Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

  • Announcements

    • Rick

      Members Only Fluid Forum View   08/08/2017

      Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.   Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view. Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.   The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.   Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.   You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose. This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing. The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page. We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .
Sign in to follow this  
chasineyes

Why do we stock lakes??

Recommended Posts

I was wondering why the DNR stock lakes? I was reading in a weekly outdoors magazine that a lake mentioned in southern mn had excellent reproduction along with other "smaller, pothole" type lakes. It got me thinking about how much stocking has been done on leech in the last 2 years, and I have come up with a theory...MONEY! It's funny how we chastise the government but then ask them to "provide" fish for out catching. Any thoughts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many lakes throughout the state that need to be stocked or there would be no fishing for eyes at all. Not all lakes are good at nature reproduction or can reproduce enough to support the strain placed on the lake by the fisherman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do it because we demanded it. We keep putting pressure on the DNR to provide us with adequate recreational fishing. One method is to use the stocking program. As already mentioned, there are a great many lakes in this state that would not support any walleye population were it not for the stocking program.

Also, some of the more famous walleye waters see more fishing pressure than natural reproduction can support and there too the stocking program helps supplement it. Osakis is a good example. Once considered the mother lake because it supplied many eggs for use in the stocking program but today it sees so much excessive fishing pressure it now must be stocked. There are efforts under way to attempt to improve spawning beds in the hopes of restoring some of the lake's former glory but time will tell.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand that certain lakes are not able to support natural reproduction of certain species, but dont really understand why. I assume it has something to do with the lakes water quality, structure, bottom content, predation, as well as sufficient prey fish. I'm sure its not this simple but why doesnt the DNR work on changing these attributes to support natural reproduction. I know fishing pressure has a lot to do with it also but is this approach too far fetched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand that certain lakes are not able to support natural reproduction of certain species, but dont really understand why. I assume it has something to do with the lakes water quality, structure, bottom content, predation, as well as sufficient prey fish. I'm sure its not this simple but why doesnt the DNR work on changing these attributes to support natural reproduction. I know fishing pressure has a lot to do with it also but is this approach too far fetched?

Some fish species simply cannot reproduce even in a lake that has good forage. It's not that they don't try. They do but without the right conditions it doesnt work. Add in a whole lot of other variables like weather, fish kills, fishing pressure etc then you get something quite complicated to manage.

Lets take for instance the Walleye. Old Marble Eyes need water that has good current & oxygen. River mouths inlets, outlets, wind, weather all play a part. If those requirements arent met the eggs arent able to hatch. Thats why you see eyes do well in rivers and large lakes that are Spring fed.

Panfish on the other hand are notorious breeders. Like the Black Crappie which can quickly overun other species in a lake. They do well whether it shallow & muddy, or clear and sandy. They don't require much except may the right spawning temps and beds for it to all happen. In certain topographical areas like lakes or ponds down in the Southern United states its possible panfish can reproduce several times within the same year.

Without stocking some of the body of waters cannot sustain a certain fish population. Or some waters may never even have that species of fish if not through the stocking program.

Why not just make it fit for reproduction? Number one reason? Its gonna have to be the cost or funds. Trying to obtain or change attributes of a lake without proper research can highly affect that lakes ecosystem and it chances of producing gamefish. It would also be disturbing what nature has shape it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom content also plays a role in spawning environment. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe walleyes require relatively clean gravel bottom. They won't be successful if a lake only has sand or muck bottom. Panfish on the other hand might do well with this type of bottom structure.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read about native fish populations quite awhile ago, if I remember right very few lakes in MN have "native" walleye, or smallmouth populations. Without stocking most walleye lakes would go back to being bass and pike lakes, the smallmouth would probably be okay. I think I also remember reading that tons of our lakes had trout before we started messing with them. I hope someone can confirm or deny what I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'what does well where and why' is much more complex than most even begin to imagine. I have read a number of the research reports on the DNR HSOforum - http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational_reports.html - and have learned that the variables are almost innumerable. I suggest that anyone interested in knowing why things might be the way they are go and read a few of these reports and you will learn a lot.

There will never be enough money to make any lake or stream 'perfect'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand that certain lakes are not able to support natural reproduction of certain species, but dont really understand why. I assume it has something to do with the lakes water quality, structure, bottom content, predation, as well as sufficient prey fish. I'm sure its not this simple but why doesnt the DNR work on changing these attributes to support natural reproduction. I know fishing pressure has a lot to do with it also but is this approach too far fetched?

You could have perfect conditions for a particular species but without spawning habitat you've got nothing. Changing the attributes to support natural reproduction...commendable intentions with disastrous results. If you try to add new habitat and it doesn't take, you've wasted thousands of dollars. Add gravel to a mud lake for walleyes to spawn on? It'll be silted over in no time. It really depends on the species, but if you want to make changes, work to improve shallow water habitats and replant or help recover native plants. Improve water quality and help prevent runoff that may turn the lake green or silt over those preferable spawning habitats. Bass and panfish need gravelly bottoms near vegetation. Pike need wetland complexes. The less homes you see on any given lake with some combination of sandy beaches, freakishly large docks, weed rollers, and rip rapped shoreline means the more likely you are to see native plant communities, natural buffers, and functioning ecosystems that support naturally reproducing fish populations. If you help recover some of the shoreline habitat and things revert back or the land is subdivided, platted, and sold into a bunch of lake homes, then you're back to square one with lots of money wasted. It's easier said than done. The state doesn't control the land and watershed (except in rare instances where they own most of the land), so they have little control over the water since land management decisions have holistic effects on the waterbody. If people want good fishing for the future, something has to be done for our lakes and streams in the uplands and on shore first. That means landowners have to make changes and the general public has to support changes to how our lands are regulated and monitored and exactly to what level of stinginess those regulations are taken to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is this.... The bottom LIne. People in MN want, for the most part, to catch walleyes, People who travel to MN want to catch walleyes. Most lakes, with a few exceptions, south of Millacs do not naturaly reproduce, that leaves half the state with no 'eyes. By stocking eye's in the lakes they make many people happy and make money in the long run.

Spend $$$ to make $$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



  • Posts

    • Very nice photos eyeguy54.
    • Ya he comes home the 29th getting excited for pheasant going to take a trip out to sodak this year Ended up showing a guy from work who is a first time bow hunter a couple of my spots in Sherburne. Was going to walk kunkel after for grouse but it ended up getting too late so just went home. Was hoping for some good weather this weekend but doesn't look too good. Friday is a high of 90! no thanks Maybe I will get a morning sit in for deer hunting if the rain cooperates
    • anybody know what it is?
    • I've been finding a few hens, but nothing like last year (which was great for me).  Here's one that was just shy of ten pounds sitting next to my daughter.
    • You may as well paddle a green kiddie pool around.  Might find one for 50 cents if you look a little. Um, yeah, I've actually seen it done. 
    • Good move!  I'm sure they are thankful! I might've made an offer if I'd seen this before but they'll probably be better used in the organization that received them. Sorry the hear your hunting days are over.
    • There is no way Koivu doesn't get more term and $$ in free agency, not a lot more but he gets more. Marleau is trending down and got more money, Hansel got 750 less and is not in the same league as Koivu. I was hoping for something like 4.5 or 5 but what he got at 2 years is very reasonable. He is a lifelong wild, our captain and a great player, we have no immediate replacement, he makes our team better for the next 3 years be it 1/2/3 center. This isn't something to get upset about, scandella trade sure, aging parise sure but that had to be done, not getting a young center sure but that can sometimes be out of our control because it takes two teams to trade. I get it people are bitter about last year but what fan base isn't bitter about this or that? 
    • I ran 10 gauge wire from my shore or generator feeder to my converter.  Way over kill for a 2000 watt generator but if you ever take it camping or run it off a 3k in the summer it's nice to be wired for the extra wattage.  10 feet of 10 gauge really isn't that much money on the whole project... nice thing about running your inverter directly from the battery and splitting a couple outlets is they are always ready to go.  Just hit the switch on the inverter and you don't have to mess with unplugging and plugging in strings of 110 outlets.  Behind my tv the bottom outlet runs of the Genny and the top runs of the inverter.  Nice thing is if I ever wanted to run the whole 110 system off the inverter I can just run a 6 inch cord with a male plug on each end out the top outlet and into the bottom and power the whole house.
    • This looks like it will work to me. I had thought of doing something similar when I was thinking of going with the inverter, seperate 12v fuse block and onboard charger. Would have wired a "hot" outlet direct from generator. Then ran a piece of romex with a male plug wired onto it and tied the 110v into that. then I could have either plugged that into the "hot" outlet along with the onboard charger, when the generator was running. Or I could have plugged it into the inverter when needing to run off battery power.
    • never been there, have to go!!!   off 10 right???   or where?? thanks!!
  • Our Sponsors