Waska Opinion

[Bluegill1510]

Hey guys I just wanted to get everyone's opinion about a slot limit on walleyes for Minnewaska? Since Chaudary thinks that there should be a statewide slot, and daily limit dropped down to 4 instead of 6....what do you guys think of Waska getting a slot?

[alex1]

IMO, I would also support a statewide limit of 4, and a slot limit.

[hhguide]

I think it would be a great idea! I know that i've seen some people throw 12 and 13 inchers in the livewell as i'm shaking my head and throwing them back. Its the same with the big fish if its above 20 inches I might take a picture or two but thats going back into the lake too. I think it would be great for the future of not only waska but all lakes in minnesota. As for the number of fish I could be pushed either way. I mean not to many people go out there and consistantly put limits in the boat. Sometimes you get a person going out at night and catching 2 or 3 walleyes and that suits them just great their not out there just to catch a limit but to enjoy the moment. Plus it wouldn't affect the tournament fisherman because they can still have the 6 in the boat. but on the other side I think it would help the quality of fish in the lake alot.

[the buck]

Limit of 4, slot of 15 - 19 would work great. With 4 you still get a couple of good meals and it will keep you coming back. Anything over 19 should be thrown back anyway to help produce more little fishies. It seems to work great on Lake of the Woods and if you really do get into them . . . there is nothing wrong with practicing Catch & Release!

[waska]

 Originally Posted By: the buck

Limit of 4, slot of 15 - 19 would work great. With 4 you still get a couple of good meals and it will keep you coming back. Anything over 19 should be thrown back anyway to help produce more little fishies. It seems to work great on Lake of the Woods and if you really do get into them . . . there is nothing wrong with practicing Catch & Release!

agree completely

[scaup]

I would like to see some kind of slot on waska if it would help the fishery overall. It get's really frusterating watching people keep 24" - 26" fish. I put several 20" and larger back in the lake this year but it kinda seems like one step forward and two steps back. I hope others are doing this as well. However, I hear from many people that don't put them back and I just shake my head.

[Bluegill1510]

Waska do you attend BSU in Bemidji?

[fishfarmeat]

Scaup is right on!!! I would leave the limit at six/ one in posession over 28", 20-28" go back. Not all people get to fish all the time so leaving limit at six assures them of catching a meal. Keep all the big ones in the lake and eat those 12". If everyone did that there would be so many (natural fish) in the lake the Association would't need to stock it.

[hhguide]

Nothing against you "fishfarmeat" but if you keep all those 12 inchers were going to be in trouble in the future! you need to throw fish back that are smaller than 14 inches otherwise were not going to have a future for the youngsters!

[waskawood]

 Originally Posted By: fishfarmeat

Keep all the big ones in the lake and eat those 12". If everyone did that there would be so many (natural fish) in the lake the Association would't need to stock it.

Where are the natural fish going to come from? The DNR states that natural reproduction is very low in Minnewaska. I don't think it is from a lack of spawning size fish but rather from a lack of hard gravel for them to spawn in. To me the whole problem is common sense or the lack of it. Why keep a 12" walleye? If you enjoy cleaning a mess of small fish target the sunnies, they are much more active and entertaining. Likewise, why keep the big fish? Somewhere around 15" to 19" would make way more sense to me. As far as a possesion limit. That is another common sense question. I have no problem with someone on occasion keeping a limit of 6 walleyes but when you come back day after day and keep taking fish it doesn't take long to hurt a lake when there are as many houses as Minnewaska has on it. There are plenty of resources to go around but we need a little self regulation. Something that is severely lacking with a certain percentage of anglers today. I must say that I think most anglers are concerned about our resource but there are enough out there that think otherwise to ruin it for all. It seems like the Minnewaska Lake Association is being villified for trying to maintain the level of walleyes in Minnewaska and I do not understand this mentality. My feeling is that the DNR would rather manage Minnewaska as a bass lake, at least the MLA is trying to fight for the walleye angler. What are the rest of us doing? Just my 2 cents worth for what it is worth.

[Bluegill1510]

I hear ya waskawood, I never really thought of Waska as a walleye lake or walleye destination, just a panfish or bass lake. But for its size I guess you can say its a decent walleye lake, but man does it get pressured! Which disgusted me the last time I was out there fishing which was 4-5 years ago. Plus I hardly make it over there anymore with family selling the majority of grandma and grandpa's land (my mom is orginally from Glenwood/Sedan area). So no loss in my book, especially Mille Lacs is only 30 minutes away, and Brainerd is only an hour compare to an hour and half drive over that way. I just wanted to see what the majority of you guys thought about a slot for that lake....and of course with many slots on the majority of Minnesota premier walleye destination lakes anglers are going to go to lakes just Waska with no slot and keep whatever they catch even if its a 15" or a 26" walleye, cuz they legally can.

[scaup]

Waska,

You used the "B" word and that word scares me. I used to fish Green Lake by Spicer on a regular basis. When the DNR changed the management of that lake to create a trophy smallmouth lake it really hurt the walleye fisherman. I do not know if the DNR is managing Waska as a Bass lake but I would like to find out. I also probably need to get involved the MLA instead of just sitting on the sidelines.

[Mlaker3]

There is a pretty good discussion going about state wide change in limits and slots on this local board as well. An interesting point is the local DNR has mentioned in the press how the recent high Northern pike numbers were detremental to the walleye numbers. What about the bass? A study that was noted in In-Fisherman showed a New York lake where walleye stocking pretty much just fattened the bass population. By the time you feed the northerns, bass and those that keep small fish there aren't many left. The fisherman is the last to get what the lake has to offer. We need to impose some restraint (4 fish limit) to be able to share the resource. IMHO.

[nate larson]

I have seen this lake change dramatically over the years. I would definately say that it has changed from a walleye lake to a bass lake. I don't know what the sollution is... Nobody keeps bass, which is part of the problem. Maybe we all need to start eating them. HAHA Another big problem is the lack of natural reporduction. This lake used to have good natural reporduction. The lake structure hasn't changed...so why has the spawning changed? I think a lot of spawning sized fish have migrated to nearby lakes.

I would definately be in favor of having a slot imposed with a 3 or 4 fish limit.

[beer batter]

Another way to help is to start keeping the northerns. They are everywhere and they're hungry.

[hhguide]

I think that so many of the smallmouth and other bass are moving up onto the rocks where the walleyes spawn and scare the walleyes off. And its a struggle over power in the spawning areas.

[Wayne Ek]

With walleyes and bass spawning at differant times of the year and at differant water tempatures I really don't think that this is a problem. I guide on "waska" for both bass and walleye. We take most of our walleyes alot shallower than most people fish. One of the problems maybe that some anglers are still stuck on dragging rigs over the sand and rocks. The primary food source on "waska" seems to be perch and sunfish. And all summer long the shallow weeds hold that food source. I take walleyes all summer out of the weeds.

[hhguide]

Thats a good point because I know that walleyes are takin right next to the weeds. But although the fish dont spawn at the same time they are still on the lake. we may never know what the problem is.

[eyehunter01]

Beer Batter....

I agree. I've always suggested northerns and muskies eat a lot of little walleyes. I think this is also happening on Mille Lacs. With monster muskies that need a lot of food and nobody keeps them. So they still swim around eating a mass quantity of bait fish. After hearing of all the monster muskies caught this year on Mille Lacs, and extreme fishing pressure this summer, this might suggest why the DNR netted near record low walleyes in Mille Lacs this fall. Muskies are very territorial fish as well and I believe they are taking over lakes.

[goose89]

Or, maybe they would eat all the bass, or stunted sunfish, and even out some of the imbalances. j/k

The Mille Lacs netting #'s this fall were not accurate. Old news. Mille Lacs walleye population is nowhere near record lows. I'm not saying let's throw muskies in every lake, but the fears walleye fisherman (I am one) have regarding muskies isn't warranted, I believe. i'm with Agape. Walleyes today, a good number at least, aren't in the traditional bar, reefs, classic structure places Buck Perry taught us about. Alot of them have found sanctuary in the weeds. Maybe they wouldn't feel so safe and have easy pickins in the weeds with some muskies around. There are alot of lakes where they coexist, both in healthy numbers. Again, I'm not saying put them in Waska or Green, just that they aren't the scurge some make them out to be. Maybe, just maybe, some lakes in the area would be overall healthier with a litter more "top of the food chain" predators, like large pike and muskies. Just a thought.

[eyehunter01]

It's funny! All you guys think the walleyes are hiding??????? Are you kidding me? It makes no sense! We'll see what the DNR nets say this spring. But it just doesn't add up. You think muskies don't eat little walleyes? Cuz that is a joke! I don't care how many different kinds of fish their are to eat. Plus, you say they walleyes are hiding in the weed beds? Where you think the muskies hide out? (VERY CURIOUS). The nets show extremely low numbers, NO ONE is caching many fish this winter (granted the perch explosion), DNR lowered the slot limit (mid season last summer), and you guys think their just hiding in the weeds??? I've caught many walleye over the years trolling with dare devils (fishing for northern) in the weed beds! I'm not an rookie! I know where to find the walleyes! Thanks for the advice but its just old news! At least 5 years. Thanks anyway!!!

AND "lets put more predators in the lake"?? GREAT IDIEA!!!!!!Your not a walleye fisherman (obviously because you want more walleye predators) Are you kidding me?

ps: you think the DNR doesn't know where to set their nets? They are far from rookies also! Please explain your opinion..........

How many lbs of fish per week will a Muskie eat? And who eats Muskie? They just eat what I would love to eat (walleye, perch, pan fish, ect)! JUST PLEASE TELL ME WHY WE NEED MORE MUSKIE AND NORTHERNS IN OUR LAKES?!?!

[goose89]

whoa there eyehunter,

When I stated that more walleyes today are in the weeds that in the past,(maybe they've been there all along) I was speaking to Minnewaska, mostly. But my point was maybe your traditional walleye spots would have more walleyes on it IF muskies / larger northerns were in there with them. (I didn't say we needed them.) A walleye's not dumb enough to stay there if it doesn't feel safe. Walleyes seem pretty adaptable. Rivers, weeds, deep, shallow, rocks, mud, they seem to make it everywhere. They are gonna be whereever they are safe and can easily find food.

Weeds in Minnewaska fill that bill, right now.

I know muskies have been tried in Minnewaska before and didn't make it. How was your walleye fishing back them??? There's a few nice northerns on Waska, but maybe a few more would be beneficial to weed out the small bass and stunted sunnies, and push a few walleyes out of the weeds and back your way. Or maybe we have to change or techniques and spots.

BTW, I am a walleye fisherman (and bass, crappie, sunfish, northern, muskie, perch). I am not a scared walleye fisherman. I don't see muskies as "walleye predators." I see them as a beneficial "top tier" predator. There's a good number of lakes in Minnesota that have Muskies in them and have health populations of all the other fish. I also realize each lake is different. Bottom line, I'm not convinced, or scared, that muskies decimate walleyes and other smaller fish populations. They usually do more good than bad.

We as fisherman need to step it up in helping walleyes out. WE are the ultimate predator. WE'VE done exponentially more harm to walleyes and other fish populations with careless ethics and overharvest than all the muskies put together. How many lbs. of fish do we have to eat to make it??? A muskie doesn't have the choices we do, except an occasional duckling, I guess. I love eating fish that I've caught, but have significantly different practices of keeping fish than my grandfathers had.

I'm just an arm chair fisheries biologist. Sometimes I probably don't know what I'm talking about. Just stating my observations and views. Sometimes nature makes no sense. Alot of times the correct answer has been exactly what I thought would be wrong. Then it's time to try something different and change.

I didn't mean to rile you up. Just stating my observations and views. Please read this without feeling threatened Thanks for your views also.

[goose89]

I've reread alot of this thread and have to make a correction. I stated the low netting #'s on Mille Lacs were inaccurate and that was old news. I don't know that for sure. There's speculation that record low water levels, warm water temps this spring, poor 2004 walleye hatch &/or record fishing pressure was to blame. I chose to believe all these, because I had fear of what the truth might mean. The fishing this fall, although it seemed like a short fall, was excellent for many. I don't believe the walleye population dropped as significantly as the net #s show. Fishing success didn't seem to drop in that proportion. I could be wrong...

The media did it's job in twisting and exagerating the facts and creating fear in those prone to it. I remember the gloom and doom reports that nite the DNR reports came out. I haven't heard any follow-ups. They've moved on because there really wasn't much of a story. Good for a nite though. The low counts have NOTHING to do with musky predation on walleyes, that I'm pretty sure about. "Muskies eating all the walleyes", that sounds like another mistruth the media would use, not a fisherman.Read what the DNR says about this belief at http://www.lakevermilion.com/muskies/htmls/diets.html

I was wrong stating the DNR #'s were inaccurate. But I've never once read or heard anything that suggested the muskies were responsible for the low #s. IMO

Sorry to get off the "Waska Opinion".

[eyehunter01]

I agree with the over harvest. I'm not saying muskies/northern are the only problem, but they cant help. And suggesting we need more of them in the lake is just stupid. A growing population, advanced technology, and no statewide limit is the biggest danger to our walleye population in most lakes. and you did suggest putting more gators in our lakes. I just disagree completely...

"Maybe, just maybe, some lakes in the area would be overall healthier with a litter more "top of the food chain" predators, like large pike and muskies. Just a thought."

I didn't mean to fly off the handle. But when I talked to the DNR this winter (on Mille Lacs), he just seemed dumb founded. He had no explanation as well as many of us don't. I'm just saying something needs to change, and fast.

It just really irritates me when people suggest putting more muskies/northern in our lakes. Put them in the rivers, where most people don't eat fish out of anyway. Don't get me wrong their a blast catching. I only fish them when the walleye fishing is slow (dog days of summer). But I just don't think we need more of them for any reason. We used to catch numerous northerns. We literally caught 9 northerns, one morning, 3 hours, with two people, all over 30" and ever since the muskies moved in we've only caught a handful of northerns over the past few years. I know they are territorial fish, and I was just suggesting they may be taking over spawning areas for other fish. Just a suggestion...

By the way, when was that article written? And I just have a thought about the article. I've heard from many people the tullibee population is hurting on Mille Lacs (netting tullibee was discontinued if I remember correctly), the walleye population is hurting, I just don't understand what good these fish are creating...

[goose89]

Eye,

Good point on the tulibee populations of Mille Lacs. Muskies would be easy to point a finger at. I don't know what the correct answer is on that one.

Like I said before, I am just an "arm chair" fisheries biologist. I don't claim to have any solid answers. I never suggested we NEED more muskies / large pike. I put it out there as food for thought. Yes, I did suggest it, but didn't say we NEED to. Let's not continue changing / adding to each others debate.

I'm not sure when the article was written. I don't believe musky diets have changed that much since then for it to matter.

I'd love to know the fish populations and sizes in Minnesaska before we wet a line in it. I'll venture there were alot more and larger pike and panfish in it. I'd guess the same to be true for walleyes too. I'm not sure though. I believe that muskies / large pike do serve a beneficial purpose to fisheries. I understand we'll never get back to those times, but without man in the equation, top predators serve a vital role in the rest of a lakes fish population. Maybe we've filled their role. I'd say they did a better job of it. You'd have to understand food chains / fisheries pyramids to agree with me.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Show me proof of your investigations. Show me evidence muskies harm walleye populations in any size or type of lake anywhere in Minnesota.

Eye, maybe we should start a new topic. This started out as a slot limit debate, which we both seem to agree on. I'll be honest, I love both the debates. I don't want this to turn into an ego driven, name calling, peeing match. I've seen that happen, and have been an active part of it here before (and regret it), and the topic quickly gets shut down, as it should. I don't think any of your views are stupid. We are both pretty entrenched in our foxholes, yes. But that doens't mean we have to shoot at and try to hurt the other. We may never totally agree with each other. Live and let live. Hopefully a couple of idiots sharing views can somehow stimulate others to think and come up with something better. We both want change. I hope others can add their input.

[goose89]

Some real similar info can be found on the South Central Minnesota forum. Page down to the Tetonka stocking thread. Some good facts there. Some goofing around, but overall a good read.

Also made me re-think my lofty view of the Largemouths in Waska. (Leave the smallies out of this)!! lol. I wonder what LMs taste like...hmmm. MAYBE, a few largemouths in the pan this year wouldn't do me any harm. I'm not gonna badmouth them yet, but there are alot of them in there. I didn't realize they were as hard on stocked walleyes as the report said. But, still no word of negative effects of large northerns or muskies on walleye populations. Only neutral or good effects.

[Whoaru99]

 Originally Posted By: goose89

Also made me re-think my lofty view of the Largemouths in Waska. (Leave the smallies out of this)!! lol. I wonder what LMs taste like...hmmm. MAYBE, a few largemouths in the pan this year wouldn't do me any harm. I'm not gonna badmouth them yet, but there are alot of them in there. I didn't realize they were as hard on stocked walleyes as the report said. But, still no word of negative effects of large northerns or muskies on walleye populations. Only neutral or good effects.

Yeech...

[bigbucks]

The ones in that 10-12" range will taste pretty good if you catch them before the water gets too warm.

[carpshooterdeluxe]

all i fish for in the summer on waska is bass and sunnies; and the bass taste pretty good all summer, especially if you are catching them in deeper water; which is pretty easy to do. im not too picky on the fish i eat, and really cant tell the difference if im eating bass or walleye or cod if its coated with enough shore lunch. maybe if the "taboos" of bass and northerns not tasting good was to be re thought, that would take some pressure off the walleyes and in turn reduce some of the "predators"...just my thoughts...

[goose89]

carpshooter,

either you're on to something, or you're on something. j/k. I really think you bring up a good point. I've always stayed away from eating bass b/c of the "taboo" you mentioned, and still do on most lakes. I do not advocate taking large bass, esp. limits of them to eat, but in this case, eating some of the small ones seems like a win / win situation.

I too, can't tell the difference from one fried fish to another, except for shape of fillet and amount of bones, they all taste alike fried with shore lunch, mixed up tartar sauce, pork and beans and fried potatoes. I'm gonna try them (small LM's ) this spring. Putting the walleye's back.