Milfoil & Curly Leaf Pondweed - Closed Public Accesses Put Forward

[Rick]

[For those of you new to the topic 2/25/11: One of the appointees is also the President of the Lobster Lake Association and I believe a officer of the state association. In the article this appointee told the county board "they will likely be asked to support some radical zebra mussel containment ideas, including closing boat accesses. It is certainly time for people to take a close and rational look at the problem.]

I have a special request from someone well versed in fisheries management to post the following:

I'd like people to spread this far and wide, since it impacts us as anglers:

Invasive Aquatic Species Management Statewide Meetings - Click Here

Lots of lake association folks are going to be at these meetings since they are the money and politics behind aquatic invasive plant management.

But in spite of all the nasty things written about Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) and moreso curlyleaf pondweed (CLP), it is essential fish habitat. If anglers don't go to these meetings, they won't have a say in how treatment is done on these lakes. I'd like to see details

Remember when Team Otter went to meetings with the Washington Lake Association on this topic? That is what I'm hoping anglers will do...show up to the meetings and get their voices heard.

Not every single CLP or EWM plant needs to get nuked...they are essential nursery fish habitat and in many lakes, especially southern MN, the only submergent vegetation available to obligate vegetation spawners. In eutrophic and hypereutrophic lakes where vegetation is scarce, it can be the only vegetation available.

CLP is a problem for about one month, then its in various states of senescence for the rest of the year. If you want to add context for why people should attend, feel free to improvise along the lines of vegetation is important to fish

[Nick Kuhn]

They wouldn't be so bad if they were more fishable. Curly leaf pondweed I really have no way to fish. Once in a while I can get a Texas Rig to fall through it but that is rare. Burning a spinnerbait over the top is rarely productive. Overall I just wait until it dies in June. EWM isn't as bad, although when boats make mincemeat of it the water in general becomes a nuisance to fish.

Poisoning weeds is costly and will negatively impact oxygen levels on a lake. Eradication is impossible on most waters, so treatment should be limited to a few areas to allow for access/navigation.

[Wayne Ek]

Rick, here is my problem with the way the DNR is handling "invasive species management". It appears that their hypotheses is that all invasive species are bad and from that hypotheses they have set out not to explore any other conclusion but to simply prove and shore-up their selected hypotheses.

I have found no official study of milfoil, curly leaf or mussels that show them degrading water quality or degrading a fisherie. I have found reports that show all 3-invasive species can be a nuisance to lake shore owners. And that mussels can clog water sprinkler systems and cling to docks. But nothing that says this fishery is degraded and it is because of one of the listed invasive/alien species.

Being the cynic that I am, my guess is that funding and politics play a very big roll in this. Possibly more of a roll than good sound management.

[goblueM]

Wayne,

it's fairly well established that runaway invasive vegetation and zebra mussels have some pretty serious impacts on water quality - especially lowering DO, altering food webs and habitat, and changing water clarity.

for example... Eurasian watermilfoil beds have been shown to harbor fewer macroinverts than native macrophyte communities and have a reduced abundance of native fish species (see Keast 1984: The introduced aquatic macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum as habitat for fish and their invertebrate prey. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 1289-1303.)

Likewise, zebra mussels drastically alter water clarity, and even water chemistry - all the materials to build their shells comes from the water. They also alter the food web, because they consume so much of the base productivity of the aquatic system - as much as 75% of plankton/diatoms. There is also evidence that they impact dissolved oxygen in the water.

There is a fairly large body of literature on the subject, a cursory Google Scholar search brought up hundreds of hits. It's a fantastic way to search scientific literature, you may not be familiar with it. I've selected a couple, linked below

Zebra Mussels in Lake Erie

Short-term study on zebra mussels affecting water quality

Zebra Mussels in Ireland

I could keep listing articles (there's a lot) but I don't really feel like continuing. Some of these impacts are not neccesarily BAD things, they just change the ecosystem of the lake somewhat. It depends on where your values lie - if you're a boater, bass fisherman, panfisherman, lakefront property owner, etc. For some people, milfoil might be great because it helps a particular fish species in that lake, for others, it might impact their favorite fish negatively, or prevent boating or swimming.

I've certainly enjoyed great bass fishing and muskie fishing in lakes with very large milfoil beds. I've also seen some lakes completely consumed by it. As always, it is mighty tough to extend a broad characterization of the effects of one species to an entire ecosystem. Impacts certainly vary from lake to lake and region to region

[bobbymalone]

Quote:

But in spite of all the nasty things written about Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) and moreso curlyleaf pondweed (CLP), it is essential fish habitat.

If it was essential then there wouldn't have been fish before it, and there wouldn't be fish without it.

Making judgements on invasives based on how it helps your fishing is more haphazard than a blanket statement like "invasives are bad".

One could make the argument of the benefits of carp as well, especially in relation to how well they can double my rod over.

[bullhead master]

Have you people lost your mind??? You would like to keep invasives? If you want them go move to the counrty they came from and fish there. They're not natural and were not meant to be here!!! and the fishing is fine without them infact probably better!

[Rick]

BH Master, I respectfully disagree...

First off, how much do we need to spend trying to do the impossible....keep the new weeds out. Do you really believe we can do that? If you do why does it keep spreading despite all the laws, rules, regulations and management designed to stop it?

It's an annual drain on funds, taxes, time and let's not forget the chemical put in our lakes to only manage them at best.

Second:

Walleyes are not native to many lakes they are in.....

Pheasants are not native and the list goes on.....

For anglers, the real question is....are the invasive weeds a help or hindrance to our native fish populations. I suspect they are more help than hindrance with helping fish populations.

I sure don't want my money going to special interest groups to fight invasives that we can't really get rid of anyway, especially if the plant also helps fish populations so they can keep their lakeshore weed free.

[mixxedbagg]

The biggest concern I have about this entire conversation is that the people here who think invasive weeds in our lakes somehow improve them will convince other anglers that there is no need to check their trailers for vegetation, empty the water from their boat, etc. That could potentially result in a GREATER spread of invasive species.

There is plenty of evidence out there that says invasive plants adversely affect aquatic ecosystems in many ways, even if some of you perceive certain benefits that may or may not exist.

[mn_bowhunter]

The problem I see with non-native species is the lack of natural predators in many cases. MN has few eutrophic lakes, and none in the metro as far as I know so the case of there not being vegetation is unlikely. CLP and EWM form dense mats that make angling and recreation more difficult. They also tie up phosphorus making it unavailable to phytoplankton at the bottom of the food chain. When CLP dies off in Julyish there is a release of P that can contribute to algal blooms. Does this mean that they are "bad"? I don't think so in all cases. The problem lies in the fact that each lake is different and some lakes are more prone to infestation and takeover by invasives.

[foulpole18]

I don't think Wayne and Rick are really encouraging people to spread invasives. Let me say that I'm not in favor of them, but spraying them isn't the answer either. Invasives aren't going to be control or exterminated. The best we can do is try prevent further spreading.

The problem with spraying is it kills all weeds in the area. They don't selectively just kill milfoil or curlyleaf. If the lake associations had there way they would spray all the weeds till the were none left. That would be worse than dealing with those weeds.

[delcecchi]

Have you people lost your mind??? You would like to keep invasives? If you want them go move to the counrty they came from and fish there. They're not natural and were not meant to be here!!! and the fishing is fine without them infact probably better!

Better not like smallmouth bass, brown trout, ringneck pheasants, or horses. All are introduced species.

[Wayne Ek]

GoblueM: Most of my on-line research has been via google and invest. reports fisheries (Mn.) I can find and have seen the mentioned reports. I have eye strain from so much time on the computer But I keep running up against the same problem. One early report will come up with a hypotheses and a good arguement for it. Then are report submitted a few years later from a differant venue will say something differant. A good example is a study of diporeia shrimp funded by Michigan. An early study links the decline to zebra mussels, then a new study said possibly it is zebra mussels but now the prim culprit is suspected to be herbicides or pesticides flushed into the system over the years.

I've learned from doing so many investigations over the years that once you latch onto one train of thought rather than letting the investigation take you where it may your going to cause 3 things to happen. (1) waste resources (2)waste time and (3) force you and your team to start all over from scratch.

As you've indicated not all repercussions from invasive/alien species are bad. I'm just extremely concerned that the DNR is not open to a unbias assesment of the problem at this time. And I strongly feel that this is driven by political and monitary pressures, rather than strong scientific data.

[Wayne Ek]

But, the good thing GoblueM is at least on this forum we have a respectful and interesting discussion started. Which in-of-itself could be construed as an invasive or alien on other boards.

[bullhead master]

You don't see Trout, ringneck phesants or horses killing off all of the native species and taking over and causing a mess for people having to spend millions of dollars eradicating them because there wrecking our native biological systems which the ones you stated are not harming much of at all. People are the ones that want those species here and are trying to make them more abundant you don't see a Milfoil forever orginization. I'm just saying do you want OUR lakes as they are or do you want them to be even more favorable to new species like it will soon be we will have the same lakes and organisms as the asian countries.

Might go out white perch fishing tonight in the milfoil beds but I heard the zebra muscles are to bad at the landing and the spiny water fleas are just terrible and the ruffe are just thick in the milfoil beds this time of year , but maybe instead I'll going bowfishing for big head carp. LOL

[bobbymalone]

I agree they can't be stopped once they are in a lake, but I'm certain their spread can be slowed by simple precautions. I am also for combating the problem in some lakes using the tools of the trade.

IMHO embracing the positive effects of the weeds is just plain bad public policy. The only positive benefit as far as I can tell is that those weeds increase fish habitat. That is at the expense of pretty much every other recreational activity that people might want to enjoy on the lake. Plus any kind of effects on the ecosystem and native plants.

Treat them like carp: do what you can to limit their spread, live with it when you have to, deal with it when it becomes a problem.

Smallmouth, brown trout, pheasants, eurasian water milfoil --- don't even try to pass that off as a legitimate comparison.

[mixxedbagg]

Quote:

I don't think Wayne and Rick are really encouraging people to spread invasives.

I understand your point about the spraying and it has merit, but the title of the thread (benefits to fish and anglers?) certainly doesn't encourage people to do everything they can to stop the spread. Nor does referring to invasive species as "essential fish habitat".

[bobbymalone]

"essential fish habitat"

[Wayne Ek]

Mixxedbagg: I didn't see anyone saying that invasive/alien species are good. What the discussion is about, is are they good or bad? And then where and what is the supporting evidence for that conclusion.

If they are bad, then what is the most cost effective way to control them, as one train of thought now say's that you can not eradicate them at this point. Then you have to ask yourself is that true, are they here to stay. Since resourses (money,time & man-hours) are finite, how much do we do or not do... as to not be poring water down the proverbial rat hole.

And if it where to be determined that they are not that bad or heaven forbid, that they could actually play a positive role in fisheries management, then what. We have lost time and money.

These types of issues have the capability to generate a lot of emotion from various competing user groups. The "sky is falling... the sky is falling" is one of those emotions. The "leave them alone there is nothing wrong with a little bio-diversity" is the other. My guess is that a satisfactory outcome both emotionally, scientifically and budgetary is someplace in-between.

[mixxedbagg]

??

My only point was that we still need people to do everything they can to keep this stuff from infesting new lakes. Convincing people that invasives are potentially beneficial habitat for gamefish (as several statements in this thread do) is a recipe for reducing people's vigilance and potentially inviting spread that would not have happened otherwise. THAT, would be an avoidable tragedy.

[bobbymalone]

that they could actually play a positive role in fisheries management, then what.

When you are talking about the entirety of the lake's ecosystem and all of its recreational uses, I don't think gamefish habitat should be at top of that list.

Can anyone name another potential benefit to any of these invasive weeds other than fish habitat?

[PurpleFloyd]

It appears to me that the DNR classifies a species as invasive only when they are not the ones initiating the invasion.

In the end the cost effective answer to invasive weed control will happen when someone figures out how to harvest it and turn it into ethanol.Then the Government will fund him to make it..........

[bullhead master]

When you are talking about the entirety of the lake's ecosystem and all of its recreational uses, I don't think gamefish habitat should be at top of that list.

Can anyone name another potential benefit to any of these invasive weeds other than fish habitat?

Thank you bobby

Game fish are just a speck of what happens in a water ecosytem what about the bacteria and the diatoms and microrganisms that are effected by the changes in water chemistry which eventually decrese the amount of game fish or a total change in the type of fish that inhabit the lake.

[goblueM]

As you've indicated not all repercussions from invasive/alien species are bad. I'm just extremely concerned that the DNR is not open to a unbias assesment of the problem at this time. And I strongly feel that this is driven by political and monitary pressures, rather than strong scientific data.

There is definitely political and monetary pressure, as managing fisheries is equal parts managing fish, managing habitat, and managing people. In fact seems like more and more of fisheries mgmt is trending toward managing human behavior more and more. If it was just about managing fish and habitat, it'd be a whole lot less complicated

pretty good discussion going on in here, i'd say it definitely qualifies as exotic, if not invasive

[DTro]

??

My only point was that we still need people to do everything they can to keep this stuff from infesting new lakes. Convincing people that invasives are potentially beneficial habitat for gamefish (as several statements in this thread do) is a recipe for reducing people's vigilance and potentially inviting spread that would not have happened otherwise. THAT, would be an avoidable tragedy.

Notice the question mark at the end of the title. It's not a statement.

Talk to one group in the DNR they will be on one side, talk to the another group and they see things differently. In general we are a fishing group here and most would agree that we are in favor of what is best for the fishery.

The discussion generated here is about the fishery and how some of these "invasives" could benefit a lake in regards to fish. We could all probably agree that in terms of pure recreation, sugar sand and weed free would be best, but you might be hard pressed to find any fish in there.

Some of these lake associations would like nothing better than to see that.

This thread is more of a PSA about the upcoming meetings and to get involved if you have some concerns.

[Tom7227]

Sorry but I have to disagree on curly leaf pondweed. I live on Bald Eagle and the area lake owners association has spent 11+ years and many thousands of dollars to limit it. Prior to the effort the lake would go green by early to mid-June and be an ugly stinking mess for July and August. The amount of phosphorus that comes off when the stuff dies out was just terrible. Over the past 3 years using chemical control it has made a tremendous difference and the lake is once again much more clear and doesn't green up until late July or August.