DNR Advises to Keep Larger Fish?

Its like keeping big catfish, I know some don’t agree and thats A-ok, but in walleyes and catfish if the prime spawning age is a certain spread of body length and size then put those back to keep populations at their peak if you want too. My personal opinion is Either side of that you can keep and eat them. I know here the DNR says you’d have to eat approxamatly the equivlent to 5 pounds a day to make it unsafe and me buzz with radioactivity when I walk by someone. If the prime spawners are a certain size whats wrong with keeping the fish on either side of that plus it makes more food available to the prime spawners. I don’t think things have to be perfect to makes things happen the way they should and will anyway, I think nature takes care of things like that by the ones we don’t catch and never will see a hook, netting a lake is another story. Comments?

That’s fine mossy if you want the max size of a fish species in a body of water go down over time. The big fish have proven that they have what it takes to grow large. On an enclosed body of water the affect is dramatic on a species like panfish. With other species and or larger bodies of water, the effects may be less obvious and slower to happen.

Greatest phrase in fishing in my book is, “Eater size”.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Small ones can’t spawn if you keep them.
Big ones can’t be caught again if kept…

---

…You can Not have a Fish Fry Without FISH. …rrr

---

That’s pretty much my point buddy.

How many edges does a sword have?

In my college days I always thru the large ones back and tried to get the 19-22 y/o ones. But I always wanted 0% egg viability…..

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Was told this by one of the workers at the wing dam saloon. She said the DNR has found evidence larger fish are not as fertile spawners.

Can anyone attest to this? I’ve always thought the larger fish should be released?

---

In walleyes and sauger the bigger fish may not produce as many viable eggs, but they hold the genetic cornerstone for the future.

Crappies and sunfish have their reproductive strength in the larger fish.

Table quality is NOT found in any large fish.

---

ever had smoked walleye? the bigger the better.

---

Never made smoked Walleye. Yet. My wife keeps telling me if I put fish in ours that it will permanently stain the smoker?

EVERY fish I have ever harvested goes on the table or to a family/friends table.

So… If there are no small ones there are no legal ones.. If there are no legal ones there are no spawners.. If there are no spawners there are no eaters.. If there are no eaters we don’t get any large ones… If there are no large ones we don’t get any trophy fish. Too many trophy fish and we run into pan fish population concerns and potentially less than ideal spawners. Sounds like the only viable solution is to care for the fishery and harvest responsibly. :cheers:

I forget her name but the lady who mentioned keeping the larger ones is definitely a reliable source. She works at the Wing Dam Saloon and has for many many years. If she said the DNR told her such, I believe it.

Quote:

---

In walleyes and sauger the bigger fish may not produce as many viable eggs, but they hold the genetic cornerstone for the future.

---

And on that note – the big ones have spawned many times over the years, propagating their genetics over and over again. The genetics were the same when they were 15″ youngins as they are when the fish is a 30″ hawg.

Kill a bunch of 16″ fish and there is a great chance that you are killing some wonderful genetics somewhere in the mix. Somebody whacking a nice one here and there is not the end of the world, no matter how some people view it.

Like anything else – moderation and common sense is key.

It’s a numbers game and statistics Timmy. IF you have a golden walleye with super genes, you are less likely to find her when she is smaller because there are so many her size. Once she is a big fish if you take her out, you guarantee that she will not pass along her genes anymore.

That being said, I agree with your last statement.

“Like anything else – moderation and common sense is key.”

Unfortunately, for far too many common sense and moderation means a limit to go home every time out.

Unfortunately “common sense” only refers to gun control now days.

I don’t know what its actually like up where you guys are at but here theres many many miles of river that has very little to no pressure at all, let alone a guy who only fishes and keeps just the big ones. Many many fish never see a hook so with all those big catfish swimming around and will die of old age I think its safe to keep a few big ones if you wanted and i’m sure it won’t hurt the river at all. Sure you can fish a river to hard but here it would take many guys and more then a half dozen years to make a dent in just the big fish population. Theres way too many big flatheads here in miles and miles of unfished river to have anything to worry about. Theres so many big flatheads here that lay under the logjams, and theres dozens and dozens of logjams along the bank that I know forsure theres not enough pressure to hurt them. If I’m out all weekend and fishing aways from town I maybe see 3 or 4 boats and usually just one or none, in 16 hrs of being on the water and Id bet most of those guys are just fishing channels. I’ve talked to alot of guys over the years and very few are serious flathead logjam fishermen. Around here its safe to keep anything of any size when you want without hurting the population any at all.

Of course every body of water is different and I view river systems differently.

Flatheads, channels and walleyes.
Apples, oranges and pears. Not necessarily in that order.

Without data, it’s opinion and we know there isn’t an opinion that’s wrong.