One over 20"

[Willy]

Maybe you're right, but all I know is that I watch a lot of fishermen fill up their buckets with [PoorWordUsage]cutters around here. Also, I've never heard of walleyes becomming stunted. Does anyone know if this can happen? If anyone can answer this question please do. It might have to be a lake by lake basis (as it already is but maybe more could be added)as others have suggested. I just don't like seeing all these small fish taken when they haven't had much of a chance to get bigger.

[HC Eye Hunter]

jas,

It's hard to argue with the results. It is good to have experimental lakes like LQP to see what the results of an idea are before implementing that idea statewide !

As far as the fish quality is compared to 10+ years ago on LQP your most certainly correct. The number of anglers on the lake is crazy and especially icefishing! I figure that most lakes recieve the most preasure during hardwater. It is nothing to see a couple of hundred+ fish houses on the ice and mostly occupied during the weekend. I know the lake gets busy but when was the last time you saw a couple of hundred boats on LQP?

But what else would us Minnesotan's do during the winter?

[Rost]

5 or 6 years ago, I had an attitude. I felt that the more fish I could take home and the bigger they were, the better fisherman I was. I have pictures of a few MN days of big stringers of 22-23 inch fish. Wow, we were proud!! Now I look back at those and it make me sick to my stomach. I think the people arguing this concept might feel the same way I once did. Some will argue that they fish for food.. I don't buy that. If they are so hungry, then sell the boat and equipment and head to the grocery store.

Trust a guy moving from MN to SD where we can keep 1 over 20 and a total of 4 fish. If they were to change the size limit in MN, you will enjoy fishing just as much.

[honker23]

I don't like the idea about lowering it to 20 inches. For one I don't know how much it would help, and how many limits of 20-24 fish do average fisherman catch?

I think some issues regarding size and growth haven't been touched here. Two that I can think of include habitat/cover and food. If a lake has an abundant population with no food, fish don't grow, mille lacs a few years ago and waubay come to mind as examples. The other is cover, I fish some lakes in southern mn that become impossible to fish all summer due to weeds, that with the huge forage base of baby carp and bullheads produces FAST growing and stocky fish, which are usually pounded during the winter. The dnr can stock way more each year than we can take out, so if you catch a 21 incher and eat it good for you.

Look at clear lake in waseca, millions of crappies, they never get any bigger, people keep them and let em go, but I haven't seen a 9-10 in fish ever out of there.

I guess my point is I'd rather see a lower daily limit without the length restrictions. The point about "locals" is also WELL taken. The tourist keeping 12 20 inchers in one week doesn't come close to doing the damage 1 guy keeping 300 14-18 inchers over a year.

[HC Eye Hunter]

Rost I here ya. I too remember those days. That was back when everyone referred to their fish by pounds rather than length and we kept the big ones not knowing any better.

Well, lessons learned!

If we are going to make things better we need to keep open minds and change when changes are needed.

[james_walleye]

I simply dont understand the problem with going too a statewide slot, protecting something like 18-28" fish. The bottom line is this: If you are catching fish in that 18-28" range and have too throw them back it should not be a big deal because you should also be catching some in that 14-18" range too keep and eat. Its not too often a guy goes out and catches a bunch of walleyes and they are all over 18". If you go out on a lake someday and catch 1 walleye and its 20" and it has too go back, well thats the way some days go. And you've also not just put back a 20" walleye, you have probably put back a female and that female will spawn next year and on average will put 1000 eyes in the lake. If people would just realize the benefit of putting these spawners back.

[Eric_Sieve]

20 inches isn't a bad weight to stop at. The bigger the fish, the more eggs they hold, so the more vital they are to the population. Also, it could help create a better age structure. We all know that the best eating walleyes are the 13-18 inchers anyway, any larger and they get mushy to be honest!! So I would support this!!

[dsludge]

My favorite fish is the muskie. I have never kept a muskie. I have lots of pictures of muskies I've caught and I try and get shot of every release. I enjoy the sport and just "being on the water".

This thread is making me question why it shouldn't be the same for other "game fish" like walleye. I fish walleye mostly in the winter. I keep what we can eat. As a rule, I release walleyes smaller than 14 inches and bigger than 22 inches. I have kept larger ones, only when the hook is tearing out the gullet. I caught a 29 inch fish in the fall and I hope to CPR (catch, photo, release) the same fish next year and finally break the 30 inch mark.

I had some grocery store walleye last week. It wasn't bad. I may not keep any more walleyes? The crappies and the sunnies taste good too. I don't like eating bass much. I don't like cleaning (or even smelling) pike.

I will call my Representative and voice my position.

Thanks for the thoughtful debate. Can the thread be forwarded to local law makers? I suppose it can.

Preserve The Resource,

dsludge

[mistermom]

The other thing to consider is wether or not your lake has natural reproducing walleye or are they all stocked? Letting go large fish in lakes that have no natural reproduction only allows that one fish to grow bigger. It isn't saving next years crop. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't let some go. I just think folks ought to know what is the situation in the lake they fish.

mm

[honker23]

Good point to make known, I was told by DNR that nearly every lake south of St Cloud relies on stocking and has zero contribution from natural reproduction.

Not that hoping to grow a trophy is a bad reason to let it go, it just doesn't "hurt" the resource the way some people make it sound.

I don't want to make it sound like I keep large fish on a regular basis, but I have eaten a number of 4 and 5 pounders from the Oahe back in the early ninties when that was considered a small fish for them and by no means was it mushy or bad. It was every bit as good as a 15 incher from MN.

I think a lower daily limit and common sense could go along ways. Keep what you can eat in one meal one 22 incher or 2-3 14 inchers, and let the rest go.

[Willy]

I just don't know if I can believe that hardly any lakes in the southern half of the state receive contribution from natural reproduction. I know that they aren't walleye factories, but I would think that there is more than zero natural reproduction taking place.

[mistermom]

The way the DNR figures it is they stock every other year in a lake. If they find walleyes in their netting samples from a year class that they did not stock they know they have some natural reproduction. Of course it isn't totally accurate; but it is as close as they are gonna get.

mm

[dsludge]

I've heard that larger walleyes are fishy or mushy or rubbery. I thought that the last large walleye that I tasted was excellent. It was hungry, swallowed the hook, was damaged during the retrieve, and had to be harvested.

Do any of you walleye fishermen eat grocery store walleye?

dsludge

[gunflint]

dsludge,

I can honestly say that I have never eaten store bought walleye. And I doubt I ever will.

[Matt Breuer]

Store bought and resteraunt walleye are quite tasty. The odd thing about that is that all store bought and resteraunt walleye look like they're in the 18-22" class. I don't eat walleye that size typically because I prefer the smaller fish in taste.

A store bought 22" fish tastes a lot better than a caught 22" fish IMO.

As for sides, mine is this, lower it, it doesn't damage my feelings one bit. It will probably help in my opinion too. Chris had a great point about people hiring guides and wanting to keep what they catch. There are a lot of them out there, and they don't fish much, so they like to keep everything they catch, and that's their right. I personally don't keep an 'eye over 18", but that's me, not them.

Great topic, great points, keep 'em coming!

[gunflint]

Matt,

I'm sure you know what side I'm on so enough said about that. I see you're a guide so we both know from experience about clients wanting to keep everything.

I discuss (with clients) before we hit the water, selective harvest. Most clients are very willing to listen to reason and understand the long term advantages of selective harvest and are happy to catch a few smaller Eyes for the pan and CPR the big ones.

Every once in a while some people get excited and want to keep eveything they catch. The old, lets freeze em and eat em later. I've often wondered how many of those fish just get thrown out. I have noticed that I have a hard time keeping the boat on spot when people start getting greedy. I don'tknow why that is.

[Chris Haley]

Gunflint

You're in a different boat up there. You are an end destination fishing area!!! The people that go there, are there to fish and usually are avid fisherman. They know the importance of protecting the resource. The vast majority of people we get here are family vacationers that thought "hey, while we're here. Let's go fishing!" These are the ones that want to keep everything because they usually have a big crew and want a fish fry. I have not had a problem with big fish, they will usually listen and agree to let them go. It's the 20-24 inch fish that are hard to talk them into. We also don't have the number of people coming through the area like Mille lacs, Leech, or Lake of the Woods where we could say take or leave it!! I've spent a number of springs in your area on Saganaga, I know what you have up there. You are not near as pressured as we are.