Slot Limits

I may be opening a big can of worms here, but I am looking for thoughts on slot limits. I’d like to stay away from the big waters like Mille Lacs, Winnie, etc. and focus on the smaller waters. I guess where this comes from is that the Happy Hookers Fishing Club had a contest on Goose Lake near Harris this weekend, where there is a 17″ minimum length. I personally caught at least 25 walleyes between 12 and 16.5 inches, none legal. I stopped counting at 15, and I know I got at least another 10 after that. We did have one legal weighed in for the contest (out of 20 guys fishing), as well as a 3.25# bass, a hammerhandle, and some fairly decent bluegills. Other boats had similar numbers of short walleyes as mine. Now, I am no meat hog by any stretch. When I get hungry, I go down to the Croix and get a few to fry up. But it really would have been nice to take a few of those boys home for Father’s Day dinner. It’s a good thing I didn’t (not that I would anyway), because I got checked by a CO. Did the whole spiel on license, flotation and fire control, then asked to look in the livewells. Nothing in there but the minnow bucket and a handful of empty beer cans. Also checked the cooler. Nothing in there but a not-empty beer cans. I chatted a bit with him about whether or not he busts a lot of people, and he told me he catches more than you’d think . We also discussed the change in regs allowing them to inspect livewells. As he put it, “You can still say no, but you can explain your reasons to the judge”. So my question is this: If people pay no attention to the special regs anyway, why do we have them?? Also, anyone smarter than I am about small lake walleyes feel free to chime in about what I could have done to target some bigger fish…..

This is a very good question…

Without that slot limit you’d be seeing 13.5″ fish instead of 16.5″ fish. It’s a classic example of intense fishing pressure having a very noticeable impact on the size structure of fish in a fishery. I’m not sure if the DNR is attempting to establish a self-sustaining spawning population, not even sure if that is possible in the lake you fished, but most females will be coming into reproductive age at 17″ of length. By keeping those 17″ fish in the system and giving them a shot at least one spawning season this could be accomplished. The smaller the body of water the more conservatively the regulations need to be to protect the fishery.

Remove this regulation and you’d have less than you have now. Much less.

A 1000 acre lake can be devastated by a single year of good fishing caused by a downward swing in bait fish populations if there are no slots or regs in place to protect the fishery.

And about the violators…. because a good number of people are violating is not a good reason to do away with regulations intended to protect vulnerable fisheries. A high number of violations are a perfect reason to crank up fines and other penalties to the point where people would be scared to death about being caught. Scard to the point where they will no longer risk being caught.

By your description it does sound like most do in fact follow the minimum size limit given that you saw a cut off just short of the 17″ bottom end length requirement. If nobody was paying attention or following this regualtion doesn’t it seem unlikely that your catch would be dominated by fish just shy of this minimum length?

I dont eat many fish-so, personally, I would rather catch fish and have to release all of them. But, I do not believe that should be the law-people should be able to keep fish.

I would like see a state wide minimum for walleye. Maybe the DNR wouldnt need to stock so aggressively if we had a 15″ minimum. I hate that people keep 12-13″ eyes on a regular basis.

I do feel that fishing statewide is pretty darn good. So I cant complain too much about the way that the DNR is handling our fisheries.