Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sportland_Bait

Gull Lake Slot Limit!

38 posts in this topic

What is your opinion on Gull Lake and the daily walleye limit? Would you like to see any changes? Or leave it the same?

Please vote for one:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, I'm impressed you are conducting a poll like this, I'd like to see the results, as well as a follow up poll soon on who'd like to see muskies in Gull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of stole the idea from a similar poll in the Alex area forum. But I thought that this would be a good fit for the Brainerd forum. I'd like to see what FMers think about Gull Lake. There are no wrong answers. I'm interested in the results though. I will try and post a similar Muskie Poll real soon, thanks for the great idea.

Jason Erlandson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked the 4 walleye limit (without slot) simply because I believe 4 should be the statewide limit, not just for Gull Lake.

four walleyes is more than enough table fare for each person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more to this, Gull Lake is deep, unlike Mille Lacs Lake. Walleyes that you catch in 50+ feet of water are more or likely going to die. If there air bubble is popped out, there are a few tricks you can do, but I still think mortality rate has got to be very high for Gull Lake.

I personal think that Mille laces should be barb less hooks. Gull should be the same.

Most people are too cheap to leave their 10-cent hook in the fish and let it rust out. They have to rip the fish’s guts out. Cut your line and the fish should live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has never occured to me to leave a hook in the fish that was in deep, and I am not cheap, just a little slow. What about if it's a jig, would it be better to leave it in also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all lakes in this state should have a limit of four fish. I voted for the protected slot knowing last summer alot of controversy was raised around the Mille Lacs area with the number of fish mortality due to catch and release in hot tempartures. what do you do? Tell people to catch there four fish and quit for the day?

I think after everything is said and done a slot limit will ensure good fishing for a number of years to come. However, my opinion is bias about the daily limit because I am able to fish more than the average joe but I feel four fish is more than an adiquate amount for a meal of one to two people. Somebody who fishes only a couple of times a year will disagree with me, and I can understand that. That is why I think we should have two different fishing licenses. One for a guy who fishes alot, four fish limit, and one for a guy who fishes a few times a year, six fish limit. And of course by guy I mean fisherperson!

I usually fish Mille Lacs and find myself very fortunate to come home with four fish, expecially this year. When I fish around Brainerd and happen upon a good bite and go home with six fish I think "This is alot of fish for one day." After one or two days of fishing fist ice and keeping enough for a few meals I throw most of my catch back. I keep a couple for a meal every so often but I get the biggest rush fishing when I set the hook and land the fish. Its the best drug ever!. A few days ago I kept four fish off a local lake and when I got home I wondered "Why did I keep any, I dont want to clean these." Of course I did and I enjoyed eating them but I got just as much enjoyment tonight when I caught more fish and released them all and had to clean none.

I guess in the end the state can set as many limits as they want but its up to us as sportsman, and women, to do what we feel is necessary to protect our sport for ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, this is a good idea and the results should be shared with the DNR... When do you plan on posting the results....

Also, I like the idea of a poll regarding putting muskies in Gull and also the Whitefish chain...

Looks like a really cold one tonight...Brrrrrr.

The last few days spoiled us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 4 wallys are plenty. I like the barbless idea too, think that would help lower mortality some. Should have slot, see alot of people keeping the 8-12" dinkers, they should be ashamed of themselves. Wouldn't mind seeing some sort of conservation license like Canada has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of a conservation license like they do up north. To many big fish are taken from our lakes. I voted for the 4 limit and the slot. This has ben said before but if you are so hungry for fish yank some pannies and eat them. As for the muskie poll I would like to see that as well. However I think that there is no chance of it happening on Whitefish because of the numbers of small pike. great post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I keep the 8-12" dinks myself, but I've been know to eat 13-15" walleyes often out of LOW and the Miss. I still remember my Ichthyology Professor saying how it takes way more out of the ecosystem to harvest one 19-20" walleye than twenty 13" walleyes. I don't think the sardines need to be eaten, but I'm definately for the slot to protect the 18-29" beauties so they can reach trophy size and spawning potential(if feasible on that body of water).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if something was done to enhance the fishery. It could only help it by having a protective slot limit. Canada has done it for years. Protect the females, eat the males. Didnt that happen with our deer population in the mid 90's? Protect the females (doe), harvets the males ( Buck)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am usually not all that libertarian, but what about increases in angler education rather than new and tougher laws?

For instance, circle hooks on lindy rigs. They work great, and really help reduce the deep fatal hookings. Lindy rigs are bread and butter for a lot of us, and helping anglers fish the rig less lethally would be a good practice.

Much in the same way C&R has revolutionized fishing, especially bass fishing, there are plenty of opportunities to help anglers understand their impacts on the fisheries. When they know this, they are less likely to exploit the resource and take home 4 25" + fish.

Another example, where I deer hunt it is understood by all the groups in the area that we won't shoot the small basket racks. Nobody shoots a buck unless the antlers are outside the ears. This has really increased the size of the bucks in the area. Did the DNR do it? No we took it upon ourselves to try to improve the hunting. Everyone was very cooperative and helpful.

Culture moves faster than the legislature, if keeping more than 4 fish is bad management practices, share that info with other anglers. Tell them why, and share some data and research to support your conclusions. Most anglers are open to preserving the lake for future fishing opportunities. The DNR isn't necessarily the best place to start to change attitudes and practices regarding fishing and harvesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chode2235,

Good idea in theory. But realistically, it's not reasonable with the hundreds of thousands of anglers that hit our waters every year. Education is great and it's something that we always need to be working on. But regulations are often times the best form of education out there. Sort of a forced education, if you will.

I would like to believe that the majority of anglers are educated and understand the importance of selective harvest, proper fish handling, good ethics, etc. But there is also that core of anglers that you will never reach without regulations. Heck, even with regulations, you can't reach some of them.

Think back to your days in school. Some people get it, some don't. Some people take a lot longer to get it than others. Some people are willing to be educated, some aren't. Some people just don't care.

If it was as simple as just making sure that all licensed anglers were educated, I'd be all for it.

Aaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My vote is in; 4 'eyes and a protected slot.

I look at lakes like Winnie and Mille Lacs, both of which have protected slots, and think of the fisheries they have become. I can only imagine Gull would improve from where it is already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for voting. Can everyone view the results? You should be able to see them after you vote. I am excited to share these results with the DNR. It would be nice to have a couple of hundred votes so lets keep it going. Tell your friends to check out this poll.

Jason Erlandson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 walleye limit. 15" to 20" or 22" slot. One over 28".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see that over 50% agree on the 4 fish limit and the slot size... This would really be good for Gull Lake and all other walleye lakes... I for one hope it happens and happens soon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the DNR has done a great job with the stocking of Gull. The numbers are there thats for sure. I would love to see some of those mid sized walleyes protected. Just to balance the system out a little.

Jason Erlandson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for 6 fish with slot because I have 3 kids and a wife who like to eat walleye(not sunfish or perch,there is a difference in taste!) and I have grandparents who like to eat fish but can't get out themselves. So I give them some. I like the protected slot but I would like the 6 fish limit to stay. And no my wife and kids dont fish so they cant help get the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get a combination fishing license so you can keep some more walleyes for your wife. With a 4 possession limit, you ould now have 8 . . . even if she doesn't actually throw in a line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I suppose that would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acre per acre Gull Lake just gets pounded by anglers.

I don't know the exact data on it, but in speaking with guides, anglers, the DNR and observing events like the recent Extravaganza it would appear that the average size of walleye is shrinking.

I know there were a bunch of 14 inchers out there a few summers ago, but those big girls just don't seem to be as prevalent. That said, there's a lot of water never fished by most anglers including myself. If you know how to fish deep water for walleye you can have those parts of the lake to yourself even on the busiest summer day.

Thanks for conducting this survey Jason! It's great to see the results so far favor a tight restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron, Thanks for dropping in. Congratulations on the newest member of your family. My wife and I are also learning a lot since we had our first about 4 months ago. Sure is awesome. I am very surprised by the poll. I didn't think it would be as one sided as it has been. Slowly I think some old thinking about fishing is starting to fade away. I love Gull Lake and think it is one of the best lakes in the state but I also see the potential to be something world class.

Jason Erlandson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think change is good but change just to change is usually going in the wrong direction. What I mean by that is the DNR has said that there is no benifit to change the limit because most people don't catch 6 walleye's in the first place. Just because you catch them doesn't mean you have to keep them. There is more at stake here than just 2 fish, the resort and hotel/motel business may suffer if there is a slot.That also carries through to food service and entertainment bussinesses. Mille Lacs resorts suffered last summer when the slot was tightened and I read a lot of posts that said it didn't matter what the slot was but parking at the boat landings was a lot easier after the slot change. This is big business, the resource has to come first but I have talked to people at Devils Lake and they went to Mille Lacs for years before the slot got to restictive. If the resource will benifit from a slot limit I am all for it buut to change just to change doesn't make sense to me. Back it up with science and I support it all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • cartway
      Is the Vermilion egg capture complete?
    • Steelhead Chaser
      I hope to be out early next week.  Weather and river level depending.  Will post a report if I make it out.  Boat all ready to go.
    • crappie king 42
      I camp on an island so I don't have to worry about the landings and crowds. Do most of our fishing at night so I never worry about other anglers. If I needed to go to a public landing for opener I would never go. 
    • I fish, therefore I lie
      Here's the State's definition of a public water. Please note the highlighted text.  The Sucker is a Designated Trout Stream. (remember the blasting and improvements made back in the 70's? Those were public dollars that paid for it. )  That said, this isn't license for people to slob up private property, only to gain access to the stream. It might mean walking the shoreline from bluebird landing, or down from the freeway, but the water is open, and fishable,  to the high water mark. Subd. 15.Public waters. (a) "Public waters" means: (1) water basins assigned a shoreland management classification by the commissioner under sections 103F.201 to 103F.221; (2) waters of the state that have been finally determined to be public waters or navigable waters by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) meandered lakes, excluding lakes that have been legally drained; (4) water basins previously designated by the commissioner for management for a specific purpose such as trout lakes and game lakes pursuant to applicable laws; (5) water basins designated as scientific and natural areas under section 84.033; (6) water basins located within and totally surrounded by publicly owned lands; (7) water basins where the state of Minnesota or the federal government holds title to any of the beds or shores, unless the owner declares that the water is not necessary for the purposes of the public ownership; (8) water basins where there is a publicly owned and controlled access that is intended to provide for public access to the water basin; (9) natural and altered watercourses with a total drainage area greater than two square miles; (10) natural and altered watercourses designated by the commissioner as trout streams; and (11) public waters wetlands, unless the statute expressly states otherwise.
    • Cliff Wagenbach
      I used to wait for the sucker run every spring up North in the Tower area. We speared and fished for them for a week or so for smoking and canning. Actually great tasting fish! Kind of bony but otherwise quite good. Also good fried too! The run is just starting here now. Spearing season starts May 1st. Cliff