personal slot limit

[goose89]

I only keep fish 19+.... I love me a nice walleye steak not a little fish nugget, The bigger the better Mmmm Mmmm Good

To each his own, I guess. I'm happy to see all the responses on this thread. These personal slots / limits are gonna be vital to the future of fishing. It's really fun watching my little nephews / kids wanting / enjoying putting a bigger fish back because "that ones too big and needs to go back to make babies." They still need a picture, as do I, with those nice ones, but they all go back.

[mrfish1991]

im also with BT...ML is usually the only lake i fish for walleye

but if i do go somewhere else its usually 15-18 for me

[fishuhalik]

14-20

[Borch]

For me it's 15-20 inches most of the time. Also depends on the lake I'm fishing.

[croixflats]

What ever my personal slot limit is I will be safe not to fill it because I keep getting those that are 1/8 inch smaller than the legal minninum.

[gunflint]

This one again? Ok I'm bored anyway. A state wide minimum of 15 inches makes as much sense as a state wide speed limit of 45mph. Each fishery is different and should be regulated accordingly. In lakes that have a lot of stunted walleyes keep as many small ones as you can in order to get the average size up. This also means harvesting the bass and northerns. In lakes that are under a lot of pressure and "trophies are disappearing, a slot makes sense. In lakes that have a decent population of several naturally producing year classes a slot is just feel good non-scientific over regulation. One size fits all regulation is detrimental to our state wide walleye fishery.

My personal slot? It depends on the fishery but with the economy the way it is and with what's predicted, my personal slot has expanded on both ends.

[Bluegill1510]

Quote:

My personal slot? It depends on the fishery but with the economy the way it is and with what's predicted, my personal slot has expanded on both ends.

I like that statement, mine slot was already pretty high mainly 13-24"ers. But it depends on the lake and rules on it, and how the bite is going.

[goose89]

This one again? Ok I'm bored anyway. A state wide minimum of 15 inches makes as much sense as a state wide speed limit of 45mph. Each fishery is different and should be regulated accordingly. In lakes that have a lot of stunted walleyes keep as many small ones as you can in order to get the average size up. This also means harvesting the bass and northerns. In lakes that are under a lot of pressure and "trophies are disappearing, a slot makes sense. In lakes that have a decent population of several naturally producing year classes a slot is just feel good non-scientific over regulation. One size fits all regulation is detrimental to our state wide walleye fishery.

My personal slot? It depends on the fishery but with the economy the way it is and with what's predicted, my personal slot has expanded on both ends.

Gunflint, I hear ya and agree with some of the first part of your post. I'm not going to go into that. I am curious though, why / how the economy effects your personal slot limit?

PS - I understand your "boredom" expressed in your first ? and comment. We will never all agree on what's best and it has been hashed over and over, BUT, it still needs to be mentioned / gone over once in awhile. There's still a sizable population out there that's never heard of or considered Selective Harvest. Selective Harvest is one of the cornerstones of FM and topics related to it are a positive, even if / when we don't all agree on exact #'s and methods. Hashing it over is better than not talking about it at all. IMO.

[gunflint]

I certainly didn't intend to complain about the question as I believe that questions like this one are the cornerstone of FM. It irks me when people ask a question and get told by old timers to "Use the search function." There are a lot of topics that get covered over and over again like, what's the best rod? Or line? If you could only have one lure? and so on. I see nothing wrong with that and I believe it gives newer members a good opportunity to express their own opinions. The boredom expressed was my own, not boredom with the question.

How the economy effects my personal slot decision is pure economics. Unless we get totally bombed by the future economy I will fish just as much if not more next year than last. With fewer discretionary dollars that means other parts of our budget will be shortened. In order to justify this I will need to harvest more meat. Anyone who knows me or that has ever fished with me knows that I'm not a game hog.

Selective harvest is the smartest and most beneficial way to address the "walleye issue" in Minnesota. There are some who would ban fishing all together. There are others who want to make sure that you aren't catching more or bigger fish than they do. A lot of people who have no scientific background or minimal fishing knowledge and experience still want to weigh in on issues that they have "feelings" about and believe through banning and or regulation they can solve a problem that they don't understand. And in some cases don't exist.

[goose89]

Gunflint, I with you 100% on the first paragraph.

After that, I hear where you're coming from, I think, for the most part. I don't totally get the "With fewer discretionary dollars that means other parts of our budget will be shortened. In order to justify this I will need to harvest more meat" part.

I'd like to understand your angle. My angle is IF the economy worsens, I might stay home a time or two more from a fishing outing, but it wouldn't change what I keep. If money got that tight, I'd put a meal on the table from the store, because 1) the way I fish (spend too much on bait and tackle and probably don't catch enough to feed a family) it would cost more and 2) I'm gambling with what money I have to feed my family by fishing. I've shut down countless "sure thing" bites in my day.

I'm not to that point yet, but IF I were, I couldn't risk my limited funds on feeding my family on the fish I harvest. I keep fish, don't get me wrong, but don't believe changing economies will change my harvest practices. We are probably in totally different "boats." I have no idea your economic sitaution. I am casting no judgement about your ideas and practices either. Just like seeing things from other peoples perspective sometimes. Thanks. Good Luck.

[hunter101]

14" and up for me

[JoeTC]

14-18" or if the lake has a slot then thats what i'll go by...I like the challenge of catching walleyes, a good meal is a bonus

Joe

[Mike Walerak]

The smaller the better for me. Where I fish there is a 15" minimum on walleyes so I try to get as close to that as possible. I don't really ever keep anything over 17" unless I have a reason to or am at a lake with a good forage.

For saugerss I generally don't keep any over 15" or 16". Reason being a 18" sauger is probably as old as a 7 pound walleye. I assume the PCB accumulation is greater and to me the largers saugers taste much worse than the smaller ones.

It also depends on where I'm at. On a lake with a shiner based forage the fish taste much better than the shad based fish that I often catch.

So basically it just kinda depends on what type of mood I'm in and where I'm at. I figure I knife 20-30 walleyes and sauger per year. My fish fries usually consist of sunnies. I think they taste much better!

[paceman]

For me the slot is usually 13.5 to 20.

[solbes]

My personal slot is 14-20". My 7 year old nephew reeled in a "one footer 'eye" last summer on my rod that I handed to him after the hookset. We ate that. He said it was the best tasting fish he had ever had. Sometimes you have to make exceptions!

[NEANGLER]

Here in Nebraska we have a statewide limit of 15" unless the lake specifies differently which there are quite a few that do. These vary from 1 fish over 21", 18" limit etc. I think you could have a state wide limit but then have lakes that are exceptions to that rule. My personal limit is 13-19".

[Dan189]

I know we all love protecting eyes, but what about our lovable and tastee friend the the 'crappie'?

I showed my uncle a picture of the mess of crappies we hammered on a hot spot on a MN chain fishery, not known for producing great crappies, and we were into 10-15 inch crappies like they were going out of style.

I explained to him that we kept the 8-11 inch crappies and released the 12-15 inchers. Since he was an old time rancher from western ND (who would fish with a stake, line, bolt, hook, and nightcrawler/frog, usually 4-6 lines at a time), he didnt quite understand the concept. His exact quote:

"Why would you let the 'big ones' go?"

After explaining to him the concept, of growth an preservation, he began to understand.

My question for FM is do you use a standard slot for crappies?

Mine is generally 8-11.5

[lovebigbluegills]

Dan,

There's a conversation about crappie "eaters" in the crappie/panfish forum going on right now, and it is on page one.

It's nice to hear you let the bigger ones go

[RedWingsFan]

I don't know where that came from but back to walleyes...I love eating walleyes and here in Iowa I can't pick and choose so I'll keep anything. I've noticed that the 9-13in fish taste a little better but the ones over 20 sure make a nice walleye steak.

[hondarider550]

We used to have a fishing league in our town that would go from lake to lake each week and fish for walleye. The standard rule from this league was nothing kept under 15". I pretty much follow that rule. The 15" - 20" range usually make pretty nice fillets.

[Casey Sunsdahl]

my wifey likes the 12-14" range so i tend to keep one or two of those for her and I usually like 13.5-16.5/17

[jparrucci]

Fishing Lake Vermilion for the last dozen or so years, we used to have our own slot of roughly 13.5 or 14 up to 17 or so. Now, this would vary depend on the fishing and the ability to pick up enough fish for a fry. If we struggle, we would keep as small as the 13 inch fish, and as large as the 19. I can't remember a single person in our group of up to 15 guys ever keeping a fish over 20. Ideally I would only keep 14-16. Now, with the new slots, we stop at 16.5. A few times when we have stuggled for a meal during the opening week or two due to bad weather/fishing, it is pretty depressing throwing back a nice 17.5 inch fish because its in the protected slot, especially when we as a whole have always taken it upon ourselves to release most of the fish in the upper teens. I still would rather see a 1 fish over 20 slot instead of the 17-26 protected (this may be a new state law?) in case of foul hooked fish or fish that don't look like are going to make it. Although I have only had it happen a few times, it never makes you feel good putting back a fish that you know doesn't have a good shot at survival. Had this happen once last year with a Northern that was in the protected slot. I figured its better me eating it than the seagulls, but I followed the law and let the poor thing go with little chance of survival.

[Charley]

16-18 inch the 13 inch are the future fish. Also 1 17 inch fish will feed 2 people (2 nice fillets) 1 13 inch isn't alot of meat for 2 people so you might have to keep 2 13 inch to feed 2 people.