Slot Limits on the Wisconsin River:

Here’s your chance to make it permanent. Get out and vote “Yes” on question #5 next Monday, April 8th and the Annual Spring Conservation Congress hearings in your county.

QUESTION 5:

Length and bag limits for walleye on the Wisconsin River.

This proposal would make permanent a protected slot limit regulation on walleye, sauger, and hybrids where there is a daily bag limit of 5 fish and the minimum length is 15 inches, but fish from 20 to 28 inches may not be kept and only one fish over 28 inches is allowed. This regulation would apply with a year round open season on:
• the Wisconsin River north of the Prairie du Sac Dam in Columbia County up to the Grandfather Dam in Lincoln County, including its sloughs, bayous, and flowages; and
• certain waters connected to the Wisconsin River: the Eau Claire River upstream to the Schofield Dam in Marathon County; the Yellow River to Lake Dexter Dam in Wood County; Buena Vista Creek to the Nepco Dam in Wood County; and the Lemonweir River in Juneau and Monroe counties.

The regulation has been in effect since 2002 and is scheduled to expire in 2014.
The walleye protected slot limit regulation would also be applied to additional waters connected to the Wisconsin River under this proposal, but the season would only be open from the first Saturday in May to the first Sunday in March for:
• the Big Rib River downstream from Highway 29, Peplin Creek, Johnson Creek, Little Eau Claire River, and Little Eau Pleine River in Marathon County; and
• the Little Eau Claire River and the Little Eau Pleine River in Portage County.

The management goal is to produce a walleye and sauger fishery that meets varied interests. It would allow harvest of 15 – to 20 – inch fish, a catch and release fishery for 20 – to 28 – inch fish, and harvest of trophy fish greater than 28 inches.

Objectives include increasing the percentage (from 8% to 15 – 40%) and catch rate of fish 20 to 28 inches, and increasing the percentage (from 0.3% to 2%) of fish over 28 inches. This regulation is one tool to help meet the management goal because fisheries survey data have shown that the slot has not caused any decline in harvestable size fish, but a greater abundance of fish are now available for catch and release and there is greater opportunity for anglers to catch trophy walleye. Anglers have shown support for the regulation by extending its expiration date at the Fish and Wildlife Spring Hearings in 2006. In addition, biologists have talked with numerous angler groups and fishing clubs since the regulation was enacted over 10 years ago and the response has been overwhelmingly positive to continue the rule.

I have been keeping track of every single walleye & sauger we’ve caught in my boat since 2006.
Send me an email if you would like to examine a copy of these creel survey records.

Is this just for lake Wisconsin? How about the lower Wisconsin river? Anyone coming to their senses over those regs?

This does not pertain to the waters of the Wisconsin river below the Prairie du Sac dam.
Those water fall under a completely different set of rules. (unfortunately)

Here is the list of questions and the hearing locations.

Spring Questionaire

Hearing Locations

So… Who’s calling those shots (for the lower Wisconsin river)?

As a biologist who studies mercury in the environment, I’ve got a pretty compelling argument both from a fish population and human health perspective why those regulations should be revised. I think someone needs a letter.

Below the dam is the jurisdiction of Gene Van Dyck, Dodgeville, 608-935-1936, [email protected], but for years the fishing regulations have been decided by Fisheries researcher John Lyons, Madison, 608-221-6328, [email protected]

I emailed both of these guys about changing the slot below the dam and asked if it could be discussed this spring. Jim responded to say he would repond to me at a later date and Gene never responded. I think the slot below the dam is the most rediculous thing I’ve ever seen or heard of and would like to help correct it.

I vote NO, I don’t like slots.

Really?
I think they are a great way to keep a fishery healthy. I actually like the Lake of The Woods slot that is (don’t quote me because it’s been a while) but keep 5 of any size up to 20″ and 1 over 28. I think that throwing everything back under 15″ can keep small fish genes in a system also. There are a lot of variables to consider and every system can’t be treated the same but I would like to see and discuss data before having regulations mandated. Back to your point I think that’s fine to not want a slot but let’s discuss it. I think we all want the same thing and that’s the healthiest fishery we can have.

do females grow faster than males? if that is the case then most of the “barely legal” fish in the 15″ – 20″ are going to be kept females reducing the female population. While I agree with the 20″ – 28″ must release, I would like to keep more below 15″ fish.

I agree with the slot, but would like to see the 15″ minimum dropped. Widen the slot out some even. 18-28 must all be released.

When it comes to voting at the Conservation Congress Spring meetings, we don’t have any choices other than to vote “Yes” or “No” to the questions.
The current slot limit has worked wonders here on Lake Wisconsin. Because it has worked so well, most of us who fish it on a regular basis give it two thumbs up & prefer to keep it just the way it is..

Quote:

---

When it comes to voting at the Conservation Congress Spring meetings, we don’t have any choices other than to vote “Yes” or “No” to the questions.
The current slot limit has worked wonders here on Lake Wisconsin. Because it has worked so well, most of us who fish it on a regular basis give it two thumbs up & prefer to keep it just the way it is..

---

X2!!!!!
This is not speculative, there is hard evidence that the current slot limit has dramatically improved the fishery for everyone. I believe that to eliminate the slot now, will only make us repeat the previous downward spiral we went through before with this fishery (why the slot was implmented). Mother nature throws us enough curveballs with weather impacting recruitment. By voting no, one could perhaps gain the ability to keep some bigger fish for a period of time until they get wiped out. Then what? Complain about the crappy fishing again?
Please vote yes to continue with the slot as it is now.

Just for clarification, I agree and didn’t mean that I was looking to change it but more that there are different slots that can work. I would like the Lower Wisconsin River size limit changed to protect the 4-7lb females that aren’t that favorable to eat anyways.

So, this last weekend when i boated over 100 walleye all less than 15″ and wasn’t able to keep even one for the table is supposed to make me happy?. We were at times pulling in a sub 15″” fish almost every cast. At that consentration I am sure if we were able to keep just a couple would surely not diminish the population / breeding stock where as when they come in and we clean out all the barely legal females that will eventually. The larger fish is what makes for a robust fishery, the short restrictions are there for the dnr to catch the occasional violater to put cash in their pockets.

We have that same slot on some of the Iowa pools, the quality of fish on those pools have improved dramatically.

Quote:

---

So, this last weekend when i boated over 100 walleye all less than 15″ and wasn’t able to keep even one for the table is supposed to make me happy?. We were at times pulling in a sub 15″” fish almost every cast.

---

The first question that comes to mind is this:
Why would you continue to fish an area long enough to catch 100 walleyes if they were all short?

Seriously, I’m not trying to rip on you, but did ever occur to you that short fish & bigger, legal fish don’t hang out in the same spot?

Ever wonder why experienced walleye anglers don’t report that they caught over 100 walleyes, all shorts? It’s because they realize that’s not a location where they’re going to catch the fish they really want to catch.

As a long time walleye angler, I’m well aware of spots where I could go catch over 100 walleyes. Why would I want to do that if I also know the majority of those fish are going to be shorts?
One of the biggest hurdles a good walleye angler will ever make is being able to leave catching small fish behind for a chance to catch bigger fish. Many anglers never get over that hurdle.

We were out for 2 1/2 days and covered alot of water. We tried jig and minnow and plastic pulsers and moxies. We fished shallow and pockets. The only thing we didn’t do was fish at night. It wasn’t hard, nor did it take that long to catch 100+ fish esspecialy when they were hitting every cast thrown by two guys for a while. I have fished these waters under similar conditions for a few years now and we would almost always get a few legal fish mixed in. Not this trip. There were alot of other boats on the river and reports of legal fish were very, very scarce. I really am not out for the hawgs, I do enjoy the action we were having except for not being able to keep just a few for dinner.

Every system has its up & downs. Big year classes come & go. Sounds a lot like you have a big year class coming up. Although it may bother you that there’s not more keepers, it also sounds as though there’s plenty to look forward to next year & for many years after.

We saw a similar thing two years ago here on Lake Wisconsin. Last year, a lot of those smaller fish reached legal size. This year we expect to see even more legal fish and the future looks really, really good.

Much of that can be attributed to the current slot limits.

I want to go and get fish to eat. If they are just under 15″ ,then we should be able to keep and eat. They are 90% males anyway. I believe that most fish never even reach over 15″. No slot has been working on the winnobago system. If you just want trophy fishing that’s great, go to Depeere.

Every body of water is different. How many acres is the Winnebago system? Winnebago, Butte des Mortes, Winnecone, and Poygan? It is something like 160,000 acres not including the Wolf and Fox rivers. That is 16 times the size of Lake Wisconsin. What works on the Winnebago system would decimate Lake Wisconsin.

Having the slot is not about creating a trophy fishery, it is about protecting the mature spawning sized females. On Lake Wisconsin, the slot has worked wonders. Wouldn’t do the same on every body of water, but it works here.

The slot works on Lake Wisconsin. I am a believer.

Opener was outstanding. Kept 9 walleye and 1 sauger. All 17 to 19″. White bass and smallmouth also. Nice fishery. Had two over 20″ and 1 over 25″. Down stream from rivers edge resort

Nice catch SteveO!

that repo you put out was timely. temps were sub 50 degrees. water was at a real nice level. not super low and not super high. some spots had too much current on them. fish were shallow. 6′ to 10′. minnows and moxies with a slight nod to meat for the eaters. split tail grubs on larger fish