Slot limits

The northern regulations topic really got me thinking on this, why is it taking small fish I’d considered a good biological move? Trying to protect spawning females is one thing but it’s often touted as a tool for increasing size also. Where I get confused is this is the complete opposite of the deer management philosophy. Granted a doe has 1-2 fawns a year versus thousands upon thousands but the survival rate as a percentage is probably lower with fish.

I’m sure there is a good scientific explination but in my head I just keep thinking of what would happen to a person if they started preaching to put a protective slot on 2 and 3 year old bucks and increasing harvest of yearling bucks in order to increase overall size. I suppose it would increase average size, until the Older ones die off and we’ve shot all the younger ones, but why would this not be the case with fish too?

2-3 year old bucks don’t eat their own fawns to help thin the herd and provide better growth for the fawns. Nothing eats little pike better than bigger pike and the reduced competition lets them grow into bigger pike faster.

Lake mille lace is living proof that slot limits don’t work. There are plenty of other lakes that slots have failed on also. I don’t have a clue what the answer is, but I am not getting paid to come up with the right answer either. The 10 northern limit and opening it up to spearing was supposed to take some smaller fish out of the lake this winter, well that certainly didn’t happen. There were more 40″ plus northern speared in the last 2 months than by hook and line in the last 2 years. Maybe that is what the fisheries folks wanted, to take the trophies out and let the smaller ones grow.

I am not going to get into a long debate on the slot limit thing but in a nutshell here is my “general” take–one time answer:

I think there is some obvious success stories/reason behind using/creating slot limits–with walleyes. In those cases, such as Leech Lake, Upper Red and more, the fishery was in decline/almost non-existent. Now both lakes and more, are seeing record numbers of walleyes.

That said, slot limits are a good short term fix ( with long term benefits) to either a declining population or a fishery that needs more year classes to survive for a few years to create a good balance of year classes in the system. Long term benefits can and should be a product of slot limits in many cases. BUT!!! As was predicted at Lake Mille Lacs, LONG TERM slot limits can and most likely will kill off the same population they were meant to build up. Luckily, the DNR is now realizing that at Winnie and hopefully soon at Leech and other like places. Slot limits there have done their job well. And now need to go away before it’s too late.

It’s to bad many locals at places like Leech can not see the big, long term picture in this regard–based on what I hear. Obviously, it is hard to say, “let’s kill off many ( not all) of those big walleyes” ( due to the slot limits) no one ever dreamed of being able to catch in the past. But in the big picture/future health of the lake, the locals need to lobby ( loudly) the DNR to start, asap, to get more balance back into the fishery–or else see the potential demise of the population down the road, no different than happened at Lake Mille Lacs. It is almost inevitable for a crash to happen with a wide slot limit in pace for over 7-10 years…
At Leech and Red for example it ( the slot limit) has accomplished it’s goal very well.

I think, based on what we saw at Lake Mille Lacs for 16 years (and the DNR records show), the “one over 20” works great. Not to many years into the “one over 20”, we saw many more bigger walleyes, no doubt, than anytime in the fisheries history. But we also saw a very stable balance of year classes making up the overall walleye population.

Northern as is the case in this discussion? I don’t have any first hand knowledge or experience with them and relative slot limits of sorts that is being proposed by the DNR these days. My guess? Is the same principles should apply as I speak to about walleyes. But that is only a guess…a common sense based guess.

That is my take. Done here on this subject as my weather-beaten keyboard fingers don’t dare get wound up on the subject anymore lol. On the phone is fine…if you want more on this from me.

FYI–the ONLY reason, per DNR records in writing to me, the slot limits were put into place at Lake Mille Lacs was to accommodate the court ordered harvest quota based on pounds of harvest per year–soley put in place due to Treaty Rights harvest . The ONLY reason!!…so no netting meant no, most likely, present day problems we have at Lake Mille Lacs now. ( had to get that in!) No nets—no issues. Blame the netting–either directly or indirectly! There was zero need ( per DNR records) for a slot limit at Lake Mille Las, beyond and more restrictive than the “one over 20” that was in place from ’84- late ’90’s!

puddlepounder wrote:

Lake mille lace is living proof that slot limits don’t work. There are plenty of other lakes that slots have failed on also.

On the flip side of that, Lake Wisconsin is living proof that they do work. They may not work on every body of water, but in the right situations, they take average walleye lakes and turn them into really good ones. I don’t think you can make a general statement that slot limits do or don’t work. It is very dependent on the body of water and how they are implemented.

Sorry, my horse in in the lake mille lacs race and I may be a little jaded.

puddlepounder wrote:

Sorry, my horse in in the lake mille lacs race and I may be a little jaded.

No apology needed Tom. I don’t dispute that it isn’t right for Mille Lacs.

John Schultz wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>puddlepounder wrote:</div>
Lake mille lace is living proof that slot limits don’t work. There are plenty of other lakes that slots have failed on also.

On the flip side of that, Lake Wisconsin is living proof that they do work. They may not work on every body of water, but in the right situations, they take average walleye lakes and turn them into really good ones. I don’t think you can make a general statement that slot limits do or don’t work. It is very dependent on the body of water and how they are implemented.

I have no idea what does or doesn’t work on Mill Lacs but X2 on Johns statement. And, you may as well add in all the other reservoirs on the Wisconsin River system. Castle Rock, Petenwell, Lake Du Bay, etc…

steve-fellegy wrote:

I am not going to get into a long debate on the slot limit thing but in a nutshell here is my “general” take–one time answer:

I think there is some obvious success stories/reason behind using/creating slot limits–with walleyes. In those cases, such as Leech Lake, Upper Red and more, the fishery was in decline/almost non-existent. Now both lakes and more, are seeing record numbers of walleyes.

That said, slot limits are a good short term fix ( with long term benefits) to either a declining population or a fishery that needs more year classes to survive for a few years to create a good balance of year classes in the system. Long term benefits can and should be a product of slot limits in many cases. BUT!!! As was predicted at Lake Mille Lacs, LONG TERM slot limits can and most likely will kill off the same population they were meant to build up. Luckily, the DNR is now realizing that at Winnie and hopefully soon at Leech and other like places. Slot limits there have done their job well. And now need to go away before it’s too late.

It’s to bad many locals at places like Leech can not see the big, long term picture in this regard–based on what I hear. Obviously, it is hard to say, “let’s kill off many ( not all) of those big walleyes” ( due to the slot limits) no one ever dreamed of being able to catch in the past. But in the big picture/future health of the lake, the locals need to lobby ( loudly) the DNR to start, asap, to get more balance back into the fishery–or else see the potential demise of the population down the road, no different than happened at Lake Mille Lacs. It is almost inevitable for a crash to happen with a wide slot limit in pace for over 7-10 years…
At Leech and Red for example it ( the slot limit) has accomplished it’s goal very well.

I think, based on what we saw at Lake Mille Lacs for 16 years (and the DNR records show), the “one over 20″ works great. Not to many years into the “one over 20″, we saw many more bigger walleyes, no doubt, than anytime in the fisheries history. But we also saw a very stable balance of year classes making up the overall walleye population.

Northern as is the case in this discussion? I don’t have any first hand knowledge or experience with them and relative slot limits of sorts that is being proposed by the DNR these days. My guess? Is the same principles should apply as I speak to about walleyes. But that is only a guess…a common sense based guess.

That is my take. Done here on this subject as my weather-beaten keyboard fingers don’t dare get wound up on the subject anymore lol. On the phone is fine…if you want more on this from me.

FYI–the ONLY reason, per DNR records in writing to me, the slot limits were put into place at Lake Mille Lacs was to accommodate the court ordered harvest quota based on pounds of harvest per year–soley put in place due to Treaty Rights harvest . The ONLY reason!!…so no netting meant no, most likely, present day problems we have at Lake Mille Lacs now. ( had to get that in!) No nets—no issues. Blame the netting–either directly or indirectly! There was zero need ( per DNR records) for a slot limit at Lake Mille Las, beyond and more restrictive than the “one over 20″ that was in place from ’84- late ’90’s!

I have been going to leech for 10 years. My father in law for 20+. No doubt the slot limit has helped the lake rebound. They just adjusted the slot last year from no fish 18-26 to no fish 20-26.

I have fished a few times with a guide up there. He was always pretty vocal about his belief that the slot limit was not going anywhere. He thought that allowing somebody to keep 1 fish within the slot limit would be beneficial to fishery.

John Schultz wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>puddlepounder wrote:</div>
Lake mille lace is living proof that slot limits don’t work. There are plenty of other lakes that slots have failed on also.

On the flip side of that, Lake Wisconsin is living proof that they do work. They may not work on every body of water, but in the right situations, they take average walleye lakes and turn them into really good ones. I don’t think you can make a general statement that slot limits do or don’t work. It is very dependent on the body of water and how they are implemented.
[/quote

X3!