Limit on Upper Red

[Joucey]

I'm planning to come up to Upper Red at the end of January. What are the new rule changes this year in relation to limit of walleyes and eating them on the lake? Thank You.

[addictedjerry]

RED LAKE, UPPER including Shotley Brook and Tamarack River (Beltrami County). Northern pike: all from 26-40" must be immediately released. Only one over 40" allowed in possession. Walleye: all from 17-26" must be immediately released. Possession limit two with only one over 26". Statewide bag limit may only include two Red Lake walleye. If safe harvest levels for walleye are reached, these areas will be closed to the taking of walleye. At that time, it will be unlawful to have any walleye in possession regardless of where taken while on or fishing in these waters. If a specified harvest limit has not been reached by June 30, the limit of walleye will become four.

[Joucey]

Thanks again. No change from last year.

[Random guy]

Quote:

---

the limit of walleye will become four.

---

The limit for the 2008 summer opener has yet to be decided.

[dashtek]

So if I am reading this right, you can eat your limit but cannot keep more fish that day. Then the next day you can catch and keep your limit again. Is that correct?

When you are on a multi-day excursion (Friday - Sunday) and you don't leave the lake, how do they figure out which fish you caught (and ate) on day 1 and then which you caught on day 2?

[The Donk]

Okay. Your possession limit is your daily limit. When you clean your two walleyes you caught on friday, eat them, you are (in my mind) legally required to keep the carcasses for inspection and measuring purposes. Then, saturday you wake up, before you drop your line in the water get your butt to shore and throw them in a dumpster. Go out, and get your two again. REPEAT for sunday and take those two home. AT NO TIME MAY YOU HAVE MORE THAN TWO WALLEYES!!!!

[O2BFSHN]

That is about the best way I can put it as well.

Thanks Donk!!!

[slimy]

I don't know who at the DNR wrote the latest version (Jan. 8th) of rules about consumption of fish having a size restriction, on the lakes but it's about as clear as the water on Red. I have had at least a dozen people come into the shop and insist that you can eat any size fish on the lake and then only take home fish out of the slot. The DNR website and the Outdoor News have this in print: Quote, New legislation includes an exception, allowing fish with a protected size limits to be cleaned for a meal on the ice, MNDNR Jan.8th, 2008. I just want to clarify that these consumpion rules are not only a Red Lake rule but a state rule, fish must not be froze, measurable, intact unless preparing a meal, then carcasses must be properly disposed of off the lake before fishing the next day. On Red Lake the limit is two walleyes in possession all walleyes 17" - 26" must be immediately released.

[Slabby]

Yup, that's right- you can butcher up and eat that 27"er on the ice but that 17"er has got to go back

[BottomPounder]

I think if the walleye limit was 4 and a 15inch minimum state wide we would not have dumb rules like take your remains to shore before u could catch more. Thats just me.Also 1 over 28

[Jarnotski]

The bottom line is that the DNR is trying to increase harvest, whether that be a daily limit of four or eating your fish on the ice, I agree that the DNR has not done a good job with explaining the regs. If a person plays the game right you can eat 2 meals of walleye and bring back a limit after a weekend of fishing. Either way its a lot better than going on a three day trip and only bringing back 2 fish per person. A state wide reg certainly would be nice, but all lakes are different and therefore some may reguire special regs.

[walleye101]

 Originally Posted By: BottomPounder

I think if the walleye limit was 4 and a 15inch minimum state wide we would not have dumb rules like take your remains to shore before u could catch more. Thats just me.Also 1 over 28

In a way you are right. With a 4 fish bag and no protected slot you wouldn't have to worry about hauling any remains to shore. Walleye fishing on Red would most likely be closed by now.

[Borch]

Personally I'd do not like minimum length limits. In every lake that has had those type of restrictions the overall size has gone down. Instead of seeing individual minimum limits being stretched out from 12-16" every one suddenly keeps everything that hits the minumum designated length. You'll catch more 14 3/4" eyes in a day than you can shake a stick at after it's been in effect for a few years. Just another reason why the DNR does not use minimum length restriction as much now as they did 10 years ago.

[Slabby]

A minimum size limit isn't going to increase the population size.

Well dah--

With that particular reg, you are looking to increase numbers, given dynamics of a certain body of water.

you're right borch that dnr doesn't do as much minimum length restricting as 10 years ago.Many of those lake that had the rule it didn't help or realize sought after objectives

Flatly allowing 1 fish over 17" would seem like a good way to go as then a badly hooked fish could be kept but would also increase angler just keeping a healthy 20"er cuz they can--soo maybe just leave the rule as is