PDA

View Full Version : Walleye?!?



Fishbrains
09-17-2009, 07:33 PM
I heard from a few places about the possibility of stocking walleye in DVL. Has anybody heard anything on this issue? This was talked about by DFG way back in 99' and they said that with the shad population and deep waters DVL could easily support these delicious predatory fish. Any info??

PHISHnutS
09-17-2009, 07:49 PM
I honestly think we will be lucky to fish the place for any extended period of time, with the MWD at the helm it's anyones guess if it will ever permanently stay open. The entire marina set-up is a temporary operation that can be packed up and gone like a traveling circus.

Also think about how bad the financial situation is for the state right now. Again we will be lucky if they plant any fish at all, I doubt they will fund a Walleye planting or hatchery program.

Sorry for the doom and gloom response, this is just my take on it.

Fishbrains
09-17-2009, 07:55 PM
I hear ya on that note, buy on the upside the funds were approved last week to extend the launch ramp down so we can launch. Construction started yesterday!! :)

PHISHnutS
09-17-2009, 08:39 PM
I hear ya on that note, buy on the upside the funds were approved last week to extend the launch ramp down so we can launch. Construction started yesterday!! :)

True, now I just need to work on getting a 4 stroke outboard.

Fishbrains
09-17-2009, 08:58 PM
Same here!! Lemme know if you find any deals!

HuskerRod
09-18-2009, 09:23 AM
I think we better just be happy the lake is open and the launch is being extended. The lake could easily support Walleye, but for now, "don't worry, be happy".

fishmounter
09-19-2009, 03:53 PM
You know there was also talk way back in the planning stages to stock Chinook Salmon and possibly Lake Trout. Some of the foothill lakes in Northern California have Chinook (King) Salmon in them, though they don't grow much larger than 10 to 15 pounds. Lakers would be fun. Whatever happened to the Brown Trout? Stripers eat them all?

HuskerRod
09-22-2009, 01:12 PM
I only ever saw one. It was about a 6-incher swimming in the shallows one morning. Of course, out slightly deeper swimming slightly behind was a pack of hungry looking 4-6 pound bass waiting patiently for that Brownie ot make a wrong move. I don'tthink that particular brown trout lasted the morning.

JigStop
09-23-2009, 05:11 PM
The walleye issue is red hot now because there is talk of a private effort to get 5,000 fingerlings from the Columbia River Basin. Walleye are perfect for this body of water. The self proclaimed genius from the DFG who ramrodded his personal agenda on fish (and doesn't fish himself), is mostly out of the picture. He's why they wasted money on the mystery fish nobody ever catches, Smallmouth Bass and Brown Trout and why there was no fish structures put into the lake. He also acted like Northern Pike were some kind of monster fish, get the picture? Not really up on fish.

Its now a matter of getting the funds together. Not all fishermen like bass and the main "eating fish" are trout and catfish. I did hear of some guys talking about wipers but they are so aggressive they would be fished out real quickly by the "meat hunters", like whats happening at Elsinore.

smokehound
09-24-2009, 01:44 PM
Brown trout and smallies are neat though!

That is pretty ridiculous though, not putting structure in the lake is stupid, these fish need enrichment and hiding spots. That produces healthier fish, larger fish, more colorful fish.

Hahaha why pike? Why not muskies? TIGER muskies at that.

Nessie Hunter
09-24-2009, 02:20 PM
The walleye issue is red hot now because there is talk of a private effort to get 5,000 fingerlings from the Columbia River Basin. Walleye are perfect for this body of water. The self proclaimed genius from the DFG who ramrodded his personal agenda on fish (and doesn't fish himself), is mostly out of the picture. He's why they wasted money on the mystery fish nobody ever catches, Smallmouth Bass and Brown Trout and why there was no fish structures put into the lake. He also acted like Northern Pike were some kind of monster fish, get the picture? Not really up on fish.

Its now a matter of getting the funds together. Not all fishermen like bass and the main "eating fish" are trout and catfish. I did hear of some guys talking about wipers but they are so aggressive they would be fished out real quickly by the "meat hunters", like whats happening at Elsinore.


Im not sure where you get your information from, But I would recommend you start getting from a new source!!!!!

I watched that lake get built from the inside...
It has so much fish structure its not even funny, its everywhere, trenches, cement pipes of all sizes to 8' I/D, boulders and rip rap areas Etc Etc Etc..
Perfect habitat for a fisherie.............

I dont know about you but myself and many, many of my friends have caught Smallies and they are awesome..
They dont breed as fast as LMB, but they are there and biting...

The Browns were a recent attempt at getting them to populate the lake. All fingerlings that were a deal they could not pass up (way Cheap)..

Non conforming invasive species (Walleye, Musky & Pike) will "probably" NEVER go in the lake..
Pipe dreams from Dave (Muskyman).. :ROFL:

DVL is a premier Bass, Cat & Trout lake and fishes quite well as it is.....
IMHO......




.

hotstick
09-24-2009, 10:47 PM
I agree with neesie, take a trip out to the lake right now and you'll see all of the awesome structure that is in there.

Mike Giusti
09-25-2009, 03:08 PM
We considered trying to get walleye in the lake when it was starting to fill but because of the northern pike issue at Davis Lake and the fact that walleye are a restricted species in CA it was not possible to get permission for an introduction. One big concern was that if they were put into the lake people would move them into other lakes. With the live wells in boats now it would be easy for someone to move fish and keep them alive till they got to another lake. I would have really like trying to fish for walleye and I hear they are one of the best eating freshwater fish.

Gobigal
09-26-2009, 01:33 PM
Mr. Giusti, I would like to applaud your effort for giving us fisherman in SoCal the fishing "Jewel" we were hoping for. I read all the stories and hard work you put into this lake and I want to say thank you. None of us would have expected a three year drought, restricted water flows and the Quagga to effect DVL like it has. With an upcoming El Nino winter, we're hoping this will help us out.

One question I have for you, after seeing the demise of the trophy holdover trout fishing at Silverwood, Perris, etc., because of Mr. Stripey, in your opinion, is there any hope for trophy trout in DVL's future? I have asked our local experts TO etc. to comment, and I would respect yours.

TIA,

Big Al

diamondbear
09-26-2009, 04:59 PM
WHATS A Walleye ????

TShaffer
09-26-2009, 07:44 PM
WHATS A Walleye ????

www.google.com

fishtales
09-26-2009, 11:17 PM
WHATS A Walleye ????

Best eating fish there is.

diamondbear
09-27-2009, 03:43 PM
The deep water of DVL might protect the trout for a few more years but as the stripers get really settled in look out largemouth bass and the trout fishery . But stripers are good eating and really good fighters and when totaly overrunning a fishery as Castaic is now , everyone catches . Walleye would be good in DVL but to risky for the surrounding lks.

sansou
09-27-2009, 04:35 PM
Out of curiousity, why wouldn't the lake rangers (or volunteers) consider checking livewells for boats EXITING the lake?

Add a few more bucks to what is already a modest daily fishing fee, and voila, now you can have walleye. I would think the walleye would thrive at DVL, just as they suprisingly do in Arizona.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike Giusti
10-08-2009, 10:06 AM
As long as we continue to stock larger size trout (1/2 pound or bigger) the holdover fishery will be maintained even with stripers in the lake. We have see a really good holdover fishery develop at Lake Silverwood since the Dept. has been stocking larger trout. Even with the large number of stripers in Silverwood the trout are surviving and I would expect the same for DVL because of its size and depth. I know this year was tough to find the holdovers but they are still out there. It will help once they put a lot more water in the lake. We need major snowpacks in the Rockies and Sierras so there will be enough water to put into DVL. Rain in so. Cal doesn't mean there will be more water to put into the lake.

Stormcrow
10-08-2009, 10:50 AM
You know there was also talk way back in the planning stages to stock Chinook Salmon and possibly Lake Trout. Some of the foothill lakes in Northern California have Chinook (King) Salmon in them, though they don't grow much larger than 10 to 15 pounds. Lakers would be fun. Whatever happened to the Brown Trout? Stripers eat them all?

about a year ago I saw a small school of young brown trout. Bout 10 inches a piece. There were about 30 in the school and about 7 2lb LMB had them pinned up on the shoreline. They were too big for those bass to eat but they kept them pinned up anyway. I watched for about 10 mins. It was pretty amazing to see instinct in action!

Big Country
10-08-2009, 12:36 PM
Thank goodness a noted professional actual said "rain in socal doesn't matter" in terms of filling DVL up.

Now maybe people on these boards will realize that 1/4" of rain falling in LA doesn't mean crap to the lake levels.

Stormcrow
10-08-2009, 12:44 PM
Thank goodness a noted professional actual said "rain in socal doesn't matter" in terms of filling DVL up.

Now maybe people on these boards will realize that 1/4" of rain falling in LA doesn't mean crap to the lake levels.

Hmmm.....perhaps you think we are all stupid? I'm working on my PhD and I thought rain had more influence on local water levels. I learned something new today. Apparently, we should take our ques from you from now on?

Just wondering

GeordyBass
10-08-2009, 03:38 PM
Hmmm.....perhaps you think we are all stupid? I'm working on my PhD and I thought rain had more influence on local water levels. I learned something new today. Apparently, we should take our ques from you from now on?

Just wondering
....:Popcorn:....

Big Country
10-08-2009, 10:14 PM
Not stupid, but most are misinformed about the impact rain in socal has on lake levels - phD or no phD.

Good luck on your studies!

DarkShadow
10-08-2009, 10:16 PM
Hmmm.....perhaps you think we are all stupid? I'm working on my PhD and I thought rain had more influence on local water levels. I learned something new today. Apparently, we should take our ques from you from now on?

Just wondering

Stormcrow,

I thought the stat that floats around is that 80% of the rain that falls in SoCal is wasted, because we have no adequate system of saving that precipitation and most ends up in the ocean.

We steal water from NorCal, and also have deals with Arizona to procure water from the Colorado.

I thought the snowpack in the Sierra was SoCal's saving grace?

Stormcrow
10-09-2009, 08:57 AM
Stormcrow,

I thought the stat that floats around is that 80% of the rain that falls in SoCal is wasted, because we have no adequate system of saving that precipitation and most ends up in the ocean.

We steal water from NorCal, and also have deals with Arizona to procure water from the Colorado.

I thought the snowpack in the Sierra was SoCal's saving grace?

Thats what I thought too. But 20% harvest is better than none right? But apparently its far less than 20%. I know they are making changes to major flood plains in CA to capture more water. That was one of the goals of the new Prado Dam. I wonder what they are doing in other parts of the state.

BIG*GAME*HUNTER
10-09-2009, 09:03 AM
Stormcrow,

We steal water from NorCal, and also have deals with Arizona to procure water from the Colorado.




i've heard of this too..is this true? that means different kinds of fish through the ducts from arizona and texas???

goodguy
10-09-2009, 09:59 AM
i've heard of this too..is this true? that means different kinds of fish through the ducts from arizona and texas???

I don't know about texas, but norcal and the colorado river for sure....

Big Country
10-09-2009, 04:42 PM
Most lakes in socal receive their water from either the State Water Project (the Delta) or from the Colorado River via ducts. The water levels at these lakes vary based on the amount of water made available to them from these 2 sources and it's all determined by a convaluted systems of water rights, political grandstanding, etc.

As an example, the SWP only allows water to be pumped towards socal for a total of about 3 months out of the year these days. The rest of the time the pumps are shut off for delta smelt preservation, water right issues, ecological concerns, etc. Water used to flow through these pumps all year long, but not any longer. As for the Colorado River source, a big problem is the quagga for sure, but there is an even larger issue with water rights for Nevada and Arizona, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of farming acres throughout Yuma and Blythe. Their water rights are higher on the list than new developments like DVL.

The bottom line is this is where the water for our lakes comes from down here, not a 15 minute rain downpour. When you factor is these and several other issues, along with severe draught conditions in the main watersheds for these sources, it means the lakes in socal get lower and lower.

Short of a biblical flood in socal, there is no rain storm large enough to raise the water levels of lakes such as DVL or San Luis back to where they were 2 years ago. Rain down here is good for flushing the storm drain system only, that's it.

Natural Lefty
10-10-2009, 05:02 PM
As an interested observer, I want to express my opinions and feelings about this topic, especially after seeing that Mike Giusti himself is monitoring and replying to this thread.

First of all, from Mike Giusti's reply, I got the impression that Walleyes are considered a predatory menace, much like Pike, and are "restricted" in California, whatever that means. As far as I know, there are no Walleyes in California, and so apparently, it was decided to keep it that way. I can understand why the California DFG wants to avoid having them eat fish such as Trout if they ever get into lakes such as Big Bear and others. But why all the talk about Walleyes, if it was never a serious consideration in the first place? I also have a suggestion: Why not stock Yellow Perch in Diamond Valley? They are too small to present much of a predation problem, and taste similar to Walleye (i.e., delicious), being closely related to them. They could even become feed for other species.

Also, what about Lake Trout, or Kokanee? Lake Trout could probably become self-sustaining there, and at least would provide one "exotic" species there (although they are found in some Northern California lakes). Perhaps Kokanee could also be self-sustaining as well. I thought these species were also supposed to be stocked in Diamond Valley, but that has not happened.

I have been seriously disappointed with Diamond Valley, as a primarily shore-fishing person, both with the fact that the species present are only common ones for this area, and the lack of shorefishing access and subsequent lack of good fishing opportunities. I know the lake contains many good size fish, and is relatively lightly fished, but that is of no use when all I can catch are 4inch Bluegills from the designated shorefishing area. Also, the place closes relatively early in the day -- just when the fishing is getting good -- and asks people to pay both an $8 parking fee, plus a $3 fishing fee. It is usually just not worth it, with better and less expensive fishing options in the area. I know the way the lake is managed is not Mike Giusti's fault. That is the fault of the EMWD, but I am reporting my experience with DVL. (I wonder if DVL stands for Devil.)

About the rain issue, lakes which are part of the California Water Project depend mostly on aquaducts for their water supplies, so they are relatively unaffected by rainfall, but I am sure that plentiful rain must help some. There are many other local waters, such as mountain reservoirs and streams, which are totally dependent upon precipitation, however. Big Bear and Gregory Lakes come to mind. Also, Riverside, where I grew up, gets most of its water from wells, which are fed by runoff from the San Bernardino mountains. I am sure the same is true of many communities in SoCal, so rainfall is very important to our water supply. To say otherwise is ignorant or disingenuous. I am glad there is a storm headed for California this coming week. I hope it visits here.

Frenchy
10-10-2009, 06:19 PM
um where can you go fishing for less than 11 bucks

Thisfool
10-10-2009, 07:06 PM
um where can you go fishing for less than 11 bucks

I think he is saying $11 is not worth it when you take into consideration the limited amount of shore fishing area and short fishing days in comparisons to other lakes in the area.

goseango
10-10-2009, 09:22 PM
yup, the shore fishing sucks

:EyePop::EyePop::EyePop::EyePop::EyePop:

http://sdfish.com/index.php/forum/freshwater-reports/66518-lost-my-heart-at-dvl.html





I have been seriously disappointed with Diamond Valley, as a primarily shore-fishing person, both with the fact that the species present are only common ones for this area, and the lack of shorefishing access and subsequent lack of good fishing opportunities. I know the lake contains many good size fish, and is relatively lightly fished, but that is of no use when all I can catch are 4inch Bluegills from the designated shorefishing area. Also, the place closes relatively early in the day -- just when the fishing is getting good -- and asks people to pay both an $8 parking fee, plus a $3 fishing fee. It is usually just not worth it, with better and less expensive fishing options in the area. I know the way the lake is managed is not Mike Giusti's fault. That is the fault of the EMWD, but I am reporting my experience with DVL. (I wonder if DVL stands for Devil.)

Natural Lefty
10-11-2009, 12:15 PM
Actually, fees-wise, Diamond Valley is the most expensive fishing place that I have been to over the past several years. There are lots of free fishing places around here: Big Bear and Gregory come to mind, as well as ocean fishing at Oceanside Harbor or Dana Harbor. I get California State Park Foundation passes to fish Perris and Silverwood, which cost about $3 each.

Actually, the one time I went fishing in a boat at Diamond Valley, I caught 5 large Bluegill, averaging about a pound, so the boat fishing is much better. However, my friend got skunked, and I got seasick (nearly vomited) by the time we returned to the marina. I have taken my wife there 3 times, and I think she has yet to catch a fish there, although she usually does fairly well when it comes to catching at other places. I took my father there once, and I think he caught some small Bluegills, but that was it. Plus, he said he was allergic to something there, which is strange, because Diamond Valley is one place where at least I have suffered no allergies so far, but I often get allergic symptoms at most other local lakes, including Perris, Puddingstone, Silverwood, Big Bear, and Gregory. All of these people felt that Diamond Valley was not worth it, were not anxious to return, and made comments such as, "No wonder that big parking lot is so empty."

Natural Lefty
10-11-2009, 12:17 PM
Also, fishing access is generally free in the Sierras, and in most out-of-state places where I have gone fishing, although one has to get there first.:Confused:

CPRfisher
10-11-2009, 01:31 PM
natural lefty: kinda sounds like you are not using the right stuff for LMB. maybe you are using meal worms or crawlers or something because bluegill probably will not eat the lures or plastics used for LMB. Ive only been to DVL a few times off shore and a few times off of boat but from what ive heard and seen the shore fishing is actually pretty good there compared to most other lakes. The only complaint ive heard was that shore fishing requires alot of walking. I dunno if you are able to do alot of walking but if you are try walking down a couple coves and throwing some c-rig plastics. try some of the bigger worms like 7 to 10 inch and fish the around the points, i think you will hook up with some nice bass. Right now is a good time to go from most reports ive seen the fishing is good-excellent right now. I honestly think DVL is pretty cheap to fish its only a $1 more than perris (if you dont have special passes or anything), and personally the scenery at DVL is way more beautiful. The other only crappy thing about DVL (4 me at least) is the drive. Its like an hour from my house with no traffic. Which i shouldn't complain about becuz im sure there are many who drive alot further than that to fish the lake.

Anyway im with all you guys that DVL should stock some type of "exotic" fish to make things a little more interesting. Lake trout would be awesome b cuz they get BIG and love deep water and DVL is very deep i think they would do pretty good in there.

CPRfisher
10-11-2009, 01:57 PM
Ill let you in on a little known secret! there is plenty of water and there is no drought! Think about it southern california is a dessert climate. it is not supposed to rain here a lot. There is plenty of water up north the problem is that there is no system to deliver to us here down south. Also there is not an efficient system to capture rain water here which is one of the reasons so much rain water goes to waste. So the big question here is why is there not a more sufficient system in place that delivers water to southern California? (besides the aqueduct which doesnt deliver that much water). We pay plenty of tax money for those bastards to deliver us water or to build more places to capture rain water yet they do not build anything. instead they waste our money on stupid little pointless projects while charging us higher rates for water use while they give bonuses and raises to themselves. Well my belief is that there are a few reasons.

1. they would rather waste money on their little pet projects that dont help the majority of people. The leadership in ca loves to run their own agenda and try to control peoples lives. They waste their time and our money on all these stupid little laws that are their pet peeves about society so they can feel like they accomplished something. Instead they should focus our money on things that are going to benefit most of society, such as some more canals, aqueducts etc..

2. So called "environmentalists" donate the most money to the people in power (besides unions) so they pretty much run the state and one of their main objectives is to have less people in CA. One way of doing this is to limit the water supply. One of their most accomplished tasks recently is saving the delta smelt by limiting the water flow through various water pumps in northern and central ca. Millions of gallons of badly needed water in southern California ran off into the ocean unused by anybody. If there is such a severe drought here then why would they rate this fish more important than people and let all that water go. Well because they believe there are already too many people in so cal and one of their main objectives is to make people leave the state. less water = less people . Dont get me wrong i am for protecting all wildlife but if it comes down to it people are more important than a delta smelt or certain frogs and etc.

3. This doesn't really have to do with why they would not build canals but it does have to do with wasting water. I see the city wasting water like krazy all the time while trying to tell us to not waste water. WTF. There are certain cities that ticket you for watering your yard at certain times or more than once a day, yet everyday i see tons of city sprinklers broken shooting off water down the street. i see them watering the grass at parks for hours at a time while they want to limit our lawns to a couple mins? it is such a joke.

Natural Lefty
10-11-2009, 05:13 PM
CPRFisher, I don't really fish for Bass much. Perhaps if I did, I would have more success shorefishing at Diamond Valley. Actually, I have caught a few good sized Bluegill, a couple Catfish, and a Crappie from shore there, but not all that many good size ones. All the Bass I have caught there have been small. I have yet to catch a Redear there (which don't seem to have taken well to Diamond Valley yet) or a Trout (not into the stocker thing, but holdovers would be great).

I saw a show about the water supply in Northern California recently, one of those Huell Howser shows, and they indicated that they were having water shortages, too, contrary to what you said. San Luis Reservoir was way down. I think we need to learn to use water more efficiently and recycle it more. Also, I wish people such as you would stop attacking environmentalists. We all depend upon having a healthy environment. In my opinion, it is wealthy corporatists who donate the most money to politicians and have the most influence. Just look at what is happening to the efforts to reform health care in this nation. I think environmentalists are in favor of policies which help the majority of people, and it is big business which selfishly promotes their own self-interest at the expense of others.

I think people waste too much water, too. I agree with you about that, at least. Much of the problem is the yardcare traditions of our ancestors who came from wetter environments. They thought we should all plant lawns, and water thirsty plants. I have actually found most plants difficult to keep alive here in Moreno Valley without massive watering. Over time, we seem to have more and more Cacti and Succulents in the yard, along with other plants which don't need much water. since they survive better, which is as it should be.

kansasguyinCali27
10-11-2009, 09:12 PM
Stormcrow,

I thought the stat that floats around is that 80% of the rain that falls in SoCal is wasted, because we have no adequate system of saving that precipitation and most ends up in the ocean.

We steal water from NorCal, and also have deals with Arizona to procure water from the Colorado.

I thought the snowpack in the Sierra was SoCal's saving grace?

I actually thought it was either the Owens river or some of the water from the Colorado River that were to save So Cal from drought. Anyhow, it hardly rains here, and when it does, most people just complain about it.

Natural Lefty
10-12-2009, 11:29 AM
I may do some more research about this topic, or ask my brother who works for the State Water Quality Control Board (although he does not appear to be on the internet lately). However, on the spur of the moment, I can think of several water sources for Southern California.

1. Natural precipitation (including well water)
2. Recycled water
3. Owens River water
4. Colorado River water
5. State Water Project water

Also, there might be a desalinization plant or two (anybody know?).

CPRFisher does have a point that flows through the State Water Project have been reduced (10% reduction in July according to an editorial I just read) to help the Delta Smelt and other wildlife, but letting the water flow naturally to the ocean serves a purpose as well. We sucked the Colorado River dry so it no longer flows to the ocean, and as a result, the Gulf of California is much less productive than it used to be, according to ecologists. And the State Water Project is only one of 5 or 6 water sources for SoCal.