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
Ice-King

A state minimum size for walleye

33 posts in this topic

Is there anyone else that believes there should be a state minimum for walleye? I just think its a shame when you hear of people keeping 12 and 13" walleyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.....

I know of some waters where it would benefit the lake a lot if people would keep the 12 & 13 inch walleyes. Where there is an over abundance of slow growing walleye year classes, removing them at that size increases their opportunity for forage, in turn, increasing their growth rates.

Just like any length regulation, there just cannot be a statewide slot like that.

Each lake is it's own beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't know what is exactly best for all lakes. I do believe that more restrictions would be beneficial. I think different fisheries might benefit from different restrictions.

Lots of confusion could come with that, but we're smart enough how to operate $2000 electronic gadgets to help us catch them, so I think we can read a rule and reg booklet and figure out what's legal for the body of water we're on that day.

I also think more education / positive views on Selective Harvest (releasing smaller fish to grow up and releasing most of the larger (breeding stock) fish (all species, panfish, walleyes,northerns, ect) to reproduce, and keeping a responsible amount of fish for the table) is as important, if not more, than state imposed regulations. It's gonna take changes in harvest "attitudes" in general, to make these regulations easier to swallow for most.

IMO, our harvest practices ought to change as much as our fishing practices (technology, improvements in ice fishing, GPS maps, ATV's, ect - which I am all for and have them all) have over the years. Good Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with goose, each fishery is different and would require a different regulation to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.....

I know of some waters where it would benefit the lake a lot if people would keep the 12 & 13 inch walleyes. Where there is an over abundance of slow growing walleye year classes, removing them at that size increases their opportunity for forage, in turn, increasing their growth rates.

Just like any length regulation, there just cannot be a statewide slot like that.

Each lake is it's own beast.

Correct, maybe those lakes should be particularly managed then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, maybe those lakes should be particularly managed then.

Exactly! Each lake should be managed individually. However, could you imagine the size of the reg book and the uproar form the fisherman. Apparently the regs are hard enough to understand, I would hate to see what happens if the resourse managers pushed for this level of management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll take 13 inch walleyes any day fair and away thebest eating

ya it depends on the lake

i live next to gull and think geez in 2 yrs the fishing going to be really should be lots of 16-18 fish but never seem to get there

sometimes i think the best is to leave mother nature do her thing

i dont think any body really has all the do and donts

mille lacs in the eraly 90 was great fishin

then the indians got in there and then the dnr is makin new rules every year and one yr the fish are comitting suicide over the next you cant get a bite they have ruined one of the best natural reproducing walleye lakes in the world

i fish winnie now way better bite and more consistent bite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ever been to lotw?ever checked out the fish cleaning shacks at the resorts?ppl who come from all over keep anything they catch anywhere from 8 inchers to 12 inchers.granted the regs anything up to 19 1/2 but i set my own regs on what size i keep up to 19 1/2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! Each lake should be managed individually. However, could you imagine the size of the reg book and the uproar form the fisherman. Apparently the regs are hard enough to understand, I would hate to see what happens if the resourse managers pushed for this level of management.

I agree each lake should be managed individually. I also don't believe the resources ($$), esp. now, are there to study each lake and come up with a plan for each of them. I believe, too, that there would be an uproar from us, but don't really know why.

I stated before, and still hold, it's way more complicated to figure out how to operate a GPS w/ Lakemaster/ Navionics chip, Hummingbird with SI, new Lowrances, heck, how to mix gas for our augers, than it is to read a reg book. I don't think we have to worry about large reg books, for a while, at least, but don't think that ought to be a legit arguement against it.

If individual lake restrictions aren't a feesible option, I think it's up to us to regulate ourselves, individually, and think twice about what size and number of fish we choose to harvest. I'm not gonna say what I do is what you ought to do. We all have different views and circumstances. I do think we all ought to think twice, though, for the benefit of our fisheries today and ours children's fisheries tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ya one needs to use alittle common sense

i dont just go out catch 13 inch fish lol\

but very seldom keep anything over 19

winnie is 17 so sometimes to get a meal you hafta keep a couple of 13 but we do get some 12 and under we dont keep those 8 inch is a little riduculous

but if you drive from chicago spose you dont want to go home hungry lol

again i'm no biogelist(cant spell it either lol)

but i think low can handle the pressure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It drives me crazy when I see people keeping the dinks but it is much worse to keep the bigger fish. I can go with a 13 or 14 minimum but I would put on a 20 inch maximum and maybe one trophy fish over 25 or 26 per week. Anything over that can be prone to high amounts of PCB's and the meat is not as good anyway. Let the big girls go back to make more baby walleys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goose heres one to think about How many questions do you see asking what the rules are? I see them all the time and wonder why they dont go to DNR site or read the booklet.

OK How many questions do you see on how to operate those confusing electronics? I see few, very few.

We have too many rules for most to even take the time to look up We cant create more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, sparce. I think part of it has to do with the fact that we're naturally opposed to more rules / regs. Thus, we don't want to read the manual learn the rules as they change.

We do want to know how we opertate our new expensive gadget, because we've got our hard earn money in it, and they're FUN when we know how to operate them. Rules / Regs don't equal fun, but aren't that difficult to understand. I don't believe that should be an arguement against them though. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any new regs should have a sound biological basis. If someone wants to eat a 12-13"er, I don't see it as my business to tell him he shouldn't unless I can show that it is harmful to the resource.

The lakes up in Voyageurs dropped their minimum recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruledrifter-raises a good point. There are some lakes out there with insanely high number of 10-14" walleyes and few larger fish. A somewhat remote lake I like to fish in NE Mn is like this. The DNR survey says the numbers of fish in the lake are extremely high with a low forage base. The smaller fish from this lake make a great meal.

We should have a minimum size of 8 or 10". I hate seeing people pull fingerling 4-6" walleye from metro lakes for the dinner table. I have seen it too often. Let the tiny freshly stocked walleyes grow to a respectable size.

Windy said- most importantly we should have a maximum size. Call it 20 or 22" with 1 over 28" per month or season. Let load up our lakes with bigger fish which will spawn more and create better numbers of walleye. I was in Canada this summer with some people who nearly ran me out of camp when they heard I released the 2 27" walleyes I caught. They would have tasted horrible, I got pics of both fish and I don't mount fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It drives me crazy when I see people keeping the dinks but it is much worse to keep the bigger fish. I can go with a 13 or 14 minimum but I would put on a 20 inch maximum and maybe one trophy fish over 25 or 26 per week. Anything over that can be prone to high amounts of PCB's and the meat is not as good anyway. Let the big girls go back to make more baby walleys!

I agree with you I have seen too many people keep these small fish. by the time you fillet them, you end up with almost nothing for a fillet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4"-10"? You might just as well butcher the bait! I would agree to a 15" statewide min. Also believe the one over 20" is a good thing. I also feel that the fish one keeps for the table should be related to the amount of time spent fishing and amount of fish caught. If you only get out fishing once or twice a year and get into some smaller fish or a 25" eye, I see no problem keeping them for table fair as long as it's legal to do so. I would think the people that catch alot of fish thru the year would (hopefully) be more selective on what they keep.

Question- If you keep the bigger fish from a lake with limited or no natural reproduction, other than the fish you took out, are you actually damaging the fishery? How many fingerlings are these big fish consuming? Just a thought that came up. Interested to hear others thoughts on these type of lakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question- If you keep the bigger fish from a lake with limited or no natural reproduction, other than the fish you took out, are you actually damaging the fishery? How many fingerlings are these big fish consuming? Just a thought that came up. Interested to hear others thoughts on these type of lakes.

Interesting question, heatchecker. Especially in lakes around your area. I remember back in college years fishing on small lake in your area and catching (& releasing) a good number of big, fat walleyes. We were catching them on 6-9" chubs. I figured they were so well fed from all the bullheads in the lake. I never thought of how they might be canabalizing the fry/fingerlings the DNR was obviously stocking. Either way, I have a tough time taking and eating a 20+ walleye from a shallow, fertile late. Good food for thought, though.

BTW, Totally agree with rest of your post about responsible harvest. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would love to see a state min, i would like to see a state min for a lot of things but eyes would be a good start, but again it would be base on each lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biologists are more concerned with people taking breeding size fish instead of the little ones.

Personally, I think a 13 to 17 inch size limit would suit the majority of lakes pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 15" minimum was tried on Lac Qui Parle Lake a few years ago. It is a lake it should have worked on where fish are fast growing. It was a disaster. Just a lot of fish that were under 15". Some of them were dying of natural causes before they even made it to 15".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: heat checker
Question- If you keep the bigger fish from a lake with limited or no natural reproduction, other than the fish you took out, are you actually damaging the fishery? How many fingerlings are these big fish consuming? Just a thought that came up. Interested to hear others thoughts on these type of lakes.

Interesting question, heatchecker. Especially in lakes around your area. I remember back in college years fishing on small lake in your area and catching (& releasing) a good number of big, fat walleyes. We were catching them on 6-9" chubs. I figured they were so well fed from all the bullheads in the lake. I never thought of how they might be canabalizing the fry/fingerlings the DNR was obviously stocking. Either way, I have a tough time taking and eating a 20+ walleye from a shallow, fertile late. Good food for thought, though.

BTW, Totally agree with rest of your post about responsible harvest. Good luck.

I think that this is why you can't just use blanket rules. Walleye is king in Minnesota but the truth is that many, if not most, of the lakes that contain walleye really aren't capable of sustaining their populations. Many of these lakes never did have walleyes indiginous to them but have walleyes in them only because of stocking. In these lakes, it may not matter to keep the breeders because they don't have suitable habitat for breeeding anyway and so there are no or very few naturally born fish.

The only reason to refrain from keeping the larger fish in this situation is to promote a trophy fishery and now we are deviating from protecting the resource to supplying a fishery geared toward a certain small population segment's desires.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankfully, the DNR knows that Minimum size limits don't work, that's why they have been dropped on most every lake they were ever put on. If you set the min at 14, you end up with lots of 13.75" fish, and can never get any to keep. The lakes end up with stunted populations of small fish and hardly any keepers.

Minimum size limits are bad for a fishery. In lakes with good natural reproduction, it's beneficial to keep smaller fish, because it means more food for the rest to grow bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? what next regulate the amount of beer and fun i can have in my boat? I follow the regs, but this is a little extreme. Use your common sense quit fishing so close to the other guy that you know about his 6 inch walleye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2 minutes ago, Big Dave2 said:

       

      8. Neither candidate looks even remotely close to being "presidential".

       

      Mike

    • You mean all the things that Trump failed to bring up? He spent a lot of time interrupting and not giving any specifics about his supposed plans so he may as well have been bringing up these topics. 

      Hillary whiffed it too by failing to bring up the wall and who is going to pay for it. 

      These 2 are such morons they can't even slander each other very well.

      My takeaways:

      1. Hillary Clinton is a terrible speaker. She not only makes me want to fall asleep when she talks but she also makes me want to vomit.

      2. Hillary has very little of substance to say anyway.

      3. The amount of lies, half-truths and deflecting coming out of both candidates mouths also makes me want to hurl.

      4. Trump looked like a fool on the "looks vs. stamina" question, the "stop and frisk" discussion, and his description of the "birther" issue, 

      5. Hillary looked like a fool on the "trade" issue.

      6. Both candidates are just saying what they think people want to hear.

      7. Trump actually did much better than I expected but still came across as a lying, bumbling fool.

      8. Neither candidate looks even remotely close to being "presidential".

      Edited by Big Dave2
    • Lots of good info. I use the Z-man ones too mostly. I do wish they had better hooks. Had a good night with them tonight! I'm starting to like them cause you can use them like a jig also, yet fish them fast when needed.

      I have a couple of the Project Z ones,which seem built better, but also cost more. They are 3/4oz, so I use them in a little deeper waters.

    • 11 minutes ago, Nick Kuhn said:

      Trump tried to explain how he would resolve racial tensions by using "stop and frisk" (a policy that discriminates against blacks and was ruled unconstitution) and also somehow thought talking about how letting blacks into his $100,000 initial membership fee golf club was a good analogy for how he would help inner city blacks.

      That's 5 star feed for the angry, battered, fed up cattle who lean con.

      13 minutes ago, Nick Kuhn said:

      Trump admitted to not paying any taxes: "That's just being smart" - "They would have been squandered if I did pay them"

       It is. I wish I had a loop hole.

      14 minutes ago, Nick Kuhn said:

      Trump said of entering the mortgage business before the housing collapse "That's just good business". Trump Mortgage LLC went bankrupt in 2007, before the housing collapse.

      It is. If I had serious capitol at that point, I would of bought, bought, bought.

      15 minutes ago, Nick Kuhn said:

      Trump questioned Clinton's health/stamina, even though he had the sniffles, consumed a great deal of water, and was leaning against the podium to remain upright (Clinton never coughed, leaned on the podium, or drank any water for the entire duration).

      He is 70 and been on the road for quite some time. I give it to him. Not bad for an old timer.

      Maybe Clinton is antibodied, steroided out.

      Pretty sure they gave her what ever she need to to get her through that debate and debunk and quell any idea of health concerns..if there happened to be a health concern. Which I have no idea obviously.

       

       

       

    • That gin I put in my feeder must've confused the little buggers and they flew north! ;)



  • Posts

    • You mean all the things that Trump failed to bring up? He spent a lot of time interrupting and not giving any specifics about his supposed plans so he may as well have been bringing up these topics.  Hillary whiffed it too by failing to bring up the wall and who is going to pay for it.  These 2 are such morons they can't even slander each other very well. My takeaways: 1. Hillary Clinton is a terrible speaker. She not only makes me want to fall asleep when she talks but she also makes me want to vomit. 2. Hillary has very little of substance to say anyway. 3. The amount of lies, half-truths and deflecting coming out of both candidates mouths also makes me want to hurl. 4. Trump looked like a fool on the "looks vs. stamina" question, the "stop and frisk" discussion, and his description of the "birther" issue,  5. Hillary looked like a fool on the "trade" issue. 6. Both candidates are just saying what they think people want to hear. 7. Trump actually did much better than I expected but still came across as a lying, bumbling fool. 8. Neither candidate looks even remotely close to being "presidential".
    • Lots of good info. I use the Z-man ones too mostly. I do wish they had better hooks. Had a good night with them tonight! I'm starting to like them cause you can use them like a jig also, yet fish them fast when needed. I have a couple of the Project Z ones,which seem built better, but also cost more. They are 3/4oz, so I use them in a little deeper waters.
    • That's 5 star feed for the angry, battered, fed up cattle who lean con.  It is. I wish I had a loop hole. It is. If I had serious capitol at that point, I would of bought, bought, bought. He is 70 and been on the road for quite some time. I give it to him. Not bad for an old timer. Maybe Clinton is antibodied, steroided out. Pretty sure they gave her what ever she need to to get her through that debate and debunk and quell any idea of health concerns..if there happened to be a health concern. Which I have no idea obviously.      
    • That gin I put in my feeder must've confused the little buggers and they flew north! 
    • So you think we deserve worse? Or you are happy with our leadership? We deserve honest politicians who work for us, again it's not a complicated idea so I'm not sure what the issue is. Do you always try and make a mountain out of a mole hill? Or just too busy defending the status quo that anyone who does not align with one of two parties needs to be questioned?
    • Both have serious issues, but with regards to last night's debate only one candidate was an utter disaster. By the end Trump could barely utter coherent sentences. It seemed he would just meander his way through words until somehow he arrived at one of the handful of talking points he wanted to get across.   Trump admitted to not paying any taxes: "That's just being smart" - "They would have been squandered if I did pay them"   Trump tried to explain how he would resolve racial tensions by using "stop and frisk" (a policy that discriminates against blacks and was ruled unconstitution) and also somehow thought talking about how letting blacks into his $100,000 initial membership fee golf club was a good analogy for how he would help inner city blacks.   Trump passed off a $14 million loan as "a small amount" like anybody can come up with that.   Trump said of entering the mortgage business before the housing collapse "That's just good business". Trump Mortgage LLC went bankrupt in 2007, before the housing collapse.   Trump suggested that China should "take care of North Korea" - which does not sit well with the 2nd most powerful country on the planet.   There was this frightening exchange: Clinton: He said, "you know if they taunted our sailors I would blow them out of the water and start another war." Trump: That would not start a war. Clinton: That is not the judgment. That is not the right temperament to be commander-in-chief to be taunted and the worst part Trump: They were taunting us.   Trump questioned Clinton's health/stamina, even though he had the sniffles, consumed a great deal of water, and was leaning against the podium to remain upright (Clinton never coughed, leaned on the podium, or drank any water for the entire duration).   Trump somehow thought wrapping up the debate with an attack on Rosie O'Donnell was in some way relevant to anything mentioned in the debate.
    • So, why do you think "we all deserve better" ?  After all, that's what you said.  
    • Well I did some looking on line and found some ideas but none I liked so I put me engineering skills to use and thought of this idea it works great going to pick up some more d rings for the deck to tie down and some of those heavy duty straps I relized I can keep my spare tire on too which makes me happy and it's not hurting the trailer at all so it works great used my old wooden ramps and I didn't need to buy a new trailer! Cost me nothing to!
    • Did you bother to read the entire quote? What part of it do you disagree with? You are now a proponent of spending money on climate change?  BTW, you are a little behind the times. You do know you are bringing up something that happened in 2011, right?
  • Our Sponsors