(Editor's Note - I wrote this for Dakota Country, an adaptation of a chapter I wrote for a book on South Dakota fishing that is being produced by South Dakota State University in Brookings.)
A Quarter Century of Dakota Fishing By Tony Dean
When the first issue of Dakota Country appeared on newsstands in 1979, the premier fishing boat here in walleye country was a 16-foot Lund Pro Angler powered by a Mercury 50 HP four-cylinder outboard. That motor drank gas, but man, it trolled down and was quiet. The boat wore splashguards, had a Minn-Kota electric on the bow or stern, a Lowrance 2360 sonar and the operator was never without his rainsuit. The price tag for this rig; boat, motor, trailer and accessories was about $7,800, about the same price as a good 4wd outfit, and most of us traded both at least every other year. Back then, this was a big water boat, and while Lake Sakakawea was kicking out big walleyes, Oahe was just beginning to come on as a great fishery. Lake Sharpe regularly produced walleyes between 4 and 6 pounds with more than a few 8 pounders. The hottest rods on the market were Skyline and Lamiglas graphites and almost everyone had switched from the Doll Fly to the Fuzz-E-Grub. Some walleye fishermen were using a weird, wire contraption that Bismarcker, Bob Meter, invented, something he called a “bottom bouncer.” Fishing Facts magazine was the fishing bible but a new upstart publication pioneered by a pair of bearded brothers headquartered in Brainerd, MN was beginning to take over. Within five years, In Fisherman and Bassmaster would become America’s dominant fishing magazines. At the same time, fishing seminars attracted huge crowds wherever they were held and tournaments were staged at nearly every community with a boat ramp along the Missouri River. Devils Lake covered about 30,000 acres but was largely ignored by walleye fishermen though it was regarded as a perch hotspot. The two lakes that produced the biggest South Dakota walleyes were Roy Lake and Big Stone. You didn’t need a boat to fish for big walleyes in either since all of them were caught by wading fishermen after dark.
That was the state of fishing in the Dakotas 25 years ago.
By the Seat of His Pants
North Dakota’s fisheries chief, Dale Henegar stocked smelt in the Missouri River without consulting with South Dakota biologists, creating bitter feelings that remained for years. But the experiment was wildly successful and triggered years of great fishing as walleyes and northern pike grew fat on the oily, high protein silvery baitfish. Smelt also furthered the career of Henegar, who later headed the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, and upon retirement, won a seat in the legislature. That confirmed the feelings of critics that Dale was a better politician than biologist. He never apologized while building a reputation as one who stocked now and measured success later. His planned introduction of the European Zander widened the rift between North and South Dakota fisheries officials, and even some biologists on his staff breathed a sigh of relief when the effort stopped. One told me, “I wake up at night in a cold sweat fearing that when I drop a deep net into Lake Sakakawea, I’ll pull up a Zander.” There was no middle ground when it came to Henegar, his opinions, or those of others about him. But right or wrong, it’s hard to argue with some of his success and no history on Missouri River or North Dakota fishing would be complete without including him.
The Things that Changed Dakota Fishing
While the introduction of smelt and Chinook salmon would have long lasting effects on Dakota fisheries, there were other happenings that would change the way we fish, turn fishing into a major economic contributor, and ultimately threaten those same fisheries. Fishing seminars, how-to articles in fishing magazines, television shows and tournaments all impacted fishing, but in some ways, they were minor compared to the effect of wetland drainage and plowing prairies. Both help maintain high water quality and had it not been for the grass added to the landscape via the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), many excellent fisheries would be fortunate to be considered even mediocre today. In areas where the runoff is particularly bad, a typical transition is for the lakes dominant specie to go from walleye to pike, bass, carp, and finally bullheads. When bullheads cannot eke out a living, the lake is dead. One of the realities of farm country lakes is that they produce only as long as the water quality remains high enough. Thus, Ted Williams’s admonition, that “any fisherman or hunter who isn’t an environmentalist, is a damned fool,” is as true today as it was when he penned it.
Enter the Educated Angler
In the 1970s and 80’s, you could stage a fishing seminar anywhere on a bitterly cold winter night, and several hundred to a thousand anglers hungry for information would attend, paying anywhere from $5 to $10 for the privilege of walking through the doors. I remember doing one at Mohall, ND before a crowd of about 400 fishermen on a night when the temperature would hit 42 degrees below zero. Even the first I did, on a 20-degree below zero night at Stich’s Marine in Sioux Falls, drew almost 2,000 people. Scenes like that were commonplace, night after night, across both states for about fifteen years. It was all new to most fishermen and would ultimately create significant, highly efficient pressure on our fisheries.
Tournaments left their own tracks and I saw it from a front row seat. I fished in the first one, the SD Governor’s Cup, and competed in one nearly every weekend before I finally matured. In fact, though most tournament promoters and backers will deny it, the major reason most anglers today want to know when a tournament is held on a specific lake is so they can avoid it. Doubt that? Consider the fact that the Bismarck Civic Center is the only stop on any of the major walleye tournament venues that draws significant attendance, something it would not do were it not for generous local press support.
Competitive angling was fun in the early days because of the camaraderie and sharing of knowledge. But competition also caused many participants to lose sight of why they fish, including this writer on too many ego-oriented occasions. Like I say, I finally grew out of it. Weekend anglers don’t like being crowded by tournament participants and if I were still fishing them, I’d certainly not wear sponsor clothing during practice. Some manufacturers think tournaments sell products, and maybe they do, though I have doubts. But they seem mostly unaware of the resentment many fishermen feel toward tournaments. Tournament fishermen who attend sport shows and still do seminars only hear from those who think competitive fishing is good. Tournaments often show locals new techniques and locations that result in later exploitation of fish. They also promote big, fast and expensive boats. The total cost of that Lund Pro Angler back in 1979 would barely make a down payment on some of todays walleye boats.
For at least a couple decades, television fishing shows, my own included, have focused too often on teaching anglers how to catch fish, and then, like Catholics going to confession, let us think we are absolved by preaching catch and release. I’m still guilty but I am coming to grips by admitting this is not a spectator sport and there are values in participation. Among them, the humility that comes from knowing fish don’t care who you are, an appreciation of clean, high quality water and families spending time together. As I look back, the best television shows I’ve produced, the ones that have won the awards, focused on a story with fishing serving as a backdrop. Sometimes television shows focus too heavily on promotion of products and we’re all guilty of that. However, the competitive nature of the marketplace and the decline of ad budgets at the same time more television shows go on the air, force it. Even so, viewers spot these pitches in a heartbeat and the red flags go up immediately. Worse, most television fishing shows largely ignore the importance of alerting anglers to threats to clean water.
Magazine articles today concentrate all too often on “how to” and “where to,” and have virtually replaced the “Me and Joe went fishing” stories that stimulated our interest in the sport prior to the 1970s. What they do these days is invite beginning anglers to leap to the latest and best in equipment and technology without experiencing the values of a step-by-step learning curve. That it doesn’t work seems lost on many magazine editors, especially those who live in the shadows of skyscrapers.
So where has this left us? Let me put it this way. We have many anglers who fail to see the basic connection between clean water and good fishing, or even what must be done to maintain high water quality. The angler who launches his boat these days is a more efficient predator than he was in 1979. Most know how to find walleyes and when they do so, have few qualms about filling the live well. Will we be able to sustain fisheries in the face of this kind of pressure? A decade ago, my answer would have been a resounding “Yes.” Today, I’m not so sure. In fact, I don’t think we can without imposing unduly restrictive regulations. Ironically, bass and trout fishing faced the same dilemma in years past.
A Southern Salesman Saves His Bass
Bass fishing survived because America’s bass anglers have embraced catch and release. Ray Scott, the founder of BASS, is often given credit for injecting that philosophy into the minds of rural, southern anglers. In his book, “Fly Fishing Through the Mid-Life Crisis,” author Howell Raines tells the story of a BASS competitor at a weigh-in, tearfully confessing to Scott, he had inadvertently killed a fish.
But Scott was not the first to talk catch and release. The late Lee Wulff before him said, “a fish is far too valuable to be caught just once.” Wulff was so revered by fly fishermen that the practice of releasing trout became the norm. But as persuasive as Scott was; as revered as Wulff was, I don’t think either could have sold the same idea to walleye fishermen. Al Lindner and others have tried but you don’t have to hang around too many fish cleaning facilities to see that it hasn’t worked.
To understand why, try eating a trout or a largemouth bass.
Unfortunately for the walleye, it is esteemed as a table fish. So much so that once caught, it is rarely released, and therein lies the problem. Though a handful of walleye fishermen practice catch and release, most do not, and fisheries biologists who leave it up to anglers to make this decision, believing that they will respond properly, live in a dream world. That’s because the only catch and release program that works on walleyes is one that is mandated.
You may not be able to fish a lake out, but you can certainly fish it down to the point where the time spent isn’t matched by catch rates. We’ve seen that happen several times on Sakakawea and Oahe, two of the biggest reservoirs in the world. Yet, I think Lake Sharpe, that famous walleye factory, and nearby Lake Francis Case, a reservoir that has the misfortune of being located on a major interstate, might be better examples of what heavy and intelligent fishing pressure can accomplish. There are still a lot of walleyes in Sharpe, but few big fish. Biologists say, in fact, most fish measure about 15-inches. I don’t think they’re that big in Francis Case. Back in the early 80s, we could always catch large fish in Sharpe during the spring and fall, but today, an honest 3-pound walleye in Sharpe is an above average catch. This size reduction is the inevitable result of relentless, intelligent fishing pressure. I am haunted by the comments of an angler I saw last summer who was waiting in line at the cleaning table. He said we cannot provide walleyes for the rest of the world. True enough. But he was there, waiting to clean his. And so was I. Much to the chagrin of my walleye-loving wife, I don’t keep many and on the rare occasions when I do, feel guilty. The daily walleye limit on Sharpe and Francis Case has been set at 3 fish for the coming season. Can it get worse? Go fish Wisconsin and Minnesota, where some waters have two and even one fish limits. Limits like that or tightly screwed down slot limits that almost eliminate keeping some for the table, become what I alluded to earlier…mandated catch and release. What’s next? Eliminate weekend fishing? Ban live bait? Go to a lottery system where only a certain number of boats will be allowed on the water at any one time? Lengthy closed seasons? What would you do if you were the fishery manager? Some would say, ban non-residents. But creel surveys show that they account for only 18 percent of those on the water, though they tend to be more successful, probably because they either fish harder or contract the services of a guide. And how easy it is for each of us to justify keeping “our” fish but you should not.
The Responsibility of Being a Fishing Guide
Fishing guides could help solve some of these problems. Too often, mostly because too few of them gather facts, they influence anglers against management policies. Managers won’t always be right but they sure are most of the time, and when guides do this, they do a disservice to fishing and to their businesses. Yet, in other areas where they’ve already experienced the inevitable results of heavy fishing pressure, guides are more supportive of regulations and encourage catch and release. I think it will happen here as it becomes more difficult to catch limits. There will also come a time when most will finally realize that smallmouth bass, the fish some of them cuss, will ultimately prove to be the savior for their guiding businesses. At least many anglers who would travel to either Dakota to fish smallmouths, have already been indoctrinated with a catch and release ethic. Now it’s up to guides to prove they are versatile enough as anglers and smart enough as businessmen, to learn to catch something besides another walleye. The simple, yet painful truth is, unless we can figure out ways to make catch and release more prevalent, and to regulate harvest, we can no longer sustain the quality walleye fishing we enjoyed 25 years ago. Fisheries biologists find themselves all too often behind the rapidly moving curve of fishing success. Moreover, the necessary slowness of bureaucracy makes it hard to adapt to rapidly changing and higher success rates by anglers.
Fish of the Future?
The successful introduction of smallmouth bass into the Missouri River reservoirs and some of the glacial lakes in northeastern South Dakota could provide a cushion for what I am certain will be a downturn in walleye fishing in future years. Smallmouths are game battlers and easy to catch. The quality of these fish in Roy, Clear, Pickerel and Enemy Swim Lakes is approaching world class and I believe Lake Sharpe is headed in that direction. South Dakota biologists have finally installed protective measures that offer smallies a chance to grow. Those protective measures haven’t always been popular among walleye fishermen who see smallmouths as walleye competitors. Smallmouths seem better equipped to withstand seasonal forage shortages because they can easily switch from small fish to invertebrates. And in the approximately 15 years they have inhabited Dakota waters, this fish that has long been touted as the gamest fish that swims, may indeed, become the fish of our future. And we can only hope they’ll help remove some of the heavy pressure on walleyes. The successful salmon program does too but low water levels hinder it.
Remind the President We are Red States
An enlightened Missouri River management program that would reverse the present policies of managing for barges over fish, would do much to help the Missouri River fisheries. That takes us into the dark world of politics. From a political standpoint, we can’t match the electoral votes of the downstream states, but what makes getting a fair shake on management more difficult is that President George W. Bush has sided with them. Remember that he carried the Dakotas handily in the last election. If each person who voted for him would take the time to write a letter about current mis-management, it could make a difference. The President should be reminded that the Dakotas gave up most of its Missouri River bottomland and never received the irrigation benefits that were promised. Our sacrifices provided flood protection for cities to the south and water to float subsidized barges.
Accentuate the Positive
The growth of Devils Lake from 30,000 to more than 140,000 acres is one of the most significant fisheries stories in America. As it grew, largely because of record runoff and wetland drainage, it inundated a lot of farmland that will likely never be farmed again. Some say drainage had nothing to do with it, and to them, I ask, wasn’t the purpose of the Starkweather drainage project and Channel A, to facilitate drainage? Regardless, as it flooded new land, the lake created wonderful spawning habitat for perch and pike, the usual beneficiaries of rising water, but almost unnoticed, has been the annual successful walleye spawn. I believe efforts to drain Devils Lake are wrongheaded, and it’s ironic that to the best of my knowledge, the Devils Lake Chamber of Commerce has taken a neutral position. Nearly everyone I know there has become accustomed to high water and doesn’t want to see it go down. When it does, you’ll see vast mud flats spiked with dead trees. Of course, opinions can change if it rises again following this year’s heavy snows, and it likely will, but this community realizes now how much money recreational fishing and hunting have brought into the area.
The big lake is a joy to fish. And during the month of May when big walleyes and pike move into a foot of water, if there’s better fishing on Earth, I haven’t found it. The perch fishing right after first ice was terrific this year, even if the heavy snows made near impossible to get around on the lake as winter progressed. But the coming year should see another fabulous round of fishing.
It’s much the same story in the Glacial Lakes region of northeastern South Dakota. The hundreds, maybe thousands of “new” lakes that formed following the record runoffs of the 1990s, are still producing, but be sure to try some of the old standby lakes such as Roy, Buffalo, Enemy Swim and others over the next few years. They are about to boom.
North Dakota has many small WPA dams that have provided great fishing in the past while South Dakota offers stock ponds in the western portions. While these small fisheries don’t attract large numbers of fishermen, they are locally important.
Trout fishing in South Dakota’s Black Hills is another bright spot, though there are too many cattle running free in riparian zones on some streams. Prudent timber management can help improve fisheries and mining isn’t the threat to these fisheries it once was. In fact, Whitewood Creek, which was once horribly polluted by runoff from Homestake Gold Mine, is quietly blossoming into one of the better streams. If some of these streams were in Montana, they’d garner blue ribbon ratings.
The future can be bright if we come to grips with problems. Change is constant and we have to change our either our behavior or expectations, or be willing to accept the status quo. We have seen the past and it should be easier for us to avoid making the same mistakes. Most important, we should realize good water quality is more important than anything else, and that our state leaders protect that water in policies they set. Maintaining prairie, discouraging the plowing of native grasslands, and making it unacceptable to drain additional wetlands should be our goals if we want great fishing.
Decent landowner incentives will work but we need laws with teeth too.
