Which proposed Walleye Regs do you support?

Post by **Lookinforlunkers** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:04 pm

RRC if a slot was voted in would it be only one fish over 55-65(wallhanger) and a couple under the slot?

Post by **Moosebunk** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:19 pm

For Division 18, which I fish. I think 5 under 20 and 1 over would be cool.

It's bullsh!t the Ottawa river has looser regs than the unpopulated land of walleye in Northern Ontario. And personally, I don't care to hear the slow growth crap either.

Post by **steely5** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:54 am

I fish a lot at lake clear near Eganville.Where there is a 50cm minimum for a long time now,you usualy have to land 35 to 40 wallies to get one keeper.I would say do away with the slots and make it one or two limit everywhere,or even one below one above minimum would be good also.And have the courts enforce the laws not the conservation officers they are doing all they can with what they have would be an even better solution

Post by **CCLad** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:59 am

Slot limit, reduce possession limit, all will work, all would/should be specific to the individual body of water in relation to the fish population.

You want to protect fisheries, stop the harvesting of them while their spawning...period! But hey that's what they did 200 years ago so it must be ok now....Nothing changes you know! There's nothing like feeding a two year old 100lbs of 10lbs walleye from the waters of lake On/Bay of Quinte.

Post by **AzuluSpook'd** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:58 pm

Georgian Bay...where I primarily fish...has had a slot for Eyes for quite some time.....16 to 22 must go back...you are allowed two...either two under or one under and one over.....there are quite a few eyes where I fish...so it's not too big of a concern....

However....

I also fish the French River...where the slot is 15 to 25 and you are allowed 4 (3 under and 1 over or 4 under).....very rare to catch any over 25 on the french...not as abudant as GB....and this has been in effect since 1995....where's the bigguns?

Post by **nighttroller** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:25 pm

I don't support any. I would prefer they reduce the limit than put a slot limit in. I don't keep very many fish but the best walleye eaters in my opinion are 15 - 18".

Post by **SKEET544** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:51 am

Option #4 lesser of 4 evils. I only keep walleye between 15-19" to eat. Taste better and are almost always males.

Post by **Bulldog** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:58 pm

I haven't voted yet. I am still thinking about my preference. I have been fishing Crotch L. about 3 wks. per summer for many yrs. now. There has been a 18' -- 24" slot size limit for walleye in effect for Crotch L. for the past 15+ yrs. Very rarely doesn anyone catch an eye over 24 ". I have caught about 10 fish above the slot during this 15 yr. stretch. So, we keep walleye between 15" -- 18" for our meals. It seems that even with this slot limit that the fishery has been declining somewhat over the yrs.

As I am only familiar with Crotch L., I can't say what may or may not work on other lakes and in other areas. I know that the MNR is trying to simplify things but I am not sure that a "one size, fits all" model is best. Each body of water is different ecologically and experiences different stressors (i.e. fishing pressure).

What would be really interesting to me would be to have the MNR release its finding with respect to the success or shortcomings of the 18" -- 24" slot size that has been in effect on Crotch L. for the past 15 yrs.

My suggestion to the MNR for Crotch L. would be to reduce the limit to 4 walleye, implement a mininum size of 15" and revise the slot to 19" -- 23".

I would also like to suggest that Fishhawk share this "unscientific" survey and opinions with the MNR after the responses become less frequent.

Bulldog