midge larvae when young and then switching largely to cannibalism when bigger. Their food web did apparently cut into the Junie resources some and thus drew the conclusion from the Utah State researcher.
[signature]