Fishing Forum

Pat and Chris,
thank you both for taking the time to educate us on Willard Bay Walleye.

Willard has become my home waters and I spend a lot of time there both from shore and boat.

I have mixed feelings about the inlet and I will rely on the Division to do what is best there.
[signature]

[quote dubob]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]There is a ton of evidence available to the contrary, but none of it will change your opinion about it. So it isn't worth my time to show you the evidence when I know up front it will fall on deaf ears.

[/#800000][/font][/quote]

Bob, you call it the way you see it. I like that.[]
[signature]

It's quite obvious that what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears as well, if you would really listen to what I'm saying you would look at it differently. However, you choose to not use any common sense toward the issue of disturbing the walleye spawn. It's all about allowing the walleye to spawn without disruption, is it really that hard for you to get it?
[signature]

[quote perchound]It's quite obvious that what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears as well, if you would really listen to what I'm saying you would look at it differently. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]No, I would not. I hear exactly what you are saying and fully comprehend what it means to you. However, Sir, you are dealing strickly on emotions, not facts. It has already been scientifically proven and so stated that the spawn in the channel is 100%, absolutely, a wasted effort by the fish. Science has proven that 99.9% (well, maybe as low as 99.5% []) of the eggs deposited in the channel will NOT be fertilized. Therefore, comma, fishing -or NOT fishing - in the channel will have absolutely zero effect on the overall walleye spawn in Willard as a whole. And if you weren't so tied up in your emotions over this issue, you would listen to the facts and act accordingly. As the old saying goes, the truth will set you free. And the facts will tell you the truth.[/#800000][/font]

However, you choose to not use any common sense toward the issue of disturbing the walleye spawn. It's all about allowing the walleye to spawn without disruption, is it really that hard for you to get it? [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Again, the facts do NOT support your emotions on this issue. Disrupting the spawn in the channel will NOT have ANY impact on the success of the spawn for the reservoir as a whole. Those are facts and no amount of emotional posturing by you and others on this board is going to change that. Your emotions on this issue will not let you listen to any other outcome except the channel must be closed.[/#800000][/font][/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Nice try, but MY common sense is exactly where it needs to be. And that is looking at the FACTS and forming MY opinions based on those FACTS and NOT my emotions.[/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Come up with some FACTS that prove my facts are wrong, and I'll be happy to listen. Nothing wrong with my ears that my $8,000 set of hearing aids won't cure! [cool][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]
[/#800000][/font]
[signature]

IS THAT A FACT!

Dubob, you are so full of yourself that you fail to hear or see anything other than what you choose to. There's your FACTS!
[signature]

People fish crappie ,trout,perch,everyother fish while spawning.I say let them fish the canal,maybe put a slot or size limit during walleye spawn to protect the females.The dwr job is to provide quality fishing opportunitys and sell license to keep fishing and hunting alive.I have a boat and can catch alot of walleye after the spawn,where other anglers might not have.Utah has great fishing and i think the dwr does a great job of supplying opportunitys,that said they have meetings and they are not beyond reproach.The issue i have had fishing early walleye at willard is water level.I would like to ask why has willard always so low during the walleye spawn?I have fished willard off the dike for over 30 years and it seems like now all the walleye run up the river to spawn.Why is willard not full like pineview to have more spawning area?I know willard is fuller than the past years, but there have been many years lately that no dike rocks are even in the water.The north side of the inlet as next to the main lake is a forest now,it was never like that in the past.I have a a theory that because of low water years few walleye spawn in the main lake anymore.I dont like combat fishing so i dont fish in the canal,but i have seem to have lost fishing the spawn in the main lake one of my very favorite things to do.I am not a biologist and would like a dwr biologist to respond about willard water levels concerning early main lake walleye.
[signature]

[quote fishroof]

The issue i have had fishing early walleye at willard is water level.I would like to ask why has willard always so low during the walleye spawn?I have fished willard off the dike for over 30 years and it seems like now all the walleye run up the river to spawn.Why is willard not full like pineview to have more spawning area?

[/quote]

Welcome fishroof and thanks for posting. Willard Bay, like almost all reservoirs in Utah were built for water storage for culinary water, irrigation or flood control. The water level is maintained based upon these higher needs and mother nature, not for the benefit of anglers. Keeping water in the higher elevation reservoirs allows the maximum opportunity to use the water for culinary or irrigation later in the year.
[signature]

[quote perchound]IS THAT A FACT!

Dubob, you are so full of yourself that you fail to hear or see anything other than what you choose to. There's your FACTS![/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Nice comeback. Full of wisdom, intelligence, and wit. You've beaten me into submission. You da man Perchound![/#800000][/font]

[signature]

Hi Bob -
I have read Chris's report and the comments on this thread. If I understand correctly half the Walleye netted are from the egg hatching program by DWR and other half are from natural spawned surviving fry. The report said that over 140M eggs are deposited around the shorelines by the fish (meaning not just the channel). I am assuming that your point is that of the naturally spawned serviving fry, most of them are coming from shoreline eggs and not necessarily from the channel. Is that correct? You also stated that of the Walleye that actually attempt to spawn in the channel, 99.5% of those will not be furtilized. I think I understand your point that the channel it's self is not the major producer of naturally surviving fry, but I am an currious as to why you say that of those going up the channel less than 1% will be fertilized? Thanks for any clarification you want to give. I am somewhat new to this body of water but I want to understand the issues.
[signature]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]When the channel was opened to fishing (from shore only, as boats are never allowed up the channel), there were some heated discussions on BFT over this issue. DWR personnel weighed in with the science behind their deciding to open it along with the survey data they collected that supported that decision. The science presented back then was that the channel bottom environment (silt) was NOT conducive to a successful fertilization of ANY deposited eggs. In other words, NONE of the eggs would ever survive in that environment. In other words, the fish spawning in the channel do NOT produce any offspring. Allowing fishing there during the spawn will have NO impact on new fish production. Those are the facts that Perchound and others refuse to accept. Close it, or don’t close it; it will not have an impact on the overall population of the walleye population in Willard. I vote for keeping the channel open to allow LEGAL fishermen, women, and children, an opportunity to LEGALLY catch a walleye from shore. I have not, do not, and will not ever condone illegal snagging.[/#][/font]
[signature]

Thanks for sharing this TD.


Thanks to Chris for a well written, informative and patient response to a fickle fishing public! Keep up the good work[]
[signature]

The science behind the decision to leave the inlet open is that any fishing and/or harvest will have a negligible impact on walleye numbers in the reservoir. In other words, scientifically there is no reason to shut it down. Reasons to shut the inlet down to fishing would be purely social reasons. Personally, I have always believed that unnecessary regulations should be avoided.
[signature]

Welcome to the site fishroof. Not sure if you are responding to me or what but since I never said anything about not having the channel open, I'm going to assume you are just making your comment to those that don't want the channel open. To answer your other questions, "I would like to ask why has willard always so low during the walleye spawn?". As others have mentioned that is a result of how much water gets used the year prior, because in most years we have not had the full runoff occur when the eyes spawn. Second question,"Why is willard not full like pineview to have more spawning area?". This has been answered as well but I'll repeat that answer and add a little, first Pineview is a smaller lake than Willard, so it fills faster but in general, the folks that monitor water levels in our lakes always fill the upper lakes first before filling the lower lakes. You made several other statements that I think are incorrect but I understand that is your point of view. Good luck with your eye fishing at Willard this year.
[signature]

That is such a heated discussion and I believe that the walleyes that spawn in the channel really do nothing to contribute to the overall addition of grown up walleyes in Willard Bay. No argument there Dubob. I do have a problem with people taking out fish that they have snagged and taking more then the limit. I think that is why people get heated. I go down to inlet often i don't live far and have never really witnessed snagging or really anyone taking over the limit. I have of course heard about it and such. I haven't been down there much in the late evening. maybe that is when it is happening. Its difficult for the DWR to be down in the evening with all of their other duties. Why not close the inlet say at 8pm until 6 am or something like that. It would allow people to fish the inlet but maybe get us out of this heated topic and the DWR would be able to govern it better. I wish there was a great solution to appease everyone but that is impossible
[signature]

Goose716-
Thats the BEST solution I've heard in awhile! Close it down at sunset re-opens at sunrise!!!!!!!!!

Just like Lucerne Bay in protecting spawning lake trout from being snagged.
People who fish honestly can still go after it and the snaggers go home packing..

Lets turn this into something positive by providing solutions to the issues!

Great suggestion......
[signature]

See what ya went and started WH2, lol. The annual BFT Willard walleye debate. Thanks Chris for your informed and learned response. Always good to hear from someone in the know.
I have a question--why doesn't the DWR just collect the fish from the inlet for the eggs and save some of those big fish from being snagged? Seems like it would be easier to net or trap them there than anywhere else on the lake. That way all those eggs don't go to waste and some of those big females can go back in the lake instead of a snaggers bucket. The inlet still remains open and everybody is happy, except of course the snaggers. Does that make sense or are am I missing something here?
[signature]

It's all good, as you said it seems to be an annual thing, the walleye debate, guess it was just my turn to start it off this year[]. On that other thread, a member mentioned that the DWR were collecting the fish from the inlet and saved some of those big fish from being snagged, unfortunately they collected them in a gill net and a lot of them died as a result[]. I liked another members idea, that the DWR should build a fish trap, like they do for the salmon at Strawberry. They could trap the eyes there at the inlet, collect their eggs and milt, then release them. Gill nets to a fine job of catching the fish but a lot more die with that method. I did read that they collect eyes in several locations around the lake, so a more diverse amount of fish can be used, so the fish trap might not be the answer for collecting fish around the entire lake but it would be good way to use those fish that spawn in the inlet.
[signature]

Hi All,

Just a few quick comments. DWR has actually been using hoop nets in the inlet channel to capture fish and not gill nets. See attached for a pic of what a hoop net looks like. These nets funnel fish into them and then hold the fish in the throat of the net until we empty them. There is none of the entangling that is involved with gill nets so these are a great gear for keeping fish alive and in good shape. Hoop nets are most effective in flowing water, so they are rarely employed in lakes and wouldn't be a good alternative to gill nets there. This is our first year using the hoop nets in the inlet and though they've been quite successful, the gill nets in the main reservoir still catch a majority of the fish.

While I have not been out there myself working on the hoop nets, I am in contact with those that have been working them almost daily and have not heard of any walleye mortality associated with these nets. The walleye aren't the only fish utilizing the channel this time of year, so these nets do sometimes have quite a few catfish and other spiny fish in them. I think in those cases some fish do get a little banged up, but they usually recover just fine. We do release fish we catch in these nets, but very few of those have been walleye as most of the walleye we catch are transported to our spawning operation. We do occasionally release male walleye that are surplus to our spawning needs that day, but most of the fish that are released have been catfish, yellow perch, and crappie. Since I was not there to see fish that people think were dead after being caught in these nets, I can't totally dispute those claims, but I think the fish were most likely recovering when released and it took them a while to regain equilibrium after being held in the hoop net and possibly bullied by some catfish.

Regarding utilizing the inlet more. This is a good thought but there are a couple things to consider that limit its utility. First, the inlet is only productive for part of the walleye spawn and the proportion of the walleye population that uses it is considerably less than that of the fish that spawn along the shorelines . With this in mind, relying on the inlet alone would considerably limit our egg take. Second, the inlet is only productive as long as the there is considerable flow going into the reservoir. Our catch of fish usually dries up in the inlet about half way through the spawn, which is another reason we can't rely solely on its use.

Thoughts on a fish trap like at Strawberry - this probably isn't feasible since we're dealing with water that is generally much deeper than that of the river at Strawberry. Second and probably most important, the inlet of Willard is considered part of the critical embankment of the reservoir, which means it would be very difficult for us to justify drilling or digging into the inlet with the federal water authorities and their safety personnel for the sake of netting more fish. It may seem like a small thing, but those authorities are cautious of anything that could even slightly compromise the integrity of the water structures as there is a lot at stake in terms of human safety and water security.
[signature]

Seems it would be pretty simple to stretch a net or fish traps across the entire inlet and eliminate the problem of wasted eggs and snagging. If they are being wasted anyway, and/or snagged, why not net or trap them all? Seems like common cents to me. Hope that play on words doesn't get me called to the carpet by the grammar police--haha. See what else you started....
Like I have suggested to people for a while now--if you are just complaining to hear yourself talk, or post, and don't have any constructive solutions to a problem then that's all it is complaining and nobody wants to hear it so “please don’t complain” []
[signature]

Thanks Chris for that detailed response. That hoop net looks like a great netting system that helps remove most of the mortality associated with gill netting. I had a feeling there was a good reason that a fish trap wasn't being used in the inlet but since I had not read about a proposal like that before, I thought I would bring it up, after another member mentioned it. Projects like that I'm sure would be very expensive and the cost of making a secondary inlet stream and make it shallow enough to be effective, just to catch the smaller numbers of eyes spawning there, would not be worth it from the sounds of it. As you mentioned it's not all up to the DWR anyway, anytime the feds get involved in anything, it can cause a big headache for everyone involved. Thanks for everything you guys do, not only to make Willard a better fishery but to answer our questions.
[signature]