Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. ?

Slot limits


fish-4-fun

Recommended Posts

Lakes cycle.

Lets talk lakes that have natural reproduction. I hear it all the time that lake X has so many little eyes. The next thing out of their mouth is "there should be a slot so those fish can grow. HELLO, where do you think those little eyes came from? Did this person think that the spawning adults were 6, 8, 10, or twelve inch fish? If your on a lake infested with small eyes be thankful that the lake is producing bythe eyes you seek. Something else, if that lake had a successful spawn to produce that many fish don't you think that this might have been going on well before you came along and took notice?

If all your catching is dinks its because you haven't figured it out that dinks will not be with any other year class other then with their own. Your fishing unproductive, depth , structure, or water temps for the the eyes you wishfully seek. If I catch a cigar in one spot thats all I need to know and its time to move. We're getting into preferred locations that large eyes will not share with dinks. Its dog eat dog. So whats the preferred location of eyes? Thats going to be the exact location of that lakes main forage at a specific time of year. Whether it be leeches , minnows, crayfish, or bugs the dominant predator will be taking full advantage of that prey. If your a 6" dink your not safe in those feeding waters so stay away.

What I get out of this topic is some guys would like their home waters to be more like the hot big eye lakes.

Guess what those lakes are patterned. All the guess work has been taking out and all you need to do is show up and with a little luck you'll be posing with 30" eye.

Let me say this again, those lakes have been patterned.

I see so many posts from guys looking for the latest report

hoping someone has solved the puzzle(found the pattern) on their home water.

What I'd like to see is you take the info on the many boards here and you go out and solve the puzzle on your home waters. Get more involved with the specie specific forums and learn how to do it on your own.

So if your pulling dinks don't ask for slots. Start thinking about where the big eyes are instead of dwelling on what can the DNR do to better my odds. I'll guaranty theres guys on your home lake that have it figured out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Surface Tension - Nice post. Challenge yourself and have fun doing it! A good day of fishing should not only be measured on the catch, learn for the next day too.I don't have a problem with people keeping fish to eat, it's a reward for the chase and good eatin. I think it is proven that lakes require different management techniques and if slots and reduced limits protect the resource than so be it. Good fishing!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the answer is a state wide reduction in bag limits and a slot limit. The Minnesota DNR for years has been using slot limits on certain lakes to enhance the fishing on those waters. Every body of water is different and some of them do or do not work well with management. What you are asking is to throw away a program that has shown it is working on the waters where it is being implemented. By managed waters are stocked, watched and adjustments made for not only in the harvest of fish but in their protection.

I think that suggesting a statewide slot limit would be the same as a state wide speed limit of 65 works, great on the freeway but would be a killer in the business district. "Lets have fishing like Canada?" Well we need more water, less roads a lot less people and then we would have less pressure on fishing. If you want better fishing it starts with you. Catch and release, Learn to be a better fishermen. I catch more fish now then when I did 30 years ago. Are there more fish? Or am I a better fishermen? They call it fishing for a reason. Your license does not guarantee you a limit or even half a limit. It allows you to fish. I am not saying that you are a bad fishermen, far from it. But fishing is one of the few things that you can not depend on. One day nothing and the next day same spot your arm falls off catching fish. The next day nothing again. Don't blame the bad days or lack of fish on to much fishing pressure.

Insert here all the DNR facts that you would like in regards to fishing management and all the degrees held by the DNR folks who do this for a living. This is just what I feel about the topic. I for one would not sign a state wide reduction in bag limits and a statewide slot limit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

As you said for fishing like in Canada we need fewer roads and PEOPLE!! To me that sounds like less fishing pressure. And adding slot limits would help that tremendously.


Slot limits do not reduce the number of people fishing by being the final reason for some people to just give up fishing. Some more people would not take up fishing if they could only catch a few fish and they had to be between such an such a size. Just to much work. In the end if you can't catch fish then a slot limit makes little or no difference. It comes down to you have to be able to fish. Sounds to me that you want to up your odds by reducing the number of fishermen you have to compete against. You are not competing against other fishermen but the fish. If there a 100 people on the water or just you. It's up to you to catch a fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surface Tension, you and a few others have had some excellent posts,I'm up on Kab where slots and limits are very controversial. They haven't quite got it right here, but they are working on it.

Someone mentioned that there is less people, especially young people not interested in fishing, maybe due to their parents not showing the way. I have a son 22, who takes time to fish, but it was always a battle in his youthful years to get him away from TV and video games, especially if fishing was slow.(sound familar)

Believe it or not, we ended up bringing his video equipment with him so he had it while on vacation. We set limits, and I set fishing times, a compromise. I think the compromise between the high tech world and laid back fishing for a weeks vacation or so was the only way I kept

my sons interest. Now he lives in Co. and he comes back for vacation, #1 on his list is fishing, he would go all day everyday if we didn't have a few other things to do.

Once again Surface Tension, thanks for the great post. guts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

There is no reason a person needs to keep six walleyes a day. I would like to see that dropped to at least four, maybe even three.


Quote:

I don't think people need 6 walleyes. What would a lower limit hurt? How many people out there actually can catch 6 walleyes consistently? Four 16-18" walleyes are quite a bit of fish for a meal.


I fish, and I love to keep and eat the fish that I catch. My wife doesn't fish but she loves to eat some of the fish I catch. My parents are too old to safely go out in the boat or on the ice. Of the rare times I actually catch 6 fish I feed all four of us on 6 fish. That's not much.

I think that the people radically pushing for all catch and release or severely limiting the amount of fish any one person can take home to eat is selfishly fighting to improve their catch rate and their enjoyment at the expense of everyone else. Part of my fishing enjoyment is taking a few home to eat and share. The only lake where I've ever been able to catch more than 6 walleyes was Lake of the Woods which isn't even in the same universe as most Minnesota lakes as far as the amount of fish it rears and holds. I don't know of anyone who can go out fishing 7 days in a row and will total 42 fish every week. Or even 6 fish two days in a row every time. I would estimate that for every 20 times I go fishing I maybe catch my limit of 6 walleyes 1 time, maybe 2...if that. If we go to nothing but catch and release how many fish will be wasted when they die after they are caught and let go?

Quote:

As you said for fishing like in Canada we need fewer roads and PEOPLE!! To me that sounds like less fishing pressure. And adding slot limits would help that tremendously


Your brand of less pressure means less and less people will be willing to pay for lodging, pay for gas for their trucks, pay for gas for their boats or whatever, pay for the propane to heat a portable, pay for bait, pay for licenses, pay taxes to support the lakes and fishing all for 2 or three fish, maybe per trip.

Part of going somewhere fishing is taking the family along and the possibility of having a great day on the lake and catch a limit of 6 walleye or 10 crappies. Not that it's a guarantee but it's a possibility. If I'm going to catch fish and not keep any for my family to eat I can fish little sunfish or suckers and release them all day long. If something like you speak of goes into effect you will have your favorite lake all to yourself and all the fish in it eventually because of all the people that might quit fishing which will also be a group that won't be passing the tradition on to the next generation. I don't keep every fish I catch and if I know it's just me eating I'll keep two for myself and be happy. But I like to have a limit in the freezer to have a meal with my family once in a while too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Your brand of less pressure means less and less people will be willing to pay for lodging, pay for gas for their trucks, pay for gas for their boats or whatever, pay for the propane to heat a portable, pay for bait, pay for licenses, pay taxes to support the lakes and fishing all for 2 or three fish, maybe per trip.


You honestly think people are going to quit fishing and quit visiting our lodges if they must follow a slot limit?? Wow?? Funny how many lodges are succesful on Mille Lacs then isn't it. Come on. If anything thing you will see more people flocking to more lakes because of an improved fishery. Like I said before if you are fishing for the food you can find fresh fish much much cheaper other places. I'm not saying that you can't still keep some fish I want to see slot limits thats all. Fishing is and i hope will always be a sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with surface tensions thoughts on this one. We can't have a state wide slot because it isn't that simple. It like ST though on only one or 20" or whatever the magic number would be. I think a more effective way would be to reduce the limit. I could hand 4 walleyes as a limit I will probably complain about it if they do it but it would be ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone has to fish like "you" do. (And that's a general "you", I'm not trying to single out anyone in particular.)

If you think that there should be a protected slot, then don't keep any fish that are in that protected slot.

If you think the limits should be 4 walleyes, then only keep 4 walleyes.

If you want to keep the legal limit of legal-sized walleyes, go for it.

If you think catch-and-release is the only way to go, then practice C&R (or CPR) until your arm is weak from hoisting all those fish.

The state doesn't always have to make new (or tighter) laws and regulations just to make everyone do things the way you do. You are unique just like everyone else. wink.gif Personally, I don't keep fish very often. If I do, I will keep 1 or 2 so I can have a meal or 2. Does that mean that I think no one should be allowed to keep more than 2 walleyes? Of course not! If a guy or gal is feeding self, spouse, kids and maybe a guest or two, then 6 walleyes isn't all that extravagant a meal. Sure, there probably aren't many people who "need" to keep 6 walleyes every time they hit the water (or ice), but what business is it of yours or mine to stick our nose in the air and preach to the guy/gal who wants to take home a limit?

As for slot limits, they need to be appropriate {fog horn} to the body of water. In Becker/Ottertail counties, I can hit lakes that are gin-clear, muddy as hot chocolate, green as pea soup all within 20 miles of each other. Lakes are unique and have unique ecosystems that have to be considered individually. What if there were a state-wide protected slot for depths we were allowed to fish? No fishing in water between 2 and 20 feet deep anywhere state-wide. On some lakes, that would eliminate a tiny little stripe, on others it would eliminate the whole lake.

OK, I should wrap this up now. It's hard to jig from on top of this high horse....... blush.gif

Dovix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a statewide slot is not a good thing. I do like the 1 over twenty rule and they have limited the possession on Mille Lacs and LOW; those lakes of get a lot of pressure. But to apply the same restrictions on other lakes is not good management. As for natural reproduction, many lakes in Minnesota rely on stocking. On those lakes, I would support a slot limits. But we can't just leave the limits the same year after year and we cannot have the same limit on Mille Lacs as Minnetonka. I expect our DNR to do their job and evaluate the information they have on each lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a quote from the DNR "Improved fishing technology and increasing fishing pressure have caused fishing quality to decline in many waters. Catch-and-release fishing offers anglers a way to enjoy their sport with less harm to the resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found another story to support my theory. Look at the back page of this weeks outdoors news. they feature Coon and sandwick lake. The DNR implemented a slot limit on Northern because patron campers were complaining of the size of fish they were catching. That's right the campers.. Huh guess they were not looking to bring home lots of fish they wanted to catch larger fish. Well the DNR listened and it worked. In 1990 trap nets showed that 20% of the Northerns were over 20" and in 2005 this had increased to 74%!! Also in 1990 the net was an avg of 5 northern per lift and in 2005 had increased to 12!!! This is not rocket science it does work. Please go to the Minnesota DNR HSOforum and look around you will find a ton of info supporting my theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your original post stated that to achieve the change you thought necessary we would have to have slot limits statewide and to practice catch and release. A slot limit is already catch and release. I would much rather have the choice to either keep or release the fish I catch. I don't mind slot limits one bit but i don't like someone else demanding that the rules are changed so that I have to release all the fish I catch. My family quit traveling to Kabetogama becaus of the slot limit. We had gone there and rented almost an entire resort's cabins and a couple of the neighboring resort for 7 days every year. A lot of us won't go back because almost all of the fish we catch are bigger than the slot and we aren't willing to spend the money to do that if we can't eat some fish while we are there. One of the traditions we've held is a fish fry one night that week that we all get together and eat what we've caught. Yes, I do think that by severely limiting the amount of fish an average person can catch and keep will affect the resort buisnesses on down to the tackle stores and gas stations. Slot limits are fine and needed on some lakes but not all and a slot limit one year doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be one on that lake the next, or the year after that. On some lakes I fish a day of fishing might mean you only catch two fish all day. If there was a slot limit on that lake I wouldn't waste my time if I was out to catch and take home a meal to chance that those two fish were in the slot and would have to be released. I'd go elsewhere. Like it was stated elsewhere in this thread, fish how you see fit regardless if you can do otherwise within the rules. We don't need any more rules, it's confusing enough as it is. The rules and regulations we have now are sufficient if they can be effectively enforced.

Oh, and yes, fishing is a sport. It's also a recreational activity. It is not unsportsmanlike or sub-recreational to keep fish to eat just because a select few think it's necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A slot limit is not catch-and-release. A slot limit is a law that limits the size of fish that can be taken. Catch-and-release is the releasing of a fish that can otherwise legally be taken home. I'm sorry you no longer stay at that resort because you don't enjoy to catch trophy fish?? I'm sure they still fill those cabin's that you and your family had once rented. They probably need to turn people away now becuase the word is out that there are alot of large fish to be caught which is a very exciting experience. I am NOT against taking home a meal of fish for the pan by any means. Is what a slot limit does is protects the popultion of the largest spawning fish. Thus as my last post I showed you proof of how the slot limit not only improved the size of fish in lake but also the number of fish by 240% over the 16 year study. That's alot. And those fish they are producing aren't born in the slot limit, so that means a large increase in fish that can be taken home for the pan. I am looking to improve the fishery across the state. Yes, the first few years you may not be able to take as many fish home for the pan, but we need to look at the big picture, the future, if we do this in a few years we will be catching more trophy fish and have more fish for the pan. I do appreciate everyones input whether you agree with me or not. It lets me know what else I need to do research on to help convince others like you that we should have a slot limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant by a slot limit being catch and release is that the majority of the fish in a lake end up being the ones in that "slot" meaning you are forced to release most of what you catch. The fish I've seen caught in that lake are by no means "trophy" fish. they are nice fish that's for sure but not trophies. Yes, they will probably fill that resort and many others and that's just fine with me. Good for them actually. I'll go elsewhere and you go on with your crusade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

I have no problem with keeping fish for a meal. I keep fish for the table a lot of the time. I don't think people need 6 walleyes. What would a lower limit hurt? How many people out there actually can catch 6 walleyes consistently? Four 16-18" walleyes are quite a bit of fish for a meal.

On the slot part, I see people keeping the little dink walleyes all the time. If the small fish were protected a little and given a chance to grow another year of so they might make it to eater size. A few years ago I was fishing on South Twin in Mahnomen county and it was nothing for me to catch 80-100 walleyes in a day, but they were all 6-8". I could see people all around me tossing them into the bucket to take home. There are still some walleyes in there but you sure don't catch anywhere near that many anymore. If they would have been protected a little they would have had the chance to grow a little.


I have seen this exact same thing on Green Lake in Kandiyohi County.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank, you sound a little hot under the collar their. Lets take Green Lake in Kandiyohi Co. I have fished this lake since I was ten....the time of the Green Lowrance Box. My Dad would take me out and eveery year since the Lake has been going down hill with a few good years about 5 years ago. Yes lakes go in cycles. But it seems to me this cycle looks like this. 100 down to 75 then back up to 80 then down to 50 and back up to 65 and down to 35. Sure the fishing gets better some years but the overall cycle is down and continues to decline. Do I have the lake figured out.....sure I do most days. But instead of going out and spending an hour or so finding them and fishing the rest of the day it more like spending 4-5 hours finding the fish and catching them for an hour or so. I can drive to Mille lacs or South Dakota in a couple of hours and start catching fish within an hour. The main thing that concerns me is my children. I'm lucky to get out once a week, it's more like once every 2 weeks. It is my own opinion that if Green Lake and some other lakes had a walleye slot it would benifit these lakes. Lets look at it this way. I know what Green lake is like and the fishing is as poor as I have seen it in 20 years (I'm only taliking eyes). What could giving a slot limit a try hurt. It can only go up. If it doesn't try something else or go back to the way it was. Most of the lakes around the state haven't had a slot limit so until they do it can't be a prooved that it wouldn't work and vice versa just becaused it works on one lake doesn't mean that it would work on others but until we give it a try who really knows. Even if it takes the balance out of a lake I'd rather stock the lake with food for the big fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your brand of less pressure means less and less people will be willing to pay for lodging, pay for gas for their trucks, pay for gas for their boats or whatever, pay for the propane to heat a portable, pay for bait, pay for licenses, pay taxes to support the lakes and fishing all for 2 or three fish, maybe per trip.

I'm just wondering if you have even been to Waubay South Dakota? Because the fishing is fantastic there. The daily limit is 2eyes. People from all over MN, Iowa, and Wisc go there. To get a room at the local hotel you better book at least 2 weeks in advance. The limit used to be 4 a day and the past couple of years it has been 2. The public boat landings on the lake have parking for at least 50 trucks and trailers. There as never been a weekend where I have been there in the summer where it isn't almost full. This just shows that if a lake is producing they will come. No matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take catching 20-30 fish in Mille Lac's slot any day. Sure I like to eat fish but I would rather do that all day long and catch 2-3 under the slot. because that is what it was like for me last summer. I'm sure the kids would enjoy that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres always a few sides to a story.

Here is the Fisheries assessment on Green Lake.

Sorry for the long cut and paste but as you read you will find an explanation as to the low numbers of eyes on Green. Most of which were a result of man in attempts to manage for Trophy Pike and Bass. The survey goes on to say that natural reproduction was low. Also sediment seemed to be a problem. The one eye over 20" will work provided natural reproduction can take place. Whether it be from natural reproduction or stocking there has to be a niche for up and coming fry to take hold in. Anyway time will tell if the currents efforts will turn Green around to a better eye fishery.

"Status of the Fishery (as of 07/31/2005)

A population assessment of Green Lake was conducted in late July of 2005. Green is a large (5,406 acres), deep (110 feet maximum), and moderately productive lake located in Kandiyohi County. Green is a popular fishery for walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, and bluegill. Green Lake receives high recreational use during the summer months. Aquatic vegetation is generally limited in the lake. Low densities of Eurasian water milfoil have been documented in Green Lake primarily near the Spicer public access, swimming beach, city dock, Indian Beach Lagoon, and several isolated areas since 2000. Efforts to chemically eradicate Eurasian water milfoil have been unsuccessful. Widespread and extensive matting of Eurasian water milfoil is unlikely to occur through out Green Lake. A Highway 23 four-lane construction project began in 2003 adjacent to Green Lake and was completed in the fall of 2005. Significant runoff (sediment) from the Highway 23 construction project drained into Green Lake during several large rainfall events in late June and early July of 2003. One of the positive aspects of the Highway 23 project was the construction of storm water retention ponds along the Highway 23 corridor to reduce or slow future runoff into Green Lake. Water clarity was poor during late August of 2003 (secchi=4.83 feet), but good during July of 2004 (secchi=13.5 feet) and July of 2005 (secchi=9.5 feet). Green Lake is managed primarily for walleye, northern pike, tullibee, bluegill, and smallmouth bass. Walleye fingerling stocking is contingent in Green Lake after successive walleye natural reproduction or fry stocking failures.

Experimental regulations for northern pike, smallmouth bass, and largemouth bass were enacted in Green Lake during 1997 as part of a statewide research study. The goals were to evaluate the success or failure of certain types of experimental regulations, and produce trophy fisheries of bass and northern pike in Green Lake. The northern pike experimental regulation (24 inch maximum size limit) prohibited the harvest of fish 24 inches and greater. The smallmouth and largemouth bass regulation was originally catch and release only. However, the bass regulation was modified to a 14 inch maximum harvest size limit in 2001. The bass regulation was modified again in the 2003 fall to a 14 inch maximum harvest size limit with one bass over 21 inches allowed. The bass regulation was changed because of increasing numbers of smallmouth bass and the perceived negative effects on the walleye population in Green Lake. A public input meeting in regards to the Green Lake experimental regulations occurred during the 2005 fall. In December of 2005, the DNR decided to end experimental regulation for both smallmouth bass and northern pike and return to statewide regulations as of the May 13, 2006 for northern pike and May 27, 2006 for bass. This decision was based both on public input and the analyzed data collected from netting and creel surveys.

Bluegill numbers were moderate in 2005 (28.57 fish/trapnet) compared to the normal range for similar lakes, but below the historical average (49.49 fish/trapnet) for Green. The 2005 bluegill average size was small to moderate (0.14 pounds and 5.7 inches) from the trapnets. The largest bluegill captured was 8.5 inches in the 2005 assessment.

Black crappie numbers were moderate to abundant in 2005 (1.67 fish/gillnet) compared to the normal range for similar lakes, and above the historical average (0.57 fish/gillnet) for Green. The 2005 black crappie average size was small to moderate (0.20 pounds and 7.0 inches) from gillnets. The black crappie historical average length is 7.7 inches from gillnets in Green.

Northern pike numbers were low to moderate in 2005 (2.33 fish/gillnet) compared to the normal range for similar lakes, and slightly below the historical average (2.91 fish/gillnet) for Green. The 2005 northern pike average size was moderate (3.30 pounds and 24.0 inches) from gillnets. The northern pike historical average length is 22.4 inches from gillnets. The northern pike captured in 2003-2005 surveys were notably lean in appearance compared to fish captured in the assessments prior to 2003. The DNR creel clerk and local anglers observed low to moderate numbers of dead northern pike floating in Green Lake from spring to mid summer of 2005. The majority of these fish died from a bacterial disease known as columnaris. Low numbers of forage fish (yellow perch and tullibee) were documented in Green Lake surveys from 2003-2005. Northern pike growth rates were within or below the normal ranges for Green. The 2002 northern pike year class comprised 38% of the 2005 total northern pike assessment catch. The largest northern pike captured was 33.5 inches in the 2005 assessment.

Smallmouth bass numbers were high in 2005 (2.75 fish/gillnet) compared to the normal range for similar lakes and above the historical average (2.00 fish/gillnet) for Green. The 2005 smallmouth bass average size was large (2.22 pounds and 15.6 inches) from gillnets. The smallmouth bass historical average length is 13.4 inches from gillnets for Green. The 2000 and 1999 smallmouth bass year classes comprised 35% and 25% respectively of the total 2005 smallmouth bass assessment catch. Smallmouth bass growth rates were below the normal ranges for Green. Crayfish, an important smallmouth bass forage species, were caught in low numbers in 2005 (0.2 crayfish/gillnet). No crayfish were caught in the 2004, 2003 or 2002 gillnets. The crayfish historical average catch rate is 11.4 crayfish/gillnet for Green. The largest smallmouth captured was 18.5 inches in the 2005 assessment.

Tullibee "cisco" numbers were low to moderate in the 2005 (0.75 fish/gillnet) summer compared to the normal range of similar lakes, but below the historical average (2.57 fish/gillnet) for Green Lake. The 2005 summer tullibee average size was moderate (0.40 pounds and 9.4 inches) from gillnets.

Yellow perch numbers were low in 2005 (8.08 fish/gillnet) compared to the normal range for similar lakes and below the historical average (18.41 fish/gillnet) for Green Lake. The 2005 yellow perch average size was small (0.09 pounds and 6.3 inches) from gillnets. The yellow perch historical average weight is 0.13 pounds from gillnets. Yellow perch growth rates were within the normal ranges for Green. The 2002 yellow perch year class comprised 82% of the 2005 total yellow perch assessment catch.

Walleye numbers were low in 2005 (4.42 fish/gillnet) compared to the normal range for similar lakes and below the historical average (9.00 fish/gillnet) for Green. The 2005 walleye average size was moderate (1.74 pounds and 16.0 inches) from gillnets. The walleye historical average length is 14.7 inches from gillnets. The 2000 and 2004 year classes (stocked and natural reproduction) comprised 19% and 22% respectively of the total 2005 walleye assessment catch. Walleye growth rates were generally above the normal ranges for Green.

A 2005 fall electrofishing survey was conducted to evaluate walleye natural reproduction and a 2005 walleye fry stocking (3.76 million) in Green Lake. There were no young of year "YOY" walleye captured in 2005. Other walleye naturally reproducing area lakes also had generally low YOY walleye catch rates in 2005 fall electrofishing surveys. The Green Lake fall electrofishing historical average catch rate and length are 15.90 YOY/hour and 6.8 inches respectively. The Spicer Area YOY walleye historical average catch rate is 68.66 YOY/hour from lakes fry stocked and lakes with natural reproduction. The highest fall electrofishing catch rate of YOY walleye for Green occurred in 1994 (54.00 YOY/hour, 6.2 inches average size).

Walleye frylings (666 fish, 2.4 pounds), fingerlings (5,466 fish, 264 pounds), yearlings (11,863 fish, 3,433 pounds), and adults (356 fish, 673 pounds) were stocked into Green during early October of 2005 in response to poor walleye natural reproduction and fry stocking results for 2003-2005. Green Lake has been stocked annually with walleye fry from 2000-2005 except for 2002. Various combinations of walleye fingerlings, yearlings, or adults have been stocked yearly (2,000 - 4,000 pounds/year) since 2000 into Green Lake. During the 1990's, walleye fry were stocked in 1996 and fingerlings/yearlings/adults were stocked in 1994, 1992, 1990.

Rock bass numbers were abundant in 2005 (10.83 fish/gillnet) compared to the normal range for similar lakes and above the historical average (7.26 fish/gillnet) for Green. The 2005 rock bass average size was small to moderate (0.34 pounds and 7.5 inches) from gillnets. The rock bass historical average weight is 0.43 pounds from gillnets.

Largemouth bass numbers were moderate in 2005 (0.75 fish/gillnet) compared to the normal range for similar lakes, but above the historical average size (0.21 fish/gillnet). The 2005 largemouth bass average size was small (0.76 pounds and 10.4 inches) from gillnets. The largemouth bass historical average weight is 0.65 pounds from gillnets. Largemouth bass growth rates were below the normal ranges for Green. The 2002 largemouth bass year class comprised 40% of the 2005 largemouth bass Green Lake assessment catch.

Current fish management activities on Green Lake include monitoring the fish population on a periodic basis, protecting aquatic vegetation through the permit process, participating in local watershed initiatives, and stocking various fish species as warranted. The Green Lake fishery will be sampled in the 2006 spring ice out for northern pike, 2006 fall for walleye natural reproduction, and 2006 summer for all fish species by survey nets. A creel survey is proposed for the 2006-07 winter and 2007 summer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

Everything that is posted here is true. I personaly know Dave and the guys down at fisheries. I have been shocking fish with them. I also personaly have watched dozens of people catcing limits of 10-12" walleyes. They have told me that if we could just get away from keeping those fish there would be no need for regulations on the lake. Also by reading that information you can see everything the DNR does isn't always right. So why can't we just give a slot limit a try. What's the saying....If at first you don't succeed try try again. It could possibly make the lake even more fantastic then 20 years ago or it could make it stay like it is. Then we would try something else. Change is almos always a scary thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be slot limits on many of the lakes, especially heavily pressured lakes. There should also be lakes where if you want to, you can keep the 6-7 inch crappies if you want to. What the dnr is doing now seems to be working but i think they increase the number of lakes with slot limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

What I meant by a slot limit being catch and release is that the majority of the fish in a lake end up being the ones in that "slot" meaning you are forced to release most of what you catch. The fish I've seen caught in that lake are by no means "trophy" fish. they are nice fish that's for sure but not trophies. Yes, they will probably fill that resort and many others and that's just fine with me. Good for them actually. I'll go elsewhere and you go on with your crusade.


Sorry man.. Just trying to improve our fishery. And I think if you heard of how great a lake was you would probably not think twice about spending a few bucks at a lodge to fish it. Even if there was a slot limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Frank,

Everything that is posted here is true. I personaly know Dave and the guys down at fisheries. I have been shocking fish with them. I also personaly have watched dozens of people catcing limits of 10-12" walleyes. They have told me that if we could just get away from keeping those fish there would be no need for regulations on the lake. Also by reading that information you can see everything the DNR does isn't always right. So why can't we just give a slot limit a try. What's the saying....If at first you don't succeed try try again. It could possibly make the lake even more fantastic then 20 years ago or it could make it stay like it is. Then we would try something else. Change is almos always a scary thing.


Talk to Dave and see if they could look into some regulations on green another lake that I think needs some is Kandi that lake has way to many eaters removed from it so now all you catch out there are the 10" fish. Diamond is another possible one I am willing to help or do whatever it takes to get this done. We atleast need to try some regs on a few of the Willmar area lakes to see if they would work so we can get some great fishing back atleast in our neck of the woods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.