State wide slot limits on walleyes?

I know this is touchy subject. But I have seen to many lakes go from people catching fish to the Dead Sea in a year and a half. My thoughts are I pay my taxes which pays for stocking. Then you see pics of 26 and 27 inch walleyes. Along with the stringer of 9-12inchers. I have seen lakes that have an avg. of 0-4 boats go to 30-40. Even in winter time lakes with a fish house avg. 20 go to 200. There are not many small lakes that can handle this. I would like to see a state wide slot of 14-19 and one over 28. The dnnr has started so many great fisheries but they have not been able to sustain them. If you are a tax payer I would love to here your thoughts. We are paying for it I would like to see a better return on our investment.

4 fish with 1 over 20″ statewide would be my suggestion.

First of all, “tax-paying” does not go toward stocking or fishery management. License proceeds and a few other sources provide for that but that’s not the point here really. Are you proposing a 14-19″ protected slot or harvest slot? In my opinion, it’s not really a “touchy subject”, but there are almost infinite variables. Big lakes, small lakes, natural reproduction, stocking, or a combination? Population cycles, DNR management that manipulates the size, harvest levels, etc. All the fisheries (lakes, rivers) can be as different as snow flakes. Just no way to manage them all with a “blanket” regulation. Also reports of anglers successes, or lack thereof may not be a true indicator. ‘Cause fisherman always are truthful.

Phil Bauerly wrote:

4 fish with 1 over 20″ statewide would be my suggestion.

x2 with a 14″ minimum

Im good with the 15″ minimum or complete catch and release on the bodies of water I fish. Please dont talk them into changing this.

It all depends on what you want from a body of water. Eaters or trophies. Remember, a very large portion of mn lakes are stocked with walleye just to maintain viable fishery.

The big walleye producers are completely different animals. There you need to protect natural reproduction.

In a heavily stocked lake, there’s not much benefit to a slot. If the fish don’t successfully reproduce, why protect big fish? Hell, the biomass would likely benefit without big fish if you want eaters.

Careful what you ask for.

Ask and you shall receive. Actually, we already have one.

6 (Not more than 1 walleye over 20” in possession)

4 fish. 14-20″ one over.

Statewide 4 fish. 15-20″ one over.

walleyestudent you are not much of a student.
Teacher maybe.

Take a look at the new pike regs. Three different zones and I’m surprised there’s only three.

Too many variables as biggill pointed out. Sure it will help some lakes but it would hurt or not do anything just as many or more.

biggill wrote:

Ask and you shall receive. Actually, we already have one.

6 (Not more than 1 <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye over 20” in possession)

super_do wrote:

Statewide 4 fish. 15-20″ one over.

LOL, seems like this was a good topic to bring up otherwise a lot of you may have been in violation!

I’m fine with the different lake reg’s as is, but would like to see a 15″ minimum state wide.

Id say a 14 to 15 inch minimum is long over due.

Limit 6 with one over 20″. Yup keep it the way it is right now. I am on a very good 440 acre walleye lake in Northern Minny that see’s decent pressure and year after year it keeps kicking em’ out. No need to change a thing…RR

For those of you asking for a 14-15″ minimum, what’s the thought behind this number. Just curious.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

For those of you asking for a 14-15″ minimum, what’s the thought behind this number. Just curious.

Imo that’s the first size to get a decent fillet, and from what I understand when they start reaching reproductive maturity.

Being an armchair biologist myself, setting a minimum of 15″ would likely increase the impact on a body of water. As the physical size of the fish increases, the population decreases.

Taking more fish from a smaller pool is probably asking for trouble. Also, replacing a 12-13″ fish in a lake will happen faster than replacing a 15-17″ fish.

bullcans wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Phil Bauerly wrote:</div>
4 fish with 1 over 20″ statewide would be my suggestion.

x2 with a 14″ minimum

X3

IMO There’s no way this can have a negative effect on any fishery. It’s almost the same as it is now it just protects some of the smaller fish.

Also there’s NO reason anyone needs 6 walleye. If you need more than 4 walleye to feed your family. Bring them along! Believe it or not kids and wives like to fish too.

Joe Scegura wrote:

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

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Phil Bauerly wrote:</div>
4 fish with 1 over 20″ statewide would be my suggestion.

x2 with a 14″ minimum

X3

IMO There’s no way this can have a negative effect on any fishery. It’s almost the same as it is now it just protects some of the smaller fish.

Also there’s NO reason anyone needs 6 walleye. If you need more than 4 walleye to feed your family. Bring them along! Believe it or not kids and wives like to fish too.

This coming from a guy holding 6 walleye’s in his avatar! (Sorry couldn’t resist…). As long as lakes can handle a 6 fish limit (most lakes have been doing just fine with a 6 fish limit…) then there is no reason to change it…RR

Highly disagree with minimum length regulations for walleyes in MN. What happens in practice is it makes the fish that creep just over the minimum highly desirable (i.e. not likely to be released) and focuses harvest on a specific year class every season, especially fish with genetics favorable to quicker growth vs others in its class. The biomass for the walleyes in these lakes tend to skew to a lot of small fish under the minimum with thin and scattered year class representations above the minimum.

4 fish with one over 18″ for me – no focused harvest and keep it simple for everyone.

You got me there! I’ll have to change it to me holding 4 walleye

That said I would love to see a 4 fish limit. People in general need to “limit” to feel success. I think it would save fish and make people feel successful more often!

Joe Scegura wrote:

Also there’s NO reason anyone needs 6 walleye. If you need more than 4 walleye to feed your family. Bring them along! Believe it or not kids and wives like to fish too.

There ARE some reasons that somebody may want/need 6 walleyes. Believe it or not – there are a lot of people that really like and appreciate a fresh fish meal and do NOT like to (or are unable to) fish themselves.

When I have a fish fry for my family, 4 walleyes does NOT make a meal.

Tim

*edit* on a side note, I like the LacSuel type slots…. a relatively narrow slot of protected high-volume spawners with a 1 over. 18-23 is protected, IIRC.

You can’t tell me you can’t find some kid without a dad or someone without a boat to go with you. I don’t buy it.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Brian Klawitter wrote:</div>
For those of you asking for a 14-15″ minimum, what’s the thought behind this number. Just curious.

Imo that’s the first size to get a decent fillet, and from what I understand when they start reaching reproductive maturity.

my local walleye lake has a protected slot of 14-18 and you can harvest only 1 over 18. I have taken many 12-13 inch walleye and have gotten decent fillets off of them.

The walleye limit of 6 is set under the idea that fishing is a sustenance activity. In reality fishing is a lesiure activity as it is not a cost effective way of providing food. 4 fish is the perfect limit I think. Maybe double the possession limit to 8 for those who need more fish for a fry.

zooks wrote:

Highly disagree with minimum length regulations for walleyes in MN. What happens in practice is it makes the fish that creep just over the minimum highly desirable (i.e. not likely to be released) and focuses harvest on a specific year class every season, especially fish with genetics favorable to quicker growth vs others in its class. The biomass for the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes in these lakes tend to skew to a lot of small fish under the minimum with thin and scattered year class representations above the minimum.

4 fish with one over 18″ for me – no focused harvest and keep it simple for everyone.

EXACTLY correct–for a LONG time….agreed with by ALL Mn. biologists. Nowadays? Some seem to contradict their own many years old philosophy. Minimum size limits create, historically, huge numbers just under the size limit and less year classes spread out up the size/year class spectrum.

roosterrouster wrote:

Also there’s NO reason anyone needs 6 walleye. If you need more than 4 walleye to feed your family. Bring them along! Believe it or not kids and wives like to fish too.

This coming from a guy holding 6 walleye’s in his avatar! (Sorry couldn’t resist…). As long as lakes can handle a 6 fish limit (most lakes have been doing just fine with a 6 fish limit…) then there is no reason to change it…RR

“This coming from a guy holding 6 walleye’s in his avatar!”
Many good points made here. As far as the 6 walleye limit, true not one person needs 6 walleyes each and every day. However there are many out of state visitors, or in-state for that matter that get their one week vacation each year. They may like to keep a few extra for the 51 other weeks they don’t fish, as long as they don’t exceed the daily bag limit. Furthermore, most anglers aren’t that good (me for example) where you might be lucky to get your limit on one day and then not get another walleye the rest of the week.
But for the purposes of this discussion, there are two very distinct differences. You have all the lakes, rivers that fall under the statewide regs…and there you have it. Then you have the long list of waters that fall under “special regs”- slot limits, reduced bag limits, etc. Many of these are for good reason and some are for no good reason. I for one am very thankful to have all the opportunities here in Minnesota for some great fishing, scenery and fun places to stop, and some good beer too!

EXACTLY correct–for a LONG time….agreed with by ALL Mn. biologists. Nowadays? Some seem to contradict their own many years old philosophy. Minimum size limits create, historically, huge numbers just under the size limit and less year classes spread out up the size/year class spectrum.

Beat me to it Steve. Keyword FOCUSED.

steve-fellegy wrote:

EXACTLY correct–for a LONG time….agreed with by ALL Mn. biologists. Nowadays? Some seem to contradict their own many years old philosophy. Minimum size limits create, historically, huge numbers just under the size limit and less year classes spread out up the size/year class spectrum.

Steve do you think this is true for stocked lakes or just naturally reproducing lakes?

My example being Lake Osakis. It has a 15″ min and has a just about every year class present and is a tremendous fishery. Yet the 13″ers don’t get fried by the 1000’s like so many other lakes in my area. I’d like to know your thoughts.

Joe Scegura wrote:

You can’t tell me you can’t find some kid without a dad or someone without a boat to go with you. I don’t buy it.

Totally different argument. I take friends of both my boy or our family on a frequent basis. Sometimes a 4-fish bag is not close to a meal for them to take home. Personally, I agree with a 4-fish limit with one over 18 (or a small protected slot and one over), I was just pointing out that there can very well be reasons for a person to kill a 6-fish limit for a fry….

Timmy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Joe Scegura wrote:</div>
You can’t tell me you can’t find some kid without a dad or someone without a boat to go with you. I don’t buy it.

Totally different argument. I take friends of both my boy or our family on a frequent basis. Sometimes a 4-fish bag is not close to a meal for them to take home. Personally, I agree with a 4-fish limit with one over 18 (or a small protected slot and one over), I was just pointing out that there can very well be reasons for a person to kill a 6-fish limit for a fry….

Well when I want to cook fish for the entire nursing home I’d like to take 30 walleye home, but we have to draw the line somewhere. It just seems like 4 is a good number. Just my opinion though and it will probably never change.

I really enjoy hearing everyone’s point of view on these forums.