Jump to content

IL Smallmouth Populations- Improving or Declining?


Mike Clifford

Recommended Posts

I've been fishing some sections of the south branch of the Kishwaukee river going on twenty years. From my viewpoint, smallmouth bass populations have fluctuated quite a bit over that time. When I first started fishing there, the river was recovering from a big fish kill. Initially, I started catching just a few small fish but after a few years, the size of fish increased and so did the numbers. There were a few years of poor fishing, but for quite a few years, the fishing was very good with numerous 40 fish days.

 

Around five or six years ago, the Kish seemed to full of smaller bass, but I wasn't catching many big fish, except in the fall. Three or four years ago, the average size of bass that I caught went from up from around 8 inches to 12 inches with some nice big ones in the mix. The numbers were pretty good, but there were no forty fish days.

 

The past two years have not been great. I have caught a some decent fish, but the numbers have been down,especially with smaller fish. When I fish spots that have always held good numbers of smaller smallmouth bass in addition to rock bass and I only catch a few, I know that something is up with the fishery. I think that the floods have had a lot to do with the decline in the fishery. There is hope, though, because the high water has cleaned the silt out of some rocky areas, which should be good for the fishery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody have any idea why the Kish doesn't produce bigger average size bass? Most reports etc talk of fish that barely get into dubl digits. With northerns in the river I would think there'd be fewer but bigger bass. Personally I'd rather catch 1 or 2 in a day that approach the 2nd dubl digit tier than a bunch of 8-12s.3 years ago I discovered a stretch of water were you could often catch little guys by the dozen. I've only gone there 3x, the last being 2 yrs ago.If I go again it'll only be out of desperation to catch something.If I'm going to fish for 9" fish they'd better be bluegills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody have any idea why the Kish doesn't produce bigger average size bass? Most reports etc talk of fish that barely get into dubl digits. With northerns in the river I would think there'd be fewer but bigger bass. Personally I'd rather catch 1 or 2 in a day that approach the 2nd dubl digit tier than a bunch of 8-12s.3 years ago I discovered a stretch of water were you could often catch little guys by the dozen. I've only gone there 3x, the last being 2 yrs ago.If I go again it'll only be out of desperation to catch something.If I'm going to fish for 9" fish they'd better be bluegills.

 

Ron I've been fishing the Kish for close to 30 years now. Its an interesting river, but it doesn't give up a lot of big smallmouth. I catch a lot of fish between 8-16" but there is a huge drop-off in numbers of any fish larger. Occaisionaly it does produce some WOW fish between 18-20.5" but they are pretty few and far between. I think it comes down to forage and genetics. The Kish is not fertile like the Dupage river for example. There are very, very few weeds on the Kish. The forage base also seems to be dominated by small minnows and fry. I rarely ever catch a creek chub or see any minnows over 3" in length. The crayfish even seem to be of a smaller variety ranging from 2-3". The crayfish are nothing like the lobsters you see in the Wisconsin river and as a result the smallmouth from the Kish aren't shaped like the smallmouth from the Wisconsin river.

 

Here is a 17" I caught in September when they are supposed to be putting on the feed bag. It is very streamlined compared to Dupage river fish or a lake run fish.

 

 

 

Here is a Wisconsin River fish.....forage base...forage base... and some genetics produce big smallmouth

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

Why some rivers produce big fish with little evidence of forage & others with more evidence don't seems to me to be one of nature's mysteries.There's a river I used to fish in Indiana that was paved with crawfish.People used to carry buckets to gather them up.Yet the river produced only average size smb. Anything over 16 was unusual.Speaking of the Dupage it's only gotten so badly overfertilized in the last few years after Plainfield knelt down at the zipper of uncontrolled development(talk about a 4 letter word)& turned the "village"(ha) into the armpit of Will County.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sand which covers spawning areas, degrades or destroys nursery areas for young of year fish, destroys habitat for crustaceans and benthic macrofauna, increases the frequency and severity of flooding, has changed flow rates and water levels and ruined weedbeds, what effect do you think that has on the smallmouth population in one of the state's premier smallie rivers, the Kankakee?

 

The floods of recent years did affect the spawn but those year classes missing won't be noticeable for a few years yet. The bigger damage was the hastening of the demise of the older year classes that made up the real trophy fish in the 18 to 20 inch plus smallies.

 

Another problem is the poaching of fish off spawning beds in the best known tributary, Rock Creek. In one stretch where is was not uncommon to see three seperate waves of spawning fish, with 60 to 80 beds in the largest wave, that has been severely depleted. Last year the biggest wave had 19 beds and by the following day 6 of those had been cleaned off. When the fish that are genetically predisposed to spawn in that tributary are removed before they pass on their genes,there will be a decline in the numbers of fish that do return. I sure there will be a few newcomers looking for new territory trying to use that creek but if they are poached, then where is the gain in numbers?

 

The fish that spawn in less accessible, less traditional, spawn earlier or later than usual will be the ones sucessfully passing on their genes, unless the sand covers the areas they use.

 

There was a study done on the Kankakee River some years back that was reported in the Transactions of The American Fisheries Society Journal. Basically it said the lower flow rates over winter were more conducive to survival on young of year and age 1 and 2 smallmoutyh bass. I have had to get good at fishing in high cold muddy water because those have been the conditions I've been faced with all too often. These conditions are exactly those which are not conducive to the over winter survival of younger fish. Increasing amounts of sand combined with more precipitation[snow and rain] have been the culprits.

 

My fishing skills didn't suddenly disappear, but my catch rates both in numbers and size have severely declined. A good day recently is getting into double digits, when in the past 40 to 80 fish days were not uncommon. I have 2 twenty inch plus smallies so far this year and it's May, it looks like the days of double digit twenty inch plus smallies in a year might be gone as well. I'm sure part of that is that the fish have adapted to the new conditions better than I have, but they have to if they are to survive. Maybe things will get better as I figure out the adaptations I need to make but I'll probably have to lower my expectations of what constitutes a good day as the loss of habitat degrades the population.

 

I truly wish that I'm just in a slump fishing wise and the fish populations are strong as ever but when I look daily upon the damage the sand and sediment are causing, I am not heartened for the future.

 

Degrade the ability to reproduce and interrupt the food chain and the population of any species will be adversly affected.

 

Sour news, indeed. One I am too familiar with. Still, some places are doing ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

Why some rivers produce big fish with little evidence of forage & others with more evidence don't seems to me to be one of nature's mysteries.There's a river I used to fish in Indiana that was paved with crawfish.People used to carry buckets to gather them up.Yet the river produced only average size smb. Anything over 16 was unusual.Speaking of the Dupage it's only gotten so badly overfertilized in the last few years after Plainfield knelt down at the zipper of uncontrolled development(talk about a 4 letter word)& turned the "village"(ha) into the armpit of Will County.

 

Ron-

 

What I understand is crawfish are less nutritionally beneficial than fatty baitfishes like shad for example. My craw filled streams produce smaller max sizes in my experience. The Dupage is close to Lake Michigan, which huge amounts of biomass.

 

Too compare look at the California lake and river smallies and LMB that eat rainbow trout (fatty fish).

 

 

Just like humans, smallmouth get fatter off eating nutrient rich foods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no expert on either the Dupe or the Kish. Here's an 18.5 from each. I'm holding the Dupe fish (Sept 08) closer to the camera than the Kish fish (April 09). Same camera, same original pixel size and same pixel reduction. Beyond the dupe fish closer to the camera they look pretty similar to me. Maybe I got lucky and caught the exception on the Kish. I don't know... just putting in my 1 cent.

 

dupe

post-588-127326407921_thumb.jpg

 

kish

post-588-127326409355_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin,

The one thing that could be a factor is the Kish fish (April) could be a pre-spawner with eggs. I have caught some fatties on the Kish but again they are few and far between.

 

I wonder if the type of crayfish differ in nutritional value. The Wisconsin & Menominee River fish I've caught/seen pictures of seem to have a better girth on average than fish I've caught in IL rivers. The crayfish they have up there are the rusty exotic crayfish I believe. Maybe those are higher in calories that the natives. Those fish may also have access to trout at the mouth of some of the smaller tributary streams.

 

I also think that genetic strains play a big roll in smallmouth size. Some rivers and lakes have a history of producing larger smallmouth than others. Maybe up north they have to get fat to survive the longer harder winter starvation period. Years and years of genetic selection have only the fatter fish surviving the winters to pass on their genes. In Illinois and Indiana the winter kills probably don't play as big of a roll in survival. It might be an advantage here to be skinner to cut through all that current during our massive floods. It seems like we have had harder winters the past few years compared to the 90's. Maybe winter kill is a factor.

 

All I know is my fishing logs have me cathing less fish/hour trending over the past few seasons here in IL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin,

The one thing that could be a factor is the Kish fish (April) could be a pre-spawner with eggs. I have caught some fatties on the Kish but again they are few and far between.

 

I wonder if the type of crayfish differ in nutritional value. The Wisconsin & Menominee River fish I've caught/seen pictures of seem to have a better girth on average than fish I've caught in IL rivers. The crayfish they have up there are the rusty exotic crayfish I believe. Maybe those are higher in calories that the natives. Those fish may also have access to trout at the mouth of some of the smaller tributary streams.

 

I also think that genetic strains play a big roll in smallmouth size. Some rivers and lakes have a history of producing larger smallmouth than others. Maybe up north they have to get fat to survive the longer harder winter starvation period. Years and years of genetic selection have only the fatter fish surviving the winters to pass on their genes. In Illinois and Indiana the winter kills probably don't play as big of a roll in survival. It might be an advantage here to be skinner to cut through all that current during our massive floods. It seems like we have had harder winters the past few years compared to the 90's. Maybe winter kill is a factor.

 

All I know is my fishing logs have me cathing less fish/hour trending over the past few seasons here in IL.

 

Good thoughts Paul. Genetics or something as simple as the main food in abundance. In Indiana, the bass grow larger, quicker in agricultural areas that contain more nutrients in the soil. You can look at the states different ecological regions to find larger smallmouth like clockwork. Not always the best fishing...sometimes the habitat is far better in rocky areas down south, and they are filled with lots of slow growing fish.

 

2008 floods of the century are the reason there are many less fish in many places. Fish are very concerned with current for their survival. When a river is up 10-20' for several weeks fish get left high and dry and expire.

 

Currently working on a theory why fish in tiny creeks have done better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...