23 inch slot part 5

Cosmic

What were the reasons to remove slot? Many of us think that the bigger the fish the more they spawn but I have read that the fish along the lines of 23-26 inches do most of the spawning. When the big girls get to trophy size I thought that they do less and less spawning and start to ingest there eggs. This may not be the case on the Bay, but like many have stated change for the sake of change-why?

Mike: All of the female walleyes that are sexually mature will spawn and many of them are smaller than 23 inches. And this is not “change for the sake of change”. When I first arrived on the scene in 2001, I reviewed all of our regulations that affect our management unit (northern Lake Michigan). The researchers who have studied the fisheries on the bays for years indicated back then that this regulation was unnecessary and not needed. When I brought this idea to the clubs, they were staunchly opposed to changing it. Just a few months ago, one of the members of the Great Lakes Sport Fishermen approached me about getting rid of the 23 inch regulation. In fact, their go-to biologist Jerry Peterson supports getting rid of it. So please and again, don’t shoot the messenger.
DooFighter

I don't much care either way on the slot.

I do disagree with the attitude of the big ones not being any good to eat, though. Simply trim up those hogs and you will not tell the difference. If anyone disagrees and wants to get rid of some big ones, just give me a call when they're fresh, I'll take them off your hands

As for walleye reproducing, if they are anything like women, the old fat ones don't produce many offspring at all (thank goodness) LOL (1)
__________________

Mike: (1) I’m afraid that my position as a state employee prevents me from making any comments here.



Finaddict

I kinda think a dead fish is a dead fish. 15 inches, 22, inches, 25 and bigger. It's all about the spawning conditions and which year classes are good-vs-explotation rates. A high reproduction-explotation rate will make for a good fishery. Just look at Lake Erie.....there is no slot limit there and its the walleye capital of the world with lots of big fish. (1)

If you want a slot.....lets do a "no kill" from 20-25 inches so we can save the prime spawners. One last word...shut down the slaughter in the FOX and Menominee Rivers for one month every spring and you'd probably save alot more big fish than get caught inside LBDN all year round. (2)

Just my opinion.....don't ever take it personal.

One thing I am also really curious about is to where all the "save the fish" activists were when the DNR DID CHANGE THE LIMIT ON SALMON TO 5 INTEAD OF 3. I guess I will be the voice for the poor discrimianted against salmon! As Rodney Danderfield would say "I get no respect!" Salmon deserve more than they got.

Mike: (1) Good point about Lake Erie Jim, thanks for making it. And it is important for anglers to recognize that a dead fish is a dead fish. The female you caught in June and kept may be the same female you released because she was full of spawn in February. Just something to think about.

(2) Just so you know, there are a LOT of folks who fish Green Bay who recognize that there are a lot of walleye and would love to increase the spring harvest of this species. There are even some proposals being floated by folks south of here to do just that. Some of these guys also remember the glory days of excellent brown trout and splake fishing in Green Bay in very early spring. Although the decline of smelt here certainly contributes to that reduced harvest since about 2000 (as well as a whole host of other changes), the very large walleye population is also undoubtedly having an impact on yearling salmonids that are stocked each year.

Kevin,
Thanks for posting Mikes replies... and Thank You Mike for taking the time to reply to the concerns of us all.

I feel much more educated now on the LBDN Fishery and understand, a little better, both sides of the story now. I guess I am one of those guys that is just simply resistant to change.

Again Thank You.. and with the facts.. maybe it is time for change... lets face it... when everything else in life sems "Over-regulated", its nice to see someone working to loosen the noose.

Seems to me that Mike has had stripping the slot on his agenda since 2001. Better late than never ..... eh Mike.

And 6-7 years from now when something is going on........... " Where are all the big fish ? " the new mantra will be.......it wasn't the change in slot size it was the zebra mussles or the enviroment or who knows what they will say. Anything but "We were wrong".

And the thought that people will throw those large fish back........... sorry .....I will, and a few of my friends might, but I know ALOT more fish hogs who will ice EVERY legal fish.

There have been many days when our group has thrown 8-10 over 23 back. I don't believe for a moment that harvesting these fish on a regular basis will have no effect.

Next thing you will tell us is that the deer harvest plan is great.

One of my friends caught 2 tagged fish in kipling earlier this ice fishing season (Around Xmas), This is the info he was sent from the DNR.

1st fish was caught 253 days after being tagged, the difference in length was 0.1" (22" fish) estimated at 8 years old and was tagged near rapid river.
2nd fish was caught 716 days after being tagged, the difference in length was 0.5" (23" fish) estimated at 12 years old and was also tagged near rapid river, both fish were caught Kipling area.

Any idea how old a 25" fish is? How about a 30" fish?
If a 23" fish is ~12 years old, how can we not affect the population of bigger fish by being able to harvest 5 23" fish?
I personally throw back any fish over 22" or 23" unless their living after release is questionable , and that won't change, but for every person that throws those fish back, there are about 10 people that would stuff a cooler full.
I'm not saying I disagree with that, there are alot of people that spend alot of money, take vacation from their jobs, and come to LBDN for fishing and the chance to catch a trophy, and they should be able to keep what they want, but if everyone does that, I don't see how it won't affect the fishery.
I plan on living here for a looong time, and with all the regulations that are in place for everything we do in the outdoors, I would hate for one of the few good regulations (In my opinion) go away...


And reading the part one of this thread, "Please don’t attack the DNR because the local club had a change of heart.", It doesn't sound like the "local club" had a change of heart, it sounds like you talked to one person in the club and he had a change of heart...
So the GLSF doesn't support this change?

Looking at the poll, 90%+ of the 51 people favored leaving it alone......
46 said leave it
5 said change it....

And lastly, this statement "Having the 1 over 23 regulation in LBDN has made it more difficult for other manager’s downstate.".....
So what...


Just my belief, I am not a Biologist, just someone who fishes...

Brett

I love the alot of people want to keep fish over 23 , yeah well good for them alot of people would like to shoot 3 bucks a year keep 10 salmon,fish with the natives in the early spring ect ect ect. give me a break. It effects regulations down state .. WHO CARES , they have alot of regulations downstate we dont have up here do you think they wonder how we feel up here about them?????? We like our big fish up here if they really love eating those big fish gosome where else and get them. If we didnt need it fromthe beginning they should of never let it be put in place, its too late now.

I really have no clue on what difference it makes. I like the idea of having trophy fish available but dont know if the slot has anything to do with it. I would have to believe Mike on this, thats his line of work. I think Canada has a slot but I think its between 18" & 24", and its a no kill rule,they clame the fish in that slot do most of the spawning. The people I know up there says it has made a big difference for them but thay are not biologist either. I dont think we should slam Mike for I believe he has our best interest at heart, It would do him no good to destroy the fishery up here. I always say if it aint broke dont fix it, so I cant even make up my own mind. I should have been a politician because I say one thing but dont know if I'd do it that way.

While many of you may disagree with Mike Herman and others on the slot limit, please try to keep this thread civil without any personal attacks. It should be OK to disagree without getting out of hand.

My current understanding is with a 4-6% exploitation rate that recreational fishing has virtually no impact on the walleye populations in the area. Also realize that LBDN is only one part of a much larger system that stretches from Big Bay all the way to Green Bay.

Thanks-

Thanks, Kevin for posting the information to be better informed.

I agree that we should NOT be making a change because of what "some" might think or have to deal with downstate. What is so wrong with being unique? We have a fishery that continuosly draws people and gives them "choices". Do we need to tamper with it?

Also, as we all know the eco system on the bay has changed greatly because of the invasive species "dumped on us". We've witnessed the bay change and fish habits change....but do we really know/have we seen what the long term affects are going to be?

Looks like the majority of opinions on this subject filed by fishermen should be considered over the opinion of a "few" in an association.

Have been fishing walleye's and smallmouth bass in Canada for the last ten yrs, thier slot iif you want to call it that is--your allowed 1 fish over 18"-- if you take one the first day that's it... if your fishing for a trophy you had better throw the 18" fish back and hope for one bigger.. The owners of the lodge we fish are very strick on that 1 over 18...We've caught some dandy's and everyone's went back in the lake, to make more little walters, and hopefully to tug on our line again...

Thanks Birddog94, I couldnt remember it for sure, but they did tell me they all thought it was really helping. I think the 24" restriction in Canada was on Pike?

Its LBD not Canada, not Gogebic, not downstate michigan and not lake Lake erie. So comparing anything else is about as pointless as comparing deer hunting in texas to the U.P.

Who cares what they do anywhere else anywhere else is not LBD which is its own unique habitat. So why we have to worry what people do downstate is beyond me, every place had regulation in place to fit the certain area they are in.

So they say the slot doesnt hurt but it doesnt help great then the fisherman want it to stay so why not keep it? Why even have it in the first place? Were there studies to show before it would help? If there was now they say they were wrong before so why should we believe they are right now??? You people need to make you minds up.

First off, I'd like to thank Michael Herman for answering our questions and acknowledging our concerns. I understand that even without a slot limit there's going to be X amount of trophy fish in the fishery as a whole. But like Mr.Herman said the majority of these fish will never see a jig, lure, beercan etc... But this is my point. As icefishermen we are limited to where we can fish (most years) especially early in the season. If we drop the slot limit you can be assured fishing pressure is going to increase and the availability of these big fish will be diminished.

I enjoy the slot limit that we have on LBDN. Maybe if a guy wants to keep more larger fish they should think of bringing more people out in the boat, to the shore or out to the ice shack. It is a perfect reason for anyone that wants more of the larger fish to get for example their childern, grand children, neices, nephews, cousins or even freinds involved in the sport.

If our fish biologist dont think it will hurt the fishery why dont they look at just changing the slot limit to 2 or 3 over the slot limit? Then monutor its effects on LBDN for a few years before saying well the slot limit has not been a great issue for many so lets just get rid of it. Has any one thought of that?

My personal opinion is that if you take the slot limit away you are basically opening season on an endagered species. Its not goign to take long before its effects are felt, regardless of what the harvest %'s are and all that other stuff that was mentioned. Again maybe a more conservative approach needs to be taken, lets open it to 3 over the slot and study its effect on the fishery before opening the flood gates.

Remember its not called catching its called fishing.

The regs should vary by system. I grew up in Escanabe and when I was a kid (70's) my dad and I fished all the time. Walleye were few and far between. In the 80's they changed the treaty with the Natives and they no longer fished Little Bay the way they had. The Walleye came back with the help from the DNR in the late 80's. They put the one over 23 a few years into it to protect the big lady's and help the spawn. Well there are so many now they dont need it anymore. But they do need to protect them in April/May because it is a longer spawning period.

I now live in Appleton and fish Winnebago. There is NO SIZE LIMIT, NO CLOSED SEASON. We have more Walleye now then ever. The reason being that the recruitment depends on spawning conditions. They spawn in the marshes and if the conditions are right the fish reproduce in great numbers. People fish heavily during the spawn but most all people through back the females and just keep the Milkers. Education of what matters, they spawn in the marshes and people let them go and open up the marshes. The spawn here can be over in a matter of days.

I Do Not Think That The Local Fishing Club Is In Support Of This. The Person From The Fishing Club Who Wants This Is Marty Johnson And He Brought This To Mike Hermans Because He Is On The Dnr's Citizens Advisory Committe. Marty Is On His Own And Must Have His Own Agenda.

To my knowledge, a citizens advisory committee for fisheries does not exist. There's one for DNR parks, and one for waterfowl. So this person's committee status should have no bearing on the slot issue. If I'm incorrect, someone please advise. If there is actually a citizens committee for fisheries I'd like to be on it.

Steve Horton

Has anyone thought about the impact this would have on fishing tournaments? Certainly this would draw more large tournaments to the bay but also alot more big fish will be effected.


Just my opinion why raise it to 5 over right of the bat. Why not try 2 or 3 instead.

Interesting that in a short period of time that so many changes are happening.

1- Longer fishing season
2- Next year 3 lines per angler
next- no slot?

Seem like a lot of change in a short period of time. There must be a reason for it?