23 inch slot limit on LBDN

There is a real chance that the "one fish over 23 inch" slot limit could be removed from LBDN. This proposal was brought up tonight at a board of directors meeting of the Bay de Noc Great Lakes Sport Fishing club. Mike Herman, our local DNR fisheries head, says there is no biological reason why we need this slot on Little Bay. The majority of the board members are in favor of keeping the regulation (personally, I'm "on the fence.")

What do you think - should the regulation stay in place, or should it go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bait Shop Guy

There is a real chance that the "one fish over 23 inch" slot limit could be removed from LBDN. This proposal was brought up tonight at a board of directors meeting of the Bay de Noc Great Lakes Sport Fishing club. Mike Herman, our local DNR fisheries head, says there is no biological reason why we need this slot on Little Bay. The majority of the board members are in favor of keeping the regulation (personally, I'm "on the fence.")

What do you think - should the regulation stay in place, or should it go?

---

I personally feel "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Infact, since the "one fish over 23 inch" rule seems to have worked so well here, I think they should expand it to cover Big bay too. Then work with Wisconsin officials to eventually expand the 23 inch limit to all of Green Bay. We currently have lots of walleye, and I would just as soon keep it that way...On the other hand, maybe if we had fewer walleye, we would have more perch?

I agree with Kevin....if it isn't broken....leave it alone. Why would anyone want to keep "any" fish over 23 inches (other than for mounting). Your best eaters are the smaller legal sized fish anyway. Leave those large walleye for spawing.........if I am not mistaken there was no walleye planting by the DNR last year because of uncertainty of the VHS virus.

I agree with slot limits, i take a ice fishing trip to lake of the woods every year of the past 5 years and there slot is 3 walleyes up to 19.5 inchs with only one to be over 28. Also this is a possesion limit not a daily limit. This seems to work great for their fishery. Although it it tough to throw back a beautiful 25 inch walleye, it just make sence for a better quality fishery. Just my 2 cents
Andy

I think that it should be left alone also. Like jigrapper said why would you want to keep and eat that big of a fish. My vote goes with Kevin's saying if ain't broke don't try to fix it. Here in WI. I just found out that our DNR messsed up the Sauger regulation on Lake Winnebago it was suppose to be 4 walleye and 1 sauger. They made a typo and the law reads 5 walleye and 1 sauger kinda funny the typer must be the same person that counts our deer.

See everyone up there in a couple of hours.

Capt. Steve is OUT

keep the 23 inch slot limit

I agree also, if it isn't broke....leave it the heck alone.

Just my $.02

The 23 in slot limit has allowed bigger fish to survive to trophy potential. Those big walleyes, biologically, don't have any more ability to be reproducers, once they get to be 8-10 lbs., than say a smaller 4 pounder. The biologists truly believe this. However, that trophy walleye means alot to alot of people, which I can understand. So, Herman is sort of right by saying it doesn't make biological sense to have the slot limit to provide for a walleye fishery, just a TROPHY walleye fishery. But, does it make biological sense to plant over a million walleye every other year until the bay has an over abundance of small walleye and just a few over 10 lbs? My humble opinion is that small walleye are most voracious feeders and their sheer numbers in the bay have overrun other species, specifically panfish, simply by predation and competition, biologically speaking. Anyone who knows the history of the bay and its fish populations will agree. Herman also was in favor of extending the spearing season across the state which got pushed through like it was important, and went into effect even before the new regs came out! In my opinion, a large adult pike or musky is rare thing. Not really my opinion, actually, its a biological fact. A speared musky is a dead musky, period. By extending the season to overlap with the movement of pre-spawn pike and muskies to shallow areas where they can be speared will lessen the number of these adult fish, which biologically ARE necessary for effective natural reproduction when considering the species. Herman and the DNR put that population in danger. How is that for "biological"? With the WDNR trying to re-establish the natural Great Lakes spotted musky population to Green Bay this was a foolish move. So, with all due respect to Mike Herman, his biological reasoning is questionable at best.

With all due respect to Mr. Herman, he's in a tough situation. I guess if I were in his shoes and just had to look at the numbers and the "biology" of it all, then I'd probably say we didn't need the "one over 23" law too. But there's more to things than just numbers. Last night I asked him if the population dynamics would change at all if the law was removed and he said no. So...if things won't change much, why change it? Let's leave it alone. As a charter captain, it really doesn't matter much to me, most of my clients just want to catch fish and take some home with them. In fact, I've never had any complaints about having to release fish over 23 inches, most people say they wish they had a rule like that where they live. But...as a business owner it means a lot. We are a unique area, with an awesome fishery, and it's nice to show people that we take care of our fishery. Even if "biologically" speaking the law is not needed, it's nice to be able to promote the area as a trophy fishery. Lots of people come up here because they know they always have a shot at catching a trophy walleye, if we remove the current law, that perception could change with many anglers. In almost every article written about the bay, the author explains the "one over 23 rule" and how "unique" it is. There are a lot of businesses in the area that cater mostly to fishermen. Anglers have to eat, sleep, buy gas, purchase bait, tackle, etc. Why do something that might hurt the local economy? I agree with my brother Kevin (and that doesn't always happen) "if it ain't broke...don't try to fix it". Thanks to Mr. Herman for coming to our meeting.

I like the 23" slot. I fished Lake Gogebic for years where Seldom... SELDOM .. did.. umm do.. you catch a fish in that big lake of over 23". The limit was 13" for years.. until the late 80's.. we caught way too many fish 11-12 inches. After a few years with the limit at 15 we soon caught many fish 13-14". I understand what Enterprise says, and agree for the most part. But, I also know that it wouldnt take long for us to not catch many larger walleye in LBDN if "most" people knew they could keep all the big ones they catch.

I think that is the one thing that is unique to LBDN over other waters; the Trophy fishery we have.

I hope to, one day, latch on to one like this young man caught when he was only 10 yrs old.. From another body of water.. not LBDN

36.5"; 15lbs 13oz on a certified scale at the meat store; caught on a zebco 202 and Holiday brand rod with what Dad believs was the original 8 year old line.

I think the slot limit is great. It helps keep the big fish hear and alive. I wish it was expanded to big bay as well. The fishing over hear has dropped a little bita and i think a slot would maybe help boost up the population, especially with eaters have more big ones left to spawn.

what would the purpose of going back serve? So when the Jug Bourdeau touny is on you can keep more fish to try and win more money? Or the guys from out of the area can really clean up next month? Its not like the 28 inchers are the best eaters. I can't even believe this is a question. Don't be greedy, it's working fine now why change anything.

Leave as is,,Take a picture it last's longer

I'm okay with the way it is, but I also would not be opposed to the slot being upped a few inches. Not sure about the science behind the choices here on LBDN, but I read a Canadian study that indicated fish in the 20-22" range were the prime spawners. That may have been on different types of water, though, further north, with slower growth rates. Interesting topic.

Keep the over 23" slot, Walleyes can be found over the entire UP only in LBDN do I have the feeling every time I fish I might catch a real trophy.

I to believe it should be left alone,there arn't many places where every bite is a potenial 10 pounder..I know this is what keeps me coming back,not sure if new rules would change this or not, but why risk it..

All I got to say is leave it alone. The slot limit is just fine now. Like they say if it's not broke don't fix. Good luck fishing from Walleye Quinn.

To compare LBDN to Lake Gogebic is like comparing apples to oranges.

A 15" fish on lake gogebic is approximately 6 years old according to DNR officials.

A 15" fish on LBDN is 2.5 to 3 years old.

LBDN is basically a rearing ground for young walleyes and a spawing ground for the bigger fish. LBDN fish grow extremely fast. Gogebic fish eat wigglers due to a lack of major forage base.

How many times have you caught a walleye over 23" in the summer in non-slot boundary water (LBDN). Some but not many.

The massive migration of big walleyes to the bay that occurs in fall through winter are from areas that typically don't have a slot limit.

I imagine the DNR is thinking that the overall effect from keeping fish over 23" in LBDN wouldn't matter on the big picture cause most of these fish reside in areas that don't have slot limits anyways.

My opinion is the slot limit is beneficial if natural reproduction is occurring and I think this is a proven fact since we are seeing these tiny walleyes that aren't a result of plants due to the VHS thing.

My $0.02 - WG

Hell, I voted too fast. I guess I can't do more than one thing at a time. After reviewing my flub up I realized that I read the poll wrong. Should have voted for leaving it the way it is. I guess it's the same as Deer Hunting; Let em' Go; Let em' Grow..:D

If it's not broke don't fix it. Nobody needs more than one of those big hogs in a day, let um go.

Keep the slot-I wish WI would go with something similar.

Eaters are the better fish anyway. Nothing feels better than letting a big fish swim for another day.............

I sure hope they leave it the way it is, I wish they would make this a law for the hole state of MI. That helps make LBDN such a great walleye fishery.

I grew up in Minnesota where "catch and release/selective harvest" was pretty much the norm for most guys. It was a bit of a rude awakening when the folks moved us here in the late 80's. Most people kept everything they legally could - and then some. I'm happy to say I've seen attitudes make a big change in the 20 years I've been here. I'd like to think that if the slot was removed, the majority of sport fishermen would still release those bigger fish.

I said before I was "on the fence" with this issue. If the biology supports it, why not? On the other hand, if the slot is removed, I really do think it would effect my business adversely. I REALLY don't want to take a second "would you like fries with that" job just to make ends meet! I guess I'm more in favor of keeping it than dropping it.

I agree that the 1 fish over 23 rule should stay the same. And I have to say that I respect that the bait shop guy and sall mar guys feel the same way. They would probably gain alot more business if we could keep more than one whopper at a time. It tells me that these guys care about this fishery moreso than making a extra few bucks and I commend them for that. This is why the UP is great. People that aren't trying to screw up our walleye fishing for profit. If this was a issue in a big city then bait shop and guides would be all about getting rid of the slot just to line their pockets. On a side note I think that our declining perch population is due more so in part to the non native invasive species taking over. Anyone else notice how damn clear the water is in the bay? Also I hate to beat a dead horse but people need to stop keeping perch that aren't at least 10 or 11 inches. I cant tell ya how many times during the summer I talk to out of towners who say they caught a nice mess of perch and the biggest one is barely 8 inches. Thats my 2 cents and then some. Im basically so upset about it because I've been fishing here all my life and never caught a perch over 13 inches. But I shall soon. Oh yes.. I shall soon!!!!

"if the slot is removed, I really do think it would effect my business adversely."

As would many others my friend.... Many others!

You are right in saying Sportsman would put them back and take there pics.. but many more would keep on taking 'em out. And after so long .. "The massive migration of big walleyes to the bay that occurs in fall through winter" would suffer.

WalleyeGuy .. good point well made.. and taken. But .. the DNR dont plant Gogebic either.. and whether the fish grow faster here isnt the point I was making.. I was simply stating that the size limit definately effected the catch and it will NEVER be like that of LBDN.. oh.. and Lake Gogebic, for those that dont know, is nearly 20 miles long and up to 3 miles wide.. 12,800 acres with depths over 30 feet. Perch are often up to 2 lbs or bigger and a stringer of 15 Inchers isnt uncommon. I think the size problem for walleye isnt so much not much forage... but an overabundance of walleye. which is why they had the 13" limit for so many years.

Its all about where to go to get the big ones.. cuz I can catch eaters in alot of waters. I am not a trophy fisherman.. but given the option of limiting out where there is a possibilty of that wall mounter.. vs limiting out where they just dont get any bigger... guess where I want to fish

I am not in favor of adding Big Bay to the slot limit. Its hard to catch a walleye on BBDN under 23 inches. I did vote not to change the regs.

What a dilemma. Being able to fish all day and not being able to limit out because you are catching near trophy sized Walleyes and can't catch any under 23" It only happened twice but it's something I'll never forget

I say leave it alone

I happen to like the slot. It works. Retired Biologist Jerry Peterson will tell you they used a lot of big eyes like this to bring our Bay back. If they remove it some then some sort of slot should be put in its place. Like Frank S said to increase our numbers of eating size and bigger. All of your productive lakes have some sort of slot. I think it would kill peaple traveling here to our area for a trophy. Just my opinion

Keep the 23" slot limt including all Lake Michigan water in Delta Co.

If it is'nt going to improve the fishery by removing it why would you? Is there anything in fish genes to grow big fish? Why do you catch 27" males or bigger? I'm no biologist but unless there hurting something why would you change it? Hey Bill I heard you can't catch any over 23" anyway.:D

Removing the 23 inch slot may still allow us to have a healthy walleye fishery on the bay, but will we still have a healthy TROPHY walleye fishery?

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?

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