Mostly positive feedback was received during the Wisconsin DNR’s recent public information session on a proposed walleye spawning reef project on Franklin Lake in Forest County, although some concerns were brought regarding what the addition of the reef could mean for lake health and conservation efforts.
Greg Matzke, DNR fisheries biologist for Florence and Forest counties who manages about 1,200 lakes including Franklin, led the two-hour meeting to gather input, answer questions and share information about the proposed project. With Matzke were a number of fellow DNR specialists as well as representatives from the U.S. Forest Service and Mole Lake tribe who are all involved with and in support of the project.
At the heart of the issue, Franklin Lake had previously supported a healthy walleye population until about the late 1980s when DNR surveys started indicating a declining population.
Matzke said that since then, the amount of natural reproduction has dropped off extensively. Using data gathered from a six-day comprehensive survey completed earlier this spring along with the DNR’s 50 years of documented changes in the lake, Matzke was able to walk attendees through when the population began its decline, as well as what efforts the DNR has made to combat that decline.
In order to offer a possible solution, the DNR is eyeing the installation of a rocky reef area on the east side of the lake that would enhance the walleye spawning. The proposed location is currently hard-packed sand.
Due to previous opposition, they are seeking public input before deciding if they will move forward with the project that will require a lot of work, and a lot of money.
Among the approximately 30-plus audience members were a number of people from the Butternut-Franklin Lakes Association, Franklin Lake Improvement Association, and walleye groups including Walleys For Tomorrow and the Walleye Restoration Foundation.
People who have long owned property on Franklin Lake weighed in, with some voicing worries that the project itself could negatively impact the lake, or, if it works, then the increase in game fishing could potentially bring more boats and a greater chance of transporting aquatic invasive species.
87-year-old Kay Scharf, who has an extensive background in the lake health of Franklin Lake, said she had opposed the project since day one when the idea was floated nearly a decade ago, but has now withdrawn her opposition in the hopes of bringing the people on the lake back together.
“I try to think of the lake first, and not how people want to use it,” she said. “This lake project has driven a stake into the middle of the lake community.”
Her support of the reef came with the question of why they would choose Franklin Lake — sometimes referred to as the “Gem of the Nicolet” — to “experiment” on.
“It’s a very pure lake. Historically oligatrophic, meaning really good water quality, and we have the state designation of outstanding resource water, and we do not have any invasive plant species. So why would you experiment on this lake?” Scharf queried.
The divisiveness of the project was a sentiment echoed a number of times throughout the night.
Butternut-Franklin Lakes Association member Tim Mohns, whose family has owned property on the lake for about 50 years, shared his concerns about the risks associated with the project.
Mohns referred to a referendum the association put together last year that was presented to members asking if they were in favor of, and would be interested in funding the project.
According to Mohns, the referendum showed that if you included residents on both lakes, the majority was against installing the reef, but if you looked at just those on Franklin Lake, residents were 56% in favor of the project. He noted that 85% of the people on Franklin voted in the referendum.
“It has been divisive, but when you actually cast the votes, the votes on the lake itself are in favor,” he said. Mohns added that referendum authors really tried to create a neutral platform, providing a “really nice set of FAQs for people” so they could vote from a “semi-non-biased stance.”
Although he’s in favor of the project, Mohns also brought up concerns.
“I love to fish, I’m for the reef, but I want to know the risk assessments,” Mohns said. “Before I’m for more walleye — or any species — I’m for a quality lake. I want to manage for the concern of the lake — I want to know what the risks are to the lake.”
He questioned whether the import of rocks from somewhere else that would be used in the spawning reef would pose any threats, to which Matzke assured him that they would be transported frozen and not bring anything unsavory along with them.
“There’s the financial risk,” Mohns also noted. “If it’s a failure and now we have a bunch of rock in our lake we didn’t have before.”
He also shared concerns about invasives, which Matzke addressed as well.
“If there’s more fish, there’s more fishermen, which is a risk of more invasive species,” Matzke said. “If this happens and if it was successful — which are both big ifs — I would certainly expect more people to come to Franklin Lake. If what you want is to not have more people coming in, then you might not want this.”
Bud Mohns from Franklin Lake said he was “very much in favor of installing the reef,” and “very much in favor of the health of the lake.”
“I was sitting in the same discussion here in 2017 as we are tonight. We know that the reefs did work at one time. It’s worth putting our money, our time, our efforts into saving the walleye,” Bud Mohns said. “What happens if we don’t? Ever hear of extinction before? That’s probably where the walleye population will end up. We won’t have to worry about boats coming into Franklin Lake, because there won’t be any walleye in Franklin Lake.”
Bryan Davis, president of the Franklin Lake Improvement Association, chimed in to offer the organization’s unanimous support of the reef. He also offered any help they can provide in the form of funding and volunteering.
Matzke was very open about his neutrality on the project throughout the meeting, saying that from his position as a fisheries biologist, he thinks the lake is a good candidate to succeed, but it’s a big project with a lot of work involved and if people aren’t interested in it, he certainly doesn’t want to move forward on something the people don’t want.
Data shows that since 1997, the walleye population in the lake is down 80% from what it used to be.
Matzke also looked at what types of fish have been filling the void left by the missing walleyes, but found that other fish species within the lake have remained relatively unchanged, although he noted that the abundance of many fish species in Franklin Lake is below average.
Matzke said this was one reason that Franklin Lake would be a good candidate for this type of project, since no other game fish has taken over within the lake that would make it harder for walleyes to survive. “It has all the species that interact with walleye well, and it’s missing all of the bad players,” he said.
“We’re confident natural reproduction would still occur out there.”
The issue remains that if something doesn’t change, it’s likely the walleye population will remain in peril.
Despite stocking efforts that began in 2006-2008, first with fry then moving onto small fingerlings (approximately 2-inches) in 2010-2012, and finally attempting to boost populations with large walleye fingerlings that were 7- to 8-inches in length, Matzke said the decline has continued.
Although the DNR has continued to stock the lake, Matzke said that will likely come to an end in the near future as the expense associated with stocking is too great.
“Right now, we’re putting $25,000 of walleye in every two years that aren’t doing anything,” Matzke said. “We’re not putting walleyes in the lake again. I couldn’t justify the stocking. We’ve cut a lot of lakes that do way better. This would prolly be the first to go of all my lakes.”
While no bids have been made yet until the project gets final approval, Matzke estimated it could cost close to $100,000. “We estimated the cost would be $44,000 in 2017, and I think you could safely double that. In the long run, this is a lot cheaper if we’re going to keep managing walleye populations on this lake,” he said.
One question that didn’t seem to have a solid answer was why the populations of walleye are failing in the first place — not just in Franklin Lake but in other lakes in the North Woods as well.
Adam Nickel, DNR NR Region team supervisor, cited causes such as increases in other fish, climate change and lakes warming up as possible reasons, but noted that it can be hard to pinpoint because every lake is different.
“There are a number of things we’ve been researching. It’s kind of a complex thing to break down,” Nickel said. “Lakes can operate differently based on where they are and the communities they have in them.”
Matzke called the walleye reef project “low hanging fruit,” saying that the first thing to do is try to fix the habitat. “It’s somewhere to start,” he said.
He has worked on a handful of other similar projects with varying results, but said he has learned important information from each of them. Using a flow chart he designed to decipher if a lake is a good candidate, he expects Franklin to be successful should the project gain approval and move forward.
Approval and implementation of this reef could also provide insight into other lakes that may benefit from a similar project.
Nickel said the DNR is still accepting public input which can be sent to Greg Matzke at gregory.matzke@wisconsin.gov. He expects the department to make a decision later this fall on if it will move forward with the project.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here