Cloverleaf Fisheries Task Force
Organizational Meeting
6:30 p.m. Dec. 7, 2006, Belle Plaine Town Hall
Present:
Bob Tomashek, Chris Sampson (facilitator), Al Niebur (DNR, consultant), Jim Aumann,
Sandy Mass, Monk Molitor
Introductions:
Members in attendance introduced themselves. Bob mentioned that a couple of members
had indicated in advance they would be unable to attend; others he had just not heard
from.
Outline of goals:
Representing the larger, long-range Lake Management Plan, Bob described the
Cloverleaf Lakes Protective Association’s purpose in forming our task force. He
explained that we aren’t expected to solve all of the fisheries problems, if any, or do all of
the work. Instead, by May of 2007, we are to finalize recommendations for what an
ongoing, fisheries-management advisory group would look like. We might narrow down
the list of key issues to focus on. We might begin to gather some baseline date, or
recommend how that might be accomplished. But our main job will be to develop a
“process” for helping Cloverleaf Lakes users (residents and visitors alike) come together
to work with the DNR and lake users on fish management on a regular, ongoing basis.
DNR Presentation:
District fisheries manager Al Niebur offered a quick run-through of the slide-show he
presented at the May 2006 annual meeting. Since most everybody had seen that extensive
presentation the first time around, it was a quick recap: The 2005-06 DNR survey of the
Cloverleaf Lakes through shocking and netting revealed that the lakes support a healthy
and impressive variety of fish… it’s primarily a bass-and-bluegill ecosystem… bluegills
are small and very abundant and largemouth bass are large, but numbers are down a little
at present… northern pike are found in decent if not impressive numbers… for a putand-take muskie fishery, enough big fish thrive to “make it interesting”… perch and
crappie are present but bluegills are by far the dominant panfish… despite years of onand-off stocking, walleye were all but absent from the DNR survey – doesn’t mean you
wouldn’t find some if you targeted this species via special netting or shocking, but they
are almost certainly not very abundant… The lakes appear a shade light on overall
predator numbers right now, but maybe that’s a one-year survey blip, because historically
that has not been an issue.
General Discussion of Cloverleaf Lakes fishing:
During question-and-answer with Al, and task force volunteers, many points were raised,
expanding on his presentation, among them:
• Perception of a major carp problem? Current water quality and DNR fish surveys
offer no indication that carp are “taking over.” Says Al, “You’d be surprised, but
almost every lake in Wisconsin has at least a few carp swimming around.” With an
outlet to a marsh and the Embarrass/Wolf System, it’s an almost-unavoidable
invasive for the Cloverleafs. A red flag would be boom-shocking that turns up a big
crop of juvenile carp – the recent DNR sweep found very few. Predation by a healthy
game fish population (in Pine Lake that would be bass, northern and muskie)
typically keeps numbers in check. Because the surviving adult carp are large in size
and congregate tightly in spring and thrash in shallow water during spawning, people
who see that might over-estimate the population’s impact. Consensus: Continue to
monitor, but right now, not a great concern.
• A problem with bass? Compared with earlier DNR surveys (generally done about
every seven years), numbers are down. And there are fewer bass in the Cloverleaf
Lakes this year than in comparable waters (Pensaukee Lakes). But growth rates
remain good. Maybe it’s just cyclical. Al might request permission to conduct a
more-targeted DNR survey on bass.
• Can northern pike and muskie co-exist? Committee members shared anecdotal info
from Cloverleaf fishermen that northern pike (a favorite ice-fishing target) don’t seem
as abundant, or as big, in recent years. It’s not uncommon to hear fans of northerns
wonder if the planted muskies aren’t somehow crowding them out. Al’s response:
The DNR surveys show Cloverleaf northern pike levels to be about what you’d
expect… and he noted that there are many, many waters where muskies and northerns
thrive, side-by-side.
• Taking big bluegills off the beds? Committee members shared stories of some
fisherman taking limits of big spawners in May and June. Al again shared the latest
research that shows this hurts the gene pool. While logic might tell you that, in a lake
full of small bluegills, a vigorous harvest would be good, the truth is that the 8-inch
males who defend the nests carry “big-fish” genes that the runts don’t have. Before
long, if only the 5-inch fish are allowed to spawn, you’ll have a population dominated
by 5-inch fish.
• How about special regulations? With regard to bluegills, it’s unlikely. A committee
member wondered about a harvest limit or complete closure during spawning, but
politically that won’t fly. The Cloverleafs would be the first; it’s just not the tradition
in Wisconsin. Gamefish, however, are a different story. Such things as slot limits on
various species, an 18-inch size limit on bass and 26-inch limit on northern, have
been tried on many lakes across Wisconsin. Because results have been mixed, Al
urged careful consideration before even requesting the DNR to study such potential
for the Cloverleafs. There are plenty of examples where fish “stack up” just shy of the
legal limit, the population gets out of whack and nobody ever gets to keep a fish; if
the lake doesn’t have the right biology, the fish might become even less abundant
without harvest, if that makes sense.
• Fishing tournaments? Right now, the DNR licenses (monitors) tournaments only if
they have a certain number of boats, if the lake is a certain size, or if they offer cash
prizes. Al said he is generally aware that informal bass clubs, or muskie groups,
sometimes use the Cloverleafs. Right now, they’re not big enough that they legally
need permits. Task force members shared stories of crowds at the landing on some
nights, and wondered if they are “hurting” the lakes. Al said it’s his impression that
the local clubs are more of a social thing, it’s typically catch-and-release, their
numbers aren’t overwhelming, and it’s very possibly having little or no impact. At the
same time, he said, it’s worth watching and maybe even documenting, if that’s
possible. (He also said the clubs might have something to contribute regarding fishery
management – more on that later).
• Would fish cribs help on the Cloverleafs? Al was skeptical. DNR people call them
“fish coffins.” It’s hard to say they improve habitat and carrying capacity on a lake;
mainly, they congregate those fish that are present, making it easier for a small group
of crib-savvy fisherman to pick them off.
• Would more downed timber help? Always. Trees allowed to fall in the water on a
natural shoreline are good for many species and sizes of fish.
• Existing stocking plan for Cloverleaf Lakes. It’s fair to say that the current plan of
putting in non-native muskies and walleyes on an annual or semi-annual basis is
something Al “inherited.” (Meaning: He is opening to take a fresh look, and would
welcome our input.) Al shared the DNR records from the last decade or so. The only
big change has been that, as is the case statewide, in more recent years the DNR is
stocking smaller fish, fingerlings, and more of them, rather than fewer but larger fish.
(Mostly an economic decision). But it has always been muskies, or walleyes, on the
Cloverleaf Chain.
• How about smallmouth to crop off the rusty crayfish now showing up in the
Cloverleafs? Al: There’s not enough smallmouth habitat (hard bottom, rocks).
Besides, the lake’s keystone predator, largemouth bass, is every bit as effective in
controlling crayfish.
• Many anglers enjoy crappie fishing, and perch – can we do something to encourage
their numbers? Maybe. The DNR population survey 2006 show decent, selfsustaining populations of rock bass, crappie and perch… but they are vastly outnumbered by the bluegills. Al said that – especially if there is strong angler support –
it’s not impossible the DNR could look at some management strategies for favoring
crappie and perch over the other panfish. And then set goals: so many fish per acre,
such-and-such size structure.
A primary goal for an ongoing Cloverleaf Protective Association task force
There was strong agreement on one much-needed initiative:
We need an “Angler Survey.”
What does the average fisherman think about the fishing? What have their results been?
What species do they typically target? Typically catch? What would they most like to be
fishing for?
Al pointed out that it will be important to survey all users of the lakes. Not just property
owners, but visitors (weekend or seasonal anglers). Chris urged that the fishing clubs be
contacted, too, as not only are they knowledgeable, but they could be valuable allies if we
need to push for special regulations or, more likely, provide some volunteer muscle for a
habitat project. Al said that the bottom line is this: When the DNR manages a fishery,
they do it for ALL potential users, not just lake property owners.
Bob said the Lake Association survey on usage of the Cloverleaf Lakes (the one that
found “peace and quiet” and “fishing” were high on landowners’ priority lists, and that
had some people rating holiday weekend over-use as a big concern) shows how such a
questionnaire can be done. He said the costs of a direct mailing weren’t bad, and the
response rate was excellent.
Methods will have to be found to survey other area residents, and lake visitors, too.
Al said he would check around and see if other lake associations in the region have done
angler surveys and if so, how. It was agreed that the Fisheries Task Force would make
development of such a survey a priority for its next (January 2007) meeting.
Important point: These surveys could be replicated and repeated on an ongoing basis.
Another key goal: Having the DNR finalize an official fisheries plan
The truth is, there is no comprehensive fisheries management plan for Pine, Grass and
Round Lake.
The local DNR has records of annual fish stockings (remember, Al said he “inherited”
these), and the results of its periodic once-a-decade-or-so boomshocking and netting, but
it doesn’t have a true “Fish Management Plan” for the Cloverleafs. Such a comprehensive
plan would include management goals with specific targets for fish populations, size
structures, etc.
This would be a valuable thing to have, for reasons we’ll discuss at an upcoming
meeting.
The need to address a nagging issue: Walleyes
It was agreed that after all the attention to developing a fishable walleye population over
many decades (DNR stocking of fingerlings, our own private stocking of larger fish, the
dumping of rock rubble on the NW corner of Pine Lake for habitat) the truth remains: the
DNR surveys suggest a minimal presence, and angler success is either a rumor, or a wellkept secret.
A task force or fisheries committee should settle the question, once and for all: Are we
wasting effort on a non-native species that might never thrive in the Cloverleafs?
Misc. Interesting Things
• How do we get the DNR to devote more staff and resources to the Cloverleaf Lakes, if
we believe that would help? Al shared that some lake associations do sweeten the pot,
donating money to in effect allow the DNR biologists to come back and re-sample a lake.
If a lake association wants a more elaborate survey, a follow-up study, boom-shocking
that goes beyond the customary once-every-seven-years visit, a willingness to share those
costs is appreciated. (As would be angler surveys, widespread public interest, etc.) But
even that’s no guarantee – there are too many lakes for too few crews – the local
shocking-netting teams, for example, are already all booked up for 2007.
• Now is a good time to be looking at fisheries management on the Cloverleafs. Gibson
Island is the reason. An on-land management plan for the Island ties in remarkably
closely with fisheries management. One idea discussed: If a simple walking trail is
cleared for nature trail, might any downed timber or lakeshore trees be “re-purposed” as
fish habitat? Worth talking about.
• So much of fisheries is inter-related with other lake-management issues. Watercraft is
a big one. Should more sensitive fish-spawning areas be buoyed as being off-limits?
(The lake would be full of buoys.) Also, after busy holiday weekends, so many floating
weeds litter the water surface, it’s hard to fish. While these questions might not be the
primary responsibility of the Fisheries sub-committee, it’s not unrelated, either.
• Are there examples of other Lake Associations with especially effective Fisheries
subcommittees. What have they done? (Al said it might be possible for him to ask
around, check with his colleagues.)
And, there were a lot of other interesting things, but come to the next meeting to find out
more. We were planning to meet again in early January.
Christopher Sampson, recording secretary