When Wipers are away the cats will play!!!

[Optimizer]

OK, right off this is not a fishing report for Willard. I am expressing my frustration regarding the netting reports and stocking reports. To start with, I have provided the summary in the attached file which contains a high level overview of the netting reports and stocking reports for Willard. I also acknowledge right off that this is a complicated balancing act by DNR which also has a slow feedback loop of a couple years for reaction time.

Wipers: In 2013 and 2014 the Wipers made up a good 50-60% of the total fish in Willard. I love to catch Wipers so this is great for me (actually a little greedy on my part). From 2014 to 2017 the Wiper population has steadily decreased from 60% all the way down to 18%!

Now for the cats: The Channel Cats have steadily increased from 2013 to 2017 in direct proportion to the reduction in Wipers. They went from 16% to 47%. DNR actually stocked a small batch of cats in 2013 and none after that, so I’m sure they are just taking advantage of more food available from greatly reduced Wiper competition.

Walleye: The Walleye have been staying below the 10% mark even though the DNR has been stocking them like crazy since 2014 (half million to nearly a million a year). This is in addition to their regular spawn. Only in the last year did they finally explode up from 5% to 27% of the fish base. Notice that in that same period, the Wipers reduced from 31% to 18%, so in my opinion it really isn’t the additional stocking of Walleye that is making the big difference for them, it was the extreme drop in their Wiper competition.

The Wipers are the control species that keeps everything else in balance (assuming the same food base of Shad etc.). So far this year the DNR has stocked 723,000 Walleye and no Wipers. When they do stock Wipers it dang well better be over 500K like it was in 2013. In 2015 they only stocked 75K in Wipers!!!
If you Wiper fishermen/gals are thinking you are catching more cats than before and less Wipers than before, perhaps it is not just the water temperatures and the weather patterns! Ya think?!

When DNR stocks fish it is because they are trying to create a certain target proportion of species. Let’s just start the arguments right now. I want to know what the official target percentages are? If you tell me it is only 18-20% for Wipers, I am going to be ticked! It’s not like we can’t look at the netting reports and stocking reports to see a basic trend in the DNR’s agenda. Why not just come right out and tell us what the target balance is? Do we have a say in setting these balance figures.

All the lower percentage species that reproduce (e.g. Carp, Chub, Small Mouth, Perch, Crappie, Shad) all amount to about 20% of the fish base on a regular basis. This leaves 80% to be targeted to Walleye, Wipers, and Cats. I would like to see the “official” target be 45% Wipers, 20% Walleye, and 15% cats. The cats are only held in check by the trilateral balance of the other two species (assuming food supply is constant). I can tell from 2013-2014 that the cats can be held to about 20% on an ongoing basis (wipers are the key).

My interpretation of the data, is this three legged stool between Wiper, Walleye, and Cats is not equally controllable on each leg. In the cage fight of who is most aggressive on the food source it is 1) Wipers, 2) Cats, 3) Walleye. It seem quite apparent to me that the DNR is trying to make Willard more of a Walleye premier water. To finally get the Walleye numbers above 8% they had to reduce Wipers below 20%. In the void, the #2 predator became more dominant at nearly 50% just to let the Walleye rise to 30%. So if you are a Walleye fisherman, you say "great, in order to get Walleye up to 30% I am OK with cats going to 50% and Wipers going below 20%". If you are a Wiper fisherman you say, "to heck with that". I am not wanting the Cats at 50% and Wipers at 15% just to boost the Walleye up slightly. So you can choose option A) Mostly Wipers, a lot of cats, and few Walleye; or option B) Mostly Cats, a third Walleye and few wipers. You choose. Is it going to be A or B? I doubt there is a third option which is more Wiper and Walleye and few cats. Since cats are my third choice for Willard fishing, I prefer option A and would not go for B which is where I see us heading with the DNR's apparent current approach. Remember, it looks like cats out compete Walleye, not Walleye out competing cats.

If you are going to throw in the “Happy Harvester” comments, then fine, that is all the more reason to stock more Wipers to keep the balance in check (if DWR is not able to keep the harvesters in check).

Bottom line: If I don’t see high Wiper stocking numbers this year (over a half million) I am going to be very upset (remember stocking numbers of 300K per year have produced continual decline in wiper populations over the last 5 years). I encourage each of you wiper fisherman to watch the stocking numbers this year and see what you are happy with. If you are not happy with 18% wipers, perhaps you want to contact DNR and see what their plan is to fix it!

18% Wipers – What the bleep!!! [mad] Off My Soap-box now.
[signature]

[a_bow_nut]

You mention the biggest flaw to you theory in assuming that the food source stays the same. The other thing that factors into this and is directly tied to the food source is the water levels.

Until you can control those two factors and keep them at a constant level you will never be able to control the the fish population in the way that you describe.

The dynamic of Willard is an entirely different body of water when there is miles of flooded rocky shoreline than it is when it is barely more than a gravel of mud puddle.

I'm all about the wipers too but I understand that every body of water goes through cycles as conditions change and I try to make the best of the situation at hand.
[signature]

[goose_716]

I enjoy catching wipers but would prefer if they made Willard a walleye mecca so to speak. I know it has been done back in Lake Erie and such. I don't really know the details or if even possible to make it that much better but they have natural reproduction of walleyes already. They have other lakes they could utilize for wipers. Just my thought process
[signature]

[FatBiker]

I'm certainly NOT SMART enough to make judgement on the data to provided. However, DWR has very highly trained fish biologists that walk the fine lines you identified. I am smart enough to let them do their job so I can do mine (catch fish). As a side note, as a fly-fisher, I love catching cats at Willard. I think they fight almost as good as wipers and eat better than walleyes. They're also readily available for bank anglers who can't afford a huge investment in equipment or a boat.
[signature]

[WiperMac]

[quote a_bow_nut]I'm all about the wipers too but I understand that every body of water goes through cycles as conditions change and I try to make the best of the situation at hand.[/quote]

Amen. And there's still great fishing for wipers. I boated 13 just yesterday. You may not see the huge numbers as in years past but the size and quality is better. Fish taken yesterday ranged from 16-23", much funner than a bucket load of 10-14" dinks like last year...... and the year before that.
[signature]

[Optimizer]

Here is my rebuttal. I am looking at percentages between species not just total numbers of fish. In other words when the food base changes it affects all the fish together in the trio (Wiper, Walleye, and Cats). The total population is affected by the available food source but the percentages between species represents who is winning the cage fight.

It is obvious to me that Walleye populations did not start to increase at all until Wipers were dropped below 20%.

Thus the purpose of this writing. When reality starts to show (as it is now starting to do) that in a body of water shared by Wipers and Walleye there will always be a winner and looser in the cage fight; then the fishermen get to have the fight of who they want the winner to be.
[signature]

[doitall5000]

Thank you for supplying the stocking and netting information, it is very helpful.
I do appreciate your perspective on Willard. Remembering each of us has a perspective of our own.
Like wise we each will look at what appeals to us.
I know that every species of fish will cycle threw good years and bad years, and there are many factors that influence the change. Many of us have fished willard for lots of years, and seen many cycles. Some were brought about by the DNR and others from weather and water conditions. Some even by fisherman who stock there own fish. When you look at Jordanelle you can see that fishermen have changed it, people brought in there own favorite fish. Now that water has some of every fish that ever lived in Utah, what is to become of that water, I think it will become the boaters lake just like Pineview. [mad]
You never mentioned Crappie, that's what I love so would you say forget them?? Its one thing to say this is what I want and everything else is bad Management.
I don't want to discourage your input but don't put down some Else's desires.
I would love to see willard have lots more whippers, and walleyes, and cats, and crappie, and small mouths. This will always be a hard thing to balance, and as well as keeping the thousand of fishermen satisfied. Not possible. I do know the DNR does listen to the people, so keep talking.
My point of view.
doitall
[signature]

[a_bow_nut]

Conditions can still favor one species over the other and still put a wrinkle in your theory. When the water level drops and clarity decreases then conditions will favor fish that don't rely as much on sight feeding.

Case in point the bluegill in Pelican are having a hard time feeding to their potential from the decrease in the water clarity form the carp population that is gaining a larger percentage of the biomass of the lake. As a result fish sizes have been declining for years. It is though to catch a gill these days that is much over 7-8".

As soon as you assume that one part of you idea that bait availability doesn't change from year to year then you're not looking at the big picture and just running numbers to see what you want to see.

If I remember correctly the DWR said that they were cutting back wipers to improve the quality of the fish as they were dealing with the low water conditions and the poor recruitment of the shad population that had persisted there for years. Then we had an incredible winter in 16-17 and the dynamic of Willard changed. Last fall is the first time that I have heard of people actually reported signs of wiper boils in years.

While it has been fun catching a fair number wipers in the past I am excited to get up there and hook into one or two of these quality fish that people are picking up this year.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote Optimizer]

The Wipers are the control species that keeps everything else in balance (assuming the same food base of Shad etc.). So far this year the DNR has stocked 723,000 Walleye and no Wipers. When they do stock Wipers it dang well better be over 500K like it was in 2013. In 2015 they only stocked 75K in Wipers!!!

Bottom line: If I don’t see high Wiper stocking numbers this year (over a half million) I am going to be very upset (remember stocking numbers of 300K per year have produced continual decline in wiper populations over the last 5 years). [/quote]


I am not much of a Willard guys so I will leave to you and others to comment on the rest of your assertions. However, when looking at wiper stocking numbers you must take into account the size at which they were stocked. The larger the fish, the better the survival. The DWR did explain that when they were stocking the 500000 wipers, many or most of those were very small fish with expected lover survival. From your example.

75,000 larger 4 inch fish at say 40% survival =30000 adult fish.
500000 1.5 inch fish at say 3% survival=15000 adult fish.
(the survival rates are estimates but not too far off from reports I've read.)


Again, I'm not saying you are right or wrong on your general comments, but the above understanding is vital in evaluating stocking records.
[signature]

[Optimizer]

[quote FatBiker]I'm certainly NOT SMART enough to make judgement on the data to provided. However, DWR has very highly trained fish biologists that walk the fine lines you identified. I am smart enough to let them do their job so I can do mine (catch fish). As a side note, as a fly-fisher, I love catching cats at Willard. I think they fight almost as good as wipers and eat better than walleyes. They're also readily available for bank anglers who can't afford a huge investment in equipment or a boat.[/quote]

Good comment about bank tanglers, but the cats have constantly been at 20% instead of 47% and that has probably provided good catching for them. In addition to cats if we increase Wipers back up to a decent number they can also catch them in the marinas, shores, and inlets.
[signature]

[Optimizer]

[quote a_bow_nut]You mention the biggest flaw to you theory in assuming that the food source stays the same. The other thing that factors into this and is directly tied to the food source is the water levels.

Until you can control those two factors and keep them at a constant level you will never be able to control the the fish population in the way that you describe.

The dynamic of Willard is an entirely different body of water when there is miles of flooded rocky shoreline than it is when it is barely more than a gravel of mud puddle.

I'm all about the wipers too but I understand that every body of water goes through cycles as conditions change and I try to make the best of the situation at hand.[/quote]

Here is my rebuttal. I am looking at percentages between species not just total numbers of fish. In other words when the food base changes it affects all the fish together in the trio (Wiper, Walleye, and Cats). The total population is affected by the available food source but the percentages between species represents who is winning the cage fight.

It is obvious to me that Walleye populations did not start to increase at all until Wipers were dropped below 20%.

Thus the purpose of this writing. When reality starts to show (as it is now starting to do) that in a body of water shared by Wipers and Walleye there will always be a winner and looser in the cage fight; then the fishermen get to have the fight of who they want the winner to be.
[signature]

[Optimizer]

[quote WiperMac][quote a_bow_nut]I'm all about the wipers too but I understand that every body of water goes through cycles as conditions change and I try to make the best of the situation at hand.[/quote]

Amen. And there's still great fishing for wipers. I boated 13 just yesterday. You may not see the huge numbers as in years past but the size and quality is better. Fish taken yesterday ranged from 16-23", much funner than a bucket load of 10-14" dinks like last year...... and the year before that.[/quote]

Valid point about quality vs quantity. How about we boost those wiper numbers back up from 18% to 30 or 40 and find out along the way where the sweet spot is for quality vs quantity. I certainly don't think it is at the 18% Wiper ratio!
[signature]

[Optimizer]

[quote goose_716]I enjoy catching wipers but would prefer if they made Willard a walleye mecca so to speak. I know it has been done back in Lake Erie and such. I don't really know the details or if even possible to make it that much better but they have natural reproduction of walleyes already. They have other lakes they could utilize for wipers. Just my thought process[/quote]

With all three species present, I don't think you can have a Walleye "mecca". I think the best you will achieve is 30% Walleye.

So you can choose option A) Mostly Wipers, a lot of cats, and few Walleye; or option B) Mostly Cats, a third Walleye and few wipers.

The point is Wipers had to be reduced below 20% for the Walleye to finally pop up above 10%.
[signature]

[Kent]

One other factor that is difficult to judge is the placement of gill nets, now that the water level is higher. Not sure the comparison between years and perhaps comparison between species is totally accurate with the higher water level. The different species may be more prevalent at the location of the gill nets at different water levels.
[signature]

[Optimizer]

I do appreciate your perspective on Willard. Remembering each of us has a perspective of our own.

I know that every species of fish will cycle threw good years and bad years, and there are many factors that influence the change. You never mentioned Crappie, that's what I love so would you say forget them?? Its one thing to say this is what I want and everything else is bad Management. I don't want to discourage your input but don't put down some Else's desires.

I would love to see willard have lots more whippers, and walleyes, and cats, and crappie, and small mouths. This will always be a hard thing to balance, and as well as keeping the thousand of fishermen satisfied. Not possible. doitall

OK, Thanks for the comments. Here we go: I know we all have our own desires for fishing. Everything is a balance but we need to understand the possibilities and then we all need to have a voice about what the direction and policy is going to be. That is why I am trying to stimulate people to come forth with opinions. For example it appears to me that the DNR is doing a good in general. They are playing with the variables to figure out the cause and effect relations among competing species. When then find something important like "we can not boost Walleye populations above 10% without taking Wipers below 20%". In every year that Wipers are above 20% the Walleye would not get above 10% regardless of stocking." This is knowledge that forces choice. So I am telling the DNR, when you find significant cause and effect relationships, don't just keep doing whatever you think is right, but stop and let the sportsmen all voice their opinion of the way forward given the facts. I know everyone has their desires and I want them to speak their mind once they are fully educated on the true available options. Then we vote and give feed back to the DNR on the policy for the way forward. I think the DNR needs to be much better about voicing their interpretation of the data and what they are planning on doing and why. Once the cause and effect relationships and the plans are on the table, let us have a voice.

As far as Crappie I did mention them in the 20% category. They are currently not one of the control species that the DNR is playing with for variables. They only control fish populations through stocking of Walleye and Wiper. Take a look at the numbers. Crappie percentages have remained about the same regardless of changes to the trio. They are not voracious enough to be in the top trio (Walleye, Wipers, Cats), therefore their numbers will probably remain the same, with current policy.

My whole point is that there seems to be new blazing cause and effect information here that you cannot have a mecca of both Walleye and Wipers. In fact if you want a reasonable amount of Walleye you have to reduce Wiper below a reasonable amount of Wiper. This is based on 5 years of data and massive trends in fish percentages that are not just environmental (low water high water etc.), they are about competition in species as the wiper control group has been systematically reduced on purpose by the DNR to find cause and effect. Now that we are seeing the cause and effect. Let's talk openly about it and the future!!!
[signature]

[doitall5000]

You made the statement we all should have a voice. I like that. Maybe to survey the people going threw the gate, or on the dike. " what fish are you here for. Do you take your limit each time. What would you like to see your money spent on?"
I don't like all the lakes to have all the same plans.

Great discussion thanks for caring .
[signature]

[Optimizer]

[quote doitall5000]You made the statement we all should have a voice. I like that. Maybe to survey the people going threw the gate, or on the dike. " what fish are you here for. Do you take your limit each time. What would you like to see your money spent on?"
I don't like all the lakes to have all the same plans.

Great discussion thanks for caring .[/quote]

I think that DNR does listen to people and does survey them and does have town hall meetings. The thing that I am asking for is when new data presents its self in a solid cause and effect fashion, then we re-evaluate the approach together.

For example. I feel there is strong data showing that if you want Walleye percentages to be above 10% you need to control the Wipers to below 20%. If this is a new discovery, then lets all be able to re-evaluate the DNRs current approach to bring Walleye numbers back up at the cost of reducing the Wiper percentages to such low percentages. I fear they are just going to say well, our agenda is to bring Walleye up to 30% regardless of wither other's want Wipers above 30% also and we just discovered that is not a natural sustainable balance for both species. Too bad Wiper lovers, we have invested too much into bringing Walleye numbers back up over the last 5 years. Do you see my point?? When new discovery presents new restrictive options, it is time to present it and let us all have a say on the approach forward.
[signature]

[Optimizer]

Folks - I just wrote this directly to Chris Penne of the DNR for answers:

It seems fairly obvious to me by the netting results and stocking reports for Willard, that the DNR has been trying to figure out how to bring Walleye percentages up. This is being done by a two pronged approach: 1) Stock the Walleye like crazy in addition to the normal spawn, and 2) continually reducing the Wiper numbers over time by low level stocking (60% down to 18% linear reduction of Wipers).

Congratulations. It appears to me you just found some critical cause and effect relationship between species. You finally see Walleye percentages jumping up in one year, but that was only after the Wipers got below 20%.

Straight up, Do you plan to continue suppressing Wiper percentages to this low level? If not, when are you going to start bringing them up again???????

What is your Wiper stocking plan for 2018 and why?????

Do you have enough cause and effect information to have another town hall decision about the approach ?????

Thanks in advance for full disclosure on your plans for Willard over the new few years.
[signature]

[a_bow_nut]

Here is a link to a past thread where Chris lays out their plans for Willard from about two years ago.

http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gfo...e;#1004571

So all that your numbers show is that the plan that they put into place is working just how they wanted it to.

But if you're happy catching wipers that are only a bit bigger than the white bass of Utah lake then more power to ya.
[signature]

[TubeDude]

[#0000ff]I have stayed out of this thread...and find the comments interesting.
[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff] [/#0000ff][#0000ff]I do not fault your observations, but might suggest some tempering thoughts.
[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]First...there is an old saying that figures lie and liars figure. In other words, we can crunch numbers to validate and justify our own conclusions. But when it comes to fisheries management the numbers are merely a reflection of findings...of status quo...not an accurate assessment of management efforts or predictors of the future. I have often defended DWR by saying "You can't manage the unmanageable". This is Utah. We are subject to great swings in water levels, weather patterns, etc. And all of these things greatly affect all aspects of fish spawning, recruitment, food sources, activity levels, etc. The best DWR can do is GUESS what might happen and then conduct plantings of specific species to try to balance the ratios of predators and prey.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff] [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Second...and related to the first...you can only put so many cookies in a cookie jar. We have used this analysis before. It's a food chain thing. When a lake is blessed with an abundance of nutrients, it produces more algae, zooplankton, phytoplankton and aquatic invertebrates...to feed growing fry of some species and adult filter feeders of other species. That's the beginning of the food chain. If it is healthy then all of the species that rely on the food species will do well also.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff] [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Willard Bay is a big muddy bowl, scooped out of a former part of the Great Salt Lake. It is a young lake, relatively speaking, and has not had the benefit of developing vast areas of weed beds, shoreline reeds and other growth helpful to spawning, recruitment and propagation of aquatic invertebrates. The nutrients that find their way into the lake are "leftovers" from the reservoirs upstream. That has been one of the restrictive factors that has made it difficult for DWR to find other prey species that would live long and prosper in Willard.
[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The gizzard shad can live on less than many minnow species...filtering plankton and even living on algae and bottom detritus. The downside is that they vacuum up a lot of the same stuff that the fry of other species need to grow large enough to switch to diets of other larger food items. And, in a strange twist of irony, adult shad most likely slurp up a lot of the sac fry wipers and walleyes planted to eat the shad.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff] [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Bottom line? It almost doesn't even matter what DWR does to try to establish a targeted balance. Whatever careful planning they do is offset by the vagaries of Mama Nature. Some years it works out and other years it goes sideways.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff] [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Blaming DWR for a perceived imbalance in fish populations is like blaming an automobile manufacturer for accidents caused by driver error.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff] [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The philosophical approach is to enjoy what we have, while we have it and miss it when it temporarily goes backward. But trying to assign blame for conditions beyond human control is pointless...and frustrating to all concerned.
[/#0000ff]
[signature]