Ohio Game Fishing



Go Back  Ohio Game Fishing Community > Ohio Fishing Reports > Southwest Ohio Fishing Reports >

Grand Lake St. Mary's Crappie Bite

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-29-2011, 07:21 AM   #21
zaraspook
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana but place at Grand Lake
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If we skip the hardwater stuff this year it's ok with me.

Like many lakes in Ohio, GLSM is high from all the rain in Oct and Nov. Levels are about where they were in May. According to the Battelle Institute report one of lake's chronic problems is lack of flow, lack of changeover of the water volume in the lake. It takes 1.6 years for the outflow of GLSM to equal it's typical volume. The Oct-Nov rains could be a plus in that regard, pushing algae and phosphorus laden liquid over the spillway and down the few creeks that exit the lake.

Of course any benefit from increased outflow is offset by new contaminants entering into the lake from agricultural heavy watershed. As long as the rains are not sudden downpours, washing manure concentrate from fields in the watershed, I think more bad stuff is going out than coming in. This is an area where the farmers in watershed have been disappointing. Few if any fields near creeks show any increase in the size/width of natural buffers. It's legal of course, but over the last 2 months fields are getting tons of manure. Driving thru the watershed the aroma of fresh hog manure can be overwhelming.
zaraspook is offline   Reply With Quote

Register today to remove this advertisement IT'S FREE



Old 11-29-2011, 10:54 AM   #22
spfldbassguy
CJ Wolfpack
 
spfldbassguy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: springfield
Posts: 4,311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Zaraspook you definitely are having some fun catching all those crappies and gills with a few little largemouths thrown in for good measure. You're absolutely correct when you say that the buffers could be bigger (as they should be everywhere in the state) and that the outflow could compensate for the influx of bad stuff. I hope for the sake of everyone that lives close by and those that fish it that the lake does indeed improve and these problems go by the wayside.
__________________
All fish feed sooner or later,but it's sooner than you can get there and later than you can stay.
spfldbassguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2011, 07:34 PM   #23
Lowell H Turner
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As have previosly stated sir, the accursed 'grace period' for those REQUIRED improvements is FAST approaching. And the "guilty parties" are WELL AWARE that with the continuious satalite recon/ photography capability they WILL NOT be able to hide or deny their then criminal culprability. The days of "pollute the lake for free' are RAPIDLY coming to their conclusion. And just a "suggestion"- if the politicans and local gov`t officials WON`T prosecute them VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE. ELECT someone who WILL! The future of the lake and surrounding area is too IMPORTANT to allow a few to RUIN it for ALL, requiring that the WHOLE state PAYS to allow them to continue their IRRESPONSIBLE livestock practices. Plainly put- hope they FIX IT or get FINED out of the livestock business. The choice is THEIRS.
Lowell H Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 07:40 AM   #24
zaraspook
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana but place at Grand Lake
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

spfldbassguy.......you're spot-on that it's been a great fall at GLSM for the panfish. Bluegill size and numbers have been good for several years. Last year crappie numbers were impressive, size was disturbingly small. The dink crappies of last year and this spring turned into a super class of 9-11" fish this fall. Landed only about a dozen 12"+ crappies this year....that's disappointing but this great class of 9-11" fish should produce a bumper crop of 12-13" fish, maybe bigger, for 2012.

Our bass population seems to hold steady. My biggest was 3.5# but I rarely fish for bass. I'm usually good for 3-4 small pike each year but caught none this year. We need another game fish.....Battelle Institute report speaks to that issue. But our biggest Christmas wish at GLSM is manure in the lake.....no mas, please!
zaraspook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 09:01 PM   #25
taxiecab
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Trenton
Posts: 210
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Question about GLSM???

Are there any Zebra mussels in the lake now??? If there are not, I wonder if they would help to clean up the water problem?
We have had them in C C for years now and I think they have been a huge help cleaning up the water like they did Lake Erie.
I know that the problem is more than muddy water but it was just a question about if they would help or not.
I would be shocked if they were not there all ready in large numbers.
taxiecab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 10:04 PM   #26
Lowell H Turner
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

taxiecab, am not sure they would be of much actual help, sir. The lakes`s biggest problems are #1: of course the excessive livestock "by products' that are being allowed to migrate into the lake by way of drainage ditches and several small streams. Once into it, it settles and provides excess food for the algae, which LOVE it, and therefore "bloom" during the warmer months. #2: Although the lake was origionally 6-12 fow when constructed in the late 1820`s to early 30`s much of it has sedimentated to where now it`s average depth is less than 5 fow; although a very LARGE lake there is little in flow or outflow, tending to cause stagnation during warmer months. #3: To top things off, many decades of household laundry wash run off went into the lake (this no longer occurs as municiple sewage systems now ring the lake, thankfully) and fertilizer from farm fields upstream also still enters the lake. These last 2 are particularly BAD, because they BOTH contain phosphates which is a long lasting form of plant and algae food. While it settles eventually into the sediment, it CAN be easily put back into suspension by storms, wave action, and high thrust modern boat propellers. Hence the dredging operations to A restore depth to the lake and B remove the majority of the built up phosphate. When deepened, the lake will not "heat up" as much and the deeper the remaining phosphate is, the less of it that`s likely to get back into suspension.
Lowell H Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2011, 10:06 PM   #27
Lowell H Turner
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Forgot to mention, a deeper lake should be a better fishing lake TOO !
Lowell H Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2011, 08:13 AM   #28
zaraspook
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana but place at Grand Lake
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taxiecab View Post
Are there any Zebra mussels in the lake now??? If there are not, I wonder if they would help to clean up the water problem?
We have had them in C C for years now and I think they have been a huge help cleaning up the water like they did Lake Erie.
I know that the problem is more than muddy water but it was just a question about if they would help or not.
I would be shocked if they were not there all ready in large numbers.
No reported population of zebra mussels at GLSM. It occasionally comes up, like your suggestion, and someone probably studied it, but nothing I've ever read on the topic.

Battelle Institute experts say shallow lakes tend to take on one of two forms......either clear water and dominated by rooted plants, or turbid with algae dominance. Battelle seems to favor virtually anything that will help flip toward a higher level of plant population. Here's an excerpt from Battelle's report "......lakes are likely to be dominated by cyanobacteria unless some action, such as rough fish removal, is taken to flip the lake to the alternate stable ecological condition dominated by plants rather than cyanobacteria." Rough fish such as carp are planktivores and eat zooplankton. Zooplankton feed on algae among other things and a goal is to increase zooplankton. Battelle says GLSM needs to remove rough fish to no more than 25% of the fish population. Also, game fish (piscavores) numbers must be increased and maintained to help control rough fish population. Water clarity will improve, light will penetrate deeper into the water depths, plant growth will rise and the chain of events put in place to flip the lake.

There is a lot more to it than just the rough fish angle, it's just a piece of the plan. However, it's one reason I've supported saugeye stocking at GLSM. As gamefish saugeye are eating machines and will help control rough fish. To raise gamefish (piscavores) density let's stock saugeye.

None of this works without reducing the new flow of phoshorus into the lake. Battelle's study measured phosphorus in all creeks entering GLSM. The phophorus levels must fall by 80% to get to a sustainable level for lake health. The farmers and livestock guys are responsible for that 80% reduction.
zaraspook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2011, 11:15 AM   #29
TPfisher
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 445
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I really don't understand why GLSM is being discussed in the Southwest Ohio portion of this board at all. If anything this lake is in the Central portion of the state. I'm down in Cincinnati and this lake is a good two hours from me and it only takes 5 hours to be in canadian waters on lake Erie from Cincy, so I just don't see how a lake that is halfway between here and Canada can not be considered Central?
TPfisher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2011, 12:47 PM   #30
fished-out
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 565
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I fish St Mary's often and don't mind the thread here. You don't have to read it.
fished-out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2011, 12:52 PM   #31
fished-out
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 565
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Thus one of the major differences between St Mary's and Indian--tons of lily pads and weeds in Indian, and Indian's a better fishing lake. Water depth itself does not seem relevant, as Indian on average seems even more shallow than St. Mary's.




Quote:
Originally Posted by zaraspook View Post
No reported population of zebra mussels at GLSM. It occasionally comes up, like your suggestion, and someone probably studied it, but nothing I've ever read on the topic.

Battelle Institute experts say shallow lakes tend to take on one of two forms......either clear water and dominated by rooted plants, or turbid with algae dominance. Battelle seems to favor virtually anything that will help flip toward a higher level of plant population. Here's an excerpt from Battelle's report "......lakes are likely to be dominated by cyanobacteria unless some action, such as rough fish removal, is taken to flip the lake to the alternate stable ecological condition dominated by plants rather than cyanobacteria." Rough fish such as carp are planktivores and eat zooplankton. Zooplankton feed on algae among other things and a goal is to increase zooplankton. Battelle says GLSM needs to remove rough fish to no more than 25% of the fish population. Also, game fish (piscavores) numbers must be increased and maintained to help control rough fish population. Water clarity will improve, light will penetrate deeper into the water depths, plant growth will rise and the chain of events put in place to flip the lake.

There is a lot more to it than just the rough fish angle, it's just a piece of the plan. However, it's one reason I've supported saugeye stocking at GLSM. As gamefish saugeye are eating machines and will help control rough fish. To raise gamefish (piscavores) density let's stock saugeye.

None of this works without reducing the new flow of phoshorus into the lake. Battelle's study measured phosphorus in all creeks entering GLSM. The phophorus levels must fall by 80% to get to a sustainable level for lake health. The farmers and livestock guys are responsible for that 80% reduction.
fished-out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2011, 09:13 PM   #32
Lowell H Turner
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My point is while reducing the manure and phosphates from entering the lake will certainly HELP, there is an accumulation of slightly more than 100 yrs worth of phosphate already deposited into the lake. Being chemically "light" it tends to work it`s way up through sediment. With a strong summer wind storm, much of it will be agitated by wave action back into suspension. And keep in mind, a little phosphate goes a LONG WAY to promote the algae "blooms'. Short of some process that I am not familar with, there`s basically only 1 way to remove the literally TONS of accumulated phosphates and that is DREDGING it from the lake. Once removed the "muck" is EXCELLENT fertilizer and exposing the phosphate to air and warmer temps tends to help break it down into slightly less algae "friendly" compounds. And bear in mind with a deeper lake, any remaining phosphates that DO get resuspended stand a GOOD chance of settling into the newly deepened areas and settling there, basically safely "trapped' away, out of the reach of wave action and boat propellers. Also AGREE that getting lilly pads and other aquatic plants reestablished would be VERY benefical...
Lowell H Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 09:09 AM   #33
zaraspook
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana but place at Grand Lake
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TPfisher View Post
I really don't understand why GLSM is being discussed in the Southwest Ohio portion of this board at all. If anything this lake is in the Central portion of the state. I'm down in Cincinnati and this lake is a good two hours from me and it only takes 5 hours to be in canadian waters on lake Erie from Cincy, so I just don't see how a lake that is halfway between here and Canada can not be considered Central?
TPfisher........my apology if you feel GLSM fishing stuff isn't of interest to SW Ohio members. If you invest any time at GLSM you'll find 40%+ of boaters, fishermen, and cottage/property owners who do not live permanently at lake, are from the general Dayton area. In my opinion Dayton is considered SW Ohio, not Central. These are people who live in a quadrant from Kettering to Piqua, Eaton to Springfield. Satellite TV and cable give you Dayton area TV stations at GLSM. If DirecTV says that area is in Dayton demographic area, I'm OK with it. GLSM does draw from the north, but much less than numbers to south.

I'm guessing the Central Region guys would say GLSM doesn't belong there, and NW guys would say the same. The thread started as just a weekly fishing update aimed at the crappie guys who live in/near Dayton. Sometimes it gets off track.
zaraspook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 09:15 AM   #34
zaraspook
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana but place at Grand Lake
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

fished-out.........great observation. Indian Lake is perfect example of Battelle objective. DNR and EPA would be tickled if GLSM could flip to a plant dominant model like Indian.
zaraspook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 11:18 AM   #35
fished-out
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 565
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Actually, just found this and the debate is moot. State of Ohio considers St Mary's to be Southwest Ohio. Below is a picture from the DNR's website for lake maps that shows St Mary's grouped with other southwest Ohio lakes.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Southwest Ohio Lakes.jpg (155.4 KB, 255 views)
fished-out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2011, 11:56 AM   #36
Lowell H Turner
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Point is that as the conditions at GLSM continues to improve and the dredging and other corrective efforts are implimented and achieves their goals the fishing reports from there will become wonderful, considering the recent detremental 1`s on the news. Anyone remember the "Crappie-thons' that used to be held there? I fished in several, and enjoyed the lake immensely- it was and soon will be as great as ever. Planning on hittihg the lake come spring...
Lowell H Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2011, 04:32 PM   #37
zaraspook
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana but place at Grand Lake
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

fished-out...........If DNR says GLSM is a SW Ohio lake, it's good enough for me. Thanks for clarification.

I fished 2.5 hours Sat afternoon 12/3. Water is way high, easily over some of the lower seawalls, and in places I normally fish I was standing 4' father back due to high water. Water is stained/muddy, more so in channels fed by creeks. However, less algae/green matter suspended in the water so clarity is actually better than anytime since May and improving.

Glad I didn't check water temp until after I fished. Might have been less enthused to fish had I known the water was only 41.1 degrees. Worked pretty hard to catch 7 crappies with 3 keepers. Biggest only 10.75. Bigger baits still did better than smaller ones but water is getting darn cold............that could change soon. When you found a bite it was aggressive and most fish were solidly hooked in roof of the mouth. These fish are definitely eating hearty. A 10" fish now ways more than an 11" fish caught 8 weeks ago. I changed baits, colors, and depth frequently but caught 5 of the crappies on same bait/color. Also, caught a super chunk bluegill.
zaraspook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 07:15 AM   #38
zaraspook
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana but place at Grand Lake
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

LHT......previously I wrote that thought the rains were a net positive, helping the lake turnover it's water volume.......more bad stuff flowing out and over the spillway than bad stuff (new manure) coming into the lake. Last couple of months the odor of new crap spread on fields has been as strong as ever. Farmesr are trying to get it down before the December cutoff date. As long as the rain didn't have soil totally saturated, I believed GLSM wasn't getting too much runoff from fields into creeks and downstream entering lake. I'm no longer in that camp. Weather guys have been saying soil is overly saturated......everything now running off and carrying that fresh layer of new manure into the streams. GLSM may have been taking forward steps over the last year, but I'm guessing last 6 weeks of saturating rains reversed it all.

I do remember the Crappiethons.......people in the area bring up the topic from time to time.
zaraspook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 09:14 AM   #39
Lowell H Turner
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Have talked to a gentleman on line with the "Lake Improvement Group" and he states the same thing unfortuneately. At this time, it`s still "legal' if just plain IMMORAL, STUPID, RUDE, and IRRESPONSIBLE. Come January 1st at 12:01 their much abused "grace period" is UP, and am lead to believe between the ground based "observers' and the multi million dollar "eye in the sky" they BETTER just start flushing all that excess crap down their house toilets. Close to 90 persons are going to be watching and RECORDING (8 X 10" glossy photographs, GPS, ect, ect, ect) EXACTLY when, where, how much, who, weather conditions, previous percipitation, ad nauseum (pardon the pun)...sure hope they are AWARE of all this. Sad thing is it only shows little has changed as far as they are concerned. The class action LAW SUIT in the works that is looking for signatures very shortly will perhaps change their mind in a financial sort of way, though...and THAT is going to HURT their hearts and WALLETS. Kinda like Bugs Bunny taking off his glove, slipping a brick into it, and smacking Yosemite Sam across the face vigorously several times with it, and then shaking out the brick crumbs while Yosemite Sam staggers around dazed, stars dancing around his head, barely hearing the words "Of course sir, you KNOW this means WAR !"
Lowell H Turner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 07:24 AM   #40
zaraspook
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indiana but place at Grand Lake
Posts: 1,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

LHT......new regulations wouldn't have prevented this. Under new rules they can still spread manure until some date in Dec (don't recall the exact date) or until fields are frozen. The agricultural landowners in GLSM watershed didn't know we'd have record rains for several months so I'm giving them some slack. The farmers are an easy target, but Mother Nature more to blame for this one. At some point the new rules will need to be tightened, but it took more than a decade to get current regulations.
zaraspook is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:33 PM.










Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011, Game Fishing LLC