Mike Axsom (West Boggs Park)

[zeke]

Sure would be nice to have rest rooms by the boat ramp. Have a great day.

[MikeAxsom]

Sure would be nice to have rest rooms by the boat ramp. Have a great day.

THanks for the input. As a matter of fact, ther eis a plan on the drawing board right now for replacing the restroom that is there with a new, more modern one. That will probably happen over winter.

[panfish]

Mike,

Has there been any more discussions on adding a predator fish to help decrease the shad and improve the panfishing?

Lamb lake is very similar in size to Boggs. They have a shad issue as well. They added wipers in 2005 and in 2006. The surveys already are showing improvements in the panfish and the largemouth fishing has never been better. Of course, they are a private lake and did not have to rely on the state to stock them. They hired an independent firm to stock them. They also hire a firm to do annual surveys.

[MikeAxsom]

You seem to understand already that the IDNR, Division of Fish & Wildlife are the actual managers of this fishery. That is because as a county property, West Boggs is classified unde r the law as "Public Water", and thus subject to state regulation and management. That is why everything related to state fish and game laws, as well as boating laws, etc. apply here just as they do on the IDNR properties.

There has been no recent mention about the use of another species to control shad. It seems that the state is more inclined to allow the fishery to continue to provide the excellent bass fishing it is currently doing, until the shad have taken their toll there, as they invariably will. The problem there is that the presence of shad is a good thing for the larger bass, but a bad thing for small bass; so eventually there will be a decline as the older fish die off.

When that time comes I expect to see another complete renovation, similar to the one in 1994. I do know, however, that the biologists are concerned about spending the money that renovation will cost, knowing that there is a high probability that shad will be reintroduced again in a short time. Any new renovation will need to be combined with an aggressive education program to make sure people know more about this issue. Still, I think it is probably time for anglers that want to see quality fishing other than for bass to begin letting IDNR know your desires. There is some validity, I think, in the old axiom that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And I know for a fact that Fish & Wildlife is more in tune with the wishes of their constituents than most government agencies.

[Moose1am]

IDNR stocked Muskie in the Bluegrass and Loon Pits at Bluegrass Fish and Wildlife Area. This experiment may teach them something about predatory fish and control of shad if the muskie survive and reproduce.

It's going to take some years before the small muskie can grow big enough to really eat gizzard shad. And Bluegrass Pit is 60 ft deep in some spots so there is plenty of deep water for the fish to roam during the hot summer months. We will have to wait to see how these Northern Fish respond to the warmer waters down here in Southern IN. This may not work or it may work, only time will tell. The water quality of these lakes down here is not the same as the lakes up on the Canadian Shield Areas. Up there they have little carbonate in the rocks as those rocks are mostly granite. Down here we have little granite and mostly limestone and shale. So the water's pH down here at Bluegrass is around 8.4 and the lakes up North will have lower pH's for the most part. So only time will tell if the Muskie down here can actually reproduce. But if they can reproduce I'll bet that they will be eating a lot of those big Gizzard Shad. Those shad are in for a big surprise when a toothy muskie grabs hold of them. LOL

I also fear that the other fish will be attacked by the Muskie if they reproduce in big numbers. The limit will be 36" long for the Muskie so it will take a while for them to grow that big and be removed by legal fishing methods.

Not sure how deep the water is at West Boggs or if that water can hold a predator fish like Muskie. But if this experiment works at Bluegrass then it may work at other lakes too.

It's a lot cheaper to stock muskie and let them reproduce naturally than it would be to have to restock them over and over again. And if it works it will be cheaper to control the shad with Muskie than it would be to drain the lake every few years and kill the shad with chemicals.

So we will have to wait a few more years to see how this turns out down here at Bluegrass. But hopefully it will work and can be used at other State Managed lake like West Boggs.

You seem to understand already that the IDNR, Division of Fish & Wildlife are the actual managers of this fishery. That is because as a county property, West Boggs is classified under the law as "Public Water", and thus subject to state regulation and management. That is why everything related to state fish and game laws, as well as boating laws, etc. apply here just as they do on the IDNR properties.

There has been no recent mention about the use of another species to control shad. It seems that the state is more inclined to allow the fishery to continue to provide the excellent bass fishing it is currently doing, until the shad have taken their toll there, as they invariably will. The problem there is that the presence of shad is a good thing for the larger bass, but a bad thing for small bass; so eventually there will be a decline as the older fish die off.

When that time comes I expect to see another complete renovation, similar to the one in 1994. I do know, however, that the biologists are concerned about spending the money that renovation will cost, knowing that there is a high probability that shad will be reintroduced again in a short time. Any new renovation will need to be combined with an aggressive education program to make sure people know more about this issue. Still, I think it is probably time for anglers that want to see quality fishing other than for bass to begin letting IDNR know your desires. There is some validity, I think, in the old axiom that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And I know for a fact that Fish & Wildlife is more in tune with the wishes of their constituents than most government agencies.

[raporter]

Moose are those true musky or tiger musky? Sure would love to see some in Patoka.

[fishNnut]

Moose are those true musky or tiger musky? Sure would love to see some in Patoka.

They are true musky. Although they may not reproduce at Blue Grass, they do have the capabilities. What will help the musky fry some is the fact that they should hatch sooner than the other fish. That is what hurts them in the north. Northerns hatch first and feed on musky fry.

I don't think you will see them in Patoka. The fact that the bass fisherman tried to kill out the Northerns should be enough to keep the state from spending any more money up there on another species.

[cbass]

Musky won't reproduce in bogs. Guaranteed.

[fishNnut]

Moose are those true musky or tiger musky? Sure would love to see some in Patoka.

They are true musky. Although they may not reproduce at Blue Grass, they do have the capabilities. What will help the musky fry some is the fact that they should hatch sooner than the other fish. That is what hurts them in the north. Northerns hatch first and feed on musky fry.

I don't think you will see them in Patoka. The fact that the bass fisherman tried to kill out the Northerns should be enough to keep the state from spending any more money up there on another species.

[idbefishing]

I don't think you will see them in Patoka. The fact that the bass fisherman tried to kill out the Northerns should be enough to keep the state from spending any more money up there on another species.

Oh here we go, finger pointing again! Do you have any concrete fact to back this claim up with? The state don't spend money on other species at Patoka because everyone goes there fish for bass, IMO.

[fishNnut]

Well, I don't know if it is concrete or not. I had a guy in a little bait store up by the lake tell me that he and everyone he knew in their club would kill the northerns when they caught them. They had some pictures of some good fish on the wall too.


Lighten up man, it's not like I blamed any bass clubs for turning loose gizzard shad or anything.

There are still northerns in Patoka. Just deep in the trees.

[topwater2007]

I am sure that Patoka has Chain Pickerel in it.

I caught a whole bunch in Blue River when I was smallmouth fishing. Some anglers would confuse a mature Chain Pickerel for a small pike.

I don't know why a bass angler would care about a few pike in Patoka, I fished up north and the bass do well with lots of pike around. Largemouth and smallmouth are easily compatable with Northern Pike.

One lake the DNR needs to fix is Cagles Mill Reservoir (Cataract). It needs shad control badly. They stopped stocking wipers for fear of cross breading with white bass and sterilizing the entire species. The lake ain't been worth a **** ever since.

They need an artificial cover program too, creating brush piles and off shore reefs with wood pallets. Anything to get some cover into that lake.

I think the reason Musky are not stocked for shad control, it that they will take down only the large shad. If huge populations need controlled, it would take white bass or wipers to keep that going.

Give the state guys a call. I have called them several times about Cataract, never got anything done, but they did talk to me and give me reasons why nothing ever gets done. They fill the lake with walleye fry, and guess what? People harvest the walleye all the time. They are meat anglers and that is the only thing that happens at Cataract. People talk about the crappie, but they are small.

topwater