Iowa DNR Plans To Limit Walleye and Sauger Catch

A fishing buddy from down south (IA) said that he had heard the following info on the 6 o’clock news tonight… Wonder if anyone has any additional insight? No indication of what dam(s)/pool(s) they have under consideration and no news releases on the DNR website… Thought it would stir some discussion on the FTR site…
Barc

Link

DNR Plans To Limit Walleye and Sauger Catch
Wednesday, December 25, 2002, 5:22:26 PM

(Bellevue-AP) — The Iowa Department of Natural Resources plans to restrict the amount of walleyes and saugers fishermen can pull out of the Mississippi River.

The agency plans to cut the daily bag limit nearly in half.

It also plans to stop the winter practice of fishing for the two popular game species in the tail waters below at least one dam.

The DNR says the moves are part of an effort to combat declining populations of the fish.

Copyright The Associated Press

What Iowa is proposing is to shut down Bellvue dam the first year to winter walley/sauger fishing and put in effect a combo six fish limit with a slot limit of 21 to 27 inch release with a 13 inch min for Sauger and only one fish over 27 inches! This could go into effect Jan 2004 and they are going to try for July 2003 to open up for discussion. After 2004 year they will see how this has improved the fishing at Bellview and will then impose no winter fishing on other dams! This info is from a article in cedar rapids gazzete today so it looks like there will be some changes and I just hope its for the best!

I think it is long over do to put a length limit on sauger and I like the slot limit on sauger also. Too many times I’ve see people keeping those little cigars, I say let them grow up. My 2 cents worth

I wonder how or if this will affect anglers from Ill. Will Ill. adopt the same rules?

I may be wrong, but didn’t the article state that the changes were made in conjunction with what border states were also going to do? If so, I’d say Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois are going to do the same thing. Makes sense.

It’s about time the Iowa DNR started putting some reasonable limits on the fish coming out of the big river. It wouldn’t hurt if they’d start to manage the lake limits a little more aggressively too. I don’t think they should stop with walleye and sauger. Panfish, in my opinion, haven’t recovered to where they were prior to 1993. Once they open this issue for comment, my comments will be along the line of this post.

I agree that imposing some length limits on the Sauger harvest would be a step in the right direction. There are way too many small Saugers kept by the greedy meat hunters that don’t want to have anything to do with prudent catch and release practices. I firmly believe that this has affected the fishing on some of the “southern pools”, and has spurred me to come north to fish pool 4 when I could have stayed closer to home.
As far as a winter ban in the tailwaters goes, I for one would like to see the stricter length and daily limits given a chance first to see if these succeeed in turning it around before we shut down fall and winter fishing below dams. This is just My “two cents worth”.
Brian

I doubt that Minnesota will be involved since they don’t border Iowa on the Miss. If John Pitlo would come into this thread, I have a couple of questions for him.
First I want to say that as far as I’m concerned these new rules won’t affect me because I already have stricter size and poss. limits that I impose on myself and I very seldom fish the tailwaters of any dam except for the shallower areas.
?-1, Where would this cut off area be located and how will people recognize it?
?-2, How does the DNR intend to enforce these new rules? I myself have not seen a warden on the river in better than 4-5 years. As spread out as they are now, they will be too busy in the woods and fields with hunters and poachers to ever be able to spend the needed time on the water to enforce these new regulations.
I realize this is still in preliminary planning stage, but looking into my crystal ball I can see some of the following taking place:
So what if they close one dam’s tailwaters, that will just move the fishermen to others and put more pressure on those.
Some will just give up on fall and winter eyes since they can’t fish their favorite area. Ok by me if that’s what they end up doing.
Some will go to the Minn-Wisc portion of the Miss. if they really feel the tailwaters is the only place they can catch fish. I don’t think either of those states care for that much more pressure.
I have to say I’ve followed John Pitlo’s studies and other work and I trust him in his concern for the resource. I see good things coming out of this if we all give it a chance to succeed.

In the paper it wasn’t John Pitlo’s proposal of a 13 inch limit on saugers but an other fisherman’s suggestion that the C.R. Gazzette interviewed. ” I’m all for it though ”
I would like to see marker bouy’s designating the deep off limit area’s up in the dam & possibly down river too in some deep holding areas. “John”

I think the slot limit would be great. As a rule I don’t keep any walleye over 20 inches but I do see several going under the knife each year that are smack dab in the middle of that 21-27 inch slot. I think it will take a united effort between WI, MN, IA and IL DNR to accomplish the changes that were proposed, especially the season closure.
Barc

Some more food for thought;
Down here in S.E. Ia., we are getting close to the snagging time for spoonbill up at the dam, which is where 99% if it is done. Will this off limits area include all fishing for all species? There are a lot of game fish snagged during this time.

it’s about time,tired of watching people filling their minnow buckets with limits of sauger.this is long overdue…..

What about the fishing floats below dams, if no fishing tail waters ?

I wrote a book in response to this post, but probably for the best I lost my connection and it never got sent.

Here is the first and most important part of all of that post. As a person with some Native American Ancestry,(let nature handle nature), I will repeat what I have said at past public hearings. New fishing regulations or policies, ESPECIALLY ONES OF PROHIBITION, should automatically expire on a date that is included in the original regulation, and include a mandate and funding to insure constant monitoring. Secondly the DNR fisheries experts sould have the ability when and if it is obvious that either the prohibition is no longer needed or worse yet is actually damaging , that a simple process be included so that the regulation can be suspended immediately.

Secondly with regards to whether this regulation is needed or not
the fisherman part of me reminds me that, that’s what I am a fisherman not a fisheries biologist. I trust those that are, to make wise decisions . I had already in reponse to an email from John last spring mentioned that the last few years has seen less and less sauger activity. Two or three years ago the Genoa National Fisheries techs were asking us everydayers to bring them some spawn size male saugers , because they were having a very hard time netting enough for the first time in a lot of years. I haven’t been around them the last couple years to see if it is still as bad a problem. I did pass on to John this fall through mutual freinds that the sauger finally did show up late in the spring and again this fall ,but in much smaller numbers and size. If he has talked to me I trust that he and other fisheries have talked to 100s if not 1000s of others, and added it to whatever science is available, and their own personal fishing experience to arrive at this decision.

It is my opinion though that the only time I can see this making any big difference up our way is when there is safe ice below the dam and hundreds come out to fish,(late December through early February), not just the few boats that are up there if the water is open.

Maybe I can help clear up some of the confusion. The following regulations changes have been PRPOPOSED (this means there will be public hearings before ANY changes are made). These (or some of them) will also be enacted by other border states (ie Ill and WI).

1. a reduction in daily bag from 10 to 6 for any combination of walleye and sauger (possession from 20 to 12). Considered by all three states (IA,ILL, WI)
2. Walleye will maintain the current 15 inch minimum, and in addition, fish in the 20-27 inch range will be protected from harvest. An angler will be allowed to keep 1 fish over 27 inches if they catch a fish to mount, etc. The purpose of this regulation is to enhance egg production since nearly 75% of the walleye eggs are produced by fish in this length range.
3. To close the walleye/sauger fishing in the tailwaters of locks and dams from Dec.1 through March 15. It would be an area of about 1/2 to 3/4 mile below the locks and each area would be signed. The purpose for this regulation is to reduce the total annual mortality on sauger which has averaged nearly 75-80% since 1996 in Pools 11 and 13 (Guttenburg and Bellevue). We believe that we must lower the sauger total mortality into the 50-60% range. We think a large part of the increased mortality we have documented in the last 6 years is due to catch and release during the winter period when fish are in water 30+ feet in depth. Fish caught and released from this depth or deeper will have swim bladders or inverted stomachs protruding from their mouth or out of a gill. We believe this catch and release has caused the total mortality to increase to the present levels. On nice winter days, anglers commonly catch and release 100+ small sauger in order to catch 5-8 fish that are large enough to keep.

There are still some unknowns. Exactly which locks and dams will be included is uncertain. Most bordering IA-ILL will probably have these regulations. As many of you know – sauger and walleye in the more northerly pools have not seen the problems we have documented in Pools 11 and 13. It is uncertain if WI will opt to close winter fishing in pools where they share a common border with IA. In that case – the regs will probably be in effect from Dubuque dam south. WI is not in favor of the 20-27 inch protected slot for walleye – so this regulation may be in effect from Dubuque south also, or at the very least – put it out as a question to their conservation congress meetings this summer or fall.
In any event – non of this will happen until Jan 1, 2004 at the very earliest.

Also- at present there is nothing on the board for lenth limits for sauger. And if there were considerations for sauger length limits – I would tend to favor those protecting fish above 15 or 16 inches because these are the spawners and I believe protecting spawning populations should recieve top priority.

During the time these regulations are in effect – studies would continue as we have done in the past to make sure that the regulations changes are resulting in the desired effects.

I would like to point out a couple of fallacies in fishsqzr’s posting. He states, ” We think a large part of the increased mortality we have documented in the last 6 years is due to catch and release during the winter period when fish are in 30+ feet in depth”. I have fished the Guttenburg area for the last eight years and have not seen one fish that has had it’s stomach protruding their mouth or gills. Guttenburg does not have 35+ ft. of fishable water.I hope the DNR have studies to prove the mortality is caused from this and not the ” We think – WE believe “. If WI does not close the river and IA does, think of the pressure this is going to put on the WI dams.
Also I don’t understand WI not wanting a slot limit on walleyes, when you state, if a lenght limit is concidered for sauger you would favor 15 or 16 inches to protect the spawners. What’s wrong with protecting the walleye spawners?
We need to do something to make the fishing better and it should be up and down the river, not just the IA side, and let’s do it on studies that show they help and not the ” We think – We believe”.

I don’t think that slot limit proposed is low enough. Get it down lower for a couple of years and then take another look at the situation. Then slowly adjust the gap if needed or not needed. You are on the right track Barc.

Hi Jack….
I think therefore I believe…..
and what Johns post says makes total sense to me….. I also think too many saugers are killed from people fishing the scour holes below dams, Ive seen it day in and day out… and its easy for a boat to pull in 100 fish… on pool 2 the numbers I have been told are 100 fish per person… (I can only take their word, I wont join the slaughter).. these fish are very often taken out of not just 30+ feet… but frequently 40 and 50 and even deeper at times….. Ive heard even 70!!.. fish from these kinds of depths have little to NO chance of survival… Ive talked to some of the anglers doing it and been told that eagles have to eat too…. I think this is a VERY short sighted way of thinking… imagine the harm being done if there are just 10 anglers a day doing this…. think of the numbers of fish killed…. it does not take a math major to come up with scary numbers of fish….. I start seeing deep water affects on fish right around 30 feet…. but I think that maybe they are ok if you quickly release them… after 35 feet the affects get progressivly worse and I would not give a fish a lot of chance for survival after being released… 2 factors are against them… the pressure is greater.. and it takes more time to real them in and for them to get back down…. at some point your looking at nearly total mortality… and then catch and release makes as much sense as a shoot and release season for deer……. (it just dont work that way!)
I wish and hope the scour hole limit is propagated up the entire river… I find that starting in January the fish are settled into their deep water holes… they seem to back out of them in March…. in my experience… so I would be ok with a January to March tailwater closure…. it would be great if people just stopped fishing the deep water on their own…. but they wont… so we have a relatively small group of anglers killing a large number of fish that otherwise would develop into a spawning population……
personally I would even suppor a total catch and release scenario during the times fish congregate below the dams……

Rivereyes, it seems to me that a catch and release scenario below the dams would be the worst thing that could happen. Instead of catching a few keepers and getting off the river they would now keep catching and releasing in the deeper water killing more and more fish. Sometimes I wonder if catch and release can be our own worst enemy. Is the guy who goes out and catches his limit and goes home more harmful to the fishery than the guy who goes out and catches 200 fish and releases them? I don’t think there is an easy answer. If the fishery is truly hurting I think a closed season from January up to the point where they spawn is absolutely essential.

hmmm guess I did not make THAT clear… catch and release in deep water should NOT be allowed… not EVER….

I totally agree with you and anyone on that point…. when and where the fish are deep fishing should be closed…..

my catch and release comment would be catch and release imposed instead of a slot size limit… and in combination with total closure of the dam tailwaters ( the deep water scour hole)… this to take place during the cold periods of the year when the fish normally congregate below the dams……

I have no idea how bad the pressure is anywhere except pool 4… there was once a study done of walleye/sauger location in response to the temp difference because of the nuclear plant just above the pool 4 dam… and it showed no variance of location…. BUT… one thing the increased temps DO accomplish is make pool 4 available for open water angling virtually ALL year long…. if it wasnt for the remarkable population of fish in this pool this would be a VERY bad thing… still I would like to see the scour hole closed on pool 4… its not unusual to see 10-15 anglers/day fishing the scour hole… and using THEIR estimate of 100 fish/day this would yeild casulties in the 1000-1500 fish per day range… lets say 30,000 per month… and during jan-feb the months most likely to be deep water bites your talking 60,000 fish…. just think if they were give a chance to reach a 15″ size and spawn……

now these “estimates” of mine are very unscientific and only circumstantially factual (based on catch rate hearsay)…. still its a no brainer that many fish are killed when brought out of these deep holes….. as people who are interested in protecting our river resource I cant imagine why we all would not support closure of these “holes”… we have little to loose and much to gain….

HI RiverEyes:
Maybe you can answer a question for me. Guttenburg has a higher mortality rate then Bellevue, but Guttenburg’s fishable waters are 35ft and less and I have never seen a stomach protruding from their mouths. Bellevue has 40 to 50 ft of fishable water; so why is the mortality greater at Guttenburg???
I like your statement: “I think therefore I believe”: but the DNR should know through studies before they make new fishing rules. I also have a copy of a study where black sea bass were caught at 140 to 170 feet and had a 61% survival rate. If the fish can swim to the bottom it recompress it’s self, if it floats on it’s side it may take up to 72 hours before regaining neutral buoyancy and is vulnerable to predation and adverse environmental conditions.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for whatever it take to improve the fishery, but I think the DNR should have the proof from studies that their proposal will work and with WI not agreeing with IA tells me something.

hi Jack…
there a few things I readily admit….
Ive not seen the mortality figures for Gutenburg or Belvue, and I dont know how they were arrived at… (maybe they were done by different people at different times? or maybe its natural variance and is statistically insignificant?)

I dont know the depths of water that are present there…

I dont know how many anglers fish these areas…..

I dont fish those tail waters and never have during the cold periods….

what I DO know is

that there is considerable fishing pressure on pool 4 in water depths of not just 30+ feet but 40+ feet……. Ive heard and seen people in the 70 + water….

sauger are NOT sea bass…
I know that you can take a lake trout out of 200 feet of water… with NO problem… they have a valve that relieves pressure in the swim bladder……

Ive seen small fish have a tougher time returning to the depths than larger fish because they dont have as much power the larger fish are kept and the smaller fish are tossed….

I start to see swim bladders out the mouth of sauger and walleye at or near the 30 foot depth range and it seems worse if the depths are deeper…

Ive seen small fish that CANT even swim down, they are dead for SURE… and Ive seen MANY fish that have trouble returning to the depths…….

Ive read that the fish suffer crush damage on their internal organs due to the expanded swim bladder and that the longer that happens the more likely it is to be fatal (makes sense, the heart for instance is one organ that dont function to well when being crushed)

what I know is that there is more than a reasonable amount of mortality associated with catching sauger from 35+ feet of water… does it matter if the number is 100 percent of 50%? because if the numbers of fish caught are 100/ angler the total loss of fish is considerable….. you can read Everts report right now on pool 4.. some anglers are catching 200 fish per day…. I dont know how many of these people are fishing the deep water… but soon most of them will be… the sauger pile into that scour hole and sit there for the winter months of january and february and you can fish that hole everyday and pull LOTS of small saugers…. out of DEEP water…. and its legal to release them and keep fishing… even though you are killing way more than your limit of fish on a daily basis….
I think catch and release angling is a good thing… BUT if the fish die after release its a bad thing because it become wanton waste of the resource…….

and finally I admit that anglers fishing this scour hole on pool 4 when they KNOW that the mortality is very high is a very sore subject with me….. and I KNOW that many of them KNOW… Ive sat on the water and spoke with them… and Ive talked with them in person off the water to try and educate them.. the typical response I get is “I buy a fishing license so that money is used to restock and manage the river”… I guess a fishing license IS a license to kill… but it shouldnt be a license to put your head in the sand and continue to destroy a resource instead of nuture it….. its our job and responsibility as anglers to do our best to not just protect but sponsor philosophies that improve the quality of our fishing… we shouldnt be exploiting loopholes and doing things that we KNOW are bad…..
Jack.. are you telling me that you dont believe that significant mortality is associated with removing sauger and walleye from 30+ feet of water??? Im SURE there are studies that prove differently.. I guess I will pursue them so that we can have the facts before us….. there are always people who doubt… and thats not a bad thing… but IF its a proven fact that fish die when removed from these depths… then I think doubt is a bad thing….
sorry for the length of this.. but this IS a subject that Im pretty passionate about and like Ive mentioned before.. its a sore subject with me…. I HOPE that this very same resolution is adopted for pool 4…. pool 2 is already catch and release and the dam there has NO water close to that depth… pool 3 has limited availability (because of ice and the season closes the same as inland waters) during the cold months and again is also shallow….. but pool 4 is DEEP and AVAILABLE and needs protection…..

RiverEyes.. I think we are on the same page but are talking about different pools. What I am saying, I don’t believe there is a significant mortality associated with the gas bladder in walleyes and saugers taken from 35 and less feet of water. ( Guttenburg ).
If you are serious about pursuing the facts about gas bladders, size limits and daily limits, you can find them in NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, any university library should have these books.

Hi Jack….
sounds like we are pretty close… Im not sure how much mortality is associated in the 30-35 foot range….. thats what I would like to know.. I have had some fish not make it back down when fishing in those depths… they were small perch…. fish of walleye size seemed able to make it back down.. and hopefully were then ok….. but I done know how you could actually research that in the field!….
I guess my degree is too old (kind of like me!).. I dont have that book in my personal library… and I would imagine it would be a required study for Fisheries and Wildlife degrees….. so I guess I will locate that book… and see what the availability of papers on the subject are….
thanks

RiverEyes… Actual research has been done in the field but I have not seen one on walleyes and saugers. In the research, fish where collected with their stomachs in their mouths, fish were marked, than put in a weighted net and lowered to bottom. After 4 days the net was raised. I’m sure there were some fish dead from the stress of being in the net. The only other test would be to decompress them in an laboratory.
Anyway good luck fishing…I’m going fishing.

The MN DNR has shown that the number of spawners has very little relationship to the number of young produced (at least on Pool 4). It’s not good to use this arguement when wanting to decrease mortality of spawning sized, or even smaller, walleye and sauger.

Hi topwater….
perhaps you are right….
but fish that exist dont have to be spawned… these are mostly young fish that are not ready to spawn anyway….
so its best not to remove them from the ecosystem before they ever get a chance…. then they will continue to exist.. and grow…. subject to natural mortality of course…….
and Im not totally sold on the “spawning population makes no difference” theory….. I think they say it may not be the main factor… but since at any given time its pretty difficult to actually assess the spawning population, their conclusion may be based on spawning success vs environmental factors…..
all I know is that I enjoy eating walleye as much as anyone…. but I enjoy fishing for them much more than I like eating them…..

I think that topwater is moving to the second part of the new regs – the slot limit. I think that everyone here is now in agreement that hooking mortality due to fishing the deep water of the scour hole is bad – although some of us who fish pool 11 are wondering where the DNR is finding people fishing in >35ft. I have buzzed the dam a few times in summer, and cannot find more than about 32. I would have guessed that with the low water levels in winter, hooking mortality on 11 defies the laws of physics.

I’m sure, however, that when the DNR presents their detailed plan for public comment, they will also provide whatever data available to back their claims. I know that DNR insiders in the past have more or less told me that imposed limits have more to do with the fishermen than the fish – i.e. the fishermen cry out for the DNR to “do something” and in response, they impose new regs that will likely have no impact on fishing (panfish limits were the specific topic of the conversation).

What topwater is trying to say is, how can the DNR propose that we protect the spawners when previous studies and all available information show that it will have no impact? They will obviously have to address this in their full proposal, and I would suggest that we wait to hear from them before we go off on a half-cocked rant about how this is good/bad/indifferent/etc based on the output of the rumor mill.

Personally, I would prefer an honest, “We are going to try something to see if it improves fishing. If it doesn’t work, we’ll try something else.” Maybe even something as brutal as, “Some people want a slot limit, so we’re going to try one even though we don’t think it will help.” All the pseudo-science that justifies regulation seems to come from studies with a pre-determined outcome that are performed to back up whatever politically-motivated action is to be taken.

Hi Gianni…..
as always you make good points….
Im afraid that politics is always a driving force for good or ill….. so the DNR DOES respond to public opinion… even when they feel it might not be a good idea….

I like your thought that sometimes things should just be tried and sometimes the DNR does indeed impose experimental regs to see if they work or not… with the complexities of river ecosystems (or any aquatic ecosystem for that matter)… the only way to really KNOW what will happen is to try it….
In my recent research on this subject I have found information that the number of available spawners does have an impact in spawning success, at least in some circumstances…… even in rivers!

I’d like to throw my 2 cents on the pile here. Some may not agree with my sentiments, but here goes.

I feel the deeper stretches below the lock and dams should be be restricted to fishing at times of year when all the shorties pile into these areas making them extremely vulnerable. Why? Not because I think we’re eliminating needed broad stock but more because its an avoidable waste. To me it’s like a guy wearing a blindfold, groaping around an orchard picking apples. When an apple is plucked by this blind fellow, he takes a bite to see if its ripe. When he finds it to be sour or green, he pitches it over his shoulder and groaps for another apple. There’s not many if any “ripe” apples on the trees but this guy is bound and determine to sample them all if need be to get one good one.

Can we justify this waste, even if there are enough spawners come spring to ensure the next crop? It just seems rediculous to me to even operate in this manner. I’ve had the opportunity to talk with a bunch of boats this fall when I’ve filled in for Steve Vick at Everts and I’ve heard a common theme from boats that report huge numbers from the dam area. They fished deep, caught so many fish they came back for bait around mid-day…. stopped counting when the number got rediculous… and were able to keep 6 – 8 fish over 15″ for the day. Ouch. Day after day. Boat after boat. Will there be enough spawners on Pool 4 to make up for these lost fish? There’s no doubt in my mind there will be. But we’re also not using that portion of the resource in a responsible manner. Just plain waste in my opinion and we should have more respect for the resource than that.