New Walleye Regs for Red

Starting Dec 1. 3 per day total. 0-17″ with 1 over 17″

I think that’s a good plan for a lake with walleyes that are increasing in size.

I do not see a news release at the DNR site, so does this mean that of my 3 fish limit only 2 can be under 17 inches and one over 17 inches?

The way I read it all 3 can be under 17 but only 1 of the 3 can be over.
That strikes me as being a cool rule. No slot. You can keep any size fish you want within the possession restriction. That seems so liberating. I hope that rule spreads.

suzuki wrote:

The way I read it all 3 can be under 17 but only 1 of the 3 can be over.
That strikes me as being a cool rule. No slot. You can keep any size fish you want within the possession restriction. That seems so liberating. I hope that rule spreads.

X2

Love it!

Obviously, the DNR is worried /concerned that the “long term” slot limit is or has potential for causing major problems down the road and need to weed out/control the amount of bigger fish in the system. I am glad to see the proactive thinking…with hopes the same kind of thinking is used NOW at Leech Lake, Winnie, Rainy Lake and so one…not after the inevitable is in place and much harder to fix.

The “one over 20” worked in creating a very stable fishery at Lake Mille Lacs for 16 years and then the slot was forced onto the scene. Proof is on the record that more than 6-8 years of wide slot limits negative related signs start to show themselves.

I truly believe wide slot limits are a great tool for bringing a fishery back from low numbers and or creating a more diverse/wide spread year class scenario in a fishery. Short term wide slot limits –until the goals are met–work fine. Long term–the inevitable is just–an inevitable disaster.

Interestingly, Mn. DNR studies show that a “protected slot” of around 19″ to 22″ protect the most effective spawning fish in the system and control the predator/less productive fish in the system at the same time. In fact, in 1984/85–the Mn DNR “suggested” that as the best scenario for the future of Lake Mille Lacs. (it was even printed on Mn. DNR issued stick on rulers in those days)

suzuki wrote:

The way I read it all 3 can be under 17 but only 1 of the 3 can be over.
That strikes me as being a cool rule. No slot. You can keep any size fish you want within the possession restriction. That seems so liberating. I hope that rule spreads.

Where are you reading this?

3 per day total. 0-17″ with 1 over 17″

steve-fellegy wrote:

Obviously, the DNR is worried /concerned that the “long term” slot limit is or has potential for causing major problems down the road and need to weed out/control the amount of bigger fish in the system. I am glad to see the proactive thinking…with hopes the same kind of thinking is used NOW at Leech Lake, Winnie, Rainy Lake and so one…not after the inevitable is in place and much harder to fix.
<P></P>
<P>The “one over 20” worked in creating a very stable fishery at Lake Mille Lacs for 16 years and then the slot was forced onto the scene. Proof is on the record that more than 6-8 years of wide slot limits negative related signs start to show themselves. </P>
<P>I truly believe wide slot limits are a great tool for bringing a fishery back from low numbers and or creating a more diverse/wide spread year class scenario in a fishery. Short term wide slot limits –until the goals are met–work fine. Long term–the inevitable is just–an inevitable disaster.</P>
<P>Interestingly, Mn. DNR studies show that a “protected slot” of around 19″ to 22″ protect the most effective spawning fish in the system and control the predator/less productive fish in the system at the same time. In fact, in 1984/85–the Mn DNR “suggested” that as the best scenario for the future of Lake Mille Lacs. (it was even printed on Mn. DNR issued stick on rulers in those days)</P>

Steve would you recomend on leech, as it currently sits, that anglers should take their 1 over 26″ fish?

Jonesy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>steve-fellegy wrote:</div>
Obviously, the DNR is worried /concerned that the “long term” slot limit is or has potential for causing major problems down the road and need to weed out/control the amount of bigger fish in the system. I am glad to see the proactive thinking…with hopes the same kind of thinking is used NOW at Leech Lake, Winnie, Rainy Lake and so one…not after the inevitable is in place and much harder to fix.
<P></P>
<P>The “one over 20” worked in creating a very stable fishery at Lake Mille Lacs for 16 years and then the slot was forced onto the scene. Proof is on the record that more than 6-8 years of wide slot limits negative related signs start to show themselves. </P>
<P>I truly believe wide slot limits are a great tool for bringing a fishery back from low numbers and or creating a more diverse/wide spread year class scenario in a fishery. Short term wide slot limits –until the goals are met–work fine. Long term–the inevitable is just–an inevitable disaster.</P>
<P>Interestingly, Mn. DNR studies show that a “protected slot” of around 19″ to 22″ protect the most effective spawning fish in the system and control the predator/less productive fish in the system at the same time. In fact, in 1984/85–the Mn DNR “suggested” that as the best scenario for the future of Lake Mille Lacs. (it was even printed on Mn. DNR issued stick on rulers in those days)</P>

Steve would you recomend on leech, as it currently sits, that anglers should take their 1 over 26″ fish?

I would recommend that the Leech Lake regs go to the “one over 20” rule with a daily/possession limit of 3-4 walleyes total. Leech Lake slot limits, as we have had now for almost a decade, have reached their goals of bringing back the fishery from the low point ( along with a big stocking effort) and now is the time, NOT after an inevitable population balance issue comes onto the scene–to OPEN the harvest to some of the bigger fish in the system.

The forage base is fine now–why strain it with continuing, potentially, to build a too many big fish scenario. With adult perch numbers at Leech ( DNR surveys records show that and creel surveys do as well) in the all time low range, how long can the forage base ( mainly YOY perch) stay healthy? I suggest the DNR be PROACTIVE–NOT REACTIVE!

Proof is in the pudding! The ONLY big lake walleye fishery in Mn. ( Lake Mille Lacs) that had a “one over 20” reg–for 15 plus years, saw a thriving “large” (over 25″) walleye population, a large eating fish population ( 15″ to 19″) –all the while HARVESTING walleyes over 20″. And let’s not forget…the ONLY big lake walleye fishery in MN. that has had a very restrictive harvest slot limit in place for 15 plus years–crashed. ( I am not in denial on that fact as some of the locals have been and still are)

That all said… I am not a PHD. fisheries manager/biologist as the likes of the leadership at the DNR….

YES–I would recommend that per the rules as we have now, the over 26″ fish be harvested-if one wants to. That size/age of walleye is not doing the fishery any good—thus not doing the angler any good. I have zero problems with keeping a walleye over 26″ at Leech Lake and did so recently without hesitation.

While I do like the fact that they are allowing for some harvest of larger fish I would have liked it more if it was 3 fish total up to 17″ and 1 over 20″ or 21″. My personal belief is that a protected slot for the most fertile spawning fish is the best approach for managing a lake with good natural reproduction.

Red is a very unique situation since a huge portion of the lake is not open to hook and line anglers. That said, since these slots are only affecting a portion of the entire population there is definitely a possibility that allowing the harvest of more large fish by hook and line is the right move. (depending what is being harvested elsewhere)

Will

My Armchair Biologist. It seems that just protecting a small 3″ slot (based on age and numbers) is all you need to protect the prime spawners in most systems. The lower end should be adjusted to guarantee an overlap of the male population size distribution as lessons learned they are very important too. The one over 20″ isn’t far off either. Reduce the daily limit to 2-3. But at that level it may be time to revisit the 2 day limit in possession.

I will say it every time I have a chance and to anyone that will listen – if MN went to a statewide walleye limit of 4 total fish, one of which may be over 18″, it would correct and maintain the proper population diversity of 90%+ of the lakes in or bordering the state, especially the largest and most pressured bodies of water.

If that limit doesn’t work for a particular body of water, as Steve mentions the wide slot limits seem to take care of the issue of a depressed or rebounding population for the short term and I would agree with that completely. Otherwise, the only adjustment I would make would be to reduce bag limit from 4 to 3 while keeping the one over 18″. I’m also not a biologist, just someone who has seen different walleye booms and busts and while paying attention to regs.

zooks wrote:

I will say it every time I have a chance and to anyone that will listen – if MN went to a statewide walleye limit of 4 total fish, one of which may be over 18″, it would correct and maintain the proper population diversity of 90%+ of the lakes in or bordering the state, especially the largest and most pressured bodies of water.

If that limit doesn’t work for a particular body of water, as Steve mentions the wide slot limits seem to take care of the issue of a depressed or rebounding population for the short term and I would agree with that completely. Otherwise, the only adjustment I would make would be to reduce bag limit from 4 to 3 while keeping the one over 18″. I’m also not a biologist, just someone who has seen different walleye booms and busts and while paying attention to regs.

I agree with a 3-4 walleye limit.

Interesting take on harvesting and this is the reasoning behind the slot.