Statewide Slot

[Guest]

I posted this also on the Mille Lacs page but am very curious about what people would say to a statewide slot with obviously some lake exceptions. Not only Walleye, pike, bass, etc. I think it is a good tool for lake management. What do you guys think???

My opinion Wallyes 15-20 1 over 30
Crappie over 9" or 10" The other species I don't fish much so I have no good guess.
I'd rather catch bigger fish to brag about and still be able to eat.

Keep the lines tight

[Guest]

I would like it BUT

I would say that rule should apply to EVERYONE!!!
We are all supposed to be equal,Right!!

[Polar Bear]

Afraid with the upcoming budget cuts in the DNR there won't be any money available to police a new statewide slot limit. Although it might be a fairly good idea, I think implementing any such plan would be really tough. Polar Bear

[Steve Foss]

Slots sure do work in some places. And maybe they need to be instituted in more places.

But they are a specific fish management tool, designed to be different on different lakes. Some fisheries wouldn't benefit from slots, in fact may be harmed by slots. And which specific slot length works on one lake wouldn't necessarily work on others, so you'd have lots of different slots.

And I think the numbers are against a statewide slot with exceptions. I think the exceptions would quickly outnumber the rule, so even though more slots may be appropriate it's still better to make slots the exception.

Just my 2c.

[fisherman]

I think that would be a great idea, I really wish this will happen soon. I'm sure it will be like that someday. For walleyes the 15-20 rule with 1 over 30 would be great. For crappies I think the limit should be 6 maybe 8 crappies with 1 over 10 maybe 12 inches. Obviously different restrictions for certain lakes such as red, mille lacs etc. This would definately help out the size structure on many lakes.

Good fishin'
Let them bigguns' swim

[SuddenlySummer]

Tell me.

How can I justify to my wife the expense I spare to fish when I can only keep 6 to 8 crappies? 6 to 8 8" crappies aren't going to cut it.

I'm not as blessed with as much time to kill as others seem to be.

Folks, our lakes are not in trouble!

You might as well eliminate my "privledge" to fish with a treble hook.

Heck, let's have a "DULL HOOK LAW". Let's regulate the size of the hook and how sharp it can be. let's make it so you must rub the point of your single hook that we are now given on the rocks before we can fish.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I actually moved back here from Nevada becaused I missed the water. I missed fishing.

Don't criminize our sport! I've lost enough with all the dump happening now.

[Lowe]

I agree with stfcatfish. Setting a broad based slot limit on all or even most bodies of water would be unscientific and, in most cases, useless. Nobody says you can't impose your own personal slot limit, though.

Suddenly Summer - at one point does fishing become worthwhile for you? When you catch a dozen 10" crappies? Fifteen 12"ers? I don't mean to be rude, but if I needed to justify the money I've spent on fishing and fishing related-gear on a per-pound basis I'd be out harpooning whales.

Our lakes aren't in danger? Come on. We have great fishing in Minnesota, but it's not as good as it used to be. Think of all the people out there with GPS, depthfinders, lake maps, etc. There's way more people fishing today, and they're better equipped to put fish in the boat. Declines in fishing take place over a span of generations, not a few years. Just because a lake is good now doesn't mean we don't have to protect it.

[Steve Foss]

I would also add that our fisheries don't have to be "in trouble" before we should impose slots or other limits as management tools. The whole point is to maintain a great fishery and and keep it from getting INTO trouble in the first place.

I once figured out the cost of fishing based on a dollars-per-pound formula. Left out all the major purchases and just figured bait, gas, the tackle I buy each year, etc. I generally catch fish wherever I go, but it still came out to several dollars per pound of fillets (not pounds of raw fish caught). I think it was over $4 a pound. If you add in all the major expenses (boat/motor, Vex, auger, shelter, etc.), total them up and divide by 10, which is the number of years I figure I'll get out of each, and add that to the other figure, it goes way up, hugely more money than it would cost to go down to the store and buy fish.

So yes, I fish for food, and if I couldn't keep ANYTHING I caught, probably would not fish quite as much, because we eat a LOT of fish. It's good for you, after all.

But the money tells you I fish for the mental, not physical, nourishment.

------------------
"I've driven farther before to catch fewer fish . . ."
Steve Foss
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by stfcatfish (edited 02-13-2003).]

[ghotierman]

"imposing" is an imposing word...particularly when talking about a statewide slot. We may be better served to educate and mentor future fishermen (fisher-people...excuse me..) to practice catch and release, selective harvest, sportsmanlike slots. Like the seatbelt law, it should be common sense. Statewide mandated slots would be difficult to enforce. Forums and discussions like this are great tools, and many of us may agree on a statewide slot...but we may be preaching to the choir...

How can we make an influence on the weekend angler, the oldtimer, firsttimer, resorter...and get them to be more thoughtful...practice selective harvest, catch and release......without being "imposing"?

my two cents...

------------------
Northeast Outfitters
915 Hwy 29 N NE
Alexandria, MN 56308
(320) 763-9598

[Guest]

I agree Ghotierman 150,000%. That is why I put the original post up to hear how people feel. Some want fish to justify their money/time/etc. Which is all fine. I fish maybe 30 times a year which isn't much and love to eat fish. If everyone would just enrole their own personal slots that would help out greatly. I just get tired of people eating 8lb eyes, or going to the same "hot" spot for 2 weeks straight and bring home limits of Crappies every day then complain when they can't catch anymore fish from that lake. I am glad to see a lot more people out just enjoying catching and releasing fish for pleasure and relaxation then to purge our lakes of fish. If money is an issue they do make grocery stores. That should bring some heat to the sight.

Keep the lines tight

[Crawlerman]

I too eat a lot of fish, and am the only one in my family who does fish, so I am responsible for "bringing home the bacon" if you will. I allready think the DNR are bleeding us by reducing the crappie and bluegill limits; I'd rather have a combined limit of 30 for Bluegills, crappies, and perch like WI does. And a slot limit for panfish sounds kinda silly. I agree that Bass Walleyes and Pike it would be a good idea to have a slot limit on, but Metro area lakes with equal fishing pressure often have different qualities of size of Panfish. Why? Panfish populations revive a lot faster through stocking than any game fish. They also grow a lot faster. Their short life spans means a lot of the bigger fish that were released are about to die soon anyways. The DNR also does a lot more stocking of Adult panfish than they do any other species. The main danger to fisheries in the Metro area atleast is stunting; this is where the lake becomes over-populated due to the absence of Preadtory fish or an abundance or lack of food which encourages reproduction or lack of growth. Some metro lakes are so bad with this problem that these tiny sunfish will attack anything you put in the water in swarms of dozens of fish.

[Crawlerman]

Plus another thing, I think a Rotating slot would be a way to go. I think that's what they should do on managed fisheries on Mille Lacs, doing it in a 3 range rotation. If you have set slots, eventually that generation of fish will get depleted and never get beyond the top end of the slot as the bigger fish die off and just sit on the shore to rot. A 3 slot rotating limit would allow one generation of fish to recover, as one is being harvested, and the other is enlarging freely. Then the one that was growing healthy would be the next to be harvested, as the harvested slot recovers and the slot harvested 2 years ago grows. And the Anglers wouldn't deplete one generation, and would allways be harvesting a healthy generation of fish, so there'd be fish to go on the grill as well. Of course this won't happen with state budget problems.. but I'd be interested in seeing how it'd work on a heavily fished body of water like Mille Lacs.

[Guest]

A rotating slot....interesting.... Ithink it could be a good tool. I wonder if the DNR has done studies on this? This would help people keep a few more fish. I was also thinking about if there would be a bigger slot like 12-20" but drop the limit to 3 maybe 4. I know my brothers family of 6 can eat 4-17" eyes and be stuffed. Panfish are tough, it seems harder every year to catch the big bulls but drop a waxy down almot anywhere and watch the silverdollars and 3"perch swarm.

Keep the lines tight

[Crawlerman]

I would think the slots would have to be Tighter, designed to preserve a certain year's growth. Maybe have the first one be 12-14, the next would be 15-17, and the last one being something like 17-20. Maybe every couple of years there coud be a larger "trophy" slot, increasing it from 1 to maybe 2 or 3 fish over say 24" to harvest some of those ready to die off at the end of the generation. Doing this would also permenatly protect fish 21-23 inches as well, so you'd gain a protected slot too. I think it could work...

As far as the larger slot and the limit.. hmmn. Good point but I don't know how complicated this would make things. Again I think the rotating slot idea would be better for a few managed lakes, not for the entire state. I personally think there are a lot of metro lakes that should have special regs allowing people to keep more panfish under 5" than normally allowed. I don't see any point in keeping "potato chips" myself.. but I know a lot of other ethnicitys like to use the smaller fish for soups and such...

[jparrucci]

scatfish...I have to say I'm shocked that a family of 6 can be stuffed from eating 4-17" walleyes. I know I myself can eat that much and not be full. Reducing the bag limit will only hurt the occasional fisherman. For those of you who get the chance to get out a couple of times a week, it will not be a big deal. But there are some of us that only manage to get out a couple of times a year. Making it even harder for me and others to keep enough for even a meal by imposing slot and bag limits that are not going to help the fish population anyways are just pointless. Measures need to be taken to help the fisheries. But the DNR itself even said a change from a 6 to 4 fish limit for walleyes will do almost nothing to the fish population. 4 fish is not enough to feed me and my fiance. Slot limits on some lakes are a good idea. On others, they are not. Even though Lake Vermillion has a huge population of walleye, most of the fish are small. It is hard to get into that 15-17 inch range, as most of the fish come in right from 12-14. Please think about the occasional fishman when you want to impose new laws and limits. All you are doing is deturing them from fishing.

[Guest]

agree with stfcatfish that a statewide slot is not the way to go on this... Each lake will have it's own needs that would need to be analyzed. Too many small fish in some lakes will cause them to be stunted (I think that is a major reason for the introduction of muskie into many of the lakes).

Maybe as FM'ers, we could make up our own slot system for paticular lakes and set an example for the rest of the community. Not everyone would need to participate, maybe call it the FM Selective Harvest Program or something... FMSHP... How does that sound?? We could get creel survey results based on those who fish those paticular waters and decide on slots based on this...

[Guest]

I'm for each man being responsible individually.

The 22.5" Female Walleye I set free Friday night FELT better to me than the taste of the 15"'s we ate!

------------------
Chells

[Crawlerman]

It's a great idea, but it'd be hard to see the Impact of such a thing, as we are spread out all over the state and have many differnt lakes that we tend to stick to. I couldn't see the impact, espically on larger heavily fished "resort" lakes that a lot of the people on this site fished. Now say we had enough people interested in doing such an experiment on a small lake or pond that does not have much Public acess and someone here owns land on. That might work.. but we'd have to get a lot of people to reguarly fish that pond and fiddle with the slots.

[Lowe]

Just4Fun, I know what you mean about seeing fish wasted. It's not a pretty picture, and I think the problem you're talking about is probably much worse on a lake like Mille Lacs. But from a realistic view, dozens of floating walleyes in the water is better for the overall health of a fishery than hundreds of fish floating in livewells.

I don't think the DNR would have the time or money to attempt a lake-by-lake management plan. There is a large amount of research that goes into "selective harvest", and usually a large amount of public opinion to deal with. Especially considering our state's economy, this would be an impossible project. sure would be nice, though.

Spike, I'm a biologist, but a complete answer species-specific manangement would take pages. Even then I'd probably be wrong half the time, depending on the lake. I'll offer you a few of my opinions on the subject, though:

As a rule of thumb, the best time to start taking small northerns out of lake is before they become overly abundant. Leave the big ones in, too. If you want one for the fryer, the best size for the lake's health would be a bony 18"er. See, already we have problems.

Walleyes - this is a no brainer. A walleye population is dependent on the number of females present, much like whitetails or pheasant. Not all walleyes over 18" are females, but most are. Keep the smaller males and throw the spawners back.

Sunnies are the same as northerns, except they are more prone to another problem - selective harvest based on edibility. The big ones are removed for the frying pan, leaving large, often hungry schools of smaller fish. The few big ones that remain are usually caught and removed. Biologically, this becomes a major problem only when there is a lack of large predators or another forage base (by another forage base I mean minnows or young fish that are easier to swalllow than a round sunnie). This means that that population of sunnies will not be depleted and will compete for a limited amount of food. In other words, they become a "stunted" population, or a population with a very low growth rate. If there's a large amount of sunnies in the 6-8" range, they obviously need to be removed and a large predator (northern or musky, usually) needs to be introduced and protected to prevent the same thing from happening.

A lot of this most people already know, but I thought I'd offer my 2c.

Good fishing - Lowe

[This message has been edited by Lowe (edited 02-13-2003).]

[schmidter2]

I'd just have to say it is a good thing that those of us that fish more often than some don't need 4 - 17" walleyes per person in a meal to be satisfied. If we did, none of us would eat after most outings. Or maybe one person at the table could have fish and the rest would have to fend for themselves. I know I could easily be satisfied in a meal w/ one 17" walleye. Of course, I do mix in some side dishes. Have you ever ordered walleye at a restaurant? There a meal is usually one fillet off of a 17" walleye. Sorry to avoid the true issues, I just couldn't get over that post.

Fishing is definitely not the same as it was 20 years ago, so I definitely see the need for some changes. I fish central Minnesota lakes about 4-5 times a month from May to October and we are happy to bring in 3 nice walleyes for a meal. That is 3 nice fish for 2 people. I would say changing the walleye limit to 3 is not unreasonable the way fishing is today. Unfortunately, some people feel they need to bring in 6 walleyes to call the day a success. For me, a successful day is nice weather and a couple of fish for breakfast.

[Guest]

I'm glad to see so many view points, that is why I posted it. I personal try to bring one nice eye home which feeds us both very well. What I liked most, that is most people think there is an issue but we need to find a solution which is the true issue.
Right now the EDUCATION of us fisherpeople is the best solution CPR and keep only what you can eat. I never freeze fish. If I want fish I go fishing, if I get skunked, steaks aren't bad either. Thanks for all the posts!!!!

Keep the lines tight

[bart simpson]

I'm new to this board so bear with me a bit. This is a great topic. I've kept exactly one walleye over 20", and that was a 31" fish that now hangs over my fireplace. I've felt guilty about keeping that one many times - wish I would have known then that a picture would have been as good. Anyway, here's my really dumb question - please don't laugh so hard you fall over and break your keyboard!

How do you tell a male fish from a female fish?

Bart

[Guest]

I don't know if there is a way to tell the sex of the fish until closer to spawn....

I normally do as someone above posted and assume the larger wallys are females and release... I don't keep any over 20".

[Lowe]

There's so many interesting ways to answer that question...guess I'll behave and give you the real answer.

You basically have to cut the fish and look at the internal anatomy open to tell a male from a female. Even then, it's not like looking at a terresttrial animal. Not sure how much detail I need to go into here, but remember the male does not actually impregnate the female, so there is nothing that, ahh, sticks out on a male.

Sometimes it might be possible to tell a female fish by looking for an ovipositer, but this usually occurs during the spawn and even then it may be hard to tell. The best overall indicator of sex is size.

And with that remark I think I'll sign off.

[bart simpson]

Yeah well, I thought about asking the really good lookin' walleyes back to my pad for a night cap, but then again, that one never worked on female humans either!

Guess I'll stick to the 20" rule.