powerdive

Cool. Maybe we should all take a moment to click through every so often...especially since they're sharply targeted to our own interests to begin with!

Me too.

Then again, I've HEARD of (not seen) several 15 to 19 pounders taken from the Pothole over the last dozen years. A few years back, somebody with a screen name of "Deacon Mike" from Rockaway Beach posted photos on Walleye Central of (if I remember right) a 15 and a 17 caught on separate occasions at night in late November/December. Each fish was kinda draped over a cooler, and it seemed fairly evident that they were monsters.

I got to participate one night (with Martin), back when they were rounding 'em up for the tagging study. The biggest we saw that night were a couple in the 9-11 pound class, but AJ Pratt, MDC biologist, said they'd tagged a 13 the night before. He didn't remember ever seeing any fish larger than that at River Run. He said he knew there were bigger fish in the lake, but he believed they tended to hold mostly in the lower lake.

Oh, I don't mind the banner ads. They at least give Lilly a chance to make a couple shekels, presumably. I just find it interesting how closely they follow my browsing.

My wife uses this computer also, which might explain the Carol Wright Gifts ad that appeared when I posted this.

Just wondering what types of banner ads everybody is seeing at the tops of these forum pages. I suspect that what each of us sees is a result of our browsing activity. In other words, some type of spyware is tracking our whereabouts and then selecting ad content targeted to us as individuals. In my case, lately I'm seeing quite a few banner ads for Popcornopolis--they're one of my clients, so I visit their site quite a bit. (Also seeing ads for their competitors.) And last week I was searching and browsing cables and connectors for our new TV, so this week I'm seeing lots of ads from different companies that specialize in selling those items. What are you seeing? Is the pay-per-click or whatever ad program pretty effective at pegging you?

Interesting stuff. Appreciate seeing a different view. Can't say I would agree that optimum temps are needed to grow a monster. Anyway, right or wrong, Parsons also says to always run a board shallow, no matter the lake, no matter the water depth. I've only done it one day--put a board with stickbait well outside while trolling a 25-30 foot contour on Table Rock. Found it was a great way to catch even more of those annoying little bass. I do need to give more time to open water, though. Fo sho.

Wayne, appreciate your thoughts. I doubt oxygen is a problem very often under the thermocline in these lakes, because there are no weeds dying, decaying and exhausting the O2. The Walleye Anglers Group in Mtn Home posts the monthly oxygen readings for Bull Shoals, and while it's clear that there can be some depletion at times, it doesn't extend throughout the hypolimnion, so in theory the deeper fish can easily avoid the thinner water. There are trout and possibly stripers living in the lower story of both Bull Shoals and TR, all year. And of course, you have the paddlefish living down deep in TR. My home lake, Geneva in WI, had lakers, browns, rainbows and ciscoes living below the thermocline, and summertime trollers would often catch smallmouths and northerns mixed in, off downriggers set at 80 feet. It's not that fish can't live down there, in some cases they can--it's just that the warmer water species generally don't perform well in the open water. Obviously, though, some individuals can.

I sometimes think that those of us who'd really like to catch a "lifetime" walleye need to drastically upsize our baits. I wish I knew how and where the real monsters live, and what they feed on. A Walleye In-Sider article some years back featured Darrell Binkley, the Norfork guide, who spoons up big walleyes from 50-90 feet, below the thermocline, in summer. And Gary Parsons told me he believes that the biggest eyes in Bull Shoals and Table Rock live way deep all year--deeper than anyone fishes. Johnnie Candle said they probably don't eat anything we use for bait, and they sure didn't grow that big by doing what all the rest do; a 20-lb. walleye has almost nothing in common with a 4-pounder. In fact, the 4-pounder had better watch out. I'm guessing the real monster walleyes dine sometimes on carp and extra-large gizzard shad—but most of the time on trout and walleyes.

Always interested in new fishing sites. However, I avoid videos and I don't fish for bass, so that site is obviously not for me. Really nice design, though. Good luck!

mixermark, big difference between upper and lower Bull. Skinny water up there...lotta high ground between Beaver and K Dock. So the wind's not nearly as bad, most of the time.

We're still catching decent egg-laden fish midlake at 50-60 feet. Probably be awhile before the females move up.

Well said, duckydoty. Most of the time I'll describe the spot/conditions, but not the actual location. If someone asks privately, no problem. I believe what you said--Person B isn't Person A, etc. Then again, this being a large site that's heavily slanted toward bass 'n' trout (not by design, but by usership), it's pretty much a secondary hangout for me. It's not as easy to open up when you don't actually know most of the other posters or share some of their views on fishing. That said, I know I could contribute a little more than I have been. Most of us came here to learn something, I imagine. And most likely, we all know something that someone else would find enlightening.

9LB, we've talked to MDC about closing down the walleye season in late winter/early spring for years, but it always falls on deaf ears. The MDC folks feel that with very little overall recruitment (natural spawning success) at Stockton, that makes it a put-n-take fishery--so in their view the pre-spawn walleye butchering can continue.

9LB, a couple years back I caught a 35-lb. flathead on a Jigging Rap up by the dam in February (have caught several good-sized wintertime cats on these lures). That one came from 75 feet down on ML spinning gear and 10/2 braid--it was about all my poor reel could handle. I had visions of a world record walleye...

Great info, bfishn--and well written too! Fascinating account. Just curious...what were your plans for the fingerlings you were trying to produce?

Very interesting news about the year classes at each lake. Thank you!

It's nice to be able to follow reports and find a good bite as a result, isn't it? Doesn't happen very often! Kudos to Josh for sharing his knowledge in good faith.

The more colorful the fish, the more embarrassed he is that you actually caught him.

Pffffft! Walleyes. Nothing a 7'6" cuestick, a locked-down baitcaster, and 60-lb. braid can't handle. Seriously, the moment a good walleye sees your ugly face, you ain't stoppin' him. He's goin' down, and you'd better be ready. I love that about them--their hearts are stout enough to reach down and find something extra at the very last moment, when all seems hopeless. You hear of many good walleyes lost beside the boat....give the fish some credit.

rps, I suspect your friend Ken has found a source for fathead minnows. Hugely popular walleye bait up north, very tough (they're also called tuffies), very difficult to find down here. Jason E., shiners are effective for walleyes around here. The only problem is that they are not very hardy. Fish 'em tight on jigheads, and their condition won't matter. Just be sure to leave enough hook gap exposed in order to get a good hookset...and in the cold water, you may have to "nurse" a bite at times--let the fish take it for a few seconds before crossing his eyes.

I apologize, Tightline. I really wasn't trying to be a schmuck, but if thats the way it sounded, I'm truly sorry. I clearly don't have the emotional or nostalgic connection with the Ozarks that you guys have. Obviously I haven't convinced you (ahem, Columbia River) that northern strains (ahem, Tobin Lake) can grow as big as the southern varieties, nor have you convinced me that there's enough of a difference to claim genetic superiority.... Nothing like a good civil campfire discussion about walleyes!

Thanks for the link to the Al Agnew article--really an interesting read and subsequent discussion. Honestly, I don't really subscribe to the idea that there's a genetic imprint for lake spawning or river spawning. As I understand it, all walleyes are river fish by nature, they are hyper-sensitive to current, yet they are extremely adaptable. While many will return to the same areas to spawn each year (which may be interpreted by some as a preference for lake or stream spawning), quite a few will seek out new venues, especially when there's a significant change in conditions. Down here, at the southern end of their range, we have a lengthy growing season, uncrowded walleye populations, and a proliferation of high-quality forage (shad). To my mind, that accounts for the greater number of very large walleyes in these here parts. Note that the province record in Ontario is 22 pounds 4 oz. Did somebody take an Ozarks jack salmon up there and toss it into Lake Erie (the fish was caught barely in the Niagara River in late May)? I'm being facetious, but I'm pretty sure the northern strains have the same potential to grow world-class walleyes as the southern strains. And all the accounts make it pretty clear: a walleye is a walleye, wherever it swims. Again, just my opinion.

TL, I respect your opinion. But being a late-arriving northerner (who else would come to bass country and target walleyes?), I don't have much of a sense of history here. All I know is what I see, and what I see is a world-class fishery. Could it be better if the original bloodlines were intact, as you suggest? I dunno, but I really can't imagine it. Are you saying the native White River fish grew larger? Don't think I've seen any evidence on that one. Consider that the current world record and MO state record fish were caught in the 80s...