Invasive Walleyes?

Exactly!

I guy that I work with has a brother that worked for the DNR/Conservation out west and he stated the same thing. They do very well in the rivers out there and they are treated just like rough fish.

thats been going on for decades. pike are a hated species in some reservoirs and there is no limit some places. $15 a pound for walleye these days.

Timmy wrote:

The way I heard it explained, the difference between being invasive or not is whether or not the effect is desired.

Walleyes being harmful to native trout = invasive
Pheasants filling a niche and being prized for hunting = simply an introduced specie.

Pretty sure you are correct on that. Once they find a natural balance they are no longer considered an invasive species. Contrary to popular belief, carp (common) are actually not considered invasive in most bodies of water.

Tom Albrecht wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Timmy wrote:</div>
The way I heard it explained, the difference between being invasive or not is whether or not the effect is desired.

Walleyes being harmful to native trout = invasive
Pheasants filling a niche and being prized for hunting = simply an introduced specie.

Pretty sure you are correct on that. Once they find a natural balance they are no longer considered an invasive species. Contrary to popular belief, carp (common) are actually not considered invasive in most bodies of water.

Where are you talking about with this statement?

Common carp are invasive and I don’t know one body of water that if it were possible to eliminate them they would be gone ASAP.

And, pheasants are an invasive species, just like carp, but because hunters desire to pursue them there are no efforts, to my knowledge, to reduce numbers or eliminate them.

Buffalo Fishhead

bfishn wrote:

They are trying to return many of these western rivers and lakes to their native populations of fish. Even rainbow and brown trout are being exterminated to return rivers/lakes to native cutthroats populations. Keeping a 27” walleye or any walleye in these lakes is “conservation” in the manner they are trying to achieve.

I’ve been mildly aware of issues/problems with non-native walleye and pike threatening valued native trout populations out west.

I might agree too that adding pike and walleye may very well be more of a subtraction to a valued native fish population.

As for those that have issue of removing/keeping and eating large walleyes from those lakes out west, I’m kind of looking at it from the other side.

If some years ago someone thought it was a good idea and got away with stocking rainbow trout or hybrid striped bass into our premier natural walleye lakes and they somehow managed to get a foothold and threatened the native walleye population…one can only imagine the treatment of those fish once they’re caught by the MN angler.

Buffalo Fishhead wrote:

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

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Timmy wrote:</div>
The way I heard it explained, the difference between being invasive or not is whether or not the effect is desired.

Walleyes being harmful to native trout = invasive
Pheasants filling a niche and being prized for hunting = simply an introduced specie.

Pretty sure you are correct on that. Once they find a natural balance they are no longer considered an invasive species. Contrary to popular belief, carp (common) are actually not considered invasive in most bodies of water.

Where are you talking about with this statement?

Common carp are invasive and I don’t know one body of water that if it were possible to eliminate them they would be gone ASAP.

And, pheasants are an invasive species, just like carp, but because hunters desire to pursue them there are no efforts, to my knowledge, to reduce numbers or eliminate them.

Buffalo Fishhead

Invasive species and non-native species are different.

Pheasants are not Invasive.

Outdraft wrote:

So what if he kept it? I hate it when others cut somebody down for keeping a fish. Watch your own bobber, post your comments like that on another site

Because we both frequent the same site we must have the same views? Missed that memo. Keeping big walleyes for the fry pan is awful for conservation management to most, if not all, lakes in MN/WI. Obviously its legal, so I cant do anything about it, but to act like its innocent is a missed opportunity for education.

If fisherman keep the fish because they just simply dont care about management and want some big walleye steaks, so be it. If they keep it because they dont know the harm they’re doing, then maybe some education is warranted.

tbro16 wrote:

Because we both frequent the same site we must have the same views? Missed that memo. Keeping big walleyes for the fry pan is awful for conservation management to most, if not all, lakes in MN/WI. Obviously its legal, so I cant do anything about it, but to act like its innocent is a missed opportunity for education.

If fisherman keep the fish because they just simply dont care about management and want some big walleye steaks, so be it. If they keep it because they dont know the harm they’re doing, then maybe some education is warranted.

You did the right thing, got my vote. It’s not about breaking the law, it’s about ethics.

lindyrig79 wrote:

Invasive species and non-native species are different.

Pheasants are not Invasive.

lindyrig79:

You are correct, I went too far in calling pheasants invasive species.

Thanks for the correction.

Buffalo Fishhead

when I did allot of bass fishing tournaments I watched the weights go down season after season when Wis went to a legal bass having to be 14″ to keep. we caught allot of small fish during this time, Now that is is no size limit and 5 fish limit, I’m seeing more larger fish being brought to the scale in just a few short years.
I’m thinking the same would work for walleyes, release the large, keep the smaller ones if you want for table fare, there would be more large fish genetics past along to make a better fishery for all.
why the DNR doesn’t see this for themselves is puzzling to me, maybe DNR really does stand for “Do Nothing Right”

Ice Cap wrote:

They don’t view them as invasive fish out there but I got the impression they don’t hold them in the same regard we do here in Mn.

Nobody does. Go outside of MN/WI/Canada and you’ll find that it’s not a very important fish.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
Yeah a lot of places out west have no limit on walleye, they have no idea what they have going for them, a culture that worships trout/salmon, and they blame <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye for the trout/salmon population decline.

Yeah, that’s not happening here though. Never hear a walleye guy complain the muskies are causing walleye decline. Invasive <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>muskies are the problem.

Nailed it. Would be nice if any of the other species mattered in this state.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tbro16 wrote:</div>
Because we both frequent the same site we must have the same views? Missed that memo. Keeping big <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes for the fry pan is awful for conservation management to most, if not all, lakes in MN/WI. Obviously its legal, so I cant do anything about it, but to act like its innocent is a missed opportunity for education.

If fisherman keep the fish because they just simply dont care about management and want some big walleye steaks, so be it. If they keep it because they dont know the harm they’re doing, then maybe some education is warranted.

You did the right thing, got my vote. It’s not about breaking the law, it’s about ethics.

WTF? Are you guys for real? So something that is legal and you know nothing of the fishery that you are protesting legal fish harvested? That is unbelievable and crazy.

I am sure you’ve done all the research to support your stance on this?

Just amazing the mindset of some people.

I can post all day long of legal fish I catch on pool 5A and keep. Now will that offend you as well or will you say nice fish?

Maybe you can camp in front of my house and protest my catch and keep of fish that are legal for me to harvest?

#metoo – #walleyelivesmatter

riverruns wrote:

WTF? Are you guys for real?

That is unbelievable and crazy.

Just amazing the mindset of some people.

Or how about you just get a lot less butt hurt on an internet forum and maybe listen to others thoughts/opinions while entertaining the idea of trying to understand why they may feel the way they do? Crazy, right?

I understand why people keep big fish. Whether its for more meat, to throw it on the wall, bigger tips for guides, or to show off your catch to your buddies, either way its perfectly legal and I do not deny that. I just see that several of the biggest and most popular bodies of water us fisherman fish have walleye populations that have recently, or are currently, declining. URL, Mille lacs (I’ll probably regret mentioning this one), Leech, Pool 4 all now have adjusted slots and limits because of the recent or current decrease in population. Ironic? I think not.

We have had years and years of technological improvements to help us catch more and bigger fish, but the statewide limit of 6 has remained the same. Minimal protection of spawning and trophy classed fish until recently too. Well, except for those very popular destinations I mentioned earlier. Its a widely known, and accepted, fact that keeping big female walleyes is detrimental to the management to most every lake in our area.

Winnebago system is another one. Heres a cut from the WI DNR site about their change in limit from 5 to 3 this year. This took a few minutes of research of law changes outside of MN. The information and knowledge is there, its just whether people are willing to change for the good of future walleye populations.

“Average annual adult female walleye exploitation is estimated at 32.2% and surpassed 40% in eight of the last 27 years, which is well above the 35% threshold that is often suggested for maintaining walleye populations. In addition, the department has documented high exploitation rates on immature female walleye (ranging 22.9%-66.7%, average 42.0%). This information, in conjunction with recent tagging studies, indicates a potential for substantially reduced walleye numbers and recreational fishing opportunities.”

So, if the fish was hooked badly he should throw it back and feed nature instead of himself? Maybe he only keeps a few throughout the year, I must of missed the part that you knew the whole scenario

Outdraft wrote:

So, if the fish was hooked badly he should throw it back and feed nature instead of himself? Maybe he only keeps a few throughout the year, I must of missed the part that you knew the whole scenario

*maybe this* *what if that* So now we’re just cherry picking irrelevant assumptions? I never claimed to know the whole scenario. Pedestrian effort. Throw enough sh!t at the wall, some of it might stick, I guess. Try again

It’s pretty clear he kept it because it was considered invasive in that region of the country. I was unaware. I learned something new

riverruns wrote:

I am sure you’ve done all the research to support your stance on this?

Actually, yes. I have done all the research on this to support my stance. Tbro16 did too and he explained it.

I dont care why he kept it, it was his right to and anybody else who catches a legal fish no matter what state. Obviously your against my right as a fisherman to keep a legal fish

Guys settle down a little. Why does everything need to turn into a battle of opinions? What he is saying is everything we learned about trying to grow and keep a fishery up. While I have taken low to mid twenty eyes for the fry pan, go ahead and grill me on it if you like. But like he said if we can let the bigger females go it will be better for the lakes future.

Why is this only with fish. Couldn’t we argue that if a spike and 14 point buck walk in together you should obviously shoot the spike so the trophy can spread his seed. When a flock of mallards comes wizzing by is your first instinct to look for the most immature bird so the big pretty ones can live. I would never eat a walleye that big unless it wouldn’t swim away but hey if dude has a license it his choice.

John Rasmussen wrote:

Guys settle down a little. Why does everything need to turn into a battle of opinions? What he is saying is everything we learned about trying to grow and keep a fishery up. While I have taken low to mid twenty eyes for the fry pan, go ahead and grill me on it if you like. But like he said if we can let the bigger females go it will be better for the lakes future.

I agree – people are running a little hot these days.

My opinion is you should let big fish go (especially large females) regardless of what is legal. If it’s within your legal right then so be it but I still disagree with it. That doesn’t mean I’m “against your rights.” I just don’t agree with your choice.

Seems like some on this forum believe you need to take it to the letter of the law. I’m more of an intent kinda guy myself. Different strokes and all that…..

Matt Moen wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>John Rasmussen wrote:</div>
Guys settle down a little. Why does everything need to turn into a battle of opinions? What he is saying is everything we learned about trying to grow and keep a fishery up. While I have taken low to mid twenty eyes for the fry pan, go ahead and grill me on it if you like. But like he said if we can let the bigger females go it will be better for the lakes future.

I agree – people are running a little hot these days.

My opinion is you should let big fish go (especially large females) regardless of what is legal. If it’s within your legal right then so be it but I still disagree with it. That doesn’t mean I’m “against your rights.” I just don’t agree with your choice.

Seems like some on this forum believe you need to take it to the letter of the law. I’m more of an intent kinda guy myself. Different strokes and all that…..

I agree Matt but I also don’t need someone coming on my personal Instagram account telling me his opinions on a legal fish I kept or posted a picture of, and then posting that I kept a larger size fish on another forum. Then again I would need an instagram account first.
Mostly why I do not post fish pictures here because someone always gets bent out of shape about it being too big too small too many wrong species how I’m holding it wrong on and on.

Don’t be scared Ripjiggen!! Not your problem if other people are butt hurt over your opinion.

The freezer full was an Erie trip with 6 guys. Took about 9 total hours over 3 days between 6 guys. One fish per bag. The Death Well shot was during the same trip but just for giggles!

Attachments:

1. 

   Full-Freezer.jpg
   

2. 

   Lake-Erie-Death-Well.jpg
   

Gross why would you keep all those big fish.

I agree Matt but I also don’t need someone coming on my personal Instagram account telling me his opinions on a legal fish I kept or posted a picture of, and then posting that I kept a larger size fish on another forum. Then again I would need an instagram account first.
Mostly why I do not post fish pictures here because someone always gets bent out of shape about it being too big too small too many wrong species on and on.
[/quote]

Fair….I’m not on those other social sites either. I think they do invite a lot of trolling. If you are going to post on those sites and allow comments (I believe you can turn them off?) you better have some thick skin.

I love it when people post fish pics on the site….it’s one of the reasons I come here is to see how others are doing, what they are catching, etc. I usually only criticize bass because, well, who cares about bass anyways?

If only the death well was full of small slimy pike…we could actually use a lot more of THOSE harvested