Question for Curt?

[lowrox]

What are your thoughts regarding a slot limit on LOTW for walleye's?<P>It seems like we could save a lot of 11-13" fish that would become tomorrows 14-16" keepers.<P>I'd keep the one fish over 19.5 rule in play, but I think that all walleye's under 14" should be thrown back.

[iffwalleyes]

I am not Curt but I will post my thoughts on this one. I have been fishing on the lake now for around 8 years and every year I see the same thing. There are always small ones, there are always in between sizes, and there are always large fish. Right now it is a very balance fishery compared to several lakes. I also has fished on fisherys that have a 14 min fish the problem is you often times have difficulty catch a fish much larger than 14 in. When you set a min to a lake then the minute they get to 14 everyone keeps them. You are basically removing an entire year class from the lake at that time. Now I myself avoid keeping a walleye under 14 in because I know enough people keep those 12" you mentioned. The thought is I drove all they way here I am going to take my limit. That is what needs to change peoples mind set. This past weekend I fished on the pond and while we didn't catch a single walleye over 14 in. It was still a successful trip because we caught alot of fish. We kept the most of the perch and saugers that we caught. Curt mentioned yesterday that todays 11-13 inchers are next years 14-16 inchers. I myself really like seeing the small fish because it means the lake is going to continue to be good. Like I said I have seen the same thing every year I have been up there. Small, medium, and large fish all in the lake. I think by implementing a minimum it would probably hurt the lake rather than help it. I also am against any kind of minimum size to be implemented state wide for every lake. We aren't able to regulate every lake with one set of standards. I guess that is enough of my ranting. So to sum everything up no I don'<BR>t think a minimum is necessary on LOW. <P>------------------<BR>Grip it and Rip it<P>IFFWalleyes<BR>I Fish For Walleyes<BR>[email protected]

[bturck]

I agree with you that a slot would not be in everyones best interest. Just take a look at Mille Lacs lake down here if you want to view controversy. Small fish are part of the system and always will be. 17" fish didn't just happen. We need impose our own slots with the future in mind. Now I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone will do this. But just as the case of releasing the large eyes, we need to take a look at the smaller fish as well and do whats right. Just my nickels worth. Bill

[curt quesnell]

Lake of the Woods has MASSIVE hatches and<BR>very good survival rates most years. This<BR>isnt guarenteed but it is such a great<BR>natural fishery that huge year classes are<BR>more the rule than the exception. With this<BR>going on you always have new fish of all<BR>sizes going thru the system.<P>Each year natural mortality and sportfishing<BR>chip away at the numbers in all year classes.<BR>The ones that get hit the hardest are the<BR>biggest groups, the ones that can best "take<BR>the hit". The group biting the bullet this<BR>year are the 11 to 13 inchers and man there<BR>are lots of them to thin out. Four years<BR>ago the year class with the biggest numbers<BR>were 19 to 22 inchers, that was fun, it<BR>was tough to catch fish you could keep.<P>I like the 19.5 slot. You can still keep<BR>a good fish if you want and some good eaters.<BR>What I really like about LOW is the generous<BR>limit with the Saugers as bonus fish instead<BR>of counting as part of your 6 fish limit.<BR>I dont think a small end size limit in<BR>necessary.<P>Since we share the border with Canada both<BR>sides keep pretty close tabs on harvest and<BR>fish populations. Legal fishing pressure isnt<BR>going to deplete the population of Walleyes<BR>in LOW. As long as the environment is good<BR>those monster hatches and new generations<BR>will keep comming. (Meaning LOW will always<BR>have a good supply of small fish and medium<BR>fish and the big girls.)<BR><P>------------------<BR>Curt Quesnell<BR>NorthCountry Outdoors Radio

[lowrox]

First off, thanks for all of the responses. It looks like I'm alone with the 14" minimum. My concern however is the pounds of walleyes that are being taken out of LOW each year. Last year I thought that I heard that we were 200,000 lbs over quota, yet nothing is being done to correct that. The fishing pressure in the summer appears to be the same, but that winter pressure is unreal these days. All I'm saying is that we're going to need to be proactive on this vs. reactive.

[iffwalleyes]

I understand your concerns but I feel the we are not in a situation where we have to be proactive because the lake is in super shape. Your concerned about the little fish but look how many you catch in a day and release there are thousands of anglers the catch just as many and releasing. I bet this past weekend we caught 75 of the little buggers. The lake continues to produce quality fish the way it is and with only one over 19.5 that is just fine. You don't have to worry about as many big fish coming out of the lake and being kept with that rule. I just feel there are other lakes that a min. would be better suited to and LOW is not one of them. If things get bad up there you can be sure the DNR will step in and help out they will not let the fishing fall apart up there. I just feel that we have to many regulations the way it is and we don't need more. <P>------------------<BR>Grip it and Rip it<P>IFFWalleyes<BR>I Fish For Walleyes<BR>[email protected]

[widetrack]

It would be interesting to know the mortality rate of all the little fish caught and released out of 30+ water. Now there is a question.<P>I personally do my best not to try and hook up with them in the first place, and it's very rare I fish in 30'+ fow.

[fiskyknut]

lowrox, where did you see your overharvest figure. I had'nt heard of or seen anything from the DNR as far as harvest figures from last year yet.<P>fiskyknut

[widetrack]

Fisky, for one it was in the GF herald.<P>I think it was more like 300K over target.

[fiskyknut]

Really....Yikes.

[curt quesnell]

The usual target is 435,000 pounds. Last<BR>year it was around 800,000. They were<BR>not overly concerned because of the <BR>tremendous populations of both Walleyes<BR>and Sauger currently.<P>They do watch things pretty well and I<BR>doubt they would let harvests like continue<BR>if they would cause serious damage. <P>------------------<BR>Curt Quesnell<BR>NorthCountry Outdoors Radio

[BLUESHARP]

Once the walleye fishing on Red Lake opens up,it will take a lot of fishing pressure off LOTW.

[HARDWATER]

ya and i can just see all the little fish floting in the spring that we pull up from 30 feet or more. another one of the d.n.r's dume idia's that won't work and if that happends i just won't go back for a logn time

[lowrox]

Curt,<P>It should be interesting to see what happens in the coming years. The combination of the high numbers of fish and the extreme ammount of fishing pressure should result in another surplus harvest. The big questions then is going to be, how do we fix this? Maybe I'm getting concerned over nothing, but I'd like to see the quality fishery that I know and love maintained.<P>Oops....bobber is down. :-)

[curt quesnell]

If the lake continues to have mega year<BR>classes we will continue to have lots of<BR>fish biting. If a few bad year classes<BR>come thru the system fishing will taper<BR>off regardless of hook and line pressure.<P>Fishing could be alot worse and still be<BR>pretty darn good. <P><P>------------------<BR>Curt Quesnell<BR>NorthCountry Outdoors Radio