Slot limit thoughts

[Wish-I-Were-Fishn]

I agree that slot limits are helping the fishery, however it is frustrating when you only catch fish you need to release. Last time we went to Kab we barely scraped enough keeper fish together for one small meal on the last day. Two guys in our party don't want to go back because it is to much work and to far to drive to not eat a meal or two.

Yes, the fishing was great, but... I think a better idea would be to have a slot limit, and also allow you to keep one fish in the slot per person per day. That way you can at least have enough for a meal, or two. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Thoughts?

[mrklean]

The slots are there for a reason, if you allow one or two fish inside that slot why not one more then that and on and on it will go. If it were me i wouldnt if you cant keep them as long as your catching fish you should be in for a good time.

[harvey lee]

The slots are great for the lakes but some lakes with the 17" slot, its can be very tough to get a few keepers.

[harvey lee]

The slots are great for the lakes but some lakes with the 17" slot, its can be very tough to get a few keepers.

Trouble with letting one take one over, some will take more.

Its always the few that make it hard for the majority.

The first day we were on Rainy Lake fishing, we had a very tough time catching our slot fish. The next day, for some reason, they came much easier.

After day one, I thought with so many eyes in Rainy, why could they not increase the slot by one inch?

But, I would guess the reason we caught so many eyes between 19-28 is due to the tight slot.

I can live with the tight slots for an increase in fish and better large fish.

[goblueM]

I agree that slot limits are helping the fishery, however it is frustrating when you only catch fish you need to release. Last time we went to Kab we barely scraped enough keeper fish together for one small meal on the last day. Two guys in our party don't want to go back because it is to much work and to far to drive to not eat a meal or two.

Yes, the fishing was great, but... I think a better idea would be to have a slot limit, and also allow you to keep one fish in the slot per person per day. That way you can at least have enough for a meal, or two. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Thoughts?

i like the slots, they definitely improve fish size structure. My thoughts are if you are fishing for a meal, go to a lake without slots. If you want great fishing and don't care too much for a meal, then by all means go to a slot lake

I always chuckle when I hear folks complaining about catching walleyes that are "too big". Sheesh, is there anything we as fishermen DON'T complain about!?

[fivebucks]

I like the slots. On the lake where I have a cabin I don't catch too many keeper sized fish but it is fun to catch a few 20" eyes in a few hours of fishing. If I can't get some keeper eyes I can usually catch a slimer I can fillet the Y bones out of if I am needing a meal of fish.

[Deitz Dittrich]

I think the slots are great.. if you want fish to keep, fish for a different species. Or choose a different lake that doesnt have slots and then dont catch as many fish.. In my opinion. sunfish and crappie taste just as good if not better than walleye anyway.

[Acemac]

I catch more fish on lakes with slots so....

[3andadog]

Slots work but for some reason this lake has issues that go beyond just placing a slot on the lake. Check out the lake data at the DNR site and proves out the point you are making on the sacristy of smaller fish. The DNR has no solid reason for the problem.

We no longer fish there due to the decline. We fish Rainy and do well there. Have no problem with the slot and are very happy. Lots of big fish and lots of smaller fish but there are fish in the slot too.

[SpecialK]

What I have heard from the DNR (on KFAN outdoors) on this subject is that they had always envisioned a "sliding" slot limit. Once they had slot limits in place they wanted to be able to move the slots up or down depending on the lake so that this wouldn't be an issue.

What they have found is they cannot manage this the way they thought they were going to be able to. It may be the way the original law was written but I am not certain what the reason is. They never really said what was stopping them.

[Chode2235]

I think the slots are great.. if you want fish to keep, fish for a different species. Or choose a different lake that doesnt have slots and then dont catch as many fish.. In my opinion. sunfish and crappie taste just as good if not better than walleye anyway.

I think the walleye slots have proven successful enough that I recommend that we extend the principle to panfish as well. So many panfish lakes could be great with just a bit of protection, or closing the season for a bit.

I dont mind catching a lot of fish that are too big to keep, I actually really like it. It is frustrating when you want to do a shore lunch or something and you cant get anything small enough.

The question you need to ask yourself is if you are in it for the fishing or the eating, alter your approach accordingly.

[WollMan]

There should be a state wide slot for walleye's, like others have said if you are having trouble getting eaters try for something else. Most lakes would be greatly improved if people stopped keeping the 18-20 in fish.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

There is a state wide slot... ONE walleye over 20 inches.

[LMITOUT]

Funny, a few weeks ago there was effort to include slot limits on Fish Lake and everyone threw up their arms in disgust that it was even broached, yet it seems that most agree that slots work.

[smnduck]

I think a panfish slot could work but a bigger factor in the panfish equation is the big pike and bass in a lake that dictates the size of the pannies. Big Pike and Bass in a lake almost always equals big pannies.

[goblueM]

Funny, a few weeks ago there was effort to include slot limits on Fish Lake and everyone threw up their arms in disgust that it was even broached, yet it seems that most agree that slots work.

funny how fickle people are, eh?

I have no problem with Chaudary doing the slot limit thing as it is actually a proven management technique. My beef is when legislators circumvent the DNR and proven science, because a lakeshore owner doesn't want more boats on the lake, for example

[Hot_tamale]

I have to say i agree with the slot limits. In WI on the Chippewa Flowage where I fish quite often, they are going to an 18" or larger fish to keep. So what that is doing is taking out the big spawners and letting the smaller fish to grow.

Now for us, we keep the 12 to 16" fish for eaters and let 17's and larger go because they are spawners. we practice CPR and keep the future of the fishery going.

by taking out the spawners, there will be less fish in the future. The smaller fish will be overtaken by predators.

In my mind and many others, we feel that if there was a slot that says 2 fish from 12 to 16 inches and one over 18 would ensure there is a fishery in the future.

just my 2 cents worth.

[jigginjim]

A slot to protect larger panfish, could really help alot of lakes. If only people who except the fact that if they keep more smaller pannies, they could grow more big panfish. There can always be a trophy size of 1 or 2 fish.

Think now long the big crappie bite could have lasted on Upper Red. If a slot was in place allowing only 5 crappies over 11". or 2 over 13".

Too we may never see that type of fishing again.

[NCLaker]

... I think the walleye slots have proven successful enough that I recommend that we extend the principle to panfish as well. So many panfish lakes could be great with just a bit of protection, or closing the season for a bit...

Green Lake (Chisago) had a 9" slot on crappies for years, anyone know why they lifted the slot starting this season??

I have know expertise on this subject what so ever, but it would seem if you are taking all the crappies out that are bigger than 9", then you are foster a population of small fish. Pulling fish out w/ the "large fish" genes. I know they have some decent sized crappies, but always seemed most of what I ever caught on that lake were all 8.5-8.75".

[shorefisher]

The Green lake slot was lifted due to it having no effect on the crappie size. I think it was a good idea to lift it as it just kind of made it so people thought any crappie over 9" should be kept. Green lake also has a poor slot for eye's they must be 17"+ to keep so you can only keep 17 to 20 inch fish I think it would be better if these were the protected slot fish.

[zepman]

Funny, a few weeks ago there was effort to include slot limits on Fish Lake and everyone threw up their arms in disgust that it was even broached, yet it seems that most agree that slots work.

People threw up their arms at the way in which it was proposed...and who proposed it.

I agree with all the slots...I'd actually like to see more catch and release only lakes for LM and SM bass as well.

[JohnMickish]

I love the slots, and have found if you want eaters you have to go the lakes that produce eaters, if you want big fish, then go to lakes with slots.

[Dusty]

wish I were fishing,

The MnDNR is conducting a creel survey on Kabetogama this year. I have been checked once and have seen the Dnr veh's at several locations (Ash river resorts and the vistors center)both times I have been there this year. They are not enforcement just measuring fish. So maybe some change will be in the future.

[Wish-I-Were-Fishn]

Thanks for the info Dusty. I hope so.

As stated in my post, I love the slots and feel they do increase the fish size. However, not being able to eat a meal is a bummer.

Going to another lake, or "eating sunfish" is a cop out IMO. No place like Kab

[goblueM]

The Green lake slot was lifted due to it having no effect on the crappie size. I think it was a good idea to lift it as it just kind of made it so people thought any crappie over 9" should be kept. Green lake also has a poor slot for eye's they must be 17"+ to keep so you can only keep 17 to 20 inch fish I think it would be better if these were the protected slot fish.

that was not a slot, it was just a minimum size limit, which proved ineffective so they removed it