TOPIC:

Wisconsin Lakeshore Business Association .
13 hrs ·
Another major accomplishment for the WLBA and Wisconsin anglers today in Madison, WI! WLBA members going through 3 NRB hearings and with overwhelming response from the board now approving the Lake Trout limit a permanent 5 fish rule! This is a major victory in helping keep predator/prey ratio's in balance, along with allowing Wisconsin anglers to enjoy some of the harvest! Please note we are still under the 2 fish limit until signed off by the legislature! Awesome NEWS here in Wisconsin! WLBA appreciates the support of all of our members, WDNR, and local anglers that make our "Great Lake" so amazing!

Quick question Ed I am sure I am asking for many here. Last year an emergency decision was made and 3 lake trout were allowed to be taken in Indiana waters per person. Was that only for last year?

I believe we stayed at three. Out of the 4 states I think Indiana was the only one to make their rehabilitation goal numbers.for 2016.

Angry wrote:

Quick question Ed I am sure I am asking for many here. Last year an emergency decision was made and 3 lake trout were allowed to be taken in Indiana waters per person. Was that only for last year?

Bill, it's permanent now. Emergency fisheries rules are typically used as a temporary law until the permanent rule takes place. Due to how long the official rule making cycle is, it's often quite some time between when it's decided that a particular rule makes sense, and when it actually officially gets added into permanent status. We're pretty happy to be at 3 now instead of 2 - it makes biological and social sense. Big pain to have half our anglers fishing in Michigan waters where there's a different bag. I personally am a bit bummed that Illinois is remaining at 2, for anybody fishing the tri-state area, it would have been nice to not worry about differing lake trout bags.

Ed, I'm not sure to which rehabilitation goal numbers you are speaking. Indiana generally does not hit the targets in the plan for either spring assessment densities or fall spawner assessment, particularly with wild fish. Indiana is also not a targeted rehabilitation area. With regard to Indiana in 2016, Indiana was actually the only one to NOT hit the general goal of 50 lake trout per 1000 feet of gillnet in the fall. Some of that is due to the quirks of sampling, Indiana is the only state with no waters over around 70 feet or so - sampling in the fall can be hit or miss when the water temps depend so much on weather, and we have no ideal lake trout spawning habitat. Compared to other states that have lots of deep water spawning habitat. We have very little wild reproduction (that we've found) happening in Indiana. Lots of wild fish during the year, which probably come from the reefs in Illinois. But when you do surveys at Michigan City or Port of Indiana in the fall, there's very few mature spawners that are wild.

Or maybe you are referring to something else entirely, if so I apologize

This latest go-round of mass marking data showed another increase in wild lake trout lakewide in 2017, up to around 30%. I expect that trend to continue, especially as wild reproduction seems to be on the upswing and there have been some cuts to lake trout stocking

Specifically for Ben, but maybe of interest to all. Somehow I was under the understanding that lakers by the ton used to spawn on the Indiana Shoals area off Lake County and on into IL. I used to regularly fish with guys who were adults in the 40s and hung around the Calumet Harbor area in the 30s. They told me "in the fall, when the lake trout were spawning out on the shoals, the Camelick boats would come back into the river with their decks piled butt-deep with trout." (Camelick was a major commercial company back in the day.

Anyway, I was of the opinion the spring laker fishing we now have on the Shoals from the Gong to the Wreck was due to trout moving up onto the Shoals to spawn and then staying all winter into spring because of the gobies.

Yes, I believe the shoals were a spawning ground back in the day. Mussels/cladophora changed that ballgame.

Remember, there's a difference between "spawning" and "producing young that survive". Lots of spawning activity happens in our water of Lake Michigan (likewise for the salmonids in the creeks, they all go through the motions of spawning, but are not very successful) but there isn't much *successful* spawning.

I suspect that if there is successful spawning of lake trout anywhere in Indiana, it's on the shoals.

Some really cool new work using underwater remote operated vehicles and cameras has found that on offshore Illinois reefs, the lake trout are now successfully spawning on piles of dead quagga mussel shells. In some ways, I think the shells are a lot like the gravel and cobble that the lakers spawned on pre-mussel invasion. It just took a long time to accumulate lots of dead shells in some areas and the fish to find them and start using them. My hunch is that between feeding on so many gobies and taking advantage of new spawning habitat, we're going to see continual increases in wild lake trout.

I'm not sure what the current situation is with the substrate on the shoals and if there are any areas that have un-fouled spawning substrate, or piles of dead mussel shells like the offshore reefs.

We're hoping to get a new boat, which will allow us to sample areas that we have not sampled in a long time. I'd really like to sample the Indiana shoals and the New Buffalo reef in the fall to see if there are mature wild fish using those areas to spawn

I read some years ago that the walleye spawn at Lake Erie improved when spawning on the limestone reefs with mussel shells. Also important for the hatch is enough current to move the waste products from the mussel bed so not to kill the hatch.

Bruce