Sure and then you just want to hold
that straight in front of your face
just just like this yep and then
that's good and then he can flip it
around for me
Perfect, thank you.
What is that telling you?
It's a color checker.
So when I get into posts, I just
make sure with the program editing
with like the blacks or what the
black levels should be at and all
the colors on the, on the chart.
Okay, so he's basically like picking
up everything you should be with the
lighting and stuff. Exactly.
We sure that
Because when you shoot so many
different files, you want to make
sure white in this is white in
that, because otherwise...
So it's a basic standardization.
Think of like when you go out in
winter and the snow can look blue or
purple or white or yellow,
depending on the lighting.
Same thing happens to our cameras.
We have to tell the camera, this is
White.
Otherwise it'll go, I think this is,
White. And then all of a sudden...
Everything just gets...
Back in the day, if you'd watch like
local news.
You sometimes see some video that
came across it was all this blue or
purple or yellow Yeah, and that was
because the videographer didn't
white balance properly when they got
to wherever they were shooting and
then in the days Of tape you
couldn't really correct it Okay,
and especially if I was one of those
young kids back in the day You don't
know what you're doing. You're just
like this is what I have. It's five
minutes to air. It' going on It's
like crap.
We're gonna go with it.
That's Wausau news
Zach, could you just push that top
drawer in quick?
I'll get it, it's- You got the mic
just-
Oh, I'm sorry.
That's right.
Thank you.
I was That one sticks
old probably
World War two era
desks I
am ready when you
Good. All right.
So you're going to talk to me?
Yeah.
I guess let's start by giving
us an overview of the
various projects you have, because
obviously we had the Zoom call and I
filled up two pages of notes while
you were talking alone, I think.
But kind of give me the thousand
foot view and then at some point
we'll kind of maybe focus in on a
few of those studies.
It's specifically related to
walleyes. We have a number of
different projects going on right
now within the agency and
in our fisheries research group
here.
The one that you were part of
yesterday out on Escanaba is
a production over harvest
experiment.
And we've got some evidence
that walleye might be
being harvested at a rate that's
higher than their production or that
they can keep up with.
And so we're experimentally testing
that out here on Escalaba Lake And
that's where you took that footage
yesterday, so.
That's certainly a big one that
we're working on right now.
We've got a graduate student that's
helping us here in the agency
completing his master's degree at
University of Wisconsin, Stevens
Point.
What Max is looking at in that
project is how fish
community productivity is
distributed in lakes where
walleye natural recruitment has
declined over time versus those
where it's been sustained in the
longer term and so we really want
to try to understand if walleye go
down what might be filling that void
and if whatever is filling that
Is then kind of continually a
negative feedback loop to keep
suppressing walleye.
And so we have some evidence that
things like species like black
crappie and largemouth bass can be
suppressing Walleye in some ways.
And then Max's project right now, at
least preliminarily, that's what
we're kind of seeing in that one.
We've also got a project related
to adding trees to a lake
as far as habitat enhancement and
that structural habitat
that can be beneficial to fish for
refuge, for creating foraging
opportunities.
Some fish like yellow perch lay
their their egg skeins or ribbons on
that wood and that's important for
their reproduction But that's
also a walleye project too to see
how walleye might respond to
something like that But the overall
goal of that project which does
include walleye is by adding this
woody habitat to lakes where it's
putting in an Additional source of
carbon to the system Does that
increase the entire carrying
capacity or fish carrying capacity
your productive capacity of lakes
and on that project?
Six years after adding 140
trees to this 100-acre lake, we've
doubled the fish community
productivity of that system, and so
right now that's showing some very
positive responses of
basically adding woody habitat
for a number of reasons for fish,
but also it's not just attracting
fish, it's producing fish and
increasing the carrying capacity of
the system.
We've had some other desktop
exercises, I'll call them, with
Wallet. We have a lot of data in
this state, not only in the
fisheries research program with our
Bureau of Fisheries Management.
So we're also looking at things like
how are angler effort dynamics for
walleyes, are they changing over
time in response to some of the
challenges that walleye are facing
right now.
So we've observed some relatively
longer-term declines in natural
recruitment of walleye
within the northern part of the
state here.
And what we found in those studies
right now is that it seems like
walleye angler effort is kind of
responding to that.
It's declining correspondingly,
which is not necessarily a bad thing
because it gives walleye a bit of a
break. With as without as much
pressure there on those.
And we're examining that for all the
different sport fishes up here and
what if walleye angling effort is
going down what's happening for the
other species and we're seeing
anglers respond I guess like we
think we would. We're seeing more
bass angling and we see more panfish
angling because those species are
doing a little bit better right now.
So in a nutshell those are some of
the projects that we have going on.
There's certainly some other ones
too. We do a lot of climate change
and climate adaptation work with
while I threw.
Our participation in the Wisconsin
Initiative on Climate Change
Impacts, so a lot of work
there. We worked with a lot our
federal partners also in the Climate
Adaptation Science Centers on
different things with WAL-I decision
support tools, using
a framework called Resist Accept
Direct to try to make decisions
about WALIs going forward.
Given the current state of WALI's,
where they're doing okay in some
places and in some place they're
being challenged, we're really
throwing a lot.
At Walleye right now, research-wise,
to try to understand everything we
can about them.
Number one, to conserve the species
and number two, to continue to allow
harvest opportunities for our
tribal members in this area in
northern Wisconsin, but then also
our recreational anglers.
And some of the studies also, I
mean, climate change includes like
ice in, ice out, water temp, how
that impacts spawning and
recruitment and whether there's food
for them.
I mean all those kind of go
together, right?
Right.
And sorry, I failed to mention a
really big project that we've been
working on for a while and that's
related to climate adaptation and
how wall iron or cold
water and cool water fish is
responding some of these changes due
to climate change.
And so you're absolutely right.
And right here at the Northern
Highland Fisheries Research Area, we
have 80 years of ice records for
all the five lakes we're in charge
of here. And so what we've seen more
recently over the last 10 or 20
years, we see these very wild swings
of much shorter ice durations
in the wintertime.
So ice on is later.
Ice off as earlier but we
think is really most influential for
some of the changes that we're
seeing is the major swings in
ice out that's occurring and so I
think it was maybe 2012
and 13 or so somewhere in there in
the early 2010s where
we had like a march 22nd ice
out on Escanaba Lake in the
following year it was like mid-may
and so almost 60 days swing
in between seasons which could be
really challenging for fish that are
used to the the norm so the I
self-rescan Abba Lake here is April
19th.
Over the last 80 years.
But like I said, we've swung from
basically mid-March to mid-May
during that period.
And what we've learned in some of
those studies is
that walleye recruitment, at least
in Escanaba Lake, it always seems
to be best when it's around the
average. And we've studied some of
these dynamics and it seems that
walleyes are, their spawning is more
linked to photo period than
it is to water temperatures, which
is a little bit of a newer finding
than we would have thought in the
past.
But as you mentioned, those major
swings in the phenology
of ice out have some major
implications for fish that we're
also working on because as soon as
the ice goes out, that starts
a succession of everything that
might lead to a good recruitment
year for walleye.
So it starts with the ice going
out, and then we get a phytoplankton
bloom or that algae that's in the
lake, then we got a zooplankten
bloom that kind of consumes that
algae, and at that time walleye
spawning is going on, those eggs are
hatching, and then those young
walleye need to have.
That food resource when it's at its
highest abundance to continue to hit
all those critical steps just to
even get to the first fall of
survival.
And if we don't have that, then we
get really poor year classes
or no year class at all.
And so I think it's that variability
and not necessarily the directional
climate change that might be most
important. It's the variability that
we're seeing in it.
You mentioned this, that walleye is
really being focused on.
What is it about that species
that draws so much
attention?
It's a great question and it's
just, it's a popular harvest
oriented species.
And so for those of us in Wisconsin,
especially we enjoy our fish fries,
our Friday night fish fries and
often time more than just Friday
night.
You know, subsistence fishing in
Wisconsin is still a big thing.
It's, a lot of it.
And so, you know, I think from the,
the angler side of things, it's been
a popular species for a
long time because of it's
really good to eat.
You know they're fun to catch.
They can reach some large sizes and
there's some trophy potential
there in some cases.
And so I think it's that
harvest-oriented nature and
the taste of walleye that really
makes them popular with the anglers.
The other part of it is that I
mentioned we're the northern third
of Wisconsin right now, which
constitutes the ceded territories of
Wisconsin, where Ojibwe
tribal members ceded these
lands to the
federal government at the time,
which would later become Wisconsin
in the treaties of 1837 and 1842.
And so part of the Ojibwe culture
is that while they're a very
culturally important species, very
strong subsistence species,
I believe one of the species or
organisms or beings that led them
to settle in this part of area.
And so there's also
a very popular fishery for
subsisting purposes that
are affirmed in the treaty rights
that the Ojibiway have in the
northern part of state.
It's very.
Once you start digging into
walleye, how many
different areas of our economy
and our culture and just like the
mindset of Wisconsin that there's
walleye.
People care about walleye
everywhere.
I mean, when you interact
with a lot of anglers, I mean
that's who's going to come through
here and pull out a creel survey.
Right. Is
Whether they're, I mean, I'm sure
there's bass fishermen, there's
trout fishermen, and then there's
fishermen. And like, fishermen, it's
almost like walleye is inserted in
there as automatic.
Whether they are going for it or
not, they would love to catch a
walleye.
And is that just the way it is, or
that's the way its always been?
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I would say...
Maybe a little bit more so in the
past.
Like walleye were always one of
those species, I think, and this
might lead to just more of the
subsistence thing or really good
fish to eat, right?
So if I think back to being a kid
or going fishing with my father
or even my grandfather,
walleye was always the king.
That was the thing that you were
after. That's why they were taking a
trip from Milwaukee up to Eagle
River or up to Northern Minnesota.
It was to catch walleye.
It wasn't to catch smallmouth bass.
It wasn't to catch muskie.
It was they wanted walleye because
while they were good to eat.
Um, and like I said, it was a big
part of, you know,
livelihood at that point.
And so I think there's some
generational stuff that passes on
there. And it really continues.
I think now what we have is a little
bit more specialization in some
anglers. We certainly have anglers
that are very happy to go out and
just enjoy a good day on the water.
Um, they don't really care if they
catch anything or not, but it's very
therapeutic and relaxing to cast a
line and, Oh, I got a, I got a
nice bass today and it was the
greatest day of my life.
We also see a lot more
specialization anglers now where
it might be, I am a walleye angler
and so every bit of my boat
gear, technology baits
is all geared towards walleye and
if the fishing isn't good for
walleye here, I'm going to drive
some distances to get where I need
to. And it goes from there,
specialized trout anglers,
specialized bass anglers specialized
muskie anglers.
And so they're certainly generalist,
but we still have plenty of
specialized walleye, anglers and
especially like you said.
You know, it's a very harvest-oriented
fish. There's not many that are
legally caught if
you're still under your bag limit,
they're probably not going to go
home and get flayed and eaten.
So you you you grew up in Wisconsin?
I grew up at Stevens Point.
Okay, so for you Walleye fishing
was part of childhood, right?
It was yeah.
I mean, do you remember your first
walleye? Is there a picture of it
somewhere?
I remember some really early ones,
not trying for them.
So the Wisconsin River was basically
my playground as a
child in very good walleye fishery,
still is in the Stevens Point area,
still is throughout the entire
river.
I remember pre-fishing for a bass
tournament. My dad was a
bass-tournament fisherman in the
1980s, and we were on the
Winnebago, we were in Poygon.
We were kind of in...
That chain there was a Wolf River
tournament. And we were fishing on
Poygon and I caught a really big
walleye on a spinner bait fishing
for a bass. I remember that one very
vividly.
But I also think remember mostly as
a kid, when the walleyes were
running during the spawn, we'd all
be just down on the banks with our Y
sticks and have a
minnow, you know, plunked out there
in the river.
And there were some nights that we'd
run out of bait, we'd catch so many
walleyess, but at that time they
were all about 14 and a half, 14 and
three quarter inches because the
harvest pressure was pretty high.
We've changed the regulations now,
but I would say.
Those are some of the earliest
memories also coming up to northern
Wisconsin.
So even though I'm here now and
living and working and, uh, you
know, raising children, um,
in the area right now, we came
up here in the summer.
We came up in the spring and in the
fall. Um, and oftentimes we were
specifically targeting walleyes up
here.
There's a lot of people that
associate walleye with northern
Wisconsin and with lakes,
even though walleye are river
fish, right? Yeah.
I mean, so explain to me, when
did walleye
move from rivers to lakes?
Was that man-made, or was it just
because rivers came into flowages,
or how did that happen where it
became this northern Wisconsin
delicacy?
So another really great question,
and people have asked that
question before, and I often think
about it this way.
So if we think about back to the
future, if I had a time machine, I'd
love to go back and sample the lakes
right after the glacier receded
here and just see what the landscape
looked like and see what fish
communities looked like.
My inclination is that during
the glaciation, the refuge for Wally
would have been the Chippewa River,
Wisconsin River, Mississippi River,
probably Lake Superior.
Now that glacier recedes and then we
don't know exactly how that water's
moving across the landscape.
My guess is that walleyes were
native to some of our drainage lakes
here, some that were connected to
rivers where they had access to
them. Although we don't know, again,
how that water moved across the
landscape.
We have proposed and we haven't
received funding yet. There's ways
to check on this through like
environmental DNA, where you could
take the core of a lake bed and look
for scales or other DNA in there.
To find out, let's go back 500
years before.
Um, you know, humans really started
distributing walleye around the
landscape. Were there walleye here?
Was there evidence for walleye at
that point?
Um, but to your point, like, you
now, I would say mostly, I would say
probably the rivers for sure, uh,
where they exist today.
Uh, the drainage lakes where they
might've had a connection to some
river and then we're able to
persist.
Uh, but the other, to the other
point with your, your question there
or your comment is,
is that man has distributed walleyes
in a lot of places.
And so.
Wally's been stocked for a really
long time.
Escanaba Lake outside our window
here, that was stocked in the 50s
and eventually became a naturally
reproducing population and one of
the better ones we have up here.
But if we think about that, Wally
removed all over the landscape.
In some places they stuck and were
able to naturally reproduce and
sustain themselves and other places
they need to be maintained by
stocking if we're gonna have them
there.
So it's one of things that we think
about often with the challenges and
Wally recruitment declines is.
If Wally weren't supposed to be
there in the first place, his mother
nature kind of kicking back now from
the habitat perspective or other
things. It says, yeah, maybe they
pulled off a couple of natural
recruiting year classes, and
now that habitat is giving
you, that lake is giving what it
should be giving you. Maybe bass and
bluegills and crappies.
And to your other point, and it's
one that we really try to
communicate out to anglers and
members of the public and stuff like
that, is a lot of our
stakeholders and the people we
interact with, They.
They think that walleye are a lake
fish, walleye naturally
are a river fish.
They're adapted to rivers.
And so if we look at some of the
absolute best walleye populations,
they're always associated with
rivers. Canadian shield lakes,
they all have inflows, outflows.
Where do the walleye spawn?
They run up the river.
Wisconsin River, they'll usually run
up to the next dam.
But they've adapted to lakes in
some cases where there's similar
riverine habitat, but where
there is not, often that's where
they need to be maintained almost
solely by stocking or we have some
challenges.
You know, for them persisting.
You hit on this, but I want to kind
of elaborate on this idea
that maybe some of
the decline in walleye populations
in some of these places is what
they're supposed to be at.
They were, and I
draw the comparison to like
deer population in the 90s when
they were at the all-time peak high
and everyone just assumed, well,
that's just as many deer as I have a
right to see every week.
And then population goes down,
maybe back to a norm.
And then people are like, where are
all the deer?
Is there a similar mindset of
walleye of like well what I remember
Catching three walleye tonight as a
kid should be mine.
That's I feel to do that
There definitely is and so when
we talk to members of the public or
just being in town here it's a small
town and it might be a church and
someone's like I used to be able to
catch walleyes get my limit of
walleyess every single day and this
lake's no good anymore and
things like that so there's
definitely legacy effects of that
and similar to your analogy with
deer right there I would say you
know when Bill Clinton was president
walleyers were doing really good in
Wisconsin and then we've started to
kind of taper down for various
reasons right now So
the legacy effects are challenging
because...
You know, everybody generally wants
things to be the way they used to be
or better, right?
Just like your dear example.
And right now there's been some
challenges with that over
time.
So, I'm
sorry, I lost my train of thought
there.
I mean is it possible to put
percentages or perhaps what you're
trying to find of like when you look
at the The cause of
decline of walleye populations in
some of these lakes that
historically used to be good How
much of it is natural how much
of is climate oriented how much if
it is harvest pressure?
So what we know, or at least we have
evidence for right now, is it's a
combination of a number of things.
And then, you know, when you have
those sorts of additive effects, it
creates greater challenges.
So there could be certainly situations
where while I were stocked into a
lake, conditions were more favorable
at that time. They reproduced a
little bit and then they went away
over time.
But that went away over time could
also be related to things like
habitat loss within the system.
And so we've lost some critical
spawning habitat or the lakeshore
residential development got really,
really high in.
Intensive on the lake and it took
away some of the things that walleye
need.
Because that's where I always like
to start, you know, we can't expect
fish or any organism
to sustain itself if it doesn't have
appropriate habitat.
And so I think we certainly have
some challenges and there's been
some challenges on walleyes there
too, where climate change would
certainly come into play on some of
that habitat.
Because habitat just isn't rocks in
a lake or a tree in
a lake. It's also, it's everything
a fish needs to this life cycle
basically. So that can include
water temperatures.
That can include the prey fish it
needs, the resources at the right
time of year.
So, you know, habitat definitely
factor in
walleye population declines.
Abundances in alternative species,
like I mentioned, largemouth bass
and crappie, we have some pretty
strong evidence that when their
abundances, those species'
abundances are high, we generally
always see poor natural recruitment.
Bullheads, over-abundant bullheads
could also be in that category.
We also have things just like
different, we were talking about
specialized anglers.
We have different angler dynamics
and there's some species that are
very harvest oriented like walleye
and there are other species that
over time have become almost
exclusive catch and release.
So if we're catching and release
all of our bass and we're catch and
releasing all of muskies,
there's a delicate balance in all
these lakes that if we don't take
that ecosystem or food web context
with it, we can also run into some
challenges there and we've certainly
seen that for walleye.
As well. And so those are some of
the factors that have kind of popped
out over time as
negatively influencing walleye
populations or potentially
suppressing them.
Because previously when you're
talking about, let's just say the
golden years, the really good times
before we hit some of these
challenges right now, is that
walleye were in
lakes and they were cultivating
conditions to benefit themselves.
Now, through some of these changes.
Those cultivating conditions to
benefit themselves and their own
fitness have kind of gone away and
that's what's suppressing them and
also suppressing from recovery,
even through some of our management
efforts.
I'm sure you remember coming up here
as a kid.
There weren't nearly as many houses
on all the lakes.
They weren't as developed.
They weren't mowing down to the
water line, they weren't clearing
all the trees, they weren't
cutting all the weeds in the water,
they were not using the big power
boats that were ripping up
the bottom of the lake.
How much do all those factors that
people, well that's how I enjoy my
vacation, that's how I enjoyed my
time up north, impact the
other element of that, which is the
fish that live in a lake.
Yeah, I mean, I remember it very
well.
You know, coming up here as a kid,
it might be more of a two-bedroom
cabin, so to speak.
It might still had an outhouse.
You know it was just, the footprint
was a lot less than what we're
seeing on the landscape now on the
shore and even within the lakes
themselves with all the docks and
shore stations and things like
that.
So, you know, what I'd definitely
say in.
We have a little bit of evidence for
this that could be challenging while
I recruitment in some ways through a
project that's ended now, but it was
a comparative volume recruitment
project on 60 lakes in northern
Wisconsin, that there is a signal
in Lake Triton residential
development.
And I think what's just happened,
it's just intensified.
And that footprint has gotten so
much bigger over time.
Um, and that's had potentially some
challenges to within Lake habitat,
um, in that
regard.
And so again, you know,
with that, what we're trying to do
is know, do outreach,
conduct the experiments to try to
find a balance, right?
How much riparian buffer, how much
we leave natural in a hundred
feet of frontage or 200 feet of
fronage to kind of give fish and
wildlife that clean water,
that good habitat, the things that
they need in order
to persist and sustain themselves.
So having that balance, right?
Everybody enjoys water in a
different way, but
working together to try to get a
balance, so it's best for
everything, for clean water, for
fish, for wildlife.
So, I remember as
a kid that it used to be you
would look, we would come up north
when we'd get the little guides that
showed all the homeless for sale.
And they'd be like, fishing lake,
fishing, fishing lake great walleye
lake. I went around town yesterday
and tried to find, first they don't
print them because of the internet.
But even when you do find something
like there's, I
had an agent check for me, there's
zero listings in
Vilas and Oneida counties right now
that say walleye.
There's not a, there's walleye
circle out of town, but otherwise
there are, there's zero listings for
anything advertising itself as a
good.
So I think there's been some changes
there too, right?
Of, you know, if we think about when
Northern Wisconsin was kind of
opened up by the railways and now
it's a resort-based economy,
just like my grandparents and my
father, they were coming up here a
couple times a summer. That was
their big vacation of the year.
And it was to go to a resort and it
was primarily to go fishing.
Now there's a lot more diverse
experiences in Northern Wisconsin
and they may not all be related to
fishing. We have very few resorts
left compared to what used to be
on many of the lakes up here.
That was a big industry or.
That was a big economic boost to
this area for those folks that own
resorts. And so it's not a
resort-based economy anymore.
It's still a tourist-based economy
and fishing is certainly a part of
that, but it's also been very
diversified. And so we have hundreds
or however many miles of paved bike
trails up here now.
We have excellent camping
and state forest camping in this
area.
We have all kinds of other
amenities, the silent sports, right?
So canoeing, kayaking, paddle
boarding.
Lots of different things to do up
here and fishing is just a component
of that but I don't think it's the
biggest component of it anymore
like it used to be and so that's
one thing that's certainly changed
over time.
And so that makes it less likely
that fishing or
walleye can drive the efforts
of like, what should the area focus
on?
Like you're not going to convince
the area to say, well, we're not
going to develop that.
Lake. Let's leave that lot empty.
It very well could be because like I
said there's so many diverse uses of
lakes anymore. It's not just we're
going up for a week to go
to a cabin and go fishing all
day long.
And so that certainly could be
reasons why it's not being
publicized. I mean it still is in
some cases. We're in Boulder
Junction. We are in the musky
capital of the world.
That's still a big part of the
community and draws anglers for
that species from all over world
really because it you know it is a
trophy species in this area well
known for it.
And so maybe it's not advertised as
fishing lakes or anything like that,
but the fishing is still outstanding
here. It's just that there's been a
diversification of experiences and
people all enjoy all kinds of
different things.
So when we look at the
state's involvement in
Walleye, and obviously Governor
Walker had his Walleye initiative to
a million dollars, and you know,
there have been obviously the DNR's
funding studies in this area,
what's driving that?
What is the impetus behind that?
The focus that did take place and is
taking place on Walleye.
I think it's all the things we've
really talked about, right?
So it's an incredibly popular
recreational fishery and I believe
still number one in Wisconsin.
That's the most popular fish
that's sought for.
Like I said, you also have
the tribal subsistence fishery up
here. And so really there's
so much focus on that because of
the popularity recreationally,
the economic impact of walleye,
which still is significant in
Northern Wisconsin, and then
ensuring that harvest opportunities
are available for our Jibway tribal
members that have affirmed those
rights.
And so I think that really sets
the stage there for a
tremendous amount of research,
dedicated funding, the stocking and
the Wisconsin Walleye Initiative to
try to conserve the species and
continue to provide those harvest
opportunities. From an
agency perspective or from my
research team perspective with DNR.
You know, our number one job is
to conduct research to conserve
walleye.
So as resource professionals, that's
our number job.
Two, if we can do that, then we can
provide harvest opportunities.
And so as an agency, we've been
focused in a lot of ways, research,
stocking. We've changed some
regulations around to decrease
exploitation rates and to increase
effort out there, yet still allow
for harvest opportunity.
And I think we're continuing to try
to find ways to.
Basically dial it back on walleyes
where we need to and be responsive
of those natural recruitment
declines and those production
declines, because just like the
experiment that's going on on this
window, if we keep
collectively harvesting walleyess
more than they're capable of
replacing themselves, they're going
to go down.
There's no other way to figure it
out.
And we've been in situations,
I think recently, and in some cases
and in Some Lakes where we continue
to harvest the same slice of
pie out of an ever-shrinking pie,
and that's basically what's
happening in some places.
And so we have to dial it back, and
in many ways need to
be thinking about additional ways to
reduce exploitation rates or harvest
rates on walleye
because of the challenging climate
conditions, because of other
stressors that they're facing.
Because that's one variable that we
could control among a bunch that we
can't in the short term.
We can dial back harvest and
exploitation in hopes that
we find other ways to
manage or there's other things that
we do to sustain Walleye into the
future.
Obviously you have the research
element, and a lot of what you're
focusing on is the lakes themselves
and finding ways to
help natural
recruitment.
Then there's the stocking programs
that exist, and there's like the
Walleyes for Tomorrow, and
their efforts, and then there's
tribal efforts, other
programs out there designed to
reintroduce walleye.
Do you view that as complimentary,
or is it not
that it's one or the other, but
Can you stock enough if you're
not doing the conservation
elements that are necessary to make
sure that the habitat is quality?
Yeah, you know, from my perspective
and the things that we've done
research, really habitat is number
one.
As I mentioned earlier,
if we can't conserve or
sustain or enhance habitat
that a fish species like walleye
needs, you,
know, they're not going to be able
to sustain
themselves in the longer term.
They have to have that all that
critical habitat in order to do
that. So some of the things we've
written about and talked about is
that, you know, stocking gets a lot
of press. It's very popular
There's a lot of anglers and people
think that that's where fish come
from, the stocking truck pulls up
and now I have fish in the lake.
That's not how it works.
Ideally we want natural recruiting
populations that are self-sustaining
and we put some regulations, we
manage to keep that going.
And so some of the things that we
talked about is that if you're
considering stocking we
should be at least equally
considering habitat considerations
or even more.
Because if we consider habitat,
that's the longer term solution,
stocking might be the shorter term
solution.
And stocking doesn't always work,
it doesn't work in a lot of cases
actually.
We did a whole experiment with the
Wisconsin Walleye Initiative to look
at a gradient of lake productivities
and lake sizes,
different stocking densities.
So what's like the optimal stocking
rate, right?
In general, they
weren't very good overall.
So we have an optimal stock rate and
this for this type of lake
but we're still seeing you know
90 percent or better mortality
between when those fish are stocked
out to the following year
and so that's not very high
and it's really
difficult we can never really
engineer at this point what
mother nature can do in natural
recruitment so we can stock all that
we want but in general we're going
to have a walleye at best that's
gonna be one and a half to two
adult walleye per acre.
Whereas a natural recruiting
population in good situations is
gonna be above three and sometimes
well above three adults per acre.
What number would be a good baseline
to use for what people would
consider a good walleye lake?
So basically in our wildlife
management plan,
we're trying to maintain wildlife
populations at three adults
per acre or more.
That's where kind of the benchmark
is, particularly
in the ceded territory of
Wisconsin.
We work with our Ojibwe tribal
members in the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission.
That's one of the things that we're
evaluating.
Are we sustaining wildlife
populations above this level?
Because, you know, looking at the
data, that's what provides...
What we'll call fishable population
for anglers where catch rates and
harvest rates might be satisfactory.
It also provides harvest opportunity
for our tribal members and
gives us a little buffer of
resilience there too where we're not
down at like one per acre or half
of adult per acre because now we
might start challenging recruitment
in that way too.
So the other portion of that you
know three adults per acre above
is to see multiple year classes
which suggests that there's natural
recruitment going on.
So those are the sorts of metrics
that we look at and the goals and
benchmarks we try to maintain
particularly for our natural
reproducing walleye populations.
Tie the stocking argument and
the lack of, you know,
how the mortality rates in stocking
back to your conversation about
how habitat restoration is not just
for walleye, it's for all the things
that are part of the walleye
ecosystem. Right.
Because if you don't have all of
that understory and habitat for
everything they need to eat or hide,
you now, all those chains, then they
won't exist.
Right.
So tie that back.
If you could kind of link how...
If you don't do the habitat, to
create all the things they need to
eat from the time they're a fry to
the time they're an adult, it
doesn't matter how many
eggs you take out and
dump back as fry or as fingerlings,
they're not going to make it to a
adult size.
Right and so you know with stocking
what we've kind of done with
walleyes over time is let's raise
them longer let's raise them into
the first fall let's get them to six
eight nine inches and
so we've got them past all those
bottlenecks that might occur
naturally but there's also
challenges there that occur in the
hatchery we're rearing them at high
densities they
you know being fed kind of
ad libitum with food and they
haven't had to hide from predators
or go out in
and chase down food, so to speak, in
a natural environment.
And so the stocking's kind of
circumvented that, but when we go to
the habitat part of things and
trying to get everything right,
again, it's looking at situations
that create those cultivating
conditions for walleyes.
So where does it start?
It starts with, you know, what was
our spawning habitat for walleye
look like? Do we have maybe a good
windswept shoreline that gets,
you now, washed of detritus
and silt?
So we've got some good gravel,
cobble, and some rock.
That's where, you know, that's a
place to start.
Now we've got, let's say we've got a
good enough adult population.
We've got good spawning habitat.
They lay those eggs there, those
eggs hatch.
Now moving to the other parts of
habitat. If we've a lot
of fertilizer going into the lake
and we get like really eutrophic
conditions and we start to see algal
blooms and stuff like that, that may
not be good habitat for
walleye for that next stage.
Likewise, you with the zooplankton
and carrying on from there.
Zooplankton of the conditions good
so that those young year walleye
once they feed off their
the remaining portion of their yolk
sac and they need to go eat that
zooplanking is it available is
it abundant so that they can grow to
hit that next level and change over
to eating fish part
of habitat what's our perch
population what's are forage fish
population perch
yellow perch are a big prey item
for walleye and so when those
walleye are this big and they start
to switch to eating
fish prey often.
Perch and walleye are a peanut
butter and jelly species.
They go together.
But we have to be doing things for
perch habitat, too, if
that's one of the big things, or
making sure there's plenty of
minnows or other forage because,
like I said, it takes,
I don't know how many steps, but
there's a lot.
There's so many steps throughout the
course of that first summer that a
young walleye has to get past that
hurdle, get big enough, get enough
energy just to make it to that first
fall so that they have enough energy
to make it through the next rough
winter as a small fish out there.
Likewise, not to get eaten, that
might be structural habitat, that
might be taking care of and making
sure we've got native aquatic plant
beds for young walleye to
hide in, and it goes
even farther with like thermal and
optical habitat with walleye.
So I hope that's a lot, but in
a nutshell, it's very, very complex
and all these things have to come
together in order for any fish
species to have fitness and
propagate itself.
You're
here for the Walleye initiative?
Yeah. What,
remember the headlines, what did it
actually do?
Where did that money go and what was
it supposed to do?
So the Wisconsin Walleye Initiative
was basically,
Governor Walker's effort to kind of
go, not necessarily,
go all in on stocking with a
different sort of product.
So in the past, Wisconsin
would have raised basically
fry, small fingerlings,
and then a few, what we call
extended growth or large
fingerlings.
And so our fry stockings would
occur,
not, pretty soon
actually, probably late May,
early June.
Those female broodstock that are
stripped, the eggs are fertilized
with milk, they're in the hatchery
batteries, and then where they're
pretty tiny, we're stocking up
millions and millions and millions
of fry into the system.
So that was one of the things we did
a lot of in the past.
The other one we did was a lot was
the small fingerlings that would be
stocked up mid-summer.
Now we're talking walleye that are
probably an inch or two long, so
we've taken them past a couple of
other critical bottlenecks in the
hatchery and we're going to put them
in the system, we won't stock as
many of them as the small fry, but
we're still stocking a lot of them.
With the Wisconsin Walleye
Initiative, that funding was
specifically to bump up hatchery
infrastructure not only within DNR
to create more ponds, but then it
also helped our tribal partners
with their hatcheries and also
some private hatcheries, too, to
raise walleyes to meet the
demand of what we thought we needed
in Wisconsin.
And at that time, it was thought
that by raising walleyed
into their first fall and getting
them to, like I said, six, eight,
inches in the hatchery before
stocking them out.
That we'd have passed any potential
bottleneck that would have occurred
in the lake naturally and that
they'd have higher survival.
And there's a pretty good amount of
literature out there, scientific
literature now, that suggests that
that's not always the case.
So there's still challenges I
mentioned previously with those
young year walleye, even though
they're much larger,
there's things like more transport
stress, there's thing like adapting
to a new wild
environment versus the hatchery.
And we've also seen some other
challenges too with like sex ratios.
Through that rearing process where
we seem to be producing
more female walleye than male
walleye throughout that
longer rearing processes which
is not necessarily obviously good
for natural recruitment or restoring
natural recruitment because you need
males and females to do that not
just females.
So is that program basically done
or are the impacts of that still
being felt in any way?
No, the program's certainly still
going on.
And our two main walleye hatcheries
in the state, Governor Thompson over
in Spooner and Art Emke over
in this area in Woodruff are still
producing extended growth fingerling
walleyes. Same thing with our tribal
partners and some private entities.
So we're still, that's the primary
product that's being stocked out
there. I think what we've learned or
what should be changed over the past
10 years is that the initiative
itself was designed as
a deliberate experiment to learn
from. From it.
Optimal stocking rates, what lakes
are best, where do we see the
greatest survivorship of the stock
product.
And so now that we have 10
years of data and we've analyzed all
that, we've started to pull
some lakes off the list because
they're not good candidates for this
limited and actually expensive
product to create.
And what's the reaction from the
locals when you say, well, your
lake's just not worth doing this in?
It's challenging.
And so it's always challenging to
have those conversations, especially
when there's a lot of legacy effects
about how this has always been a
walleye lake and DNR has always
stocked it.
Um, but like I said, um, propagation
isn't getting any cheaper.
The cost of feed is expensive.
The infrastructure is expensive and
so we only have a limited number of
walleyes that we can produce.
And the goal, uh, for Wisconsin
DNR and the agency is that
our number one goal is to be
stocking to rehabilitate natural
recruitment or the recruitment of a
a previously naturally recruiting
population.
Our goal is to not, you know, we're
not necessarily, we are not
interested in stocking that limited
product in a lake that is
not going to support walleye
or shows no evidence that
stocking is going to contribute to
rehabilitating natural recruitment.
So the difficult conversations but
the public and
lake associations and stakeholder
groups, they have options where they
can apply for permits, they can go
through private growers and
get fish or walleye to stock their
lakes. They just need to be of the
right genetic strain, because
there's unique genetic strains that
are roughly corresponding
to the watershed boundaries within
Wisconsin. So right now we're in the
Upper Wisconsin River watershed.
So if I was a Lake Shore resident or
on a lake association, I wanted to
stock my lake and the DNR was not
going to stock it for various
reasons. I would have to ensure that
it was a Wisconsin, Upper Wisconsin
river genetic strain
coming from a private grower.
And there's the Winnebago, there's
Green Bay, there is Chippewa, and
then what else is there?
So you've got like your upper
Wisconsin, your upper Chippewa,
those are the two big Northern
Wisconsin drainages.
You've got Lake Michigan drainage,
which would include Fox River
and things like that.
And then you got things like the
Rock River down in Southern
Wisconsin. Okay.
So when it comes to the
politics surrounding all this,
of like how much money goes into
studies, and which studies get
advanced, and you know, even
going back to the Walleye
initiative, is
it bipartisan?
I mean, is it everyone wants to see
this happen?
Or is it the,
how do all the politics play into
this?
I'm not asking you to get into the
partisan politics, but just the idea
that it's not just science
and anglers and
that stuff on the water.
There's a whole background of where
the money comes from and where the
priorities go.
I think politically,
obviously, walleye are very
important for a number of reasons.
I think it's economically,
most certainly, because it's still a
very economically valuable fishery
for the recreational anglers.
It's still Wisconsin's most popular
fish to fish for.
We have a responsibility
to our Ojibwe tribal members and
partners in the northern third of
the state to make sure or try to
ensure that harvest opportunities
are still there.
As far as funding and from a
research perspective and a research
team You know, my group
and I and our collaborators, we're
objective scientists.
We don't get into the politics of
the situation.
You know we're fortunate to have
funding to work on some of these
things, to try to figure out ways to
conserve walleyes, to manage them,
to continue to provide those harvest
opportunities.
We hope and we conduct science
that could be used to inform
science-based decision-making, and
it is in a lot of cases, but
when the political stuff happens,
that's really outside the arena of
science. And so, you
know, in the leading.
And being fortunate to lead my
group of researchers in the
Office of Applied Science with DNR,
that's something that we talk about
all the time, is that we shouldn't
feel bad if our science isn't used.
Our job is to provide the objective
science to make it available,
and if it informs decisions,
that's great.
If something happens politically or
otherwise that disallows that,
that's no skin off our back.
We're gonna continue to do our jobs
as professionals and objective
scientists to provide that
information if it's needed.
So there is a line between the
research and the science first.
Is the advocacy.
Absolutely. And again, something
that we stress greatly
within my team and talk about often,
is that there's no place for
advocacy for us as scientists
and professionals.
We conduct objective,
unbiased science that's not
hoping for something, it's not
wishing for something.
There's not an agenda behind it or
something that, like, we personally
desire or value that's going to
come out in that research.
You know, it is terse, It's concise,
we're scientists, that's the way
we're trained.
And that's what keeps us away
from that advocacy.
I kind of crack a joke to myself.
Advocacy for a scientist can happen
when they're retired or they're
no longer doing science.
But when we're doing science and in
the way that we're trained in the
profession, it is absolutely
critical to remain objective.
Otherwise there is no credibility to
science.
That's got to be frustrating at some
point like you you you've done all
these research studies You know the
impacts and you go to a local zoning
committee meeting and you know Like
what they're proposing to do is like
going to destroy what they say they
value And you know,
they do they you get called into
those Are you asked to ever offer
your professional scientific opinion
of like hey, we're going to cite
this 5 000 head You know, the
pig operation that was going to come
up here the dairy cafe or
something or we're gonna you know
flatten out this area and fill in
this wet land and we're going to
build some condos on this lake
because they're really valuable.
Get called in these situations all
the time.
I have been in a number of cases,
whether it's with lake habitat,
it could be, you
know, position statements on
some sort of negotiation that's
going on that's related to fish or
some sort a policy decision.
And again, the only thing
that we can, that I feel
comfortable providing is the
science. This is the science behind
it.
And this would be my recommendation,
whether that's used or not at
the end of the day.
Is not up to me.
And so I think for my team of
scientists, biologists, and
technicians, we never get upset if
those sorts of things happen.
I think it's
nice, I guess, or it's
rewarding when you see the science
that we're doing is used to inform
policy and then that policy
is making a difference or improving
something or conserving something.
But in those position sorts
of meetings or
if you're called into those sorts
things. We do our best to present
the science.
If it's complex science, we make
sure that that's understandable or
in easily understandable ways to
everybody that's there in the
audience.
We take the time to have individual
conversations and talk to
folks about what we've learned,
maybe what our recommendations might
be.
The other thing that I'll add here
too is that often in those sorts of
cases, I'll call it
demonstration science.
Where we'll actually do some science
to demonstrate directly
that's very relevant
to public or the lake associations
or stakeholder group why this
is not a good thing.
And I'll go to a couple of examples
here and one that we're gonna see
this afternoon.
So for my PhD, we were afraid that
Lake Shore Residential Development
was pulling all the coarse woody
habitat out of lakes.
We had a strong relationships there.
So for PhD work, I basically
did a demonstration experiment.
I think anglers knew that.
Wood is a good place to fish around,
it's providing these sorts of
benefits, but unless
somebody shows me what actually
happens, then we're not going to
worry about it as Lakeshore
residents. We pulled 75% of the wood
out of a lake.
Well, what happened? We lost the
perch population, vast growth rates
went down, and there were other
ecosystem changes.
So we did the experiment to show
this is how important this habitat
is, so let's conserve it on the
landscape and potentially add in
more.
Likewise, the experiment
the tree drop experiment we're doing
right now to see if it increases
fish production.
The lakes in Northern Wisconsin, for
the most part, all the energy in
them is coming off the landscape.
It's leaves that fall in the water
in the fall.
It's dissolved organic carbon that's
leaching from a wetland plants
naturally that go into the system.
It's trees that fall into lakes and
slowly degrade.
So if you start pulling all those
things away or changing the
watershed or the riparian zone of
the lake, you're decreasing that
lake's ability to support fish and
other organisms.
And so that this is another
demonstration experiment where we
put it back in or we conserve that
process, we maintain fish
production or actually increase it.
So that's another thing we've tried
to use with groups like that.
When we get in those situations of
what's your best professional
judgment?
What does the science say behind
this? Sometimes we'll do experiments
to show, we'll go out and
manipulate it.
Here's a simulation room.
Manipulate what we think is going
on. It might not be a best thing.
What happens?
It's got to make you feel good
though if like you can actually show
like here's what this science shows
and then people's eyes like you
could see their eyes open up and
light up and they go oh wow I never
knew that.
They do. It's really interesting.
Like you can talk and talk and talk,
but all of a sudden, like you have
that experiment or you have that
one key thing that really triggers
somebody is like, Oh, now I get
it.
And what we've been doing maybe is
not the best for clean water, or
maybe not the best for these fish
populations. And so we're going to
turn that around.
And it can oftentimes, you know,
once those demonstration
experiments, or, you know, you have
those conversations, then it can
become it can become contagious
really quick within lake
associations, and with the public
too and that's
Really some of the only ways you can
sort of break those social norms of
particular activities and try to get
that balance of, you know,
what everybody enjoys, the diverse
amount of things that people enjoy
associated with water and lakes,
and then the balance for, like I
said, water quality for fish
wildlife populations.
So one other thing that I want,
you've referenced the ceded
territory and the treaty rights.
How, how often do you have to try
and break through those myths about
walleye population and it's all the
tribes, it's all the Indians are
spearing all the fish out of these.
I remember that as a kid coming up
North, you know, we obviously saw
the walleye wars and all that.
I mean, is that still persistent
in some pockets up?
It's still persistent in some
pockets up here.
I think there's been a tremendous
amount of progress made on that
front through outreach efforts.
I still think there is more that
could be done.
Being here at Escanaba Lake as part
of the Northern Hawn Fisher Research
Area, we interact with 3,000 to
5,000 anglers per year.
We talk to a lot of folks, we're
right here within the ceded
territory.
We also hear a lot things.
Also being embedded in small
communities, people know what we do
and who we are, who we work for,
and so you hear things sometimes
that way too.
And so what we've really tried to do
as an agency, and I still
think we can potentially do even
more, is to make sure
that we're having those
conversations with
people when those sorts of things
come up.
We'll still hear things like
the tribal members spear
all the big walleyes.
Not true.
85% of tribal harvest is male.
And there's also regulations
on the number of larger walleye
that can be taken by tribal members,
and those are primarily the females.
There's not a lot of male walleyes
that reach past 20 inches in
the cedar territory.
So we hear about those sorts of
things. I might hear that
I can't catch a walleye anymore
because the tribal members have
spirit out my lake so hard.
The anglers are harvesting fish too
and there's more equity between
the anglers and the tribal members.
There's some changes that have been
made now but we
just have to have those
conversations and get the facts out
there. So we certainly do that here.
As an agency, we try to do that out
in our interactions with the public
and try not to be shy about,
again, letting people know
really how the system operates.
Why did I have to get creel surveyed
as an angler today?
The tribal members don't have to go
through that. Yes, they absolutely
do. Every single walleye that's
harvested in the tribal spring
fishery comes through a compulsory
creel and monitored.
And so again,
we just we need to keep
having this outreach, having this
discourse with people and making
sure that the facts are getting out
there. Because at the end of the
day, it's a well-managed system.
It's a heavily managed system for
both fisheries.
It's closely monitored.
And for lack of a better term,
a harvested walleye is a harvested
wallet. It doesn't really matter
what method it's harvested by,
whether it's hook and line or
whether it by a spear.
That's how the management system
works. It's going to
be a joint fishery forever,
hopefully, as long as we continue to
provide these harvest opportunities.
Um, and so we just need to get past
it and accept that
these are Ojibwe rights that were
seated in those, those treaties.
It's a joint fishery.
Everyone's got an opportunity, which
is fantastic, uh, because it could
be the other way around too.
There might not be, there could be a
case where we don't have any opportunity
at all. And so we work together, um,
get the facts out there and, and
continue to try to educate people on
the situation.
And from what I understand, I know
the Red Cliff harvest
eggs, and they stock, I
believe Mole Lake does, do most of
the tribes stock?
Or is it just a few of them do?
So Red Cliff does for
sure. I think Bad River has the
capabilities, but I'm not sure if
they've been raising fish recently.
Mole Lake does for, Lactoflambo.
And then I'm I'm, I'm not sure
of St. Croix is raising many
fish right now, but that's
yeah.
People probably don't think of the
fact that they actually put fish
back in.
Yeah, they do.
So several of the tribes, or maybe
the majority of them, in the cedar
territory of Wisconsin here
are raising fish.
Is there anyone else here?
There are a couple guys that pulled
up. I don't know if you need to go
take care of them. Can I take a
break?