Neil Hoefs 's Entries

• 21 May 2014
  Aquatic habitat in North Dakota

  North Dakota Outdoors North Dakota Game and Fish Department Doug Leier   You’ve made your list and are checking it twice, anticipation for fishing is growing faster than your lawn this spring. Current license – got it. Life jackets – check. Next stop, open-water fishing 2014. The only thing holding you back from a day on the water is Mother Nature, but that’s spring in North Dakota.   The past 20-plus year wet cycle has produced marvelous fishing in North Dakota. From Devils Lake to Lake Sakakawea and in hundreds of spots between, great opportunities exist for fishing in rivers, streams and local impoundments. Safe to say it’s been a heyday for anglers.   It’s interesting to observe human nature any time a few weeks or even a month of dry weather pops up, and we immediately wonder if the next dry cycle is upon us and threatening many of our lakes? The truth of the matter is, we really won’t know that until it happens, and in most case there’s not much we can do about it.   One threat that anglers can do something about, and need to address, is aquatic nuisance species, which will likely present a continuing threat from here on out.   North Dakota already has some of these invasive species. The common carp, introduced in this country before people knew how much they could damage local fish populations, is probably the most familiar.   Carp have disrupted North Dakota fisheries for decades, but not every water has them, and the state’s laws are designed to greatly minimize the potential that we humans will spread them to those clean waters.   Carp aren’t the only threat, though. Over the years as fishing opportunities have expanded, so have the battles against new invaders across the nation and our state. A decade ago I was writing about salt cedar or tamarisk along the Missouri River System. Now it’s zebra mussels from the east and silver carp in the James River.   In a way, the ANS threat is like a summer storm on the horizon while you're enjoying time in or on the water. We know the storm is on the way, but it’s hard to say where the impact will be worst, and if it misses altogether, when will the next threat arise.   History has shown us the threat of aquatic nuisance species is worthy of concern. Thirty years ago, when zebra mussels were first discovered, did anyone understand how devastating the infestations would be in the Great Lakes region?   And in the past 10 years, these mussels have moved to other waters. Resources needed to slow or stop just zebra mussel expansion could have been better used elsewhere, but without a multi-state conscious effort to slow the spread of all ANS, they would be hurting many more waters than is currently the case.   That’s why rules and regulations are on the books.   Now that open-water fishing is upon us, it’s a good time to take a more thorough look at ANS so we can minimize or prevent their future appearance in North Dakota waters.   North Dakota ANS Regulations All aquatic vegetation must be removed from boats, personal watercraft, trailers, and fishing and hunting equipment such as fishing poles, bait buckets, lures, duck decoys, and waders before leaving a body of water. That means "vegetation free" when transporting watercraft and/or equipment away from a boat ramp, landing area or shoreline. All water must be drained from boats and other watercraft, including bilges, livewells, baitwells and motors before leaving a water body. Live aquatic bait or aquatic vegetation may not be transported into North Dakota. All water must be drained from watercraft prior to entering the state.

  3474 Posted by Neil Hoefs
• By Neil Hoefs

  Aquatic habitat in North Dakota

  North Dakota Outdoors North Dakota Game and Fish Department Doug Leier   You’ve made your list and are checking it twice, anticipation for fishing is growing faster than your lawn this spring. Current license – got it. Life jackets – check. Next stop, open-water fishing 2014. The only thing holding you back from a day on the water is Mother Nature, but that’s spring in North Dakota.   The past 20-plus year wet cycle has produced marvelous fishing in North Dakota. From Devils Lake to Lake Sakakawea and in hundreds of spots between, great opportunities exist for fishing in rivers, streams and local impoundments. Safe to say it’s been a heyday for anglers.   It’s interesting to observe human nature any time a few weeks or even a month of dry weather pops up, and we immediately wonder if the next dry cycle is upon us and threatening many of our lakes? The truth of the matter is, we really won’t know that until it happens, and in most case there’s not much we can do about it.   One threat that anglers can do something about, and need to address, is aquatic nuisance species, which will likely present a continuing threat from here on out.   North Dakota already has some of these invasive species. The common carp, introduced in this country before people knew how much they could damage local fish populations, is probably the most familiar.   Carp have disrupted North Dakota fisheries for decades, but not every water has them, and the state’s laws are designed to greatly minimize the potential that we humans will spread them to those clean waters.   Carp aren’t the only threat, though. Over the years as fishing opportunities have expanded, so have the battles against new invaders across the nation and our state. A decade ago I was writing about salt cedar or tamarisk along the Missouri River System. Now it’s zebra mussels from the east and silver carp in the James River.   In a way, the ANS threat is like a summer storm on the horizon while you're enjoying time in or on the water. We know the storm is on the way, but it’s hard to say where the impact will be worst, and if it misses altogether, when will the next threat arise.   History has shown us the threat of aquatic nuisance species is worthy of concern. Thirty years ago, when zebra mussels were first discovered, did anyone understand how devastating the infestations would be in the Great Lakes region?   And in the past 10 years, these mussels have moved to other waters. Resources needed to slow or stop just zebra mussel expansion could have been better used elsewhere, but without a multi-state conscious effort to slow the spread of all ANS, they would be hurting many more waters than is currently the case.   That’s why rules and regulations are on the books.   Now that open-water fishing is upon us, it’s a good time to take a more thorough look at ANS so we can minimize or prevent their future appearance in North Dakota waters.   North Dakota ANS Regulations All aquatic vegetation must be removed from boats, personal watercraft, trailers, and fishing and hunting equipment such as fishing poles, bait buckets, lures, duck decoys, and waders before leaving a body of water. That means "vegetation free" when transporting watercraft and/or equipment away from a boat ramp, landing area or shoreline. All water must be drained from boats and other watercraft, including bilges, livewells, baitwells and motors before leaving a water body. Live aquatic bait or aquatic vegetation may not be transported into North Dakota. All water must be drained from watercraft prior to entering the state.

  May 21, 2014 3474
• 21 May 2014
  Minimum length limit for walleyes?

  North Dakota Outdoors North Dakota Game and Fish Department Doug Leier   When you’re talking fishing, it really doesn’t matter where you’re at.   Bait shop, coffee shop, boat landing or campfire, there’s plenty of stories, from forgetting to put the plug in, to a storm brewing up from out of nowhere, to the one that got away.   A lot of times, when the people involved in the conversations  know that I work for the North Dakota Game and fish Department, those “ones that got away” stories often lead to “Why doesn’t the Game and Fish Department…?”   Over the past few years, one of those “Why doesn’t Game and Fish …?” questions that comes up fairly frequently is something like “Wouldn’t fishing be better if we had a statewide minimum length limit for walleyes?”   Rather than try to answer that question myself, I’ll refer to Scott Gangl, the Game and Fish Department’s fisheries management section leader. Gangl authored an article in North Dakota OUTDOORS magazine last year, which covered that very subject.   When a walleye population has few young fish due to poor reproduction or stocking success, but those fish are growing well, a minimum length limit could help protect young fish to grow to a size that would provide more benefit to anglers. Of course, for any fishing regulation to be effective, angler harvest must have more of an effect on the population than other natural sources of mortality.   Lake Sakakawea’s walleye population today meets two of the criteria for a minimum length limit – low natural mortality and good growth. But Sakakawea’s walleyes in 2014 do not exhibit any signs of a population in need of a minimum length limit, such as low reproductive or stocking success, or high fishing mortality. In fact, natural and fishing mortality combined has been around 30 percent on Sakakawea in recent years, which is sustainable when compared to more heavily fished populations.   In addition, the combination of natural reproduction and good overall stocking success since 2010 has produced abundant young fish that are growing well and should reach a desirable size in another year or two.   The walleye population in the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River – from Garrison Dam downstream past Bismarck to the headwaters of Lake Oahe – and in Lake Oahe itself, is currently quite a bit different than Sakakawea’s. While small fish are abundant following strong natural reproduction in 2009 and 2011, a major decline in forage abundance after the 2011 flood has decreased their growth rate. A lack of food, teamed with a robust northern pike population, has also increased natural mortality. Given the current situation, anglers are encouraged to harvest some smaller walleye to prevent fish from dying. Thus, a minimum length limit is not advisable on this population.   At Devils Lake, rising water levels have led to strong natural reproduction in recent years. Currently, there is no shortage of small fish in the population, and growth rates have decreased substantially since 2008. Since overall mortality rates are not excessive, it would be better to allow harvest of small walleye at Devils Lake rather than restrict it with a minimum length limit.   While a few lakes and reservoirs in North Dakota do have special restrictions, those are unique. In the name of balancing angler opportunity with biological support, it makes more sense on both levels to provide anglers consistency for most waters across the state, rather than restrict anglers categorically based on social pressure.   Don’t forget, water conditions and fisheries populations have, can and will change. Which is why Game and Fish biologists conduct consistent research, evaluate scientific evidence and monitor waters, so future changes are never totally out of consideration. 

  1534 Posted by Neil Hoefs
• By Neil Hoefs

  Minimum length limit for walleyes?

  North Dakota Outdoors North Dakota Game and Fish Department Doug Leier   When you’re talking fishing, it really doesn’t matter where you’re at.   Bait shop, coffee shop, boat landing or campfire, there’s plenty of stories, from forgetting to put the plug in, to a storm brewing up from out of nowhere, to the one that got away.   A lot of times, when the people involved in the conversations  know that I work for the North Dakota Game and fish Department, those “ones that got away” stories often lead to “Why doesn’t the Game and Fish Department…?”   Over the past few years, one of those “Why doesn’t Game and Fish …?” questions that comes up fairly frequently is something like “Wouldn’t fishing be better if we had a statewide minimum length limit for walleyes?”   Rather than try to answer that question myself, I’ll refer to Scott Gangl, the Game and Fish Department’s fisheries management section leader. Gangl authored an article in North Dakota OUTDOORS magazine last year, which covered that very subject.   When a walleye population has few young fish due to poor reproduction or stocking success, but those fish are growing well, a minimum length limit could help protect young fish to grow to a size that would provide more benefit to anglers. Of course, for any fishing regulation to be effective, angler harvest must have more of an effect on the population than other natural sources of mortality.   Lake Sakakawea’s walleye population today meets two of the criteria for a minimum length limit – low natural mortality and good growth. But Sakakawea’s walleyes in 2014 do not exhibit any signs of a population in need of a minimum length limit, such as low reproductive or stocking success, or high fishing mortality. In fact, natural and fishing mortality combined has been around 30 percent on Sakakawea in recent years, which is sustainable when compared to more heavily fished populations.   In addition, the combination of natural reproduction and good overall stocking success since 2010 has produced abundant young fish that are growing well and should reach a desirable size in another year or two.   The walleye population in the Garrison Reach of the Missouri River – from Garrison Dam downstream past Bismarck to the headwaters of Lake Oahe – and in Lake Oahe itself, is currently quite a bit different than Sakakawea’s. While small fish are abundant following strong natural reproduction in 2009 and 2011, a major decline in forage abundance after the 2011 flood has decreased their growth rate. A lack of food, teamed with a robust northern pike population, has also increased natural mortality. Given the current situation, anglers are encouraged to harvest some smaller walleye to prevent fish from dying. Thus, a minimum length limit is not advisable on this population.   At Devils Lake, rising water levels have led to strong natural reproduction in recent years. Currently, there is no shortage of small fish in the population, and growth rates have decreased substantially since 2008. Since overall mortality rates are not excessive, it would be better to allow harvest of small walleye at Devils Lake rather than restrict it with a minimum length limit.   While a few lakes and reservoirs in North Dakota do have special restrictions, those are unique. In the name of balancing angler opportunity with biological support, it makes more sense on both levels to provide anglers consistency for most waters across the state, rather than restrict anglers categorically based on social pressure.   Don’t forget, water conditions and fisheries populations have, can and will change. Which is why Game and Fish biologists conduct consistent research, evaluate scientific evidence and monitor waters, so future changes are never totally out of consideration. 

  May 21, 2014 1534
• 19 Jun 2013
  The Future of Fishing

  Doug Leier   Recently a friend asked me how I see fishing in the future.   Since my approach to fishing probably fits more in 1983 than 2013, and for sure what fishing may be like in 2033, I really struggled to envision the way fishing would look years from now. And some days the fish will bite, and some days they won’t. What I can do is look back on how I’ve seen fishing change over the course of more than three decades in North Dakota, and look for more positive improvements to come.   I don’t know that anyone could have predicted 30 years ago that fishing as a whole could be substantially better in 2013 than in 1983. But it is. - See more at: http://www.uplandgameadventures.com/?p=4496#sthash.26prDVNX.dpuf

  1159 Posted by Neil Hoefs
• By Neil Hoefs

  The Future of Fishing

  Doug Leier   Recently a friend asked me how I see fishing in the future.   Since my approach to fishing probably fits more in 1983 than 2013, and for sure what fishing may be like in 2033, I really struggled to envision the way fishing would look years from now. And some days the fish will bite, and some days they won’t. What I can do is look back on how I’ve seen fishing change over the course of more than three decades in North Dakota, and look for more positive improvements to come.   I don’t know that anyone could have predicted 30 years ago that fishing as a whole could be substantially better in 2013 than in 1983. But it is. - See more at: http://www.uplandgameadventures.com/?p=4496#sthash.26prDVNX.dpuf

  Jun 19, 2013 1159