Found this article very interesting, and worth sharing. Personally I would never begrudge someone who kept a once in a lifetime legal fish, but it should be once in a lifetime.
http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/Why-you-should-always-always-ALWAYS-release-big-fish
Interesting read! That kind of goes against what many have said in regards to the biggest fish being the most important spawners based on the comments by the gentleman in the article. He claims the biggest are the most important, while members of the DNR and others have said that in many cases the older fish absorb the eggs and even if they don’t they are not viable like a 24″ walleye is.
I’m not siding on one “theory” vs the other, just an interesting perspective.
I never keep big fish either. There are enough smaller fish that are better eating to find than to keep a trophy and doing a skin mount doesn’t interest me at all.
Right on. Yet every time this subject comes up people will make silly arguments in favor of keeping big fish because they want to do what they want to do. Oh well. Great article – thanks for posting.
P.S. According to Matity (head of Saskatchewan’s hatchery program), many anglers need to learn that fish don’t reproduce the same way as mammals. “Fish are cold-blooded animals that reproduce their entire lives,” he says, noting that a 10-pound female walleye will typically produce eggs equivalent to one-third of her body weight. “They get better and better as they age, and never reach their peak.”
Last spring, for example, Matity recovered five pounds of roe—that’s approximately 300,000 eggs—from one incredible 11-pound walleye. And practically all of those eggs would have been viable.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a source for the “big fish aren’t good spawners” argument. Does anyone have a link to something that states or supports that idea?
I just feel better knowing they’re out there, somewhere. Places like Chequamegon Bay, Pool 2, the Upper Mississippi, etc. are all wonderful because you know the big fish are still there. Every where else is someplace you should have been to yesterday.
SR
P.S. Of course this is easy for me to say, as I rarely catch anything big LOL
I don’t have a link, but I’ve read in multiple places where big, old, female walleyes decline in fertility. I think finding a source would be a good idea though.
‘
I’m totally willing to accept that there could be legitimate arguments on both sides of the spawning question. I’m genuinely curious. And I’ll continue to release all big fish regardless. 
I have absolutely no interest in keeping big walleye so this has nothing to do with “what I want to do.” I just find it difficult to discern the truth. This article makes some bold statements:
“They get better and better as they age, and never reach their peak.”
“Practically all of those eggs would have been viable.”
However there is no scientific data cited that supports these claims. Why is that? I think that’s a fair question to ask. Is there new data and research that suggest that former beliefs about walleye fecundity and fertility were wrong? If so I would think they’d be eager to share that with the public.
I’m all for releasing large fish, if for no other reason than my hope that future anglers will enjoy the experience of catching large fish as well. But if you’re going to make scientific claims about the importance of these fish to spawn, I’m going to ask to see some supporting data.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a source for the “big fish aren’t good spawners” argument. Does anyone have a link to something that states or supports that idea?
I’m not doing the digging but I’ve read that repeatedly. And this article isn’t backed by any scientific data either — at least none is cited? So maybe we should believe NONE of it? (and continue to release ’em anyway, as you say! 
)
Protect the Cheeks!!
Protect the Cheeks!!
Cryogenic is for the future!!
I think I read here at one time that large fish yield tons of spawn but the smaller hen fish yield spawn that is far more likely to yield a fry that will live to maturity and they also yield fry free of defects that will hinder those fish from reaching maturity. Successful fertilization of 100,000 eggs outshines the 10 to 20% successful fertilization of a big fish’s spawn or something to that effect. Maybe I read this in some of the Mille Lacs posting where the argument for preserving the mid-range [length] leans toward more successful fry recruitment of a spawning year.
I know salmon/trout rearing in brood ponds requires that older stock be taken out of the production process because their spawn is way less viable than a younger fish’s spawn. I can see the same idea applying to other fish, including walleyes.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>john23 wrote:</div>
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a source for the “big fish aren’t good spawners” argument. Does anyone have a link to something that states or supports that idea?I’m not doing the digging but I’ve read that repeatedly. And this article isn’t backed by any scientific data either — at least none is cited? So maybe we should believe NONE of it? (and continue to release ’em anyway, as you say!
)
I agree that the article is not a scientific study, but it is the head of Saskatchewan’s hatchery program (presumably someone knowledgeable and experienced in this area) making the statement. I’m asking if there is anything from a similarly credible source on the other side of the argument. Everyone says they’ve read it over and over again, but I can’t find where a fisheries scientist has said it.
Seriously, how do we tag the Lake City DNR guy on this question? He’s been great about answering questions in the past.
Touchy subject telling one what to do with out actual data to back it up.
Funny, just got out of a heated conversation from a couple of people who actualy believe the national enquirer is real news.
Funny, just got out of a heated conversation from a couple of people who actualy believe the national enquirer is real news.
That literally got me to LOL at my desk, that’s a good one.
The statement that breeding success of female walleyes declines after they get past a certain age/length was told to me by a retired MN DNR Fisheries manager who happens to be one of my dad’s HS friends so I’ve never looked for info. Maybe we can get Nick @LCDNRFisheries to chime in because I’m curious, too.
I mean, I wouldn’t keep those mercury mammas cause 1) I would prefer not to eat them, and 2) graphite mounts are really nice, but I would never begrudge someone keeping any fish within their legal rights. Just more pros vs cons to release those fish IMO.
Touchy subject telling one what to do with out actual data to back it up.
I don’t think it is, like not believing the National Enquirer, believing a credible source is reasonable. And we know that a 30″ (or 28″ or whatever your trophy goal is) fish needs to first surpass 24″ or 26″ first. And as far as the egg viability, I’m open to any studies anyone can find, but we know fish reproduction is a numbers game. As in the more eggs in the system, the more get fertilized, the more that hatch, the more that hatch the more that will survive year one and on down the line.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a source for the “big fish aren’t good spawners” argument. Does anyone have a link to something that states or supports that idea?
I’ve actually talked with Nick out of the Lake City office. They didn’t have anything that would show older spawning eyes did any better or worse then younger fish.
He was going to see if Iowa had anything. (I’m sure he had a good reason for checking with IA DNR folk.)
To me it really doesn’t matter if the big old girls spawn is only 1/4 fertil as the younger ones. But then it’s not only genes that make big fish. It’s the weather, flooding and available food in the young eyes life that has an impact as well. However if it’s not in the genes, all the above won’t matter.
Big Fish Lives Matter
We need to get a bunch of “Big Fish Matter” t-shirts printed up! 
-J.
I don’t think this is any more “official” than the fisheries guy from Saskatchewan, but I’d say it’s from an equally experienced source. Still no data cited to explain.
Posts 3 and 4 on this link are from Ohio Sea Grant researchers.
I don’t think it is, like not believing the National Enquirer believing a credible source is reasonable.
Run with it. Not disputing whats claimed nor agreeing. Its a valuable discusion.
The pros vs cons seem to equal: Release the big fish.
– not worth eating (taste, mercury, fillets don’t fit in electric fry pan)
– someone else can catch it
– replicas and pictures can serve as ego boosters
when a guy kicks the bucket the picture with the fish will be enough proof he caught it.
To be positive if someone does want to keep a big fish I’m not going to shame them. Have bigger concerns in life then judging anyone on the fish they keep.
I’ve been preaching this for years. Even if the older females are less viable reproducers, something I don’t buy, she still will spawn which she can’t do when dead.
The vast majority of record fish are old females full of eggs. A fish has to be healthy to carry that mass of eggs and you never convince me that she may be healthy but her eggs aren’t.
Now go fish a lake that was known for big fish but got over fished. Even with little pressure for years all you usually find is dwarfed old fish. The good genes are gone.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>john23 wrote:</div>
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a source for the “big fish aren’t good spawners” argument. Does anyone have a link to something that states or supports that idea?I’ve actually talked with Nick out of the Lake City office. They didn’t have anything that would show older spawning eyes did any better or worse then younger fish.
He was going to see if Iowa had anything. (I’m sure he had a good reason for checking with IA DNR folk.)To me it really doesn’t matter if the big old girls spawn is only 1/4 fertil as the younger ones. But then it’s not only genes that make big fish. It’s the weather, flooding and available food in the young eyes life that has an impact as well. However if it’s not in the genes, all the above won’t matter.
Big Fish Lives Matter
I believe the best argument of any for not harvesting large fish is to ensure that as many offspring as possible with known large fish genetics are kept in any particular lake or river. I agree with BK that there are many factors involved with walleyes reaching 8 plus pounds, but favorable genetics will undoubtedly increase the odds.
I am no scientist, but are not the 20″ fish today, the future BIG ONES ? 
I already have my once in a lifetime on the wall
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a source for the “big fish aren’t good spawners” argument. Does anyone have a link to something that states or supports that idea?
I believe where I heard/read it was in the bazillion threads pertaining to the mille lacs mess.
Yes, killing spawning fish has no effect on future fish populations as proven on Mille Lacs.
We need to get a bunch of “Big Fish Matter” t-shirts printed up!
-J.
I’m in if we can close down I-94!! 
Dutch, I still don’t get that whole “killing spawning fish” thing.
I will be the first to admit I was sleeping during most of 8th grade biology…
Besides one spawn, what’s the difference if a fish is killed at spawn or any other time of the year? As someone else said, a dead fish makes no tails. <- Sorry about that.
You are correct. But a fished killed / netted during the spawn is dead 100% of the time. The chances for survival in a release situation is better then a netted situation. A dead fish doesn’t spawn.
Anyway, this has been hashed over a million times and to those that it doesn’t make sense I can’t convince anyway.
Sorry for hijacking the thread. 
I would think the discussion of protected slot or harvest slot on ML would be more pertinent to this particular discussion than yet another rehashing of netting during the spawn. Just my 2 cents.
EDIT: I hadn’t seen your most recent post Dutch when I hit the submit button. Not trying to pile on.
I would think the discussion of protected slot or harvest slot on ML would be more pertinent to this particular discussion than yet another rehashing of netting during the spawn. Just my 2 cents.
EDIT: I hadn’t seen your most recent post Dutch when I hit the submit button. Not trying to pile on.
Let’s take another angle. In Mille Lacs and even other waters that can naturally produce, the capacity is limited. Same for stocked waters. BK touched on this earlier. The shortage does not occur from lack of spawning fish…regardless of size, but if the water can sustain the hatch with enough food and limited from predation. One cannot just assume that the most egg laying female walleyes in the system will ensure the best walleye fishery.
There is/will be an attrition that will occur based on availability of food for the YOY walleye. And predation by overabundant pike. Debate all you want, the DNR has proven that dumping as many hatched walleye in a system does not equate to an abundant fishable population later. Too many variables.
With that, I’m not as convinced about certain genetics in big fish other than what is found in that particular water. Unless it’s a mosh pit of whatever has been stocked in such lake. Lakes in Canada I would think would be of natural origins and then all the walleye would be of equal genetics.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
)
