Eating Big Walleye

ProStaffSteve wrote:

I have heard of the situation on Erie, I envy the fishing there. It is not wrong to keep fish that are big if that is all that exists, but I would still encourage them to be careful. Fisheries can always decline.

Lake Erie is a fishery like no other. I don’t know how they do it but, I’ve been going out there for 7 years now. A few of the guys I go with have been going since the early 90’s! Not much has changed. We still go out trolling in April and keep 4 fish a day with no possession limit. The average size out there when we troll the basin ranges from 26″-28″! It’s one hell of a meat run! Most of them to eat, some of them for the wall. Man do they taste good!

Now, in MN it’s a little different with the state regs and each individual lake I fish has different regs. I very rarely keep anything over 20″. If the lake allows for me to keep one over 20″ I don’t keep anything over 22″. Ideally I’d like to go home with four 15″-18″ fish.

I’ve kept them as small as 12″ and as large as 28″. Walleyes are my second favorite to Musky Cheeks! Pictures I added are from our trip to Erie couple years ago. We filled the Freezer in 3 days, 6 guys, 2 boats, and fished no more than 12 hours. Total! Each bag in the freezer is 1 fish. If you haven’t been to Erie, find a way to make it happen! If you don’t want to eat big Walleyes, you can go join the crowds on the rock reefs and jig for the smaller males. There is a 15″ minimum out there.

Attachments:

1. 

   Lake-Erie-Limit.jpg
   

2. 

   Lake-Erie-Death-Well.jpg
   

3. 

   Full-Freezer.jpg
   

wildbeaver wrote:

I eat every walleye that’s legal. The big ones taste just as good as the small ones.

I don’t have a problem with people who have this attitude, even while I don’t. Thankfully I have enough fishing opportunities and financial means that I’m more interested in catching 28″+ fish than meat runs or filling the freezer to feed the family. I compare it to deer hunting, if your only opportunity to bring meat home is shooting a spike buck or filleting a 24″ eye, go for it. If you have dreams of catching a 30″+ eye or monster buck, you need to let the littler ones grow, it really is just that simple.

Keeping this simple,you want to eat a bigger fish ,go ahead ,just don’t be a pig about it ,the fishing will be better for it. Except flatheads and sturgeon,its a crime to kill those old fish. IMHOP. DK.

I figure if I don’t eat them someone else will.

tbro16 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ProStaffSteve wrote:</div>
This is something that has bothered me for a while now and was inspired by the “Cheek” thread below. I fish pool 6 and 4 of the Mississippi and a couple Brainerd area lakes. My rule for a while has been, an eye that hits 20″ swims free, and under 15″ is illegal. For me, 20″+ fish make my year and I want to ensure that I catch as many as possible. What sizes do you keep? Do you have any interest in changing the sizes you keep to mesh with other’s so that we have a Min/Dakota/Wis/Iowa “rule of thumb”? I don’t support wasting fish that die on accident, but I can’t stand seeing 20″+ fish on a chopping block. I’m thinking about dropping my rule another inch or two due to an abundance of eaters, thoughts?

Good grief that guy in the Twins hat on the left there is one good lookin fellow
Glad you brought this topic up, I enjoy reading what personal limits others have. The lake I fish the most has a 14-18 inch slot, so I only keep fish under 14 there. Prefer to release anything over 18 assuming I’m not desperate for a fish fry. Prostaff, you are used to fishing the TFF as well where it can be difficult to find walleyes over 14. You learn to eat the little ones or eat nothing but potatoes for the week. Easy choice!
I really never have an issue if people keep really little ones, but it does bother me a bit when I see bigger fish (over 22 or so) being sliced up. Obviously if its a legal fish, its under their own discretion, just one of those things. From what I’ve noticed, it seems like the younger generations have begun to release the bigger fish more and more. Don’t need to bring the fish home to show it off anymore, just snap a pic and get it back in the water!

Very insightful tbro16, I do see some younger folks release more big walleye. In part, it seems this trend has a lot to do with bass fishing ideology. Bass fishermen rarely keep their catches and almost never keep their trophy fish. When they stumble into walleye, this idea of catch and release transitions over. One of the most significant differences seems to be taking a picture or video. Nowadays, many fishermen seem so gratified by CPR that eating the fish is their last consideration.

IceNEyes1986 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ProStaffSteve wrote:</div>
I have heard of the situation on Erie, I envy the fishing there. It is not wrong to keep fish that are big if that is all that exists, but I would still encourage them to be careful. Fisheries can always decline.

Lake Erie is a fishery like no other. I don’t know how they do it but, I’ve been going out there for 7 years now. A few of the guys I go with have been going since the early 90’s! Not much has changed. We still go out trolling in April and keep 4 fish a day with no possession limit. The average size out there when we troll the basin ranges from 26″-28″! It’s one hell of a meat run! Most of them to eat, some of them for the wall. Man do they taste good!

Now, in MN it’s a little different with the state regs and each individual lake I fish has different regs. I very rarely keep anything over 20″. If the lake allows for me to keep one over 20″ I don’t keep anything over 22″. Ideally I’d like to go home with four 15″-18″ fish.

I’ve kept them as small as 12″ and as large as 28″. <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>Walleyes are my second favorite to Musky Cheeks! Pictures I added are from our trip to Erie couple years ago. We filled the Freezer in 3 days, 6 guys, 2 boats, and fished no more than 12 hours. Total! Each bag in the freezer is 1 fish. If you haven’t been to Erie, find a way to make it happen! If you don’t want to eat big Walleyes, you can go join the crowds on the rock reefs and jig for the smaller males. There is a 15″ minimum out there.

Wow IceNEyes1986, those are some monsters. You wouldn’t catch me dead on the “rock piles.” For me, it is big fish or bust. Whats your biggest fish from out there? Might have to plan me a trip. @tbro16

I don’t keep them anymore, period. I used to but now I mostly bass and muskie fish and all of those go back, in addition to the walleyes I still catch. I simply enjoy going. Not a meat hunter.

Generally speaking, the larger the fish, bird, deer, etc, the worse is it going to taste. What is going to taste better, a 27 incher or a 16 incher? A 6 year old buck or a 6 month old fawn? Female fish are also usually the larger specimens and they are what keep the population going.

ProStaffSteve wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”><a href=”https://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/eating-big-walleye/page/2/#post-1811443&#8243;

Wow IceNEyes1986, those are some monsters. You wouldn’t catch me dead on the “rock piles.” For me, it is big fish or bust. Whats your biggest fish from out there? Might have to plan me a trip. @tbro16

First 3 weeks are crazy on Erie or the Detroit River depending on the spring weather. Just remember April can have nasty weather and you might not get to fish the big lake for several days in a row unless you trailer around to the side with the least wind. Last year big fish were in the lake, 3 years ago in the river. Picture is from 2018.

Attachments:

1. 

   20180408_162617.jpg
   

Thanks for the details IceNeyes1986, great to see and hear about your personal limits. This is exactly what I wanted to see from my post. You are the second person to mention harvesting fish “cheeks” the other poster discussed big walleye cheeks. I do harvest them from most eyes I keep, but do these really regrow on fish that are released? I’ve never heard of this before.

catmando wrote:

Keeping this simple,you want to eat a bigger fish ,go ahead ,just don’t be a pig about it ,the fishing will be better for it. Except flatheads and sturgeon,its a crime to kill those old fish. IMHOP. DK.

But, you see, it is not this simple. Your opinion about trophy flatheads and sturgeon applies to all fish species. I would argue, that in Minnesota, most people don’t eat many big cats. In this sense, there is likely of an overabundance of them in the river implying that they are free game almost regardless of size. This is just speculation, I don’t actually keep big, or any, cats. But don’t you see how it may be hypocritical to place the burden of meat harvest on only a couple species?

wildbeaver wrote:

I figure if I don’t eat them someone else will.

This is the type of mindset this post was created to change. I feel the same way when I panfish or target walleye. Nobody likes throwing the 15″ crappie back but if we all do, we can catch many more. I would like to see more than just young people shift to C&R; I am not saying don’t keep fish. I am saying we should return the trophies so that people can catch more of those and keep a steady cycle of catch & release for trophy class fish.

gim wrote:

I don’t keep them anymore, period. I used to but now I mostly <em class=”ido-tag-em”>bass and muskie fish and all of those go back, in addition to the <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes I still catch. I simply enjoy going. Not a meat hunter.

Generally speaking, the larger the fish, bird, deer, etc, the worse is it going to taste. What is going to taste better, a 27 incher or a 16 incher? A 6 year old buck or a 6 month old fawn? Female fish are also usually the larger specimens and they are what keep the population going.

I hope that in thirty years this is the mindset that all fishermen carry. These resources are vulnerable, whether the law agrees or not. I see more young bass fishermen from The Winona State Fishing Team and across the country throwing most fish back. I believe bass fishermen learn the importance of this and then carry it to other species. Most “bass lakes” can be extremely good because the fish are not being removed from their environment for long. Do you mind answering what made you change from eating fish to C&R? Do you also not like eating or cleaning fish? What values led you to have such a firm stance?

ProStaffSteve wrote:

but do these really regrow on fish that are released? I’ve never heard of this before.

It’s an inside joke here at IDO.

No I think it’s quite simple a big cat or sturgeon is really ,really old up in this part,
Of the world, down south , not so much. I been fishing along time seen alot, slip bobber leech on reefs with floating smaller fish. People sitting on a dip on a mudflat, pulling big walleye one after another,out of 30 ft of water. I still think, keep your fish, then quit. Fact here in Wis ,if you have a limit,its unlawful to keep fishing that specie’s .Like I said take a few, just don’t be a pig about it. DK. Oh buy the way, go catch a 50 pound flat, see how long it takes,

ProStaffSteve wrote:

This is the type of mindset this post was created to change. I feel the same way when I panfish or target walleye. Nobody likes throwing the 15″ crappie back but if we all do, we can catch many more. I would like to see more than just young people shift to C&R; I am not saying don’t keep fish. I am saying we should return the trophies so that people can catch more of those and keep a steady cycle of catch & release for trophy class fish.

You also need to understand the other side. What you want isn’t what everyone wants. The fact that you and many others look down on “meat hunters” is unfair. You are giving the impression that current harvest laws are unsustainable and morally wrong.

You also need to understand how each and every species and body of water is vastly different from one another. The statewide harvest limits on walleyes in this state do a good job of providing ample fishing opportunities.

If you want to catch only big walleyes go to Mille Lacs. It is full of big walleyes and how is that working out? Ever ride a rollercoaster?

I understand where you’re coming from but if it’s legal to keep a particular size of walleye, bass, or for that matter, a fish of any kind, many of us and probably most of us that fish will keep fish to eat. I do and I feel absolutely zero guilt for enjoying meals of fish that I’ve legally caught and kept. Myself, like most anglers, will never intentionally hurt the resource because we understand how it all works, but it’s our right to keep fish if we choose. Period.
You look very young, but many of us have spent a lifetime paying taxes or usage fees of some kind that have in large part paid for the fine fishing that we all enjoy today. We’ve earned our right to keep fish according to DNR regulations without someone telling us otherwise.
If you want to practice all catch and release, that’s fine by me, but I’m going to keep fish to eat if legal where I’m fishing. It’s my right and it’s not all about what you’d like to see.
By the Way…….I promise that I won’t go on and on about how you should be keeping fish.

Don’t jump on me for this, but just how important are large females to recruiting the next class of walleyes? I know common sense is more big females = more eggs= more fish. Isn’t it possible that environmental conditions decide more whether they’ll be a large class of walleyes recruited in a particular year rather than the pure amount of eggs laid? What makes me say this is that in Mille Lacs, the walleye population was at a historical low in the year 2012. The largest surviving walleye class out of Mille Lacs in the last 20 years was born in the Spring of 2013, thus were created by the breeding walleye population that was around in 2012. It seems to me that there are a lot more variables that come into play when it comes to recruiting big classes of walleye than just having tons of big females. Any specific lake has a maximum capacity of walleye it can hold and it might be possible for the lake to recruit to that capacity with as little as 20% of the available breeding stock.

I’m not a biologist though so this train of thought might just be straight out wrong. I got greedy and went to business school instead. I just think it might be possible that large female walleye aren’t as essential as everyone makes them out to be.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ProStaffSteve wrote:</div>
This is the type of mindset this post was created to change. I feel the same way when I <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish or target walleye. Nobody likes throwing the 15″ <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>crappie back but if we all do, we can catch many more. I would like to see more than just young people shift to C&R; I am not saying don’t keep fish. I am saying we should return the trophies so that people can catch more of those and keep a steady cycle of catch & release for trophy class fish.

You also need to understand the other side. What you want isn’t what everyone wants. The fact that you and many others look down on “meat hunters” is unfair. You are giving the impression that current harvest laws are unsustainable and morally wrong.

You also need to understand how each and every species and body of water is vastly different from one another. The statewide harvest limits on walleyes in this state do a good job of providing ample fishing opportunities.

If you want to catch only big walleyes go to Mille Lacs. It is full of big walleyes and how is that working out? Ever ride a rollercoaster?

Okay, I overstepped by saying that my intent is to “change” anything. I respect that others don’t have the same goals in mind. As far as Mille Lacs goes, I think it is one of the first real efforts to really monitor a walleye population. The place does seem to be off center atm, but it proves that state laws do not know how to control fish populations without the help of conscientious anglers. I imagine a future for that lake where sizes across the board are caught and some are kept, which is where they seem to be going. It is kinda like Eire, but it has been decimated before. Consider red lake, they had to shut the lake down for years because the state didn’t know how to handle the populationd. I know netting… bla, bla, bla I don’t want to dive down that rabbit hole, but these cases demonstrate the individuality of each body of water. Many can’t handle as much pressure as they receive. BTW i appreciate the cheeke joke, that had my head scratching :’)

Karry Kyllo wrote:

I understand where you’re coming from but if it’s legal to keep a particular size of walleye, bass, or for that matter, a fish of any kind, many of us and probably most of us that fish will keep fish to eat. I do and I feel absolutely zero guilt for enjoying meals of fish that I’ve legally caught and kept. Myself, like most anglers, will never intentionally hurt the resource because we understand how it all works, but it’s our right to keep fish if we choose. Period.
You look very young, but many of us have spent a lifetime paying taxes or usage fees of some kind that have in large part paid for the fine fishing that we all enjoy today. We’ve earned our right to keep fish according to DNR regulations without someone telling us otherwise.
If you want to practice all catch and release, that’s fine by me, but I’m going to keep fish to eat if legal where I’m fishing. It’s my right and it’s not all about what you’d like to see.
By the Way…….I promise that I won’t go on and on about how you should be keeping fish.

You know, I like that you said keeping walleye, bass, and other species. You probably aren’t committing too much of an impact. Removing an equivalent amount of fish probably shouldn’t hurt anything at all. Everything has a certain ability to “bounce back” from individuals being removed. Unfortunately, I don’t agree that we “understand how it all works.” We, as fishermen or government entities, do not understand half of “how it all works.” That’s why some bodies of water fluctuate so frequently. Fortunately, we understand enough to keep some fish on our lines.
To say that you pay enough tax to justify eating your limit of each species each day is a bit outrageous. Not that that is what you do, but some people like to think that is how it should work. Its foolish to think that paying usage fees equates to a certain number of fish that should be taken home.
I do keep fish. But I like to try to keep an open mind about what should be keept. Middle of the pack fish are what I want to target and always within the legal range.

Thomas Brynildson wrote:

Don’t jump on me for this, but just how important are large females to recruiting the next class of walleyes? I know common sense is more big females = more eggs= more fish. Isn’t it possible that environmental conditions decide more whether they’ll be a large class of walleyes recruited in a particular year rather than the pure amount of eggs laid? What makes me say this is that in Mille Lacs, the walleye population was at a historical low in the year 2012. The largest surviving walleye class out of Mille Lacs in the last 20 years was born in the Spring of 2013, thus were created by the breeding walleye population that was around in 2012. It seems to me that there are a lot more variables that come into play when it comes to recruiting big classes of walleye than just having tons of big females. Any specific lake has a maximum capacity of walleye it can hold and it might be possible for the lake to recruit to that capacity with as little as 20% of the available breeding stock.

I’m not a biologist though so this train of thought might just be straight out wrong. I got greedy and went to business school instead. I just think it might be possible that large female walleye aren’t as essential as everyone makes them out to be.

Well, I went to business school as well. I took enough bio classes along the way to learn that they don’t hold all of the answers either. I would be shocked to see that big walleye are the secret to great fisheries. Rather, I think big walleyes are a product of great fisheries. I think that weather, water conditions, the presence of egg eaters, and food for the little buggers in a body of water impact how well a year class turns out. I would even state that small breeding walleye, F 18″, probably produce more survivable offspring than the big walleye, if they are like humans in any way. I don’t know, that’s why I want to hear your guys’ opinions and I have been thrilled with most of the replies so far.

ProStaffSteve wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Thomas Brynildson wrote:</div>
Don’t jump on me for this, but just how important are large females to recruiting the next class of walleyes? I know common sense is more big females = more eggs= more fish. Isn’t it possible that environmental conditions decide more whether they’ll be a large class of walleyes recruited in a particular year rather than the pure amount of eggs laid? What makes me say this is that in Mille Lacs, the walleye population was at a historical low in the year 2012. The largest surviving walleye class out of Mille Lacs in the last 20 years was born in the Spring of 2013, thus were created by the breeding walleye population that was around in 2012. It seems to me that there are a lot more variables that come into play when it comes to recruiting big classes of walleye than just having tons of big females. Any specific lake has a maximum capacity of walleye it can hold and it might be possible for the lake to recruit to that capacity with as little as 20% of the available breeding stock.

I’m not a biologist though so this train of thought might just be straight out wrong. I got greedy and went to business school instead. I just think it might be possible that large female walleye aren’t as essential as everyone makes them out to be.

Well, I went to business school as well. I took enough bio classes along the way to learn that they don’t hold all of the answers either. I would be shocked to see that big walleye are the secret to great fisheries. Rather, I think big walleyes are a product of great fisheries. I think that weather, water conditions, the presence of egg eaters, and food for the little buggers in a body of water impact how well a year class turns out. I would even state that small breeding walleye, F 18″, probably produce more survivable offspring than the big walleye, if they are like humans in any way. I don’t know, that’s why I want to hear your guys’ opinions and I have been thrilled with most of the replies so far.

I completely agree with everything you said. I was taught when I was younger that large females are mostly sterile, but then later on I was told that’s a myth. None of my information is from a biologist though so once again I’m not sure. I might just have to draft up a question sheet and shoot a DNR fisheries employee an e-mail asking for an informational interview and see what their opinion is.

ProStaffSteve wrote:

Well, I went to business school as well. I took enough bio classes along the way to learn that they don’t hold all of the answers either. I would be shocked to see that big walleye are the secret to great fisheries. Rather, I think big walleyes are a product of great fisheries. I think that weather, water conditions, the presence of egg eaters, and food for the little buggers in a body of water impact how well a year class turns out. I would even state that small breeding walleye, F 18″, probably produce more survivable offspring than the big walleye, if they are like humans in any way. I don’t know, that’s why I want to hear your guys’ opinions and I have been thrilled with most of the replies so far.

Very agreeable post. When you have the vast majority of people now taking only juvenile walleyes out of an ecosystem that relies on natural reproduction, you’re going to find problems.

For the vast majority of lakes in mn that have little or no natural reproduction, they rely solely on stocking. In those lakes, slots or selective harvest has zero impact. One or two released 28” fish from one of these lakes isn’t going to make any difference. The attitude toward keeping big fish shifted well before you were born. Proof is in this thread. The few that do, isn’t hurting any fishing opportunities for anyone else and in some cases would benefit from more removal of larger older fish.

There can be a good balance between c&r folks and meat hunters. I think we’re in a very good place right now. For myself, eating wild game and fish can be very good for your health especially if it replaces processed food.

Thomas Brynildson wrote:

Don’t jump on me for this, but just how important are large females to recruiting the next class of walleyes? I know common sense is more big females = more eggs= more fish. Isn’t it possible that environmental conditions decide more whether they’ll be a large class of walleyes recruited in a particular year rather than the pure amount of eggs laid? What makes me say this is that in Mille Lacs, the walleye population was at a historical low in the year 2012. The largest surviving walleye class out of Mille Lacs in the last 20 years was born in the Spring of 2013, thus were created by the breeding walleye population that was around in 2012. It seems to me that there are a lot more variables that come into play when it comes to recruiting big classes of walleye than just having tons of big females. Any specific lake has a maximum capacity of walleye it can hold and it might be possible for the lake to recruit to that capacity with as little as 20% of the available breeding stock.

I’m not a biologist though so this train of thought might just be straight out wrong. I got greedy and went to business school instead. I just think it might be possible that large female walleye aren’t as essential as everyone makes them out to be.

Thomas, for not being a biologist you are mostly correct on your assessment. I am not a fisheries biologist either but I was a member of the state walleye citizen committee with the DNR and that involved some rather comprehensive study presentations to the group.

And you are correct in that more eggs laid and fertilized does not always equate to more walleyes surviving to adulthood in a particular water system. In fact on occasion it can be counterproductive.

There are many environmental factors at play.

Then you do have the contingent that demands more and more walleye stocking when walleye catching success goes south. Sometimes it’s warranted, other times it will not do any good and be just like pouring money down the sewer.

There are some who have no trust in the DNR for any number of different reasons. I do trust that the bag limits and size/slot limits in place are intended protect the resource.

And as we all know, those regs are continually reviewed and changed to protect the resource as well as offering harvest opportunity.

I’m a fan of releasing trophy fish if for nothing else than giving someone else a chance at a trophy.

However, for the health of a fishery I would agree like others that spawning age females are most important. I usually don’t keep anything much over 20” but I always throw back females. For most lake fisherman maybe it’s hard to distinguish since opener is post spawn. However, on the river you know. It’s always disappointing to see the filet buckets full of females.

ProStaffSteve wrote:

Thanks for the details IceNeyes1986, great to see and hear about your personal limits. This is exactly what I wanted to see from my post. You are the second person to mention harvesting fish “cheeks” the other poster discussed big <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye cheeks. I do harvest them from most eyes I keep, but do these really regrow on fish that are released? I’ve never heard of this before.

As Biggill said, The cheeks are an inside joke here at IDO. Be sure to just take the cheeks from the fish you harvest, only!

My personal best out there on Erie is 29.5″ @10.4 lbs. That one is hanging on the wall. It was my first fish over 10 lbs. I’ve see 3 fish from our group over the 32″ mark. Biggest being 33.25″ @13.7 lbs. An Absolute HOG!!

Its not always glory out there though.. As MXSkeeter said, weather in April can be crazy. Last year we picked the worst week possible. We showed up to 18′ waves and Port Clinton flooded for blocks from the storm surge. We fished 3 days out of 8.. The storm made the water so muddy we couldn’t get the fish to bite. I’ve had chocolate milk that was lighter in color. It was a bust.. Still a little salty about it but that’s the way it goes.

ProStaffSteve wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Karry Kyllo wrote:</div>
I understand where you’re coming from but if it’s legal to keep a particular size of walleye, bass, or for that matter, a fish of any kind, many of us and probably most of us that fish will keep fish to eat. I do and I feel absolutely zero guilt for enjoying meals of fish that I’ve legally caught and kept. Myself, like most anglers, will never intentionally hurt the resource because we understand how it all works, but it’s our right to keep fish if we choose. Period.
You look very young, but many of us have spent a lifetime paying taxes or usage fees of some kind that have in large part paid for the fine fishing that we all enjoy today. We’ve earned our right to keep fish according to DNR regulations without someone telling us otherwise.
If you want to practice all catch and release, that’s fine by me, but I’m going to keep fish to eat if legal where I’m fishing. It’s my right and it’s not all about what you’d like to see.
By the Way…….I promise that I won’t go on and on about how you should be keeping fish.

You know, I like that you said keeping walleye, bass, and other species. You probably aren’t committing too much of an impact. Removing an equivalent amount of fish probably shouldn’t hurt anything at all. Everything has a certain ability to “bounce back” from individuals being removed. Unfortunately, I don’t agree that we “understand how it all works.” We, as fishermen or government entities, do not understand half of “how it all works.” That’s why some bodies of water fluctuate so frequently. Fortunately, we understand enough to keep some fish on our lines.
To say that you pay enough tax to justify eating your limit of each species each day is a bit outrageous. Not that that is what you do, but some people like to think that is how it should work. Its foolish to think that paying usage fees equates to a certain number of fish that should be taken home.
I do keep fish. But I like to try to keep an open mind about what should be keept. Middle of the pack fish are what I want to target and always within the legal range.

You completely missed my point.

I’m curious. Do you have a biological or fisheries background?

Karry Kyllo wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ProStaffSteve wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Karry Kyllo wrote:</div>
I understand where you’re coming from but if it’s legal to keep a particular size of walleye, bass, or for that matter, a fish of any kind, many of us and probably most of us that fish will keep fish to eat. I do and I feel absolutely zero guilt for enjoying meals of fish that I’ve legally caught and kept. Myself, like most anglers, will never intentionally hurt the resource because we understand how it all works, but it’s our right to keep fish if we choose. Period.
You look very young, but many of us have spent a lifetime paying taxes or usage fees of some kind that have in large part paid for the fine fishing that we all enjoy today. We’ve earned our right to keep fish according to DNR regulations without someone telling us otherwise.
If you want to practice all catch and release, that’s fine by me, but I’m going to keep fish to eat if legal where I’m fishing. It’s my right and it’s not all about what you’d like to see.
By the Way…….I promise that I won’t go on and on about how you should be keeping fish.

You know, I like that you said keeping walleye, bass, and other species. You probably aren’t committing too much of an impact. Removing an equivalent amount of fish probably shouldn’t hurt anything at all. Everything has a certain ability to “bounce back” from individuals being removed. Unfortunately, I don’t agree that we “understand how it all works.” We, as fishermen or government entities, do not understand half of “how it all works.” That’s why some bodies of water fluctuate so frequently. Fortunately, we understand enough to keep some fish on our lines.
To say that you pay enough tax to justify eating your limit of each species each day is a bit outrageous. Not that that is what you do, but some people like to think that is how it should work. Its foolish to think that paying usage fees equates to a certain number of fish that should be taken home.
I do keep fish. But I like to try to keep an open mind about what should be keept. Middle of the pack fish are what I want to target and always within the legal range.

You completely missed my point.

I’m curious. Do you have a biological or fisheries background?

I hear your point, brother. I do not have a fisheries background but have made fishing my life’s work. I read scientific articles as frequently as I read fishing magazines, watch videos on fishing, and read fisheries books. I am also good buddies with Fish & Wildlife Services guy as well as a DNR, they always insist that catch and release of most kinds does a body of water a service. I would argue that I have put in as much time into fishing in 22 years as a young guy can. It’s every day when coursework isn’t baring down. I don’t intend for you to feel guilt for keeping a meal or even a few meals, have you ever heared of “tragedy of the commons”? Google it quick. Basically when fishermen all act in their own interest 100% of the time they run a risk of hurting an environmnet. Where I fish, they area recieves low pressue almost year round, but in places such as pool 4, redwing, if best fishermen were always taking their limits home, the place would be decimated quicker than most people realize. 15 years to grow a fish doesn’t come back over night.

ProStaffSteve wrote:

, but in places such as pool 4, redwing, if best fishermen were always taking their limits home, the place would be decimated quicker than most people realize. 15 years to grow a fish doesn’t come back over night

Better keep reading those m magazines because you’ll never find a 15yo eye in pool 4.

An oldie is 9 years.
Not your average Fishery.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ProStaffSteve wrote:</div>
, but in places such as pool 4, redwing, if best fishermen were always taking their limits home, the place would be decimated quicker than most people realize. 15 years to grow a fish doesn’t come back over night

Better keep reading those m magazines because you’ll never find a 15yo eye in pool 4.

An oldie is 9 years.
Not your average Fishery.

I agree – he kinda lost me when he started talking P4. I think there is a misperception about the pressure it receives. Sure, in March and April there are a lot of boats but they are concentrated in a half mile area. There’s another 40 miles of water that gets light pressure year round.

I think the science also shows the river walleye grow fast and die young.

I’ll probably be on p3 tonight. I’ll be the only boat. Guaranteed.

If i went to p4 today id be surprised to see 3 after dark.

Add them up and you have 60 miles of river with a handful of fisherman. Love it