Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
chasineyes

Stocking Lakes/Slots

14 posts in this topic

Here is a thought or question...We stock lakes because some lakes can't naturally reproduce right? If that is the case then why release 20-28" walleyes? If these fish can't reproduce what is the benefit of having them in the lake. Do we use them for eggs to stock other lakes then? Just curious..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its that some lakes absolutely cannot reproduce but I think some lakes just don't reproduce as well as other. So for this reason it is best to put the largest spawning fish back as not to put additional strain on a lakes walleye population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there are a few lakes that just can't reproduce, and which get some fairly heavy stocking.

Assuming the fish can't reproduce, the benefit from letting any fish go is so someone else (or yourself if you're lucky) can catch it at a later point in time. I realize that for a lot of walleye fishing, the goal is a dinner at the end of the day, and not just some pictures and memories of a great day on the water, but practicing CPR at any level helps reduce the stress put on a fish population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty old argument and I'll put my take in. When I fish, generally any eye over 20" goes back in. If it's a slow day and I get on 21" I may or may not take it. Now, if it's withing the legal limit to keep and you want to keep a fish, then keep it. What I set as a standard for myself doesn't mean you have to. Keep what you want as long as it's legal. If it's a smaller lake though and you keep everything, don't expect it to keep producing in a couple of years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its thier to help maintan good fishing in most lakes. not to increase population. the live ratio on fry is very good so when you see 30,000 fry dumped in that number is almost extint if you watch that year class grow to eaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a thought or question...We stock lakes because some lakes can't naturally reproduce right? If that is the case then why release 20-28" walleyes? If these fish can't reproduce what is the benefit of having them in the lake. Do we use them for eggs to stock other lakes then? Just curious..

The lakes that are stocked that don't have any natural reproduction don't have those slots. Minnesota's main walleye lakes have a 17-28" protected slot to protect spawners. Females generally reach sexual maturity around 17 inches and their performance tops out around 28" (there are exceptions to this rule). I think you're talking about two different lakes. The eggs taken on Cutfoot Sioux/Winnibigoshish for example, might go to Lake X/Southern MN lake, where there is no slot. Meanwhile the Cutfoot/Winni slot is in place to always have a nice stock of spawners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well said dachise! As he said, the lakes that have the slots usually do have a decent spawn.. Lakes that dont, usually dont have slots. Lakes that have Northern Slots often have those to protect them to keep the smaller fish in check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandman,

It is that attitude that is making me favor putting a slot on Cass Lake. Since there is no limit on size you are getting tons of people who are keeping both immature small walleye (12-13") as well as the big girls (20+). This makes for some up and down years and I have talked to quite a few people who fish lakes with slots and they say the fishing is just outstanding. I would not mind only taking home 3 or 4 fish a day if I was catching 100 or more fish. The problem comes when you fish all day with very few bites and you have people start panicing and keep the dinks. I guess the only way to somewhat prevent that is to legally force them to do so. If they choose to keep the dinks, they may run into a DNR boat with a pad full of tickets to issue!

Just my .02

Windy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overall goal is to try and keep the population in relative balance. A population that has alot of large individuals but a relatively small number of young fish (recruits) is just as problematic for a fish manager as a population that has lots of small fish and very few large fish. Whether its the lack of natural spawning or extremely heavy fishing pressure, stocking and slots are tools that are used to try and keep things in balance. The problem is its a pretty subjective science and when you throw in the other variables such as forage availability, varying spawning conditions from year to year due to weather, and changes in water quality, the goal is definitely a moving target......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you windy. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a slot of 15 to 20" across the board with one over 26". I think that makes a pretty good slot. At least that is what I practice out side of keeping one over 26.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a plan, Sand. Now if only we could get the DNR to take a look at Cass. I know quite a few locals and guides who favor that. We may need to start a petition or something. I caught a 23 inch deep golden beauty this year, got my quick photos and let her go to make more babies! I think the slot might have to be bumped up just a bit, I think the optimal one would be anything under 14 goes back in, no questions asked, you keep the 14 to 19 inch fish and everything but one wall hanger goes back 20 inches or more. Sounds like we are both on the same page!

Windy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a discussion that we have several times a year. An across the board slot would be a disaster as different lakes have different needs to keep a "balance." There are some lakes that the best way way to improve the overall walleye population is to keep the small ones and let the 17 inch and over ones go. Lakes that have a problem with stunted eyes such as Island and Crocodile in the Arrowhead come to mind.

Slots work very well where they are needed but they are not needed everywhere. The DNR does a fine job in my opinion. Where we start running into problems is when the politicians start messing with the science.

As far as keeping small walleyes or large ones for that matter "panicking" has nothing to do with it. I would be willing to bet that I release more walleyes than most people catch over the season. That's not bragging it's just the way it is. However, if I determine that a walleye is not going to survive after it's released I generally keep it regardless of size. I've never seen it but I've heard that there are a lot of "floaters" on lakes that have a strict slot and a lot of pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun,

I'm with you on that, I would keep a fish that I think is not going to make it, why be wasteful, but if it is small enough then it would be a free lunch for an eagle or other feathered friend and that is cool on the eco cycle in my book as well. I know that my grand daughters (who are 7 and 8) feel bad when they guy hook a 5 inch perch and it does not swim away when we toss it back but I show them the gulls or eagles and they watch it swoop down for a snack and they seem to feel better knowing that the bird had lunch that day, LOL !

Windy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benifit of releasing big fish is more than just spawning.

Release big fish to catch big fish.

Most anglers care about size, and to have a good population of big fish(any species) on a pressured lake(almost all metro) practicing catch and release or selective harvest will makes a huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Meh. We were right there during the disintegration of Lebanon. It caused Reagan to cut and run.    We took out the leader of Iran and installed our own guy. That led to the revolution.    We taught the terrorists ( bin laden etc ) everything they knew when we fighting side by side with them against the Russian army in the 80's.    The common denominator seems to be us and just maybe we are reaping some of what we sewed. 
    • let me know what ya think. we also use this process with turtle!!!!!!!! but somehow moms turtle is always just a bit better!!!!
    •   Those folks in the Middle East got rich, starting in the 70's with the oil embargo and the take over of the oil companies in the Mid East.   The disintegration of Lebanon and the Iran revolution were steps in the progression of Radical Islam in the Middle East which, through modern media, has begun to spread world wide.     The middle east strain of radical Islam has evolved their tactics and adopted terrorism as a main line tactic in that period.    It is aggravated by the great division and conflict between Shia with Iran as their leader, and Sunni with the Saudis.     Throughout history Islam has gone expansionist and violent, either as a cause or an excuse.  Christianity did the same thing back in history, but it has been quite a while.    That's what happened.   At least that is the way I see it.      
    • He was confused. "Last night in Sweden" was probably a chickpea film he watched the other night at Mara Lago with the boys. 
    • And yet through the 60's,70's and 80's there was a broad wave of conversion to Islam because it was a religion of peace.  You didn't see Lou Alcindor, Cassius Clay, Mike Tyson (save the ear thing) Reggie Rutland and a host of other prominent athletes doing terrorist things or going on jihads.    So what exactly happened that over a decade a religion went from peaceful to radical and what's to say another one won't follow suit when history already shows it has in the past? 
    • the only way I was not happy with rabbit was when I smoked some.  did that with a "tree rat" and that I thought was good smoked.  enjoy your feast!!
    • How about supply and demand? People are coming here because there is a demand for them and in the free market that Goppers have been preaching for half a century at least the level of immigration will be determined by the need for them. Government should merely be responsible for providing the mechanism that they need to become citizens in a timely manner that satisfies the marketplace.     
    •   That is my concern regarding wild rabbit. I don't want to dry the hell out of them so grilling is out. Gonna try Smurfy's  recipe tonight. I haven't eaten  rabbit in ages but remember them being tasty.    Appreciate and thanks to all that responded
    • @Jim Uran they are coming out with bigger batteries. I am going to get the 6 amp batteries and you can get  a car charger to keep your batteries charged up. I am running 3 amp batteries but I have 3 of them
    •   That's what I thought. Thank you for being honest once.     How do you figure? The average minimum wage in Mexico is around $5.00 per day so my guess would be that anything above that would be prosperous to those people.     That's the cost of freedom, and it's not a tax. That sounds like fake news.     So, your above point is moot. Got it.     Who wants to increase immigration? Allowing immigrants to become legal through the political process and the law is the exact answer to the problem that I am proposing but you just won't see it because Trump told you you need a wall. Open your eyes.     You and I know that "stealing" from your fellow man is a completely different situation than the victim less crime of crossing a political border. You admitted you would do it too if you needed to. Needing a coat or a better car is the reason most cross the border in the first place. That argument doesn't apply unless you passed laws to make it impossible to get a car or a coat but that's not the case, is it? You're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those illegals you hate would never be able to enter at all or it would take many years, sometimes decades and the costs would be prohibitive. I don't condone the actions but they are living in poverty and I can see how you would take that chance in order to provide a better life for your family.     Now it's your turn.
  • Our Sponsors