Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

G'Job DEC! We trollers can now target lakers, lakers….. or lakers. Rainbows, browns and salmon are as rare as hen's teeth!

Plenty of bait though (sawbellies, NOT your phantom ciscos).

No fun! No interest! Lakers only..... and you did it DEC!

Rethink your stocking plans or you'll lose fishermen support, license income, charter guys, etc.

Sawbelly counts rise and fall from time to time. Always have. You panicked last couple years, and started talking about your bs cisco theories (yawn).

You shoulda just waited for the sawbellies to resurge (it only took 6 months) then re-stocked the game fish.

Please.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO THEY REALLY STOCK??? What they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would think the issue has to do with lamprey predation.  Seneca is filled with those nasty bastards.  

Edited by GAMBLER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this lake had a good supply of native lakers years ago. only problem they reproduced to fast and never got too big. ciscoes are excellent bait fish. much better than sawbellies. dec can restock it with lakers but the lakers take a long time  to get big. what I think would work here is stock it with walleyes and let the lakers reproduce on there own. fisherman would love to have the walleye here they grow very fast . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ray4852 said:

this lake had a good supply of native lakers years ago. only problem they reproduced to fast and never got too big. ciscoes are excellent bait fish. much better than sawbellies. dec can restock it with lakers but the lakers take a long time  to get big. what I think would work here is stock it with walleyes and let the lakers reproduce on there own. fisherman would love to have the walleye here they grow very fast . 

Walleye are a terrible fish to coexist with trout species. Look at Owasco lake 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not even sure which lake this post is referring too.  Seems like Keuka since I have never heard any mention of Ciscos being considered on Seneca.  Either way I do agree that DEC hasn't been doing a great job with managing the Finger Lakes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seneca and Kueka are both oligotrophic, steep sided deep cold well oxygenated and relatively deficient in nutrients.  IF they were natural habitat for walleyes the fish would be there.  Walleyes have not been stocked for a long time in Hemlock Lake, and yet there is a residual population that survives through natural reproduction.  Seneca is attached to the canal system and there are lots of Walleyes in there, they would be in Seneca if they found it to their liking ( and probably are to some extent, but maybe not enough for anyone to target them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry bout my handle. I'm talking about Keuka.

Lampreys not a big problem here....yet.

Lake now seems to again have reasonable populations of lakers and alewives (sawbellies). Yeah!

Also plenty bass, perch, pike etc around the edges.

But as far as I can tell there are minimal/zero of the fishies us trollers want most....rainbows, browns and landlocked salmon.

DEC should restock them.... large enough so they don't all get instantly eaten by lakers!!

 

DEC's native cisco 'solution'? If sawbellies wiped them out before, along with shad, why wouldn't that happen again?

So, if you need to stock bait DEC....stock alewives! Duuh.

 

Jigging for 2# lakers gets old real quick, as does weed/dock hunting for edge dwellers.... I like to troll for gamefish, and I release all lakers unharmed.... ugly, tasteless, weak-fighting, fishies that they are.

 

Anyone opened a laker belly with ciscos in it yet?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would they get alewives to use to stock the Lake?  DEC ( Steve LaPan) says if they used all of NYS Hatchery capacity to raise alewives they could feed Lake Ontario for 8 days.  Keuka is a lot smaller, but it would take a really "big pond" to raise enough alewife, and alewife have temperature and habitat needs (cold, pelagic expanses with phytoplankton and zooplankton for food) that  are "challenging" to replicate artificially.  Also, Ciscoes are native to the system, and USF+WS has been successful at raising them in conventional hatchery facilities.  The symptom of the problem in Keuka is skinny, young lake trout in large numbers, indicative of insufficient bait, and maybe underharvest.  The DEC solution is eliminate  stocking of the fast growing silvers ( RT, BT, and LLS) to take some of the heat off the remaining bait, and attempt to "jumpstart" a native preyfish.  If the bait comes back, so will the silvers.  But first I think they want to see the lakers , which are indigenous to the lake, showing better condition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fish keuka a lot. News to me that sawbellies are coming back strong. I've seen 1 sawbelly in the stomachs of about 50 Lakers I've kept in the last year. Also don't see schools of smallmouth going after them anymore either. DEC hasn't stocked Lakers in keuka in years so the lake trout population is natural and out of their control at this point. If you want more silvers tell DEC to raise stocking of salmon and browns in Seneca where bait is crazy high. And restocking the species that just crashed (sawbellies) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jerktroller,

I use a HB Helix 7 and its been showing me occasional small clouds of baitfish again, since around Xmas (I fish year round). I can't know what kind of baitfish, of course. I assume they are sawbellys. Ciscos? I doubt it.

Trolling, these days I AVERAGE around 2 lakers per hour and I'd say 1 in 4 is over 3#. Very few over 4# . They all look healthy to me. I release them all, so don't see belly content. I fished Seneca for many years... averaged only 1 fish per hour there. Not as many as Keuka, but there were always a few rainbows, lls and browns around to make it interesting.

Anyhow, Keuka now has alewives, and it has lakers. MAYBE it also has a few DEC planted Ciscos?

But I heard that in the past the ciscos, and shad, failed to compete with the alewives, so I question why put ciscos back in there just to fail yet again? If alewives can thrive as they have, with a few annual ups and downs in count, well the DEC need to find a way to strengthen the alewife population and then fill the lake with browns, rb's and lls to eat 'em. Then we'd be happy trollers :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear ya. Just not sure how get that. It’s been mostly Lakers in keuka for over 20 years and I’d love to catch more rainbows, Browns and salmon but stocking hasn’t done anything to help that out. People need to keep more lakers but I know I don’t usually keep my limit and doubt many others do either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We fished Keuka this year for our FLTA and caught over 50 Lakers before 11am. Each Laker was thin and starving. The carrying capacity of the lake is off kilter. The ones we kept were full of insects and very small tadpoles. The fish were generally shallow 40-50' and feeding on perch fry imitations. Keep as many as you legally can. The lake needs to have less predators and more bait. There is also a large supply of huge pickerel in the lake and I believe the next state record could come from there especially when they find the Cisco! 

IMG_20190519_095249238.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 4:39 AM, suttontroller94 said:

Walleye are a terrible fish to coexist with trout species. Look at Owasco lake 

What's wrong with owasco it's fishing well and the walleye are reproducing and catchable still over a decade with no stocking.  Everyone proclaimed victory just 2 years after the walleye stocking was ended...the walleye were still there.  The walleyes belong here more than trout!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you think the walleyes are reproducing in Owasco when gill net surveys in both 2016 and 2018 by the DEC and The Finger Lakes Institute have been unable to find any evidence of walleye reproduction in either the lake or its tribs. All of the fish sampled have been between 14 and 25 years old!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah bigfoot, that's why fish In the tournament this year were 5 and 6 pounders, other than the winner at 7 lbs........5 and 6 pounds aren't 14 yrs old to me...........

Be glad keuka doesn't have walleye or you'd all blame them for your lack of browns and rainbows..........novices!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go out with a light...last time I went on Owasco all I caught and saw was 3-4 pounders.  As for the DEC and their surveys go they went on record numerous times stating there was NO reproduction here and the first season of no stocking I had no trouble finding yoy walleye.  They now agree with me after I proved them wrong....check the latest diary summary.  The DEC are not walleye die hards that stay up all night and chase walleye as a passion or a living.  Otisco is far smaller and several surveys have shown no evidence of ANY reproduction.  Either way I have catch data on my side the DEC and finger lakes institute have only ZEROS which don't prove a thing.  I'm not saying the walleye are thriving but as soon as the stocking stopped within 2 years miraculously everything is fixed....I don't believe it because the fish that would have been stocked wouldn't even have been 12" long yet and it was a victory?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bigfoot said:

Interesting that you think the walleyes are reproducing in Owasco when gill net surveys in both 2016 and 2018 by the DEC and The Finger Lakes Institute have been unable to find any evidence of walleye reproduction in either the lake or its tribs. All of the fish sampled have been between 14 and 25 years old!

Do you have any link to this information?  I have heard from multiple people that younger walleye are being caught and seen spawning in tributaries.  I personally haven't fished it in quite a few years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started the walleye talk on this thread. years ago we had a nice walleye fishery on canadagua lake. I  saw the tail end of it during the later 60s. it was very popular on that lake. the old timers fished for them at night with lights hanging over the boat. they caught nice size walleye and trout there. the walleye and trout manage to live together.  lake trout in that lake were big. plenty of bait. as the lake started to develop around the lake the walleye fishing decline and the fishery died out. our fingers lakes today is mostly trout and some panfish. I think the DEC could take one of these lakes and turn it in to a walleye lake no trout just walleye add the right bait and see what happens. keuka and canadagua I think could work. we need a good walleye lake. just a thought. we need a good walleye lake in one of these finger lakes. I think we have enough trout. walleye are good eating. the local economy would benefit too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The documents are available online on the DEC website under the Eastern Finger Lakes Angler Diary Cooperator Reports section. The link for the 2018 Owasco Lake report is http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/r7owlad2018.pdf

 

The report clearly states that they sampled a 5.5 lb. walleye that was 14 years old. We tend to think that a fish that old must be huge, but it takes more than age alone to grow big fish.

 

I was very much in favor of the Owasco walleye stocking when it was getting going in the early 1980's. I have also witnessed how it ruined an excellent trout fishery. Some refuse to acknowledge that it was/is a failed experiment, I understand that. Last thing I would want to see is that experiment repeated.

 

Read the reports. If you don't think they reflect your experience, then perhaps you should be keeping an Angler Cooperator Diary so that your fishing results are shared with DEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree a walleye fishery can destroy a trout fishery.  Lake Ontario is loaded with trout and salmon. have you ever fished walleye on Lake Ontario. you can catch walleye 15 pounds. I use to fish the oswego river. you can pull big walleye out of there during the early spring. Lake Huron is loaded with walleye and trout. look at Lake Erie. The states of Ohio and PA stock rainbow trout very heavy in Lake Erie. have the walleye destroyed the trout nope.  A lake like keuka use to be loaded with native lake trout.  walleye fishery here won't hurt this lake. I think a small walleye fishery could help this lake. walleye will eat some of those little trout in this lake and the trout will control the walleye also. when finished we could have fewer trout but bigger trout.  the problem today. we only bicker back and forth. that's why we cant get anything done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The problems with Keuka seem to be a little more complicated  than just laker imbalance and tanking of the alewife population. Both Keuka and Seneca have complex problems. The overpopulation of lake trout in Keuka sure didn't help things but the nature and character of the lake is changing. It is becoming much more nutrient rich with some of the wrong things. Same is true of Seneca. Keuka has for many years had a problem with chemicals from the vineyards and people's lawns washing into the lake and creating problems. The steep banks in most areas along the periphery of the lake don't help either. The introduction of Zebra and Quagga mussels into the lake more than likely sped up and increased the extent of the problems with increased water clarity out to greater depths. The type of grasses present has also changed with the increase of sunlight and photosynthesis penetrating deeper and the combination of increased sunlight substituting the the slimy green grass stuff replacing much of the native grass beds. To compound things the water fleas eat a lot of the zooplankton and phytoplankton that the small baitfish feed on and they don't survive well in that environment. The lake trout have out-competed the rainbows, browns and Atlantics because they are hardier and more diverse in their feeding habits (witness the predaton of perch and panfish now taking place). Two of the streams I used to fish for rainbows (Guyanoga and Cold Brook) are now in much different shape ( absence of previous "holes" in Cold brook, and presence of manure etc. in Guyanoga) these days so spawning there has probably taken a hit too. In short, the issue of walleye vs. trout/salmon may be a moot issue until some of these other things are properly addressed (if that is realistically possible).

Edited by Sk8man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem with Seneca is the lamprey. DEC cant get the right weather to apply the chemical to kill the lamprey larva. what we need is a good period of dry weather. two much rain the last 5 years. I think the water quality has goon down quite a bit too. to much farm run off into the lake. I haven't fished Seneca much the last two years but I believe we still have a decent number of lake trout in this lake. fisherman got spoiled catching 30 fish days and now can only get a few. something happen. I think the lakers moved down a little deeper. too deep for most fisherman to go after. this lake is to big and to deep to say we don't have any trout. but those lampreys can do a lot of damage if the dec cant get a hold on them. I think you still remember what the lamprey did to this lake back in the 60s and early 70s. they destroyed the lake trout. it took a long time for the trout to comeback. its was nice to see a decent number of wild lake trout in this lake a few years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree Ray that the lampreys are a big problem on Seneca. Previous high water conditions in the areas where they spawn allowing them to spawn and get back out into the lake in years past are a part of the current situation. Many of these lampreys are good sized and they can live for 15 or more years so past problems are part of what is plaguing us now. You are also right about the treatment conditions having great impact as time goes on. The TFM needs to be applied at the right time and under the right weather/wind conditions and they aren't always "optimal" by any stretch of the imagination. It is reminiscent of the mid to late seventies when you could fish most of the day without seeing or catching a trout. There are however some other negative things at work in the lake too and it is my hunch that it is a combination of problems that has led to the current state of affairs. The lake (as with Keuka) has been undergoing composition changes that have degraded the water. As you mention farm run-off into the lake (manure/methane, phosphorus, and other chemicals some of which are 'bio-limiting" factors for photosynthesis and weed growth, some which affect the PH level of the water too. It has always been surprising to me that the DEC hasn't required berms of some sort  at the edges of farmland and vineyards at the lake edges to reduce run-off. Another disturbing thing is the run-off of lawn pesticides and fertilizers from the highly increased residential development along the lake now. The algae blooms are probably a result of all these nutrients washing into the lake and congregating in certain areas. It has been rumored that the electric plant at Dresden may be cycling massive amounts of lake water without filter screens and if true that may be having an impact on fish numbers as well. The supposedly inadvertent dumping of raw sewage into the lake via the Keuka Outlet certainly hasn't helped lake quality either. Then...we get around to the Zebra, Quagga mussels and waterfleas which have further compounded matters by their filtering activity and zooplankton predation. We always look for a "silver bullet" or single simple answer to problems, but some situations such as these are more complicated and more difficult to fully identify even before figuring out any potential solutions. In the case of the zebras there is a potential chemical solution but it is not possible or feasible . because of the size of these bodies of water and related costs among other things. The out of balance alewife population occurring now doesn't help matters short terms either. Just my take on it....I'm not a scientist either:lol:

Edited by Sk8man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...