Gull Lake Slot Limit!

[Sportland_Bait]

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:

[ImissReeds]

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.

[Sportland_Bait]

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

[smartguy]

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.

[shadow886]

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.

[vegas]

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?

[late night]

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.

[JConrad]

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!

[fishroger]

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.

[fish_on]

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

[ImissReeds]

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).

[Hopper]

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)

[Chode2235]

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.

[AWH]

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

[Team Otter]

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.

[Sportland_Bait]

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

[brittman]

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

[JConrad]

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...

[Sportland_Bait]

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

[BeerMe]

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.

[smartguy]

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.

[BeerMe]

Yes I suppose that would work.

[Write-Outdoor]

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.

[Sportland_Bait]

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

[subzero]

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.

[JConrad]

The resorts for the most part on Gull Lake are not fishing resorts...although some people do come to fish..

We are seeing less and less large fish in Gull so the slot limit would be a really good thing for this lake.. A 4 fish limit is really a good thing for the lake... That is a fact!!!

[Chode2235]

I wrote a really good post, but unfortunatly it got lost somehere so I will summarize:

We don't necessairly need to wait for regulations to catch up to have a positive impact on the lake. There are enough of us on the board, and enough of us with some clout, that together we could really do some good in protecting Gull lake. If we feel that there are changes necessary, like the 4 fish with slot, then by all means lets implement it.

We could put together a sort of 'Angler's Contract' which we could agree to abide by. Surely it would not be everyone out on the lake, but it would be a good start to put something together that we (FMN, and likely a good number of the regular Gull anglers), the baitshops, and guides could get behind.

For instance where I deer hunt, we got together all of the parties that hunt in our area and talked to them about the smaller bucks. We agreed not to shoot any of the small bucks, so unless the antlers were well 'outside the ears' we would pass them up. This has really improved the size of the bucks we see and have shot over the years.

I see no reason why, if we feel these changes will have a great impact on the lake, to not implement them ourselves and to get as many people on board.

Just a thought.

[Sportland_Bait]

Like I said before there really are no wrong answers, but I have made one observation from travelling to many fishing destinations. As far as tourism is concerned, I believe that this is a non issue. If you have tremendous fishing anglers will come regardless of what the limits are, even if they are reduced. One case I have witnessed over the last 20 years is the fishing on the Missouri River in South Dakota. When I first started fishing out there the daily limit was 10, it was reduced to 8, then 6, then 4. Regardless of the limits there are just as many anglers fishing the river as there ever have been.

Jason Erlandson

[cozzene]

Was staying at a place in the Long Bay section of Lake of the Woods a few years back, and a group of us guys, including the lodge owner, were sitting and talking over a few beers one evening. A boat with two guys pulls into the dock, and unloads for the day. They came off the dock, and walked towards us with one walleye on a stringer . . . . but, it happened to be about a 28" - 30" female dripping eggs/roe, and she was still alive. These two were immediately set upon verbally by all sitting at the table, and the resort owner informed them that he would like for them to leave his property by 1000AM the next morning, and he would have refund money available for them to pick up for the remaining days they had booked for! Sounded like a good idea to me . . . . . . .

[Write-Outdoor]

It is a very tenuous issue....on lakes like Winnie or Cass which are still home to Ma and Pa Resorts a slot limit could legitimately impact tourism. On a lake like Gull, I just don't think it would drastically impact tourism. The Ma and Pa Resorts have largely been driven out by the big names and the national chains. Most of the people who hit Gull are there to golf, hang with the family and, oh yeah, do a little fishing. For the goodness of fishing we need to make sure there is a healthy population of walleye so that these folks keep dipping a line in the water. If they stop fishing, revenue from license sales goes down, fewer kids are introduced, etc. etc. etc.

Jason hit the nail..if there's good fishing, serious anglers will fish there no matter what the restrictions are on the waters. There's a catch and release season on southeastern trout streams and it's some of the best fishing around. The DNR did this to provide a fishing opportunity without harvest. Same thing on Pool 2 of the Mississippi River.

The question is what this thread is about...how many fish and what size should be kept. I'd love it if anglers could self regulate it and this could be done with some press, some signs at launches & resorts, and information being distributed to property owners on the lake.

What do you think? Is it worth going to the Gull Area Lake Association to push this? I'm sure we could get on the agenda! Who's in favor of this one?