Good morning, everyone.
Bill -- I dug out those growth rates for you.
AS I said, we first stocked this 20-acre lake with WAY too many small fingerling walleyes (30 mm fish at 250/acre!!) in 1997. So, we've had five growing seasons through this fall. In 1998, we stocked advanced fingerlings (155 mm at about 50/acre).
When we sampled in fall of 2000, we considered growth essentially done for that year. So, the walleyes only reached an average of 194 mm at age 1, 256 mm at age 2, and 277 mm at age 3. I didn't know they could even grow as slowly as they did from 2 to 3. As you discussed, I'm sure it was a tough life, and we had some high natural mortality as well as our removals.
We sampled again this fall (2002). The largest fish we caught ranged from 47-52 cm, so we did have a few of those fish that exceeded 20 inches this year, after our removal efforts. Their numbers appear to be relatively low, but their condition factors are finally up!
I mentioned that we started a new pond for the same landowner. This one is about 18 acres. We stocked walleye fry in both 2001 and 2002. Then, in both years, the landowner allowed a commercial fish producer to trap out some of the walleyes. So, we don't know what is left, but we know we are trying to keep densities lower. We are doing better on growth in this situation. This fall, the 2001 fish ranged from 27 to 34 cm, with an average of about 31 cm. The 2002 fish ranged from 13 to 20 cm, with an average of 17 cm. These fish are still a little thinner (low condition factor) than I would like to see. However, growth is certainly better. The bottom line is that we have walleyes fishing their second growing season that are more than 2 inches longer than we got in the first pond. So, staying on top of things does pay off.
Yes, Kent was a darn nice guy. Unfortunately, the "wetlands" people are on the "wildlife" side of our profession, and there's ongoing "kidding" between those darn wildlifers and us highly regarded fish squeezers.
Dave
