SML Striper Growth

[BentRod]

Feb 8, 2014 11:06:03 GMT -5 @bigun2 said:

Feb 8, 2014 10:07:54 GMT -5 BentRod said:

it makes sense to me that less stripers will mean better growth of the stripers 

That can only be if there is a bait problem.

But we can't control amount of bait...we can only control amount of stripers to a degree. Bait is what it's going to be. There's no stocking more bait..the lake will only hold what it will hold nutrient wise. So if it is a bait problem it means we have too many stripers..overpopulation.

Yam, the fish were not necessarily the fat healthy happy fish you portray before the Striper kill around the spawn in 2003.

[HokieChad]

so, after reading this enormous thread I have several observations/comments

Dan has ZERO agenda, I can attest to that from talking/meeting with him several times about this exact topic. He is using ALL of his resources (fish head data, fish diaries, talking to other state's DGIF biologists) that are available to him. I feel like this is his #1 priority right now.

I'm not a scientist, never pretended to be...but what makes sense to me is to identify the problem (fish growth rates slow/stalled at/around 26-28 in) and devise a plan that doesn't change too many variables at once. Hopefully, this plan will help the problem, if not (identified through further research...fish head data, fish diaries...etc) then come up with a second plan focusing on another variable that you can control.

No offense to those who have limited fishing time/data on this lake....but things aren't the same as they were even as recent as 2008, 2009, 2010....The fish that have been stocked post fish kill are growing at average to above average growth rates until year 4 or 5....then they hit a wall. Could it be too many are surviving? Could it be bad genetics? Could it be a bait problem? The slot slide will allow us to "thin the herd" somewhat and see how that affects growth rates. If after 2 or 3 years of data, the same problem exists, Dan will have to regroup.

[piper]

WOW! What a great thread and read guys. Been poking around this thread for the last few hours. Good stuff. With this copepod talk I of course had to goggle it. I guess there are some good copepods but we're dealing with a parasitic variety otherwise known as gill maggots. I found this interesting read as well. Seems like old new but got my wheels a turning. There is a statement that these copepods dont bother/affect "healthy" fish yet they wiped out a bunch of them SML . Can it be implied then that those that died were healthy and this was a "natural cleansing" of sorts..similar to say a large scale wildfire?

The link: www.arkansasstripers.com/striped-bass-found-with-copepods.htm

[Shadslinger]

Piper our fish wont healthy, they were starving from lack of food when the copepods moved in. I dunno if you have noticed but we have them in leesville too. It is true that healthy fish can tolerate them. Tennesse has them with some monster stripers.

I just thought about what Tyler was saying that Dan was comparing Leesvilles growth rates. Our fish down here are still in that same first 4-5yr growing period from the higher stockings so kinda doesnt seem like a good comparison

[BentRod]

Feb 8, 2014 18:15:04 GMT -5 piper said:

WOW! What a great thread and read guys. Been poking around this thread for the last few hours. Good stuff. With this copepod talk I of course had to goggle it. I guess there are some good copepods but we're dealing with a parasitic variety otherwise known as gill maggots. I found this interesting read as well. Seems like old new but got my wheels a turning. There is a statement that these copepods dont bother/affect "healthy" fish yet they wiped out a bunch of them SML . Can it be implied then that those that died were healthy and this was a "natural cleansing" of sorts..similar to say a large scale wildfire?

The link: www.arkansasstripers.com/striped-bass-found-with-copepods.htm

Good article. It states right in the article that our big fish were in "poor condition due to lack of forage." Basically, after the threadfin die off in the winter, the bigger stripers with the parasites literally suffocated themselves trying to find food to eat in preparation for the spawn. The smaller younger fish 10lbs and under aren't as greatly affected/stressed by the parasites and they mostly survived. A very similar kill occurred on Norris lake in TN later that summer after major flood rains had led to "spilling" of the dams in the spring time which caused the normal deep summer thermal refuge to be void and the bigger stripers couldn't tolerate the warmer water and additional stress. Mward and a few of us on here know probably the best Norris lake striper fisherman/guide ever..he's a legend in Tn..and he says that Dan Wilson was the only person that would help him, not even his own TN biologists, when the dieoff started on Norris. In fact, he said that Dan was the one who identified the Copepods in Norris lake fish for him when he brought fish heads to Va for Dan to look at because no one in Tn was listening to him. Dan and the DGIF guys along with VaTech and I think maybe Lynchburg College later on were the first ones to really research these Copepods and learn how they affected Striper and bass populations..there was essentially no information on them before our Striper kill.

Hunter, Dan had data on much larger fish as well for Leesville if I remember correctly. It was limited so I think he combined years but recent years were comparable growth wise to the 90s, early 2000s for you guys.

Here's another tidbit for those that think theres no chance we may have too many stripers in SML.... Norris lake, which had a major dieoff in 2003 and still has Copepods like SML but has rebounded well and shows normal growth in it's stripers, stocks around 100,000 fingerlings per year (3/acre). It is a 34,200 acre impoundment. SML is a 20,600 acre impoundment and we're stocking 300,000 to 350,000 fingerlings on average the past 10+ years. Does this not raise a red flag to anyone??
L

[Deleted]

Bentrod. Sometimes it seems that you are defending Dan. I have yet to read a post on this thread that has said anything negative about Dan. Of course..there may be some history I'm not aware of. SML is no doubt the best lake in VA because of Dan and the SML community.

The question being debated here is simply should we cut wood before making a measurement or should we make a measurement before cutting. It seems to me that we are cutting striper to determine if the bait is an issue when in fact we could measure the bait first. No person that I have read especially myself believes there is "no chance" for anything. We are all baffled and are simply discussing variables of interest. And via these discussions not only are many of us learning..we are always being given a history lesson. Awareness and learning come from debating issues. At the end of the day..I have no clue what we should do and place all my faith in Dan to do the right thing.

In terms of Norris. How deep is that lake? To compare apples to apples..IMO..volume would be a better number to use rather than acres. I also assume that a small lake with the right conditions could hold more fish than a big lake with less than right conditions. My conclusion here would be that it's hard to compare lakes side by side but we certainly can draw higher level learning from one lake and apply it to another.

Love,
Yam.

[Deleted]

My thoughts exactly!!!!!  

[Deleted]

Feb 8, 2014 17:29:33 GMT -5 HokieChad said:

so, after reading this enormous thread I have several observations/comments

Dan has ZERO agenda

[HokieChad]

so Bigun, do you agree?

[Deleted]

Chad, is there any reason why I shouldn't?? 

[Deleted]

Norris Lake = 2 million acre/feet

SML = 2.3 million acre/feet

At least that is what a few sources from the Internet state.

[HokieChad]

To make the apples to apples comparison is virtually impossible....no two lakes are identical. SML has one of the HIGHEST stocking rates in the country....I think its something like 19 or 20 fish per acre. Under Perfect conditions, the ideal stocking rate for Striped Bass is 6/acre, currently triple the ideal stocking rate under perfect conditions. Everyone knows that conditions vary yearly (rain, lack of rain, water temp, water temp fluctuations, water flows....etc), so stocking a set number every year probably isn't the right approach either. The mortality rate of the stocked fingerlings isn't as high as it was and more fingerlings are actually making it into the "system"
The stocking rate isn't going to change without proof that too many fish are in the lake.
The threadfins aren't a reliable forage in this part of the country....when they die in mass, it leaves a void in the forage base.
The creel limit can't be adjusted, not right now.
Is there enough bait for the amount of fish we are stocking? That can't be determined until we first see why these fish are hitting the wall at 26-28 in.
The approach that makes the most sense with the resources available is to slide the slot and research the results.

[BentRod]

YAM, you're not understanding that the bait is unchangeable. It is what it is. It will vary year to year based on in flows and nutrient levels. We cannot change it short of a political war with home owners and AEP, which we will never win. Even if you know your forage levels, you still have no way to know exactly how many stripers are in the system, how many may leave by way of fisherman each year (which varies itself), natural death, etc. Theres no way anyone can attempt to guess how many stripers are actually in SML to even attempt to say we're overpopulated or not. So, I really don't understand your point at all. I think it would be great to study the forage levels to better understand how they fluctuate and try to correlate that with stocking numbers, but outside of that, unless you're going to go count all the stripers in the lake for us, the forage level is what it is whether we know what it is or not? Now if we could control forage or forage levels, I'd be totally with you..much safer to go that route then mess with the stripers, but we cannot.

And nobody has been more critical of Dan in the past than me. I've asked a million questions of him through email and in person and he always has answered me straight and honest. I've doubted him..I still doubt the Nov slot start..I think that was a bad call for protecting our larger fish in a fragile time, but it hasn't devastated the fishery either so life goes on. Chads right, Dan has no agenda. He truly cares about this fishery and it's not money related either. If it was funding related, they'd say "we don't care what your opinion is" and then cut stocking in half. That would be the fix on most lakes. Thats actually what I would do if i was in charge! He's spending money and time to try and fix an obvious problem to those of that fish this lake a lot and have for years. Is it the right fix? I have no idea, but I think it's the safest option we have besides doing nothing, which is not an option.

[Deleted]

Chad, I apologize for answering your question with a question...I really don't like that when folks do that to me.  .....honestly, I don't think dan has an agenda, I think he is trying to do the best he can with what limited data he has. The fish kill put a dagger in all our hearts. All I know is the fishing has improved tremendously since 03-04 and 05. Has it changed for the worse as recently as  08,09 and 10 as you say,.....  To short of a time frame to draw any long term conclusions..... heck, even in the 80's and 90's there were natural changes to the lae every few years. Just makes me nervous .

[Deleted]

Bent rod. Great points. To clarify..I do understand that bait comes to an equilibrium with nutrient levels over time. I understand N:P levels from my work on the Chesapeake Bay project and studied the Mercury levels in the Shenandoah. I also spent 4 years of my life managing water and wastewater plants. I get it.

However as soon as you introduce a predator..forage levels can decrease and maintain themselves significantly below the nutrient threshold. Thus..introducing more bait can be a solution if the lake can sustain more bait. If it can't then at least we would know if we are operating at a max bait/nutrient level scenario. It seems to me that you are assuming that SML is operating at this level. Are you assuming this or do you have proof?

In terms of measuring the amounts of fish. I hear you and have been thinking about this. I am not sure how it is done but I see numbers all the time that provide fish per/acre/ft data. If we had this number and the amount of forage we could then easily determine if the focus should be on decreasing stripers or if one of the many other theories needs exploration. In an ideal world..this would undoubtedly be the better approach if it were possible.

In the end..I am arguing for a 100% scientific approach to this solution. What I have uncovered from this thread is that Dan does not have the resources to go about this the ideal way. And this approach he is using is all he can do given his constraints. This just scares me a bit. But I admire his desire to stay proactive.