Walleye Opener 2006

[SCONASOTAN]

Alright here is my take on all of this.

LIMITS:

2 walleyes is absolutely enough fish per person to take. If you are staying on the lake or at a resort you just caught your daily fish fry. If you are there for a day or are a local you have a meal to take home. I am not of the older generation but I have family who are and I can't seem to sway there thinking about fishing because it has been the way for so many years. Fathers of yesteryear fished not only for enjoyment but for providing for their families too. we do not have to do that any more. Fish because God gave us the oppotunity to enjoy the outdoors and gave us the knowledge to catch fish at all times. Take a meal of fresh fish but if you crave fish when you haven't been fishing eat some cod at the store -- its good too. But most importantly it doesn't harm a fishery or support commercial fishing of fresh waters.. I don't know why people get so bent out of shape because they can't keep fish. Did everyone forget that when the walleye fishing opens there is still going to be an excellent crappie fishery still there and you get to keep some crappies too. Then you get an even bigger fish fry. I'm really sick of people whining over this limit debate. Why do we have to be gluttens?

SIZE LIMITS:

The best suggestion I can give is that no matter what size walleye/northern you believe is a mounter, it all can be solved with a camera ( there's millions of them, all at various prices), a measuring device (fish mearuring pad, a fabric measuring tape) for lenght and girth, and a good story. You have to pay for a live mount anyway so why not get a picture of the fish from every angle and some measurements and have a replica made and save those fish whether they are viable spawners or not.

Oh ya, and about people taking walleyes up to this point illegally. It absolutely is happening. And at greater numbers than we like to think. Just because "everyone" needs to take something home with them. I haven't seen it first hand on Red ( I don't get to fish it very often though)but I have heard from family that they have heard of not only travelers to Red taking fish but also "old school" fish thinkers from local communities.

ALMOST FORGOT SPEARING:

No need for it at all. again an old tradition that help lead to the demise of fishing all throughout this state.

Good fishing!!

[Chad711]

I can swear on my fathers grave that I have never took a Walleye from Red Lake, BUT unfortunetly I have heard from friends of coworkers, fishing partners, etc of walleyes being taken somewhat commonly. Why would someone take the chance of losing their truck, gear, boat, etc for a Walleye? Honestly, all fish taste pretty much the same to me anyways, you just get more meat off Eyes.

Sad but true fellas.... It happens.

[riverrat56]

Post deleted by riverrat56

[swamptiger]

I see a lot of good intentions here, however, all the good intentions in the world do not provide an answer to the simple fact that Red Lake is a lake that is prone to overfishing. If netting is resumed on Lower Red, the proposed slot and posession limits are an exercise in futility.

I think a control in the form of a total harvest limit for both lakes would be good. The DNR & Reservation fisheries should do an annual survey, and if fish numbers are dropping drastically, then the season on both lakes should be shortened or shut down accordingly - so history doesn't repeat itself.

[daredevil_tipped_w/leech]

My .02 worth....

Winter fishing just got better. You now get 2 walters to add to your bucket. Call it a bonus 2 years early.

The meat eaters will avoid URL in the summer like a red headed step child. It is just too far to go. Think it through here folks- Are they really going to drive through Grand Rapids and pass umpteen other lakes where one could catch a limit by dragging a barn door hinge around the bottom of the lake? I bet not.

On the slot limit - the DNR failed to call me and ask my no nothing opinion one more time... Goll dang them anyways. Why not a total inch limit especially in the summer. I see fish floating belly up all over again. Its a Mille Lacs just waiting to happen?

Lastly, shame on anybody who watches illegal activity and does nothing about it. Call me naive, but I have a hard time believing it is taking place in numbers.

[RonZ]

Quote:

---

Fish-on, Tell me how much fishing pressure 5-miles of gill net puts on that 80% of the lake?

---

And 100% of lower.

Is there a slot limit or possesion limit here? Has anyone heard about the tribes take? They will be coming from all over the state and Wisconsin. When the state of Minnesota decided to help RE-STOCK the lake did they sign a deal concerning the netting and spring time spearing?

[LABS4ME]

Quote:

---

Has anyone heard about the tribes take? They will be coming from all over the state and Wisconsin. When the state of Minnesota decided to help RE-STOCK the lake did they sign a deal concerning the netting and spring time spearing?

---

The band hasn't firmly decided what they will do in the future. That has yet to be decided. I'll bet commercial netting resumes within a couple years of the lake re-opening, and no, they will not be coming from all over Wisconsin and Minnesota. You have to be a member of the Red Lake Band in order to even set foot on their portion of the lake, other bands are not allowed to fish the lake just like you and I. And yes, there were some agreements made with the state. 1st off they closed the main source of income for the band... commercial fishing... second they did not allow any subsistance netting... third they turned over the records from their fishery for review from our DNR, third they're going to turn over the records of their "take" in future years. This is a closed reservation and they do not have to allow any discussions between their DNR and ours. Also remember the State's involvement in the re-stocking was a fraction of the total costs and man power. A lot of the funds and volunteers came from the band and the federal govt. too.

As far as Fish-Ons reply... I don't beleve in black helicopters and I don't blindly follow our DNR. But I do believe we have some of the best field staff in the country within our DNR. They are inputting a lot of their knowledge into the final regs that will materialize. I'm not saying there aren't those in the higher-up positions that don't need to be scrutinized, but I think all those involved with Red Lake's recovery have the best interests of the Lake in mind. Don't worry about the tourism industry lagging from a small walleye limit... The Waskish and Shotley areas are seeing un-precedented tourism right now with the crappie fishery. I think in the future there will be a fighting chance at more relaxed regulations once the crappie fishery slides and walleye recruitment flourishes. Let's really get these younger fish up to a mature size and spawning before we worry about keeping more. We need to remember this is opening up ahead of schedule, so let's be happy we can do some walleye harvest. One part of the concerns of the citizens committee that has been skimmed over during this whole debate is the fact there would have been a poundage quota in place with a higher limit of fish. This would definitley have closed the walleye to harvest during the winter months as the quota would've been reached during the open water seasons. They opted for a lower limit in order to have it open for the entire season.

It's great to hear about those that are concerned about this and other fisheries. It's refreshing to see so many guys say they'd release larger walleyes up to 29"...! Let's hope that continues! I too read that article saying that "inches" do not dictate spawing viability, but rather age. There are a lot of walleyes in the upper 20's" that are still phenomenal spawners and I agree too they should be protected, especially early on, as these are the remenants of the "orginal" Red Lake fish.

While we don't have control over what the band chooses to do, we can have a lot of control on what we do. DO NOT "double dip". I can assure you this will be one of the greatest challenges of the lake. Those coming up to do a little weekend's worth of crappie fishing, the crappies don't cooperate, so a "limit of walleyes is kept each of the 2-3 days up and brought back to the hotel/cabin etc. This was also one of the reasons of the original collapse. Also I can see guys filleting there catch for each day and package them and leave them at an acess and say they were fishing LOW. Just be honest! Take your limit and stay within your possession limit! There will be more where those came from. For those of you who see fish and game violations... for your own sake and those of future generations, TURN IN POACHERS!

Good Luck!

Ken

[riverrat56]

OK everyone im sick of getting ripped on for not reporting those walleyes that i saw, i realize it was the wrong thing to do, i apologize to each and everyone one of you, but i do assure you they were put back into the lake, hopefully they made it, they would have had no chance if i wouldn't have talked to the guys. My bad on not calling TIP, lets stop it with the comments about turning in illegal activity, i know i should have turned them in, i didn't though and its kind of late to do so now, so it does no good reaming on me after the fact. I get the point, next time i see illegal activity i will be calling TIP.

Good fishing everyone

RR56

[ozzie]

I don't think everyone is ripping on you in particular Riverratt but rather using your comment on what everyone else sees and hears and does nothing.. Sorry for using you as an example but we have to get it through to people we can make a difference if we just use the resources givin to us... Thanks and Good Luck and Good Times...OZ

[whitetips]

I was there 17-20th and actually saw a muskie approx 11" long caught by my partner as he jigged for crappie, The DNR has no record of planting or anything in the surveys so, this is a species that can protect from allowing spearing, so the DNR may be up to something but have not announced it yet, It looked like a Leech Lake strain to me. No heavy bars and no hybrid looks, some nice perch showing up too.

[riverrat56]

I went and reread the posts and it doesnt really sound like people were ripping on me, i guess i just over reacted i suppose, go ahead and use me for an example if its gunna pay off for the reasources. Were all on the same page here, none of us would ever keep a walleye if it wasn't legal, i don't worry about you guys breaking the laws, its the people who don't respect the reasources that do things like that. I suppose me not turning them in is kind of the same thing, i owe all you guys and apology for not turning them in, that is just like me taking those 2 fish. I will be sure to tcall them in next time.

Good fishing

RR56

[wolfman-k]

On the contrary riverRat, 95% of people wouldn't bother to even say anything to those who abuse our resources! You should be commended for at least taking the risk of challenging those morans and shaming them into releasing the walleyes. Not everyone has a cell phone while fishing either, even then it might not work where you happen to be. Peer pressure helps, but the CO's should be notified if possible. Sometimes even the threat of contacting them will deter someone from breaking the law. You did what you could under the circumstances. Thanks.

[hip_hop_fisherman]

I too have heard plenty of stories about people keep walleyes out of red and its unfortunate. To me it doesn't really matter what they set for a slot. I don't mind catch and release, and I also wouldn't be opposed to a two fish limit.

[JohnE1966]

I will not drive all that way just for two walleye under 17 inches but as long as we can have 10 nice crappies to toss in the basket with them I will make the trip, maybe even more than once. I would probably even stay up there for a weekend or two during the summer if there were some place decent to stay at.

[blacksheep]

ok, i just read the article.......what a joke, the dnr isn't behind the 17 - 26, for some reason they left it up to some commitee of people that have a stake in tourism and such in the URL area. so all my tax and licencse dollars that went towards the stocking of red lake is now being dictated by people that our to directly profit from it?. since when did business men become skilled in lake biology?. IMO, i see how special interests have molded the slot, just as i thought would be the case. hope to see many "fisherman" going home with there 26.5" trophies - or worse yet, table fare.

[kelly-p]

blacksheep, I suggest that you take a look at who is on the advisory committee before you make any more misleading posts like this one. The committee is made up of a cross section of the people interested in URL that give their views to the DNR. Many are not even from this area and it is not dominated by business people. Posts like this one you just made are just plain uninformed or purposely wrong. Something else you may want to think about is that many of the people in business around URL went through the collapse. We lived it!!! Do you suppose we ever want to go through something like that again?

[bieganekbaitco]

Amen KP!!!!!!

[blacksheep]

this may not entirely be the case. however - realisticly it is going to happen, people will do what you let them, even though it isn't morally correct by most, so my question is - why give them the option?. where am i coming from? - what do you expect people to think when there is no mention of any biological input involved in the slot choice?. the slot should be choosen based on numbers not potential revenue. if you think that i have been misinformed, complain to the out - news. i am sorry for your hardship in past years but remember you choose your own path, it isn't the lakes fault. the lake doesn't owe anybody anything. i have no interest to discredit any parties involved. this is just my opinion, from what i have gathered - past and present.

like yourself, i care a great deal about red lake and its future. you may claim otherwise but i am not looking for validation.

[LABS4ME]

Actually Blacksheep you are reading WAY to much into the article... The advisory comittee didn't/isn't making the slots or quotas, but rather giving their insight to the DNR to help forumulate them. Believe me the biologists have crunched reams of numbers on the lake and have stated their cases... The citizens committee is giving "our" (meaning your's and mine) perspective. Even it was as you stated, made up mostly of the entities of those who work or make a living off the lake, who else but they would have the best interest of the lake in mind? as Kelly pointed out they lived through the collapse once, I'm positive none of them want to do it again! These people up there are some of the nicest, hardest working, most devoted to the lake people that you will ever, and I mean ever, meet! Get to know these guys and you will see what I mean.

Good Luck!

Ken

[kelly-p]

No blacksheep as far as I am concerned you choose to take a slap at the people willing to take the time and effort to be on the advisory committee and the good people from the DNR that care about URL. Where should the slot and numbers be? Should they be set for the 85% of the fishermen that will respect URL and the laws or should they be set for the 15% that will rape URL? Should the 85% of the fishermen be penalized because of the 15%? Nothing in the proposal is based on "potential revenue". It is based on what they feel is best for URL.

[BLACKJACK]

Blacksheep, what would YOU suggest the slot and limit be, and why? Or are you just trolling thru this post trying to stir up a ruckus?

Personally, I wonder if they're rushing the walleye opener. Why not let the walleyes establish a good spawning, self sustaining population? Hopefully the DNR knows what they're doing. Since they are opening it up, I like the two limit, the way the walleyes have been biting, and with the number of people out crappie fishing, tons of walleyes will get taken out of the lake in 2006. I also think the upper length should have been 28 inches, let a true trophy be kept, but keep the meat-hunters "that drove 200 miles to get there" from throwing the 26 1/2 incher in the frying pan.

[Bill Powell]

I'd like to hear from some of the guys that fished Red in the late 70's and early 80's do you think there's as many Walleyes now as there was then. I had houses on there from 81 to 84 and a lot of times in a half an hour you'd catch a limit and go home. I'm not sure the numbers are there that there used to be but definetly more big fish. What do you think.

Bill Powell

www.fredsbait.com

[swamptiger]

Bill:

I agree with your assessment - more bigger fish now, but still not the numbers there used to be back then.

[blacksheep]

just give me one good reason - just one, why the slot is 17 - 26 and not 17 - 28. or 17 and under?. you think its acceptable to harvest 26.1" and up fish from a lake that until just recently was a text book example of mismanagement?. these bigger fish, are ( until the stocked fish begin to spawn ) quite possibly the only fish in the lake that are able to reproduce. so you tell me why you think letting someone walk off with a 27" fish is a good for the lake.

[blacksheep]

more bigger fish now?, not in my opinion, i consider big fish 28" - plus fish.

[kelly-p]

I feel that the numbers might not be as high as they were in the "boom" years but are higher then they were in the average or "bust" years. The size is far bigger. Back then 18 inchs was considered big.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

---

The size is far bigger. Back then 18 inchs was considered big.

---

Definately. In 40 years of fishing Red Lake, I can honestly say that I have never caught an 18" walleye until the last couple of years. There are more spawning size walleyes in the lake right now than I've ever seen. There are still two spawning cycles left before to go before season opens in 2006, so there should be good numbers of several size classes in the lake by then.

I'm not a fish biologist, but from my "armchair" perspective, I would say the management plan is successful and right on course. I don't know that it's possible to manage the lake as a trophy lake, but I do believe it is possible to keep the numbers up - with careful management.

[LABS4ME]

Blacksheep, you ever been to Red? have you read any of the reports written about Red? Or do you just like to spout off ignorant statements?

The 1st of the stocked fish are entering their second year of spawning, they will spawn this year and next before it re-opens thus giving them 3 unmolested seasons of spawning, and then they will fall within the protected slot for another 3-5 years. Most are well within the "spawning size" (18-19") right now. The next stocked year of fry will be entering the spawning population by next year, and then they too will fall within the 17-26" protected slot for many years once harvest resumes. These along with the original 'left over' Red lake walleye are pulling off very good recruitment right now. One of the last reports I read on the lake said it is represented by more year classes of walleye now than it has been in over 50 years. They consider the "health" of the lake the best it's been in 40 years. There were 'boom' years of fish since those time frames, but they were dominated by 14-16" (one time spawners) fish. I don't know too many lakes where an average of 18" fish isn't considered large. Not to say those are "big" fish but they are larger than the average caught and kept by fisherman. Most guys consider any walleye over 22" big and over 28" a trophy. I think the majority of fisherman luckily will release those walleyes at or just over 26". Most on here would not object to a 28" minimum "trophy" limit, as has been stated on here many times, so your argument is falling mostly on deaf ears. You also go on to say why not an under 17" slot... are you nuts? So you are proposing we protect the fish under 17" and begin harvest on those over 17"? Right when they move into their 1st prime years of spawning? Available for harvest right through their prime spawning years until caught. Sounds like a lake full of "cropped off" 16.75"> fish. And you're worried about protecting a 26" fish that has probably already spawned 8-10 times vs. an under 17" that has spawned once.

I suggest a letter to the DNR if you are not happy with the slots as proposed. There will be a lengthy public comment period and you should conatct them many times if you are that passionate about the upper end of the slot. If it remains at 26", educate everyone you know about the importance of releasing that 26"+ fish. Peer pressure works better than any written regulation. I had most of my buddies releasing all crappies 12" and under throughout this winter, as we confirmed they were from the 2000 year class, thus giving them 5 additional years of spawning vs the 13-14" fish from the '95 year class. We literally released I bet an easy 100 fish that size this winter, and they are still in there ready to spawn. You, and everyone you know, can impose your own "upper" end slot without regard to the DNR regs. I'm sure you won't get a citation from a CO for releasing a 26.5" walleye once harvest resumes!

Listen to what Kelly-P has to say, he's lived and worked the lake for his entire life! (what ar you now Kelly? 30? just feeling like 80?) There are few others with an intimate knowledge of the lake, and even fewer wo can say they have as many days on the lake.

Good Luck!

Ken

[GullGuide]

Labs, I agree with you 100% but my question is, if the RL Band starts to net again, won't the only fish immume be those that are small enough to pass through the nets with all the large breeding stock taken out?

Almost all of us are in the dark on these issues and no one really wants to talk about them, but if anyone can inform those of us who do not know about the whole neeting issue/history, I think it would help us better understand what's going to happen...if at all.

[LABS4ME]

Hopefully Kelly or some one else with more knowledge of neting can pipe in.

From my understanding the mesh size dictates the 'target' size of the fish. Say a 2 1/2" net targets a 14-18" walleye with smaller ones passing through and a lot of the larger ones bouncing off. It is not an exact science and some smaller and some larger ones will be harvested but I think they are at least able to 'target' a certain size fish. In the distant future it may be a mute point in regards to slots once netting and full scale fishing resumes, and we may indeed be back to mostly 14-16" fish, but we need to start somewhere and continue to try and improve the fishery for today and the immediate future.

Good Luck!

Ken