Our 18.1 inch rule in the Regs.

[Some Old Guy 968]

 Our 46 cm (18.1) inch rule in our Regulations says with a full licence that we are allowed to keep 3 walleye under 46 cm and 1 over 46 cm. 

 

I have been saying this for a long time now, that this will destroy year classes of walleye. And now I am noticing the numbers of 16.5 to 17.75 inch fish are far and few between on popular fishing water systems. 

 

I get it that people want the best bang for their dollar and you try to keep a limit of these good under fish. But fishing is now harder and harder for these fish. You either get over fish or 12 -14 inch fish. Yes there are still some numbers of good under fish but no where like it used to be. 

 

I think this issue needs to be addressed soon before it becomes to late to do anything about it. 

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Roger

[dano 8]

whats the issue , people following the rules?

 

Maybe the heavily fished lakes should have different slot size ,i don't know,  but where would yo draw the line on popular fishing systems. If there's a road, trail or waterway to a lake its getting fished.

This regulation of 1 over 18'' has to be an improvement from the previous rule of 6 walleye?

 

And again the regs are only intended for anglers who don't have Aboriginal rights or treaty rights.

 

We should be careful what we wish for,

Ontario isn't far from being a " look but don't touch province" as far as being able to go fishing and hunting.

 

[Zackcorbin1401 536]

1 hour ago, Roger Mayer said:

 Our 46 cm (18.1) inch rule in our Regulations says with a full licence that we are allowed to keep 3 walleye under 46 cm and 1 over 46 cm. 

 

I have been saying this for a long time now, that this will destroy year classes of walleye. And now I am noticing the numbers of 16.5 to 17.75 inch fish are far and few between on popular fishing water systems. 

 

I get it that people want the best bang for their dollar and you try to keep a limit of these good under fish. But fishing is now harder and harder for these fish. You either get over fish or 12 -14 inch fish. Yes there are still some numbers of good under fish but no where like it used to be. 

 

I think this issue needs to be addressed soon before it becomes to late to do anything about it. 

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Roger

I agree with you 100% about what was said. What do you think could be done mabye 1 fish over 15" but again a lot of people wouldn't be happy about that.

[Some Old Guy 968]

6 minutes ago, dano said:

whats the issue , people following the rules?

 

Maybe the heavily fished lakes should have different slot size ,i don't know,  but where would yo draw the line on popular fishing systems. If there's a road, trail or waterway to a lake its getting fished.

This regulation of 1 over 18'' has to be an improvement from the previous rule of 6 walleye?

 

And again the regs are only intended for anglers who don't have Aboriginal rights or treaty rights.

 

We should be careful what we wish for,

Ontario isn't far from being a " look but don't touch province" as far as being able to go fishing and hunting.

 

Yeah. People following the rules. Exactly what I am talking about.

 

Look I'm not against the rules. Is it just me and I can't seem to catch the number of 16.5 - 17.75 fish that I used to? I am having no problem getting 19 plus inch fish and 12-14 inch fish. 

 

Anyone else noticing this? Or is it just me and I can't catch these 16.5 - 17.5 inch fish?

 

Yes I am careful for what I wish for. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just me and I can't catch them. But if I'm right................?

 

Roger

[RickS 19]

I think you can expect to see a similar pattern emerge (where fish of the minimum size limit are harder to find)-regardless of where the MNR sets the minimum size limit-- especially in lakes that get heavy fishing pressure.

 

It is pretty common for walleye to have boom and bust cycles where it appears that one or more year-classes are scarce in a particular lake. This phenomenon is generally thought to be caused by environmental conditions affecting the success rate of the spawn and subsequent survival of the fry.  It seems to occur regardless of whether there are highly restrictive limits on minimum or maximum size allowed for harvest.  That said, I have definitely noticed that catching 17-18" fish can be a bit more challenging in the northwestern Ontario lakes that I fish, but I've never noticed any problem with finding fish in the 15-16" range.  Some of the lakes that I fish also have a "slot" limit that bans harvest of any fish in the 18-24" range and for those lakes I have noticed that we catch more fish that are 18-20"-- which I think is good as these are fish that should be left to ensure future breeding.  

 

I think an important consideration is what you are hoping to "get" when you go walleye fishing.  Do you want to catch a trophy (whatever that means to you) and be able to take it home to mount on the wall?  Do you want to catch a few fish to fry up for dinner?  Do you want to have lots of catch-and-release action?  Do you want to catch a large stringer of fish and get a picture that shows what a great angler you are?  In my opinion, the Ontario walleye regs are a good blend in that they allow you to possess 2 (conservation license) or 4 (full license) and that should generally be enough to feed the angler and a couple of friends as well as bring home a trophy if that is what you are looking to do (although I would highly recommend releasing that trophy and getting a replica made if you really want to hang something on your wall) while at the same time the regs do a good job of protecting the breeding population from over-harvest by anglers.

[RickS 19]

Guys-- sorry about the triple-posting of my reply.  Not sure what happened there.

[James01 223]

36 minutes ago, Roger Mayer said:

Yeah. People following the rules. Exactly what I am talking about.

 

Look I'm not against the rules. Is it just me and I can't seem to catch the number of 16.5 - 17.75 fish that I used to? I am having no problem getting 19 plus inch fish and 12-14 inch fish. 

 

Anyone else noticing this? Or is it just me and I can't catch these 16.5 - 17.5 inch fish?

 

Yes I am careful for what I wish for. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just me and I can't catch them. But if I'm right................?

 

Roger

I am not sure what the solution is... changing the size restrictions will only mean shifting the pressure. It makes sense that the hardest hit fish population is going to be that which is closest to the size limit. Increase or decrease the 18.1 and in a few seasons you might be posting "I have a hard time catching walleye just under..." I don't know what can be done - aside from cutting the possession limit in half, which would mean only half the fish caught, and I am not in favor of that, or some overly complicated regulation that probably wouldn't work anyway.

 

That being said, when I guided on Lac Seul there was a no culling regulation... all walleye kept had to be killed, thus people couldn't 'trade up' their fish. Maybe something like this, applied province wide, would help. 

 

I have noticed a lot more big fish in almost every system I fish. Maybe not 15lbs + fish Roger, but big fish nonetheless.

[arvey 154]

1 hour ago, Roger Mayer said:

 Our 46 cm (18.1) inch rule in our Regulations says with a full licence that we are allowed to keep 3 walleye under 46 cm and 1 over 46 cm. 

 

I have been saying this for a long time now, that this will destroy year classes of walleye. And now I am noticing the numbers of 16.5 to 17.75 inch fish are far and few between on popular fishing water systems. 

 

I get it that people want the best bang for their dollar and you try to keep a limit of these good under fish. But fishing is now harder and harder for these fish. You either get over fish or 12 -14 inch fish. Yes there are still some numbers of good under fish but no where like it used to be. 

 

I think this issue needs to be addressed soon before it becomes to late to do anything about it. 

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Roger

I agree with you Roger a trip i'm presently on I find most are over 20 . I asked an O. F. A. H. this same question and mentioned maybe no walleye between 16.5 - 18 and still have one over . The answer was then you put the pressure to the smaller ones , if somebody is going to cull a 16 for a 17 they do the same in the smaller sizes . Really I don't know how much more fillet you get with a 1.5 inch difference . Maybe like James 01 said no culling .    

[dano 8]

Roger,

 

which lake are you not catching "good unders" at ?.........   Kenogamisis?

Just joking of course.

[Some Old Guy 968]

Hi Dano,

 

Kenogamisis is one of the lakes. In the Kam yesterday, there were some good unders caught but the majority were 12-14 inch fish. I was in a spot where they were either big or small. Not too much in between.

 

Whitefish is another one where there seems to be age classes that are missing.

 

I know that there could be bad years for spawning. But in my mind I'm seeing it get worse over time.

 

Roger

[pastor norm 125]

I like James01's idea of immediate kill of any fish you intend to keep. No trading up or swapping fish on stringers or holding tanks.  This is why it's tougher to catch fish within an inch of the limit. It's the reason for the law in other places. 

[Jack Fish 16]

Just got back from a trip to Lac Seul. It took 4 days for 6 of us to catch  our 4-18 " fish to bring home..

[Adrian 132]

I think there is a problem with the 14 - 18 size.  I fish Dog Lake, and early in the season, it is easy to get a limit of 14 - 16.  Larger than that, I usually let go.  I usually get some into the 20's  I am not a trophy fisher, I just catch enough for a meal or two.  The bigger ones are not as tasty as the smaller fish.  Later on in the season, not much over 14 is had.  I don't mind the 12 - 14 size for eating,that is the best eating size for me, but there is a noted lack of larger fish in the mid summer.  Later in the season, I start catching the bigger fish again.  I am thinking it is that my fishing tactic doesn't change through the summer, but the bite does.  

[James01 223]

1 hour ago, Fred said:

Trophy is a relative term. But aside from first fish, and beating a personal best I think sinker7 is on the mark. 

What did sinker7 say that's relative to a conversation about over/under the 18.1'' rule?

[James01 223]

12 hours ago, Jack Fish said:

Just got back from a trip to Lac Seul. It took 4 days for 6 of us to catch  our 4-18 " fish to bring home..

What were the other numbers like? Walleye under 18''? Walleye over 18''?  I imagine it took a while, if you were all looking for your limits in exactly 18'' fish... which doesn't discredit any point, nor Roger's concern - and, in fact, validates a lot of the reasoning in this thread. Lac Seul has a kill - and no cull - policy, and I am guessing you let a lot of fish go that most would consider 'eating size.'

 

So, I am guessing that it isn't that "no cull" doesn't work, rather its that you and your friends wanted your limits in as big of fish as possible... likely the reasoning behind Roger's point.

 

This is what people are doing all over. Having a no culling policy simply makes it more difficult to take your limit home if you are looking specifically for the 18''. 

[Jack Fish 16]

When you drive all the way to  Ear  Falls and spend $575 USD for 4 days, yes, you want to bring home your legal limit. I'm sure we caught 450-500 fish, anywhere from 6" to 26". Probably an equal # of unders to slot/overs. Reel Fishin'. Beautiful healthy fat fish.

[mad scientist 140]

To address this concern, one needs first ti understand the purpose of size limits.  A minimum size limit can be a useful tool when the is a problem with recruitment...insufficient spawning habitat, environmental challenges, high predation of young fish, etc.  Once fish reach maturity, they're past the bottleneck, but the problem is retaining enough fish to reach maturity.

 

Maximum size limits, on the other hand, can be useful when there is high mortality of mature fish...which overfishing can certainly contribute to.  The intent is to protect the majority of the spawning age fish; the theory being that (a) a healthy spawning population will produce plenty of young fish and (b) mortality rates are naturally higher in juvenile fish, therefore, smaller size classes are better able to absorb angling pressure

 

What we have in most of northern Ontario is considered a "modified maximum size limit"...the one-over basically being a compromise - it reduces the effectiveness of the maximum size limit, but allows anglers to keep a big one if they choose - making it more acceptable to many anglers and tourist operators.

 

Sized based regulations aren't just grabbed out of thin air...effective size limits require a thorough knowledge of growth rates, maturation schedules and recruitment across the landscape.  Determining these is one of the main reasons MNRF designed the Broadscale Monitoring Program.

 

The one over 46cm regulation was developed in Northwestern Ontario, and has subsequently been adopted through much of the rest of the province.  The 46cm value was based on their understanding of growth, maturity and recruitment at the time (mid 90s).  Twenty years later, many anglers would agree that the regs have done a good job of improving walleye fishing in the region.  However, given the passage of time and changes to populations, it is not unreasonable to expect the criteria upon which 46cm was chosen to have shifted.

 

However, determining whether the size limit is still appropriate, or what might do a better job, again requires an understanding of the growth, maturity and recruitment across the landscape...these types of analyses are typically completed as part of the background work for a fisheries management planning exercise.

 

 

[James01 223]

1 hour ago, Jack Fish said:

When you drive all the way to  Ear  Falls and spend $575 USD for 4 days, yes, you want to bring home your legal limit. I'm sure we caught 450-500 fish, anywhere from 6" to 26". Probably an equal # of unders to slot/overs. Reel Fishin'. Beautiful healthy fat fish.

 

No doubt... I miss Lac Seul. It seems the no-cull rule works. If you and your friends were content with limits if 16''-18'' fish, I am assuming you wouldn't have had a hard time filling your limits. That was my point, not to demonize you for keeping your limit. 

[James01 223]

1 hour ago, mad scientist said:

To address this concern, one needs first ti understand the purpose of size limits.  A minimum size limit can be a useful tool when the is a problem with recruitment...insufficient spawning habitat, environmental challenges, high predation of young fish, etc.  Once fish reach maturity, they're past the bottleneck, but the problem is retaining enough fish to reach maturity.

 

Maximum size limits, on the other hand, can be useful when there is high mortality of mature fish...which overfishing can certainly contribute to.  The intent is to protect the majority of the spawning age fish; the theory being that (a) a healthy spawning population will produce plenty of young fish and (b) mortality rates are naturally higher in juvenile fish, therefore, smaller size classes are better able to absorb angling pressure

 

What we have in most of northern Ontario is considered a "modified maximum size limit"...the one-over basically being a compromise - it reduces the effectiveness of the maximum size limit, but allows anglers to keep a big one if they choose - making it more acceptable to many anglers and tourist operators.

 

Sized based regulations aren't just grabbed out of thin air...effective size limits require a thorough knowledge of growth rates, maturation schedules and recruitment across the landscape.  Determining these is one of the main reasons MNRF designed the Broadscale Monitoring Program.

 

The one over 46cm regulation was developed in Northwestern Ontario, and has subsequently been adopted through much of the rest of the province.  The 46cm value was based on their understanding of growth, maturity and recruitment at the time (mid 90s).  Twenty years later, many anglers would agree that the regs have done a good job of improving walleye fishing in the region.  However, given the passage of time and changes to populations, it is not unreasonable to expect the criteria upon which 46cm was chosen to have shifted.

 

However, determining whether the size limit is still appropriate, or what might do a better job, again requires an understanding of the growth, maturity and recruitment across the landscape...these types of analyses are typically completed as part of the background work for a fisheries management planning exercise.

 

 

 

And yet, there is Roger's point/concern, and nothing you wrote does anything to address it - rather, you are simply reporting the justifications for the 18.1'' rule and saying "the experts have spoken," and "more research needs to be done" (I am paraphrasing you). And it was my - and others - contention that the 18.1'' rule is indeed the reason for what Roger has been experiencing, and maybe needs to be looked at. 

 

I think most would agree that we are seeing more big fish more often because of it. Maybe not the 15 lbs+ Walleye Roger is catching, but big fish nonetheless. 

 

You talk about "shifting criteria" and "fisheries management planning exercises," but all one needs is a little logic. If a maximum or modified maximum size limit is put into practice, the fish that fall just under that maximum or modified maximum are going to be the hardest hit by anglers. The reason for "why?" is simple, anglers are people, and  most people (like Jack Fish) want to maximize their return on investment - I hate sounding like a banker, but the language works in this case (getting the most bang for your buck). Roger has identified that, and it goes to  Arvey's point about the 1.5'' difference (albeit, Arvey was being sarcastic - and, for the record, I agree with his sarcasm). 

 

Most people are going to be like Jack Fish and friends (who were well within their rights), and harvest the largest possible limit they can - regardless of whether or not an 18'' fish is as good to eat as a 15''-16''. So, if Angler(s) "X" harvests "X" amount of walleye between 17''-18,'' then there will necessarily be less walleye between 17'' and 18''. 

 

The no-culling rule seems a simple and logical step that has proven results in places. 

[mad scientist 140]

27 minutes ago, James01 said:

 

And yet, there is Roger's point/concern, and nothing you wrote does anything to address it - rather, you are simply reporting the justifications for the 18.1'' rule and saying "the experts have spoken," and "more research needs to be done" (I am paraphrasing you). 

 

the fish that fall just under that maximum or modified maximum are going to be the hardest hit by anglers.

 

Oh, I agree entirely...one of the biggest flaws with any size limit regulation is that it acts as a size bottleneck in a heavily-fished population.  It's far from foolproof.

 

But regarding the planning bit...ever since 2008 when they re-designed the management zones, MNRF has moved away from putting one-off exceptions on lakes based solely on angler observations.  Everything is supposed to be measurable and based on sound science, and vetted through the consultation process associated with fisheries management planning.The point I was trying to make was not to disagree with you or Roger, nor to justify the current reg, but rather that these kinds of concerns should be brought to MNRFs attention the next time the planning process begins.

[Some Old Guy 968]

****I think most would agree that we are seeing more big fish more often because of it. Maybe not the 15 lbs+ Walleye Roger is catching, but big fish nonetheless. ****

 

I'm not catching 15 lb plus walleye.................... I wish I was though!

 

Roger

[James01 223]

On 7/10/2017 at 1:29 PM, mad scientist said:

 

Oh, I agree entirely...one of the biggest flaws with any size limit regulation is that it acts as a size bottleneck in a heavily-fished population.  It's far from foolproof.

 

But regarding the planning bit...ever since 2008 when they re-designed the management zones, MNRF has moved away from putting one-off exceptions on lakes based solely on angler observations.  Everything is supposed to be measurable and based on sound science, and vetted through the consultation process associated with fisheries management planning.The point I was trying to make was not to disagree with you or Roger, nor to justify the current reg, but rather that these kinds of concerns should be brought to MNRFs attention the next time the planning process begins.

 

Sorry if I misrepresented you... we are in agreement then. I would like to see the "no culling" rule applied province wide. 

[James01 223]

17 hours ago, Roger Mayer said:

****I think most would agree that we are seeing more big fish more often because of it. Maybe not the 15 lbs+ Walleye Roger is catching, but big fish nonetheless. ****

 

I'm not catching 15 lb plus walleye.................... I wish I was though!

 

Roger

 

I thought you had caught such a walleye... I am only having a little fun. 

[RickS 19]

If Ontario continues to have a maximum size limit (and I think it should), then you just have to accept that fish at or slightly below the size limit are going to be scarce in lakes with heavy fishing pressure.  I think James01 is giving a little too much credit to the no-cull rule.  From my personal experience and as expressed by Jack-Fish from his recent trip, having that rule in place on Lac Seul hasn't prevented the phenomenon that caused Roger to start this thread and it would be unrealistic to expect it to do so. But I would be fine if it were adopted across the province.

 

I fished quite a few lakes around Geraldton/Jellicoe in the early to mid 1980s and we often struggled to find walleyes greater than 15 inches in many lakes.  This was back when there were no size limits and the possession limit was six fish.  I stopped coming to NW Ontario for quite awhile but started up again around 2005 and was really pleased by the improvement in numbers and size of fish that we were catching.  I think the maximum size regulation, reduced possession limit, and promotion of catch-and-release are all important factors in helping to improve the walleye fishery throughout NW Ontario.  

 

While it may be a bit frustrating to you guys who live there that it can be a struggle to find 46cm walleyes, please know that you are really lucky to have so many wonderful lakes that you can go to for walleye, northerns, smallmouth, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

[AB 98]

In every population there is an abundance of young because they aren't all going to make it to maturity.

 

I think a lot of folks would be interested in knowing how long it takes for a walleye to get there. It might influence some folk's decision on which fish they harvest.

 

Most of the popular walleyes (pressured fisheries) in our area fall into the meso and eutrophic categories. Perhaps the Mad Scientist could help us understand what the typical growth rates are in terms of inches per year are for these types of systems in the Tbay area, and the typical length of males and females are when they first reach maturity.

 

We all enjoy fishing, and walleye are very popular and tasty. The last thing we want is to lose any opportunity to fish for them. Understanding what it takes to have an abundance of them helps us all make our personal management decisions.

 

AB