Joined
·
4,708 Posts
Very interesting read. Most surprising thing to me was the number of lakes in the Lower with variable nat repo. My impression had been that because of the consistent stocking very few could sustain a fishery on their own. I guess I got that impression when they had to stop stocking and my catch rates collapsed.
I think the options are designed to give the DNR a menu of management tools and they'd like to know which ones are most acceptable to fishermen.
1. Duh.
2. Not a lot of objections on the Bay. How many lakes would this apply to? Gogebic and maybe some others in the UP? Serious question, it's not like I have an intimate knowledge of the 375 walleye lakes in the state.
3. I'm not fond of this option. Would rather see a limit of 2 and a minimum size of 15". We've all fished lakes that produce keepers in the spring, shorts all summer and keepers in the fall. Maybe if more of those keepers made it past spring we'd have more 17-20" fish in the fall and the following year. Fishermen would select the larger fish because of the lower creel and the overall size structure could bump up. I'd rather catch 10 and keep 2 than catch 3 when I can keep 5. "In addition, approximately 45% of anglers responded that a successful inland Walleye fishing trip meant catching three or more fish". Sounds like 3 is a good outing for a lot of people. Trying it on a few lakes that already have consumption advisories would be workable.
4. Meh. If it works ok but seems like the larger problem is panfish limits on those lakes. Also worry that bass will be suppressed by the walleye and as soon as the stocking stops the 'gills will stunt again.
5. That's ok. As I said above, I didn't realize how many lakes have variable reproduction. Cutting some of them (& spawning rivers) some slack during the spawn seems like a good idea. Yes, it would add a little complication but it's only 2-3 weeks of exceptions.
6. How about no closed season on the lakes that have no natural reproduction.
I think the options are designed to give the DNR a menu of management tools and they'd like to know which ones are most acceptable to fishermen.
1. Duh.
2. Not a lot of objections on the Bay. How many lakes would this apply to? Gogebic and maybe some others in the UP? Serious question, it's not like I have an intimate knowledge of the 375 walleye lakes in the state.
3. I'm not fond of this option. Would rather see a limit of 2 and a minimum size of 15". We've all fished lakes that produce keepers in the spring, shorts all summer and keepers in the fall. Maybe if more of those keepers made it past spring we'd have more 17-20" fish in the fall and the following year. Fishermen would select the larger fish because of the lower creel and the overall size structure could bump up. I'd rather catch 10 and keep 2 than catch 3 when I can keep 5. "In addition, approximately 45% of anglers responded that a successful inland Walleye fishing trip meant catching three or more fish". Sounds like 3 is a good outing for a lot of people. Trying it on a few lakes that already have consumption advisories would be workable.
4. Meh. If it works ok but seems like the larger problem is panfish limits on those lakes. Also worry that bass will be suppressed by the walleye and as soon as the stocking stops the 'gills will stunt again.
5. That's ok. As I said above, I didn't realize how many lakes have variable reproduction. Cutting some of them (& spawning rivers) some slack during the spawn seems like a good idea. Yes, it would add a little complication but it's only 2-3 weeks of exceptions.
6. How about no closed season on the lakes that have no natural reproduction.
