'07 walleye regulations

[KabNam]

Anyone heard any preliminary info. as to what the proposed walleye limits will be for next year? Earlier this summer a resort owner mentioned something like 13"-19" with a 3 or 4 fish limit. I guess I would be ok with that. I hope some sort of slot limit is kept because I feel fishing is certainly better than it was 10 years ago. Especially the 20+" walleyes!

[Timber]

The DNR did a study a few years ago that indicated approximately 8-10% of fishermen actually catch a limit of walleyes while out fishing. That would mean that lowering the limit to 3 or 4 would do little to improve walleye fishing. What has proven to be successful are slot limits. Since fishing has improved in the Crane, Namakan, Kab area the last several years, maybe just leaving the present regulations as they are would be the best choice. I might add, that cessation of commercial fishing has certainly helped.

[diesel]

I would agree that leaving the slot alone for awhile or making small adjustments would be just fine with me. I also agree that I have seen walleye fishing improve on Namakan ever since Kocheski, or Killcheski as we like to call him, gave up his nets.

[Farley]

I read in outdoor news that the DNR is thinking of doing anything under 17" and one over 28", similar to Rainy.

Personally I would like to see no slot, and a limit of 2 fish.

[guts]

KabNam, the DNR plans to implement a 17"-28" release immediately, 4 fish limit, 10 year regulation, or at least that is what they strongly suggest. I really only want to see a regulation for 5 years, then review again, 10 years will be a lifetime if it doesn't work.

Personally I would like 18"-28" release 4 bag limit, 5 year reg.

A meeting is coming up near the end of the month in Orr, or email the DNR with your suggestions, probably wont help, but can't hurt either, guts

[Xplorer]

IMHO, If they're planning on that, then I would rather see them leave the 13" mimimum in place, and also only do a 5 year timeframe. 10 years is quite a long time, and tho it (the 17-28 slot) has worked on Rainy, they are 2 different fisheries in some respects.

No matter what we end up with, I will be back up for as many days as possible next year

[fishkab]

Hello,,,, Just a couple of thoughts... The DNR says they are trying to have similar regs on Kab and Rainy...Then the limit should be set with an 8 fish limit and only 4 can be walleyes. Then the saugers would be exra. That is the reg on both Rainy and Lake of the Woods...You could then have, for example, 6 saugers and 2 eyes.. That type of thing....Hard for resorts to compete with 4 fish when the neighbors have 8.... What are your thoughts. That's what I am going to the meeting with.... Fishkab

[booter]

Having consistency among the lakes in the flowage area would make it a bit easier to keep track of the slot limits and "even" the field for the resorts. Having the saugers would be a plus. It seems to me the fisheries folks have done a good job with Rainy, and to Xplorers point about the differences in Kab/Nam and Rainy, I agree 10 years is a bit long before review.

I'm with you Xplorer, whatever they might devise (and I did send Kevin Peterson my comments) I'll be back to spend as many days as possible on Kab & Nam for many years to come.

[Big-Al]

I agree with you guts on your suggestions. There are far too many 12" ers killed by folks yanking the hook and at least they would get utilized. I would also love to see a barbless rule implemented.

[upnorth]

Quote:

---

There a far too may 12" ers killed by folks yanking the hook

---

I don't quite understand the "Kill a fish to save a $.10 hook" philosphy of some folks. Cripes if it's in deep cut the line and sacrifice a hook, at least then there is a chance the fish will make it. I have seen people spend 3 or 4 minutes trying to dig out a hook and then through the fish overboard, talk about a waste of rescouces

[lakertaker]

I agree with fishkab, simplicity and a level playing field are good, there are still people that claim they did not realize there was a slot. it's interesting how accepting fisherman are of a (4)fish limit today compared to ten and even five years ago, I'm not sure it is required on Kab but I'm all for protecting the resource to provide better fishing for years to come. I hope they will implement a bottom end on the slot 13" is just fine with me. Good Fishin!

[Wade Joseph]

If they impose a 13-28 inch slot how is a guy supposed to catch and eat a few for shore lunch or dinner while camping? 12 inch walleyes have smaller fillets than a 10 inch perch! How often you think this rule is going to get broken?

Drop the slot so that 13-18 inches you can keep all others released and you'll improve things and still be able to keep a few eaters.

[Dock Boy]

Wade I think you should go back and review the posts. They are thinking of putting an 18-28 slot in not a 13 to 28.

[Wade Joseph]

Sorry, I misread...I still think anything over 18 should be release only....

[upnorth]

I do believe the release is 17 to 26 inch, ain't it?

[guts]

Kab,Nam, Sand Point, Crane current walleye regulation is:

6 fish limit includes Sauger, all Walleye less than 13" must be released immediately, eyes 13" but less than 17" may be kept, as well as 1 over 23" all eyes between the 17" and 23" length must be released immediately. Sauger of any size may be kept but they count in the 6 bag limit.

The proposal suggested by the DNR for the next 10 years begining the 2007 season, is as follows:

Walleyes less than 17" may be kept, all walleyes between 17" thru 28" must be released immediately. 4 fish bag limit. Experimental regulation would be enforce for 10 years.

They mentioned they would be open to an extra 2 Sauger, but they oppose 4 Sauger, as the lake may not be able to sustain the increased sauger pressure.

Two points of view I have on the next regulation for Kab is put the special reg in force for 5 years only, and determine at that time what needs tweaking. Possibly find a way to let eyes up to 18" be kept, and set a minimum size if necessary, then it will not be quite as restrictive.

There is a meeting in ORR,MN the 26th of Oct, Thurs, they are looking for input from the public. They are taking suggestions into consideration until November, time is running out.

Lastly, they intend to suggest to the State to make a reguation for all inland lakes to have a 4 walleye bag limit. If this regulation comes to be, figure it would be two years away in the making. guts

[Hockey Guy]

I’m pretty much a catch and release guy unless I’m camping and want to have a couple for shore lunch. I’m trying to look at this from every point of view. I know there are a number of people that like to go out and catch as many fish as they legally can and bring them home. I don’t have a problem with that either. What I don’t like is seeing a 12.5” fish tossed back that was belly hooked just to feed the seagulls. I think a 4 Walleye limit up to 18” with no minimum is fine. I also think that allowing two additional Saugers to get to 6 fish is fine. So basically I’m saying 6 fish limit but not more than 4 Walleyes. I would also like to see the 5-year period not 10. Now… to whom do I email my opinion?

[guts]

Hockey guy, send your suggestions or comments to [email protected] or phone # is 218 286 5220, anyone else wishing to comment should do so soon. guts

[Black_Bay]

I think the reason that they are doing a 10 year time frame is that 5 years is too short to see if it is having a difference. These fish are fairly slow growing in the border lakes. A 13 inch walleye up there is only about 4 years old. After only 5 years you'd be lucky to have 2 new year classes of fish in the slot and that would be on the low end of the slot. Not much can be determined with that little of information.

[guts]

Black Bay, I agree that 5 years of a special regulation is a short time frame for a study, however we are on the 7th year of are slot now, add to that another 5 year reg, and that gives them 12 years to develope a plan. Between now and the next 5 years alot of things can happen that a regulation change may help. What if having no minimum size turns out to be a detriment, I'd prefer making a change sooner than later. guts

[upnorth]

I could be mistaken on this, but isn't the purpose of having the slot to keep people from taking the breeding size fish, the 17 + ones? So with that thinking the lower size restriction shouldn't have a detrimental effect, right?

[Timber]

I would like to believe that decisions of this sort are based on scientific and biology, and not on "feel good" reasons. As stated before, DNR research itself has shown that 7-8% of people who fish actually catch a limit. Therefore, lowering the limit to 4 does not protect the resourse, and has almost nothing to do with too many fish being taken. It may be "nice" to have limits the same lake to lake, or "nice" that more people can say that they've "caught a limit", but these are poor reasons to base such an important decison on. The limits on Namakan vs Rainy have been different for years with no problems, and each lake system is different, so different rules/regulations should apply. The 13-17 slot with a 6 fish limit has worked very well in Crane, Namakan, Kab, etc. improving the quality of fishing since it was installed. It should remain the same.