Slot Size and Keepers: Clarification

[T-Bone]

As I read these reports that are thankfully coming in, those of you that harvest walleyes often refer to 'under', 'over', and 'in' slot. Like "...we caught a lot of fish under the slot and several over". The prevailing comment this year, it seems, is "most of our fish were keepers"....meaning those were in the slot. Interestingly, we found that about 85% of our fish last year were NOT keepers...meaning things have really turned around, there is misunderstanding, or we just catch a lot of undersized fish. Still...that would equal about 200 keepers for the week.

This doesn't pertain directly to me, but just looking for confirmation so we don't break any rules when we're up there.

In Slot Keeper Walleye: Just under 15" to just under 21" (37cm-53cm)
Under slot: Under 15" or 37cm (throw it back)
Over slot: Over 21" or 53cm (throw it back)

I'm no biologist, but this always seemed backwards to me, hence the need for clarification and confirmation.

Thanks for the insights....

27...

[Canuckbass]

The guys were up a few weeks ago and most were keepers, not like two years ago they were all tiny. Last year I caught a lot of keepers.

If this slot thing works out, Kipawa is going to be an amazing fishery in a few years... it already is, just better.

[NortonJoe]

Lake Watson, where we fish, is outside the ZEC and its slot limits are slightly more generous.  Overall, I think the conservation plan is working well.  I have also noticed an uptick in the fishing over the years...all good.

[RHYBAK]

Under  14.75" goes back
Over 20.75 goes back.

If the fish is anywhere in between and your name is not T-Bone, you can keep that fish.

Lest we forget, T-Bone does not keep fish.

[T-Bone]

Lest we forget, T-Bone does not keep fish.

Why keep the fish? Let it swim to be caught and enjoyed by anglers on another day. Nutrition and proteins in the form of food and calories can be purchased at the grocery store. 

I don't expect anyone to understand it... 

Still 27...

[Hodgey1]

Not to go sideways with this but... I was at a beach house for a week last year and caught a couple Kingfish in the surf, I brought them back to the house, fileted them and pan fried them for lunch. They tasted really, really good by the way! My cousin, who's a city girl, came in and asked what I cooked for lunch, so I told her, we caught some fish, fried them up and ate them. She replied after a few moment with great awe and shock......... You can Dooooo That?   I said, yes you can........................................

[crunchie]

Lake Watson, where we fish, is outside the ZEC and its slot limits are slightly more generous.  Overall, I think the conservation plan is working well.  I have also noticed an uptick in the fishing over the years...all good.

Justy wondering, Lake Watson is in zone 12?  May be going to Watson soon, the slot size is the standard 37-53?  tks

[NortonJoe]

Lake Watson, where we fish, is outside the ZEC and its slot limits are slightly more generous.  Overall, I think the conservation plan is working well.  I have also noticed an uptick in the fishing over the years...all good.

Justy wondering, Lake Watson is in zone 11 or 12?

13 west; the slot size is 32-47 cm (12.5-18.5 inches).

[crackers42]

Just to add to the conversation you have to pay attention to the fillet size also.

[FSZ]

I fish in Zec restigo.  Initially, there was a 37 CM minimum (no slot).  This translates to 14.6 inches.  It was believed that generally a female fish of this size in this region will most likely have had the chance to spawn at least once.  In other words, the minimum size was intended to increase the number of fish in the lake.  It did to a limited extent.

Years later, but before the rest of Quebec, the slot limit of 37-53 cm was implemented.  53 cm is 20.5 inches.  The intent with the maximum size is to protect the "mega spawners" the largest females that lay the most eggs.  Also, a fish of this size (53 cm) is believed to be mostly past the point of pike predation.  In other words, at 53 cm the most likely thing to kill the fish is a fisherman by keeping it. 

The slot  has increased the size and numbers nominally,  and I love the fact that no trophy fish can be removed.

I think Ontario's management philosophy may be a bit more effective.  I went to northwest ontario last year for the first time.  The limit is only 4 (not 6); they also offer a reduced fee license where you can only keep 2.  There is no minimum size, but only 1 fish over 18.1" can be kept.  Although this allows trophy fish to be kept (a bad thing in my opinion) it protects the 18-21" fish better (which there are more of).  Since there are way more of these fish than fish over 21", this enhances population by protecting the fish that ultimately lay the most eggs.  The lower bag limit(s) offsets the no size minimum.  In speaking with a US fish biologist last year at the camp I stayed at, he feels Ontario's regulation would be perfect if it did not allow harvest of any fish over 18".

The reality is most fisherman will keep their legal limit with the belief that by doing so they are not harming the resource, since the presumption is the MNR will set the limit to protect the resource.  The reality is the MNR always waits until there is a noticable decline in quantity or quality of fish to implement changes.  And they also fear a loss of license sales if limits are reduced. 

[Jay Thomas]

I fish in Zec restigo.  Initially, there was a 37 CM minimum (no slot).  This translates to 14.6 inches.  It was believed that generally a female fish of this size in this region will most likely have had the chance to spawn at least once.  In other words, the minimum size was intended to increase the number of fish in the lake.  It did to a limited extent.

Would it be possible for you to elaborate on who believed that generally a female fish of this size in this region will most likely have had the chance to spawn at least once.

I have a copy of a 2001 report from the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec entitled ÉTAT DE LA SITUATUIONS DES POPULATIONS DE TOULADIS ET DE DORÉS JAUNES AU RÉSERVOIR KIPAWA that states:
1.   sexual maturity for a female walleye is attained near 6 years of age
2.   on average, 6 year old female walleyes will measure 17 inches in length
3.   on average, 4 year old female walleyes will measure 14.6 inches in length
4.   on average, 8 year old female walleyes will measure 21 inches in length

Jay

[Canuckbass]

A MNR biologist told me keeping the big ones in our region is fine, they are not the breeders. Removing the breeders harms a lake.

[crackers42]

After speaking with a few our MNR in Ontario and also in Quebec the theme seems to be "larger fish" or 7 pound plus are somewhat dormant.  Meaning they eat a tremendous amount and are not as fertile as the 1-5  pound fish.

Thoughts?

[Canuckbass]

After speaking with a few our MNR in Ontario and also in Quebec the theme seems to be "larger fish" or 7 pound plus are somewhat dormant.  Meaning they eat a tremendous amount and are not as fertile as the 1-5  pound fish.

Thoughts?

You're exactly correct as what I've been told. They'd rather see us keep the 7+ walleye then the eaters... I mean breeders. That is in Ontario with no slot limit.

[Jay Thomas]

After speaking with a few our MNR in Ontario and also in Quebec the theme seems to be "larger fish" or 7 pound plus are somewhat dormant.  Meaning they eat a tremendous amount and are not as fertile as the 1-5  pound fish. Thoughts?

Generally speaking, I concur. The "prime" walleye breeding stock in shield lakes in the Abitibi/Témiscaming area are those which produce the maximum number of eggs with high fecundity (high rates of reproduction). These "prime" breeders are walleye from sexual maturity (6 years) until 9 or 10 years of age. After that, the number of eggs produced starts to diminish as does the fecundity rate. Older and larger walleye may only produce 1/3 of the eggs they produced as prime breeders and a large percentage of those older eggs are not fertilizable. However, one thing in favour of these older female walleye is the gene pool they represent.

I could easily support changing the slot limit to 14.6 inches (37 cm) to 17.5 inches (44.5 cm) to better protect prime breeding stock. However, I've been fishing a Quebec lake that has had a 37 cm to 53 cm protective slot limit for over 5 years and I have yet to observe any positive impacts from a fishing perspective (e.g. we're not catching more walleye nor are we catching more larger walleye). I don't understand that but then again I'm not a fish biologist.

Jay