Keeping 12" walleyes

[PierBridge]

Keep all the 12's you want on Big Sandy. It won't effect the fishery ONE IOTTA. It's ALWAYS been that way on Sandy and always will be. I would say 90 percent of Sandy eyes are under 15 for sure and there are great numbers of these fish.

Don't bother calling the DNR about Sandy it's the million dollar question that goes un-answered on how and why Big Sandy Walleyes don't get very Big.

20" fish are pretty rare on [PoorWordUsage] some say its the Dark stained water which stunts them and the bigger the fish you encounter will most often be the skinnier or more sickly looking Eyes.

Good Luck and be SAFE!

[fishinfey8]

I'm not an expert on Big Sandy but I lived on and fished island lake for going on seven yrs. now and this is what I have found. There is a "stunted" population of small walleyes that are in abundance, however there are also other stronger year classes present as well. The problem is that the older year classes don't live with the "stunted" fish. I think the majority of Island is too sterile to really grow fish properly thus the majority of fish are small.

I have had a couple conversations with CO's in the past couple years (they have been netting within the past 2 yrs.) and they confirmed my hypothesis to be accurate. It really helps to talk to a CO if they have put test net out in the recent past. I was luck enough to follow them to a couple locations and see the difference in catches.

In Island, feel free to keep the smaller fish if you don't mind the extra work for less food. In fact, that's what I usually do if I want a meal or two. You can tell the difference in color and body features of a stunted fish and a fish that is in a strong year class. I would rather keep the smaller fish since they are in the majority, and throw back the strong year class fish.

[hanson]

I'll differ to Pier on specifics to Big Sandy but keeping 12" Walleyes in general is a joke!! Let them panfish go!!

What is considered a "good eater" is regionally and lake specific but it is embarrassing when a 4 pounder is considered a "good eater" on Lake Erie.

Us Minnesotans think anything we can get a fillet off of is a "good eater". Grow up!

[DTro]

Well if I understand correctly. The biology of a lake can only handle so much Bio-Matter. So I think taking out smaller fish will actually help the size out. That is the whole concept behind a slot limit.

I guess if guys are out keeping buckets full of these 12” eyes that could get to be a problem, but I see nothing wrong with keeping that size fish in general. But then again I don’t keep very many fish overall, so my viewpoint might be skewed.

If I feel like eating a few fish and I get a couple 12’s…. well I just might eat them.

[Quetico]

Part of my reason for keeping smaller 'eyes is based on the lake survey. If forage is limited and 'eye numbers are extremely high with a small size, you would actually be doing the lake some good by taking out average sized fish. Thus reducing the median population allowing more forage for the larger fish to grow larger.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

DTRO and Quetico are right on!

If you have a lake that has an over abundance of small fish and poor growth rates (Island Lake in Duluth is a PRIME example), it's because of over competition within that year class, as well as, a lack of forage for that year class. So, by removing a lot of those fish, you are reducing that competition and helping the remaining population out.

With lakes like this, it takes a lot of years for fish to reach the sizes most people consider a "keeper". So when someone does get a fish of this size, it goes straight into a live well, thus leaving very few adult fish in the system and leaving more room and resources for the little ones to occupy and thrive.

Keep the Island Lake Specials!

[minnfish89]

I think the last three posts put it very well. In my opinion there are quite a few lakes that would benifit from people keeping 12'a and 13's instead of 17's to 20's.

Thats the whole purpose of the slot limits like on Mille Lacs.

And lake Erie is a completely different fishery, with a different forage base that supports those larger walleyes.

And if you think about it one 16 may have as much meat as two 13's, but the there are probably more than twice as many 13's swimming around out there than there are 16's.

So in my opinion keep smaller fish!!!

[kapp]

interesting thread

i believe given the choice keep the small ones for eating and

let the 18s on up go. those are most likely the spawners. and

releasing them helps maintain the fishery

12s are fine to keep especially if you released an 18.

usally higher mercury content in a fish the older it is.

another reason to eat the smaller ones.

[james_walleye]

A DNR official told me a couple years ago that keeping 12-13" fish on Winnie didnt hurt the lake at all biologically. Its easier and quicker for mother nature to replace a 12" fish rather than an 18" fish.

[CRAZYEYES]

I have no problem with keeping a couple of 12 inch fish to eat but this summer on the lake that I'm on (Kabetogama) I saw livewells and stringers full of 11-13 inch walleyes. Up until last year the keeper slot was 13-17 and I would like to see that come back personally. I think it depletes the good eating size fish that 13 or 14 inches and there is a huge difference in the number of fish you need for dinner between a walleye that is 12 inches and one that is 14. Like I said, No problem keeping a few 12's but if you give the general public the option to keep a fish they will keep limits of them.

[BrdHunter01]

I have a question for all of you keeping 12" walleyes on lakes that are stocked with eyes.... If the DNR stocks your lake and you say keeping 12" eyes keep the fishery in balance through fewer fish competing over baitfish.... The DNR should STOP stocking your lake right? fewer smaller fish plain and simple....

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Probably not on a stocked lake. A stocked lake is that way because it has poor natural reproduction to keep up with harvest. The lake I was referring to is not stocked and the population is coming strictly form natural reproduction.

Lakes should be managed accordingly and slots placed on those where necessary.

[minnfish89]

I'd like to add a little more, first the only way A LOT of smaller fish are going to be harvested from a lake is if there is a large population of those smaller fish. So therefore there are tons of them in the lake and removing some won't have a biological effect on the lake like Crazyeyes stated.

If the population is smaller then people aren't going to catch that many, so not that many will be removed from the lake.

The reason it probably won't have a biological effect on the population is that many of those 12 inchers that are kept won't make it to 16 inches due to natural causes (starvation,disease, etc.).

So whether the DNR or mother nature herself produces the fish, it takes lots of little fish to get one to survive to grow into a big fish. Thats why walleyes can lay so many thousands of eggs each and why the DNR stocks at a rate of like 1000 fry(or somwhere in that range)an acre, thats just the way mother nature works. They figure into the equation when stocking that only so many are going to grow into adult fish.

And don't think that those of us who will keep a 12 incher think that they are bad for a lake, they are just part of the process. And when we said thinning the herd was better for the lake that is usually when there is a really strong year class or a group of slow growing fish, which means there is A LOT of them. So should they stop stocking the lakes, not if its working.

[PierBridge]

I'll add, as far Big Sandy goes it's one tough lake to pattern the Eyes in the Winter. So I'm not worried at all the lake wil be harmed if a person/s keeps a few smaller fish for a meal.

[Zelmsdawg]

Out of curiosity, say the lake is a shallow southern mn lake or I guess just mainly that walleyes don't reproduce at all and the lake is entirely dependent on stocking. How big of fish do you keep/eat then?

Zelmsdawg

[MurkyWaters]

I like the point about stocked-lakes vs. natural reproducing lakes. One must make a distinction between the two and realize that keeping 12" walleyes from a stocked lake is really defeating the purpose behind the stocking. I don't think people realize that most of our lakes are not naturally reproducing walleyes and harvesting small eyes can be a big detriment.

[minnfish89]

Why would it be a detriment?? besides the fact that i stated earlier that many of those 12's won't make it to 16, 17, 18 or whatever...if the lake is not naturally reproducing it is basically just a put and take system...the DNR puts walleyes in and people take them out.

Some people may not want to catch 12" walleyes because they don't like it...but some people love it..i think we have to remember there are a lot more people fishing out there than just the people who post on this site, and a lot of them may enjoy the heck outta catching those little walleyes, especially people who don't fish that often throughout the year, the DNR is there to try and make everyone happy and if they can make a families license and year worth while by helping them catch a limit of walleyes...then i don't think its defeating the purpose at all

[Quetico]

I do agree with with Murky to some extent. We shouldn't be taking freshly stocked 12" eyes out. Let them grow so they have a chance at doing some natural reproduction.

The lake I fish and keep 12" eyes from has never been stocked and never had any special management. Its a lake back in the woods and is reliant on natural reproduction.

[wishing for walleyes]

The only way i would keep a 12 inch walleye is if he died after releasing him.Its like robbing the craddle.But it would be a different story if the lakes i fish were overloaded with 12 inch walleyes.

[CRAZYEYES]

I'm sure that a lot of guys would not be happy with this but I would support a statewide minimum of 13 inches .It has been proven on most of Minnesota's big walleye lakes that if you give the fish a chance to get bigger they will and if you protect the spawning fish fishing improves. I think tighter slots and changing the attitudes of people from the full stringer mentality are the only way to sustain fishing in the future. I know that full stringers are whats good for buisiness because my family was in the resort buisiness but my opinion has changed from thinking the slots were rediculous to wishing that they'd expand them after seeing the change in fishing that they have brought with.

[Swill]

just ate a pile of 12-13" walleyes last night. Excellent....

[Ray1]

I say each lake should have its own slot. P.S. 14" plus for me to keep and nothing over 20" ( i will keep one over or under if it is in bad shape which is not that often because i wont fish walleyes real deep.) And as far as keeping 12" on Lake of the Woods, why when there are plenty of 14-16 inch fish in there?

[Swill]

good idea Ray, but it might be a pain to check the regulations on each lake before a guy heads out to fish. I think the current regulations are good, and the more guys that practice ethical harvest the better.

[BrdHunter01]

just ate a pile of 12-13" walleyes last night. Excellent....

Sad U think 12-13in eyes are excellent? Get a clue....

If the DNR stocks that lake you should be ashamed!

[minnfish89]

Well then BrdHunter01 if you think its so bad. Why don't you call your local DNR fisheries office and ask if keeping some 12-13 inch walleyes is going to have an effect on the population...and then report back here with what they say. I think there are quite a few people who would be interested in what they say.