Lake-Link Home

Ceded territory walleye limit proposal

3/27/15 @ 5:03 PM
User since 1/12/05
Here's the Paul Smith article from 2 days ago. Just looking for a friendly discussion regarding this proposal. Your thoughts if it seems workable or not and why. It's a 3 walleye daily bag limit on all waters regardless if they are speared or not. The article mentioned northern WI but did not say where the northern zone would start (Hwy 8, 64, 29, or 10). Got to be one of these as always.

My take is it sounds like a step in the right direction. It's intended to greatly simplify the rules for most lakes and all but eliminate the 1 or 2 fish limits we see every year.

3/31/15 @ 11:44 AM
User since 4/15/02
I did a DNR chat asking if the daily limit is 3 period, or 5 where you have to hit multiple lakes. According to the DNR rep, the daily limit is still 5. You just have to hit 2 lakes, which is way better then having to hit 3 lakes.

3/29/15 @ 5:35 PM
User since 1/20/09
I don't see anything in there affecting the total daily bag limit. This should not affect a person's ability to hop from lake to lake to get a full 5 fish limit. It also should not affect the 10 fish possession limit. Although, I have heard different views on that.

3/29/15 @ 11:11 AM
User since 6/15/01
Here's the proposal from the DNR:

Seems to me the changes are to the daily bag limits, not the possession limits. It's for the entire ceded territory.. in fact this also creates a "Ceded Territory walleye management zone". If your going to hop from lake to lake, your going to have to travel outside the zone to get out from under the 3 fish daily bag. Possession is twice the daily bag, so if your staying in the Ceded Territory, I read that as a 6 fish possession limit.

I understand the spawning issue, but I agree with backwards. The 1 over 14 seems like a let-down. It seems the slots used in all the other regulations identify larger fish as the most prolific and successful spawning size.

3 fish daily bag, no minimum size, 16-24 protected slot, one over 24? Gives you a little better eater size but still protects a large spawning class.

And yes, this is in the public comment period. Here is the procedure for accepting public comment to the NRB:

3/29/15 @ 10:58 AM
MEMBER since 6/15/01
then, as long as the NS lakes are currently doing fine with natural reproduction, then just make the 3 fish bag limit the rule, and keep the no size limit rule

there's no shortage of walleyes in either the Chip or the TFF, so simply keeping the 3 fish limit, which is the norm after the month of May's false limit created by the false declarations, should NOT impact these bodies of water

3/29/15 @ 10:41 AM
User since 5/19/06
The one over 14 rule is usually used on strong naturally reproducing lakes that require little to no stocking (Big Arbor Vitae for example). By protecting fish over 14 inches, you are providing some protection the spawning population (adults) to carry on the population. Harvesting fish under 14, for the most part, won't have too much impact on a future year classes. In fact, these are the fish that actually eat the very young walleyes suppressing natural reproduction. And lakes where this regulation has been shown to not work well are the ones that have a 14-18 protected slot with one over 18.

3/29/15 @ 10:29 AM
MEMBER since 6/15/01
have a question into the DNR about possession limits, good question tho

my dislike of the 1 over 14" on NS lakes is that harvesting 12-13" cigars is not something I am in favor of. My opinion would be to make it 3 with a size limit of 14-15" and 1 over 20-21" ... not a fisheries biologist, that is simply my thoughts

to me, the 1 over 14" rule essentially put a 1 fish limit on these lake... imo

3/29/15 @ 10:23 AM
User since 5/19/06
I haven't heard does the daily total bag go from 5 to 3 now? In the past, you could keep five fish, but you had to lake hop or go to different lakes on a chain. As far as impact, I don't think the one over 14 lakes are at risk. The lakes with this regulation for the most part have a history of strong natural reproduction, are not stocked, and are not lacking fish under 14 inches. In fact, when you get a good year class in an NR lake, that year class can somewhat hold back subsequent year classes in the future. Harvesting fish under 14 may help actually limit predation on future year classes. The 15 inch lakes are mostly lakes with poor to no natural reproduction and are usually reliant on stocking to provide or supplement the fishery. The thought here is once fish hit that 15 inches there is no real need to protect the spawners since they are not successful at it anyway...for the most part. If some do happen to get into the slot, most will be females and will be protected giving them a chance to naturally reproduce plus it gives the angler a chance to hook a nice one. The heavily fished lakes with the 15 inch limit will just end up with a lot of 14 3/4 inchers and maybe some in the 20-24 range if they happen to get there. But the best lakes are lakes that are not stocked.

3/29/15 @ 10:14 AM
MEMBER since 6/15/01
like this idea of having a consistent bag limit and not having to wait ( jerked around ) for the tribal harvest to be tabulated... the whole declaration process was fubar to start with.

not a fan of the 1 over 14" on the "no size limit" lakes like the Chip and the TFF. Have posted info on the TFF fishing reports thread on how to contact the DNR before they vote in a couple weeks. They are taking public opinion...

overall, a couple nice things coming out of the DNR recently... this effort to stop the declaration and subsequent temporary limits for essentially the first month of the walleye season... and the "fix" to the trolling rule that allows musky fishermen to drag a sucker whilst casting a shoreline or structure..

...I'm enthused and a little optimistic

3/28/15 @ 9:44 PM
User since 2/15/10
if they do this they should get rid of the 15 inch size limits.

3/28/15 @ 9:13 PM
User since 1/12/05
Actually about 30 years but who's counting. I like to think of this thing via listing and valuing pros and cons. I'll start...


1) Elimination of reduced bag limits every spring. Other than lakes already requiring special restrictions, you won't get 2,1, or zero limits until further notice. Upon further notice when spearing is done and DNR calculates safe harvest you won't receive the disappointment that your target lake has a limit of only 1 or 2 fish. It's 3 legal walleye per day. You might go there rather than go somewhere else.

2) It's good for business like resorts, bait, motels, and every other business near the affected lakes.

3) It eliminates the tribes' ability to submit quotas that are sure to cause reduced limits to 2, 1 or even zero. Where they have total quota of 60,000-70,000 fish and only spear 20,000-30,000, my take is there's already something wrong. Remember, the tribes have the right to 100% of safe harvest. This also eliminates the tribes' ability to set quotas on lakes causing reduced limits and then never even spear that lake, my home lake is like that.


A) On lakes that receive heavy spearing and would have otherwise be reduced to 1 or 2 fish for anglers, wouldn't there still be some risk of overharvest if the limit were 3 fish?

B) You may no longer be able to hop from lake-to-lake until you fill your statewide limit of 5 walleye. It may be 3 for your daily limit even if caught on multiple lakes (not sure on this one).

Please keep it civil folks, let's not lose the whole thread. Can anyone add more pros, cons?

Advertise here
Advertise here
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors. Without them we would not be here.