Wisconsin Fishing Discussion

3 walleye limit

3/9/24 @ 4:06 PM
User since 1/8/13

Journal sentinel reports 3 fish limit on inland lakes now.   They really don't want us to eat fish.

Displaying 31 to 45 of 92 posts
4/2/24 @ 10:10 AM
User since 12/20/12
Green Bay remains a fabulous fishery but it is changing. Those of us who have fished it for many years recognize alarming trends. Notably, numbers not what they used to be. Most concerning is a lack of young fish recruitment.  As noted by another poster,  it's rare to catch many fish that are < 19".  Not a sign of a a totally healthy fishery.
I'd fully support a 3 fish limit on the Bay. Nobody needs to be keeping 5 fish daily to justify an outing.

The Canadian provinces are so far ahead of WI in sustainable fisheries management its laughable.
4/1/24 @ 2:39 PM
User since 7/20/09
Its hard to say Green Bay is down when its obviously still producing fine.  If I say this, someone will say they go out and get their limits, they get 30"ers, etc.  Well...so do I, but that doesn't change my opinion.  Feels like the average size fish is down compared to 20 years ago. 

For inland lakes, they used to have lake specific rules.  Then people complained why would they go up north for 1 or 2 12" walleyes so they made it a blanket rule for many of the lakes.  Lakes that didn't have 3 fish limits before suddenly did.  That was its own whole deal if people forget.
3/31/24 @ 8:35 PM
PRO MEMBER User since 11/5/17
The facts and numbers on the affect of spearing walleye are out there if you want to see them.    They will blow your mind.
3/31/24 @ 5:57 PM
User since 7/22/12
While I have very little respect for our DNR for a multitude of reasons, they got this one right, and while I may be the 1st to complain, I will also be the 1st to commend. This new rule on limits is pro active, kudos.  Recognizing the lack of natural spawning, & reproduction, this will ultimately benefit the species & make fishing better in my opinion.  While we all know common sense cannot be legislated, the powers that be took it upon itself to also protect the species from the slobs.  It’s a step, now lower the panfish limits as well at least during the spawning season. Can only imagine if new limits were also lowered on the numbers of Walleyes that succumb to having a spear shoved into their back which would benefit the species as well.  Unfortunately we already know that will never happen, sad. 
3/31/24 @ 4:51 PM
PRO MEMBER User since 1/22/21
I don’t think it should be a 1 and done rule. That’s why looking at Lake to Lake!   is so important ! It’s not a one rule thing for everything. JMO
3/31/24 @ 1:09 PM
User since 1/8/13
Our dnr doesn't do a good job with science if you've been paying attention. 
3/31/24 @ 8:33 AM
User since 5/17/11
If the DNR sampled the Green Bay fish population and determined an over abundance of walleye, then sure I would definitely support higher limits.

That hasn't happened, and any assertion the Bay can support higher limits at this time is just an opinion not based in science.
3/31/24 @ 8:23 AM
User since 1/8/13
Gilespie, that's your opinion, not a fact. I fish the tribs every year and never catch one under 20 inches. Fish after fish during the run.   that's just me.  Add the other 5000 angler's. Pretty sure green bay is doing ok.  
3/31/24 @ 8:17 AM
PRO MEMBER User since 12/25/01
This was the last time i fished Lake Erie and at the time,the Limit was 10 fish.
With over 100 million Walleye in the system and unreal Hatches lately,I wouldn't be surprised if it goes back to 10.
3 walleye limit photo by jumpsteady
3/31/24 @ 6:50 AM
User since 2/6/19
Because Lake Erie and Green Bay are not comparable.  Just because they are both part of the same great lakes system doesn't make them the same.  Like many, I have fished them both and it is pretty obvious that they are different.

That's why FF.  Please remember that you asked why and wanted someone to reply.
3/30/24 @ 8:01 PM
User since 1/8/13
I just looked up the regs for the Maumee River in Ohio. Another good walleye spring run.   They  can keep 6 a day.  Its fished heavily in the spring too. So tell me why we need 1 during this time and 3 the rest of the year.  Green bay and its tributaries could easily support 3 daily now during the run and 5 or 6 the rest of the year.  Easily. 
3/20/24 @ 3:19 PM
User since 5/17/11
How does the MN DNR fund their fish studies? Their website is easy to search for lakes and most have a study completed within the last 5 years.
3/20/24 @ 1:43 PM
User since 4/1/05
"Also like I said before different lakes need different limits Which need to be managed and changed depending on the population numbers and not just classify the whole state."

Yep, that would be awesome.  However, DNR does not have the resources to do so.  Most lakes haven't had a population estimate completed, and most haven't had one in at least 20 years.  Change the resident fishing license fees to $500 and perhaps it would cover a majority of the resources required to do so.
3/20/24 @ 10:36 AM
.Long Barrels
User since 12/9/14
It should be 3 statewide even Green Bay.  Panfish should be 15 as well state-wide.  It is at the Mississippi and that's the last place one would think could get ruined.  If your family eats over 30 fillets,  you always have tomorrow to get more.
3/19/24 @ 9:10 PM
PRO MEMBER User since 6/30/01
3 fish is probably good for some lakes and will do nothing for others. Big Cedar lake as the 3 fish 18".It has been proven that there is no spawning in the lake It is all put and take. So where is the advantage of this law if it's to protect spawning ?
Displaying 31 to 45 of 92 posts
Copyright © 2001-2024 Lake-Link Inc. All rights reserved.
No portion of this website can be used or distributed without prior written consent of Lake-Link, Inc.
This website may contain affiliate links, meaning when you click the links and make a purchase, we may receive a small commission.
Lake-Link Home
ice drilled by