Just read a story online about a guy who ate a 25-inch walleye in the BWCA.

Seems like a pretty big fish to eat, if you ask me. I've never kept one over 18 inches up there.
Needs to be said that it was his first night there, and as he says in the first paragraph of the story, it was either brats or the walleye. It wasn't like the guy was starving.

What do you guys think?

Here's the link.

Catch, photo and release then eat the brats.

Good for him! If he had a fishing license and caught the fish by legal means that is fine by me.

we only eat the "eater" walleyes. For us thats 14"-18".

If the 25" was the first fish after a long day fishing, I'd eat it.

If it was the first fish of the day in the morning, I'd let it go.

If it was the only one I thought I would get, I'd eat it.
If I thought I could catch more little walleye that day, I'd let it go.

25" isn't huge.

Now if it was a 28" plus walleye, I'd let it go no matter what.

Agree with Even and Mad.

And despite popular opinion, I doubt that it was a bad-tasting fish because of the size. If I thought the fillets were too thick, I'd cut them again lengthwise to have four pieces of a more normal-thickness.

Yeah, I'd probably let it go but it would depend on the situation.

Bigger than I like to keep for shore lunch. The smaller ones fry up nice and crispy.

....the fish police.

More than likely wouldn't contact the FBI...

A little restraint would be in order, depending on how hungry a guy gets, or the number of saftey meetings.

Fine by me. I think, as a rule, they're tastier at 16", but what the heck. I only catch and release AFTER we have a mess for the pan anyway! "You kill it; you eat it" was our teaching and nothing dies in vain. Many big fish die after releasing anyway if the angler doesn't take proper care.

dido to madangler

double ditto to Mad. (dido is that chic singer) dido and i approve! haha :)

Would it make you feel better if the fish died of natural causes and the birds ate it? Don't try and make the guy feel guilty, he caught it, it's his fish.

we had a new guy with our group that did the same thing one time. he caught a 25 inch walleye and kept it even though we already had some other walleyes to eat. it takes quite a few years for walleyes to get that big and personally i think anything over 20 inches should go back unless you are real hungry or havent been catching any fish.. which never happens in the BWCA. i am not trying to tell people what to do, but if we all keep 25 inch walleyes there will not be many big ones left for other generations to catch..... diddo on the proper release methods... especially if you are fishing deep water.

im not familiar with diddo. another female singer?

release the fish and let another fisherman catch the fish.

Catch and release, into the grease:)

Then eat it!!!

Release it and let someone else catch it???

Good chance it will die when released if it was hooked deeply.

C&R has a high mortality rate during the summer months with warm water.

There are plenty of delicious 25" Walleyes in the BWCA.

At any given time in the BWCA there are a lot fewer brats than Walleyes. I think he should have definitely eaten the fish and released the brats...

If a fisherman didn't keep and eat this eye, what's to stop a 40" northern from eating him for dinner? I agree with Moose Plums that the 14-18 inch seem to make the best eating size, but if I hadn't caught any of those, I'd keep it. And unless the fishing pressure changes radically up there, which doesn't seem likely, I see little harm that could come from this.

thlipsis29

CPR (Catch, Photo, Release). If everybody practiced this there would be so many more big fish for people to catch. The BWCA sees over 250,000 people a year, that's plenty of pressure, especially on the entry point lakes and just a little ways in. I would say that the best rule is 18 or 20 inches max. I guess it's all up to the people who catch the fish, but I practice, and encourage CPR whenever possible. The exception would be if the fish was mortally wounded...

Practice CFE. Catch bass, fillet and eat. Helps save walleyes from a invasive species of the bdub.

CPR in the summer months up there wastes alot of fish. expecially by those that fish ultralight rigs. they may seem fine when you release them....most likely they will end up otter meat.

my nephew works for the MN DNR fisheries. I just learned a little about walleyes and catch and release.

A 28 inch walleye may have two pounds of eggs, but only 10 to 15% are fertile. A 21 inch walleye may have 1/2 pound of eggs, but 90 to 95 % are fertile. Which is worse to kill with that math PLUS the 21 inch will have more spawning seasons in the future.

DD

That's actually a good argument to keep only the smaller fish (under 20 inches) for shore lunch and release all walleyes over 21 inches since they are most likely females. Females operating at 10-15% efficiency are still outproducing the males in the egg department. I'm not an expert, but I know the fillets from a 15-16 inch walleye fit nicely in my fry pan.

So Kanoes, what you're saying is that by releasing fish you're sealing their fate and wasting them. However, by eating them to be sure that they don't survive we are somehow saving the fishery? Please clear that up for us.

please re-read it. i think its pretty clear.

So when I catch a fish, if I release it, it will most likely die? I'm confused still? Wouldn't we want to release as many as we could, to give them a chance at survival, instead of assume that they will die?

Catch, Pamper, and Release (CPR). It's tough for big fish to recover from a long fight, hence the reference to ultralight fishing. They are sluggish for a while after released and are more likely to be preyed on by pike and otters. Obviously they are not all going to die, but the chances are better in the the warm water period. If a fish slowly swims away when you release it, it's completely wore out.

Take a good look at Mille Lacs, and the high fish mortality there. Many of the fish caught there are released, because they don't make the slot. I don't think the BW fishery is in that kind of danger. there are some who visit the B dub that don't fish at all, and many who do fish, don't catch enough to have much effect. My buddy had a big pike die on us a few years ago, He landed him as quickly as he could, photo'd him, and released him. He swam away slowly and 10 minutes later floated to the top. He was not hooked badly. No...Barley and Snakecharmer not the eagle pike.

I had a 39"pike die on me last year. I had relatively light line and no landing net. We tried to put it back and worked hard to revive it. It still died and just floated there.

So we ate it...
It was delisous...

mattbrome,

In many cases, the fish will die, warm water C&R being the deadliest and cold water lip hooked having the highest survival rate.

Bass are the worst. I talked to the DNR head in the area, and was told that bass when stressed, activate a parasite/virus??? (terminology may not be right) that is in their body and can cause death.

Wisconsin had a C&R bass contest a year or two ago. About 500 bass were entered, and a similar total was found dead in a bay within 24 hours.

The more you handle the warm water caught fish (taking photos, etc) the less survival chance there is.

where does it specify eating the walleye. HE does say they kept some pike though.

The caption reads "The big walleye in this picture was 25 inches long and it fed all of us that first night."

The picture caption.

How can people say "many released fish die"????? A lot of the water in the bwca is much cooler than Mille Lacs or the lakes in WI were the high fish mortality took place. The bass in WI were also kept in livewells all day in 80+ degree water. Not fair to compare these situations to the bwca.

I really don't understand people who promote catch and kill....especially with larger fish. What is the reason??? It's one thing to say "go ahead and keep the fish" but to say the fish is most likely going to die once it is release it beyond my understanding. It makes no sense.

And last weekend I caught a 39.5" Pike in the bw on 8lb Fireline and a medium action 6'6" rod. It took me 10-15 mintues to reel it in but that is all my rod/reel could do against that fish. I took it out of the water, snapped a couple pics, removed the rapala, laid it on the paddle for a measurement, and put it back in the water. 20 minutes or so later she gave a powerfull tail whip and off she went. Last year my 30.5" walleye took a bit but also swam off after a long battle. My wifes 2 21"+ smallies were not hurting one bit after a strong battle.

So when people say, "many die anyway" what are you basing this off of????

We have an awesome fishery up there....why not do our part to keep it that way?

MagicStik

I would have thrown it back. I hate cleaning small walleye :)

I realize I may be naive here, but if the DNR or USFS had the evidence or reason to believe that the population was being adversely effected, then by all means change the regulations. Yet no such evidence exists. So if the current regulations allow for this, then we have no reason to fault someone for exercising that right.

Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, studies have shown that walleyes can begin to stress in 70 degree water. So even if the water is cooler in the BWCA, reeling a walleye from a depth of 25' with a water temp of 60 degrees to the surface where the summer temps are easily in the mid 70's can produce an tremendous amount of stress on a fish, especially depending on the type of lure/rig used to catch the fish.

There are also issues regarding the gas bladder in walleyes that make it more difficult for them to survive after being caught, especially if brought up from depths of 30' or more.

I guess what amazes me is the time and energy expended on debating whether or not someone should eat a 25" walleye when there are probably tens of thousands more of them that size or bigger up there. And like I said in my earlier post, maybe we should teach the northern up there to practice catch and release on walleyes 25" or bigger. Only God knows how many are lost to predation.

thlipsis29

Magic Stik,

10-15 minute battle, took it out of the water to snap a few pictures, took out the Rapala, and laid it on the paddle for a measurement.

How long did all this take??

Then 20 minutes later it gave a powerful kick, and quite possibly went to the bottom to die.

I think it's very fair to compare a contest to what the northern went through.

No one promotes catch and kill.

Just trying to make you aware that catch and release does not mean they all live.

It is a feel good program, and only is truly successful under ideal conditions. No matter how you try to spin it, the bass contest in Wisconsin was catch and release, and the fish died.

"dido" TGO.

Aren't all bass tournaments catch and release these days?

Not trying to "spin" anything. The fact is....those fish were kept in live wells all day long. How does that compare to catching and releaseing a fish in a matter of minutes?

Total time out of the water on the Pike was about a minute. Hooks were on the outside of the mouth and my cuz got everything ready to go as I fought the fish from an island. If "many" fish die after being released why haven't I seen a single dead bloated fish in the bwca in 10+ years?

I fully understand that not all fish released are going to live but to say "many" die is not true imo. And CPR is only successful under ideal conditions??? Isn't it just the opposite....CPR fails only under extremely poor conditions?

MagicStik

One thing to consider is that this was a group of several people. So it doesn't boil down to eating a 25 inch vs an 18 incher but a 25 inch vs maybe 3 or 4 18 inch fish they perhaps may have caught if not landing the big one. Which case would have the bigger impact on the fishery?

You don't see many bloated fish floating in any BWCAW lake for one of two reasons.

They do not have that much fishing pressure.

Many fish that are caught and released, sink to the bottom, or if they do surface, are eaten by Turkey Vultures, Eagles, Sea Gulls, Otter, Mink, etc.

If you insist on seeing bloated fish, refer to moose plum's previous post about Mille Lacs, or call a few resort owners in that area.

Don't shoot the messenger, C&R is what it is.

Also, aren't the "live wells" you refer to, large pens that are in the lake/river, which means the fish's natural area??

They still died.

Yea, there are plenty of floaters on Mille Lacs that is for sure. Counted 7 fish last weekend in one bay alone.

The bass in WI were kept in boat livewells for the duration of the tourney day.....probably 8 hours. It was a hot few days and water temps were very warm. Due to a higher than expected kill rate the year before (caused by a virus) they put the fish in 8'x8' pens for 5 days. That is where 500+ LM bass were found dead. There is a lot of speculation on if this "study" was even done properly.

I don't think it's fair to use one "study" done on LM in WI to base your information on the results of C&R of different species in the bwca.

I guess my concern is that inexperienced fisherman will read your post and say, "might as well keep it, it's going to die if we release it".

MagicStik

I don't use one study to base my catch and release information on.

I fish 70-90 days during the summer, and see this on a nearly daily basis.

Sometimes C&R works, sometime it doesn't.

Putting a large fish back does not guarantee it's survival, or that someone else will ever catch that fish again.

A few people eating a "large" fish will not lead to the demise of the fish population in the Bdub.

I'm with you magic...I am surprised to see an outfitter advocating against CPR, or at least saying that it is for personal satisfaction only. I will continue to practice CPR, and will also continue to encourage others to do the same. I don't understand the logic of just keeping fish assuming that they will sink and die, or float and die, or die at all if released. If "most" of the fish released faced certain death you would think there would be some other sort of regulation rather than a possession limit. You would think the DNR wouldn't advocate for people to practice CPR. I just don't understand the other side of this argument at all. Tell me what I am supposed to do when I catch the fish pictured below...fry it up? Send it back to the depths of the lake to die?

yet another "at arms length" smallie pic. :)

Yea, it's obviously just a minnow...you caught me

Yes fry it up! By all means eat all Smallies...Please

I let that one go, however, we did eat up bass on that trip (5 if I remember right).

Most released fish live. Some die. C&R is still a good plan when practiced responsibly. Where slots aren't an issue, don't release a fish you have any doubts about. When a fish is deep-hooked (hooked in the gills or gullet), severely exhausted or poorly handled, mortality goes up. If there is any doubt, keep it for the fry pan.

Snakecharmer is right. To say that most fish released die is simply incorrect. Do some fish die? Of course. Usually the ones that come out of deep water quickly or with a long struggle, the ones that are hooked deep (bleeding), or the ones that are kept out of the water too long and handled incorrectly. Everyone has the right to keep any fish that fits in the regulations. Each situation is different. I throw back the fish I believe will survive and keep the ones I think won't make it rather than go by size. Oh and just because a lake doesn't have natural reproduction doesn't mean you need to keep every fish. Think how happy the kid who catches it next will be!

Agreed SC..well said

I also agree. I may not have mentioned the part about what to do if you thought the fish would die in my previous posts, I just figured we were all on the same page about that. Of course if the fish is toast, we'll keep it. I always spend time trying to revive the fish if I can, and if I can't then it can go on the stringer. Otherwise, the smaller fish go on the stringer while the nice ones go back in the water. I agree with the idea of how happy the next person will be to catch it. I figure that of the nice fish I have caught there, at least some have been caught and released before.

Let's play some Devil's advocate:
When small fish (or any fish for that matter) are kept to be eaten, they will never reproduce, never grow up to be big fish, never be caught by another person! :)

I can't really blame the guy for eating the 25-inch walleye, as it's certainly his legal right to do so. I personally wouldn't do it, unless it was bleeding or would not revive. The bigger fish certainly contain more mercury -- sometimes quite a bit of it. Also the bigger the size/age class, the fewer the individuals.

Catch and release of bigger fish (or any fish in general) is far less popular with the "older generation", but has really taken off with a whole lot of anglers.

As for the comment that bass often die after being released, it makes no sense and I don't believe it. If it were true there would be almost no bass fishing down south!!

From my experience the fish most likely to die after being released are lake trout in the summer. They really get heat stressed by the warm surface waters. The same thing happens to big pike caught from deeper waters.

Yes TGO,,, I know you get your share of 7-9 lb.ers,,, I see it in the Echo. Way to go,,, you do know Burntside.

arctic,

No Bass fishing contests down south????

Your talking about a major industry.

The info on the earlier post about the bass came from talking to the DNR.

Any big fish caught is very stressed from the battle.

Larger fish are fewer. Smaller fish are much more numerous. This is evident if you read any of the DNR fish surveys. I always suspected Satan had a PETA membership :)

TGO,

I was implying that if there was a high mortality of released bass, then places like the South where bass are probably the most common game fish, wouldn't have much of a fishery because so many of the fish would die.

I know they have numerous fishing tournaments down there, with thousands of bass being caught and released. You don't hear of high mortality rates, and even if the fish just died and disappeared after being released, the fishery would soon collapse.

Remember Dolly(?) the Largemouth Bass that would have shattered the world record if not for being foul hooked? That fish was caught at least 3 times.

MagicStik

What a lucky fish, it had been able to be caught, released, and did not die 3 times?? The odds of that must be like winning the lottery!

arctic,

The fisheries in the south are very fertile, and am sure they have a far higher reproduction rate than colder water lakes like the Bdub.

You may not hear of the high mortality rate because many warm water, stressed C&R fish go straight to the bottom and plow head first into the mud/rocks.

They die and many stand straight up and down like a golf tee. (I have seen this quite a few times up here)

Others that float to the top are quickly eaten by predators.

I don't expect a dyed in the wool C&R type to believe this, and am in no way telling a person not to release any fish they catch, as that is their choice.

Just making you aware of the collatoral damage of C&R, and it is far higher than most think.

I have to agree that more fish die from C&R than folks think.

But, there are 2 data points that do not support the claim that a large fraction of C&R fish die:

1. Southern bass tournaments catch hundreds of bass from the same lakes. Some lakes have tournaments almost every weekend. If a large fraction of those fish were dying, the fishery would quickly deteriorate regardless of how good their production was.

2. DNRs do not regulate C&R. If a large fraction were dying, they would have to add some regulations to keep fisheries healthy. They could not allow a major consumer of fish to go unregulated.

So, something must be missing. It just doesn't add up that a large fraction of C&R fish die...

Once on Pocket Lake, my friend and I got into a mess of walleyes. We had portaged from Ge-be-on-equat where we were staying because the fish were not biting on that lake. My friend caught a 2 pound walleye in the lip that had an odd deformity of the dorsal fin. We let it go as we did most of the fish that day. Next day: portaged back to Pocket, caught many walleyes again including the same fish with the deformed fin. To be sure, it was early June and after a massive cold front went through. In my mind, if it was hot in July or August and the fish were biting well, I would quit fishing for the same fish after I had enough to eat, change tactics and try for another kind of fish.

arctic,

Did you ever watch a bass tournament on TV? All they do is crank and yank. I'll bet the average fish fight is only about 20 seconds. Hard to stress a fish if it hasn't really been fought. Besides, bass are a much hardier fish than a walleye. Walleyes are really a pretty fragile fish. As are lake trout. Especially during the summer months.

mr.barley,

I totally agree with you about lake trout and have indicated that earlier on this thread and others.

I have never, in all my trips to the BW ever seen or heard of people seeing, fish stuck in the bottom like pillars. TGO, can you explain this phenomena? Also, I would not call the death rate after catching a fish the "collateral damage" of CPR, I would call it the "collateral damage" of fishing in general. A fact is that if you keep every fish you catch, you can be sure they won't live to fight another day.

The only thing we all know for sure is that 100% of fish not released die. TGO, we will have to agree to disagree. I will not keep every fish I catch because it "might" not make it. In the cool waters around Ely, most fish will make it if handled correctly.

those fish found stuck vertically in the bottom are actually from games of lake jarts.

OK, this has ben beat to death! If it's legal and you want to eat it, go ahead, have a nice meal. By the way 25-26" tasted great last week!

I like C & R sometimes. C = Cook. R = Rake off plate with fork or bread. I figure the money paid for a fishing license will produce a few fry. oh! I mean frye. I dam sure ain't gonna hurt the population and walleye fillets at the store are pricey. Therefore; (pure logic) I figger I'm doing my part to help keep those big commercial walleye fillet wholesalers at bay! As far as conservation; I sop my plate clean of ever' tender morsel! Whatever floats YOUR boat! ;)

Overthehill-

I'm not sure what your last post is exactly trying to say? You're not going to keep any fish? For what reason? What does eating everything on your plate have to do with it? I'm just not sure what the message is there...

"Waste Not,Want Not". Going to keep and eat within legal limit if I choose. And what fish I do clean (while filleting, I usually save and cook the center backbone slab too) will not be wasted as I will clean plate well (sop). My view is that DNR has a handle on it as far as setting legal harvest limits. If not, with their research;would therefore change the legal limits. As far as the quote, "Watever floats your boat" ; "live and let live" if it's legal. As far as the pun/sarcasm on commercial fisheries, more or less saying "Instead of buying fish to eat, I'll buy a license and catch them myself." I guess I sometimes have a dry,sarcastic,ironic,ambiguous,twisted sense of humor" sorry to confuse. ;) oth. Concering catch and release; I don't often practice it because usually, by the time I have a mess to eat, (at most the legal limit) I'm tired and want to eat. This results in less fish being disturbed and increasing the odds of dying from unnatural causes. Why even risk it for personal pleasure? Size? The bigger the better. Because? The ratio of fish meat per "fish life" taken is greater. Whether plant or animal harvest, (imho) you waste less by waiting until the harvest is full grown. And besides, when you catch and kill a biggun you get to hoard that personal pleasure for yourself, ;) therefore saving the fish from future stress and possible risk of dying. I like eagles,turtles,otters,gulls,pike, and anything else that cleans up lake jarts; but am selfish and wish to insure that the pleasure of eating is first mine. Now, where was I?? Oh yes "Hillbilly Philosophy 303"........ ;) oth Now I've beat it to death. Sorry.

I suppose if I had to leave my state and travel well over a thousand miles to enjoy decent fishing, I might have the same outlook that you do...

I just figure if I catch a mess for the frying pan and eat them all, I've done minimal damage to the fishery. Maybe even less than fishing hard for that trophy and turning them all loose. Especially in Summer off bottom. I just hated to see a guy get hammered for eating a fish he caught. And yes, it's over 1400 miles and Maine,Kentucky,Tenessee,alot of states have good fishing, but it's not the same. Although the BWCA is a much more crowded place than 35 years ago,it still has a feel of its own that words can't always decribe. Well worth the trip; fish or none! ;) oth

MagicStick.....you talk about bass tourneys being CR.......WELL, I will tell you this.....

THERE are TONS of floaters after the tourneys....and the ones that don't float sink. I know of MANY tourneys where 50% of the fish weighed die. Tourney fishing is the SCOURGE of the EARTH, and should be BANNED.

BUT that is only my opinion.

Later,

Geo.

GeoFisher,

Thank you! :)

I never said that every bass lives after a tourney. I agree that many fish CAN die in SOME bass tourneys. The stress, heat, and low oxygen from a day in the livewell can kill a lot of fish. That is why in the bass league that I run each boat measures their own fish according to length and the fish are immediately released.

Edit....Geo, I have been looking around the internet for studies done on LM & SM. Haven't found anything yet suggesting that "many" bass tourney's result in anywhere close to 50% mortality.

"A comprehensive review of 130 bass tournaments conducted across North America during three decades documented reduction in initial mortality from an average of nearly 20% in the 1970s to 6.5% in the 1990s. Results from this study indicate initial mortality rates are even lower in Wisconsin bass tournaments, the highest measured initial mortality rate being 3.3% for SMB at Winneconne in 2006. The same review documented that average delayed mortality during the same time period remained stable at 21–23%. Cool water tournaments in Wisconsin had delayed mortality rates much lower than this average. In fact of the three cool water tournaments only one had any mortality at all and it was less than 1%. Warm water tournaments had higher mortality. In two of the three warm water tournaments, delayed and reference mortality were high making estimates of tournament-associated delayed mortality unreliable. The delayed mortality rates estimated for SMB (31%) and LMB (13%) at the La Crosse FLW tournament in 2006 were consistent with national averages."

http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/fishingtournaments/TournamentPilotProgramEvaluation.pdf

MagicStik

Magic,

I live in Southern Indiana, and fish Indiana, KY, Ohio, and TN. Maybe the temps a little north help the fish in the summer, but summertime tourneys KILL a LOT of fish down here.

I KNOW for a fact.......TOURNEY FISH DIE on BARREN.
I KNOW for a fact.......TOURNEY FISH DIE on KY Lake.
I KNOW for a fact.......TOURNEY FISH DIE on Barkley Lake.
I KNOW for a fact.......TOURNEY FISH DIE on Rough River.
I KNOW for a fact.......TOURNEY FISH DIE on West Boggs Creek.
I KNOW for a fact.......TOURNEY FISH DIE on Patoka.

I know this because I've been THERE, I've seen it myself.

There aren't too many studies, because FISHING and tourneys GENERATE a LOT of summertime revenues for "lakeside" communities that need the generated incomes. THis is only my opinion though.

Later,

Geo

A Quick Google for Tourneys and Mortality turned up these links:

http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1577%2F1548-8675(1994)014%3C0460%3ASRMOTC%3E2.3.CO%3B2&ct=1

http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/fishingtournaments/TournamentPilotProgramEvaluation.pdf

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20080812/SPT/808120373/

http://www.state.tn.us/twra/fish/Reservoir/blackbass/livebass2.pdf

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/mayjun98/tournies.html

AND there are TONS MORE.

Some of these which are from State DNR Organizations quote mortality rates as high as %30.......

Later,

Geo

Okay. Now we've got some data: C&R at bass tournaments have a long term mortality rate of between 20 and 30%.

Given those numbers, folks have to decide for themselvs if those odds are good enough.

I personally will keep what I want to eat (somewhat regardless of size unless the fish is a real trophy and then I'll let it go).

If I don't feel like eating fish that day or have already kept enough, I will let them go. I'll do my best to try to keep the mortality rate as low as possible. But I'm willing to keep catching fish if they have a 70 to 80% chance of living.

I can certainly see the mortality rates being higher the further south you go. Every study I have read says, "mortality rates increase with water temps".....which makes sense. In one study they mention a much higher mortality rate once the water hits 80+ degrees. I don't recall seeing 80+ degree water temps in central MN very often.

So anyway.....relating the study done in WI.....catch and release bass tourneys that take place in "cooler" water have a very very low mortality rate. And these fish were kept in livewells for 8+ hours. So when some people say that "many" fish die after being caught and released in the bwca.....it is simply untrue.

I say eat that 25" walleye....hell eat every one you catch! The last thing I want is for my fragile smallies to have competition for their food. ;)

MagicStik

There are three choices for everyone:

1. Catch and release exclusively.

2. Keep a few to eat and throw the rest back.

3. Keep everything that is legal no matter the size and gorge yourself with fish.

It's that simple. I prefer #2 because it seems to make the most sense. Everything else is nothing more than opinion.

It has been my experience that larger fish have a higher mortality rate when released. I'm not implying anything, just stating an observation. When I get a big pike, I take him into the shallow waters, get out of the canoe, and I gently pull him forward and backward for at least 15 minutes, or until he swims away. I have not caught one that I could not revive for many years.

ditch,

Some folks would propose a 4th option:

4. Only fish until you catch enough for dinner. Stop fishing when you have enough and keep all you catch.

The tofu crunchers would propose a 5th option:

5. Don't C&R fish at all because some will die.

The stress of the battle and temp change are the big factors in a fish not surviving after being caught and released as I read the arguments presented here.

I have some questions that maybe someone could enlighten me on:

1. Why don't all worried about fish mortality use a very stout pole with super strong line to rip them out of the water and get them back in within seconds?

2. Why hasn't MN DNR put a stop to this horrible slaughter?

3. What effect is the barbless ban going to have on stressed fish?

I have fished many years. As a youngster I kept and ate what I caught. As I've gotten older I'm entirely catch and release except on a few occasions like when the wife wants proof that all the time and money spent on the sport isn't going to waste or I'm sure I've damaged a fish to the point it won't survive.

I love to read these threads and hear the viewpoints go back and forth. Maybe someone will change my mind on CR but it hasn't happened yet. As for the 25 incher - his fish, his dirty fry pan.

It makes sense to keep the little ones and let the big ones go, even if mortality is 50+%. We have season cluseres for certain fish here in Florida where the only choice is to throw that fish back. Even if the mortality is 30-50%. These fish come up from 80-200 feet, many die, but not all. If they're floaters pop their swim bladder, by sticking a (small) sharp knife behind theyre pectoral fin to pop their swim bladder. It will heal in a few days. We caught a nice 28 inch walleye earlier this year, we ate in only because it was the 2nd one we had caught after 5 days in the Q. Bad weather... Later that trip we were throwing back all the large ones, and keeping the small. You do what you got to, if you have a choice keep the small throw back the big, if not, not the end of the world. We caught our large one deep in the Q, 1 less walleye in that lake would not make much difference.

Quite a lot of debate here. Looks like people have a little bit of time on their hands. Personally I like how the little ones taste so that’s what I keep, unless the fishing is very slow, and then I’ll take whatever I can get. What nobody has pointed out here is that the guys in the story are out with a couple of ladies, which leads me to 2 points. #1. Feeding 4 people with 1 fish seems to be well worth it. If they were to take 2-4 smaller fish, the reproduction would be about equivalent, maybe better. You’re also not putting all your eggs in one basket (literally). And #2. (The important one) You can’t argue against the fact that these ladies might be impressed with him landing such a nice fish. It’s tough to take a picture when you’re in a kayak alone and pictures don’t really do a fish much justice. Now we could talk about the action of the rod and how long it took to land the fish, but what about the action back in the tent? This guy might need all the help he can get?

I'd like overthehill to reconsider a line he has used in multiple threads. "Live and let live if it's legal" were his exact words in this particular thread.

Adultery is one of a gazillion things that comes to mind for me to use as an example. Overthehill, suppose you had a hypothetical son-in-law who, it came to your attention, was committing adultery. Keeping in mind that adultery is legal in the U.S., wouldn't you have an opinion? Although legal, would "live and let live" apply?

Most people do have opinions on adultery, running the full range from "ooh-la-la" and "none of my business," to "I'll make sure he never cheats on anyone again."

Perhaps a more applicable example, to the current discussion, would have been the fellow who steals the parking space from the lady who has been patiently waiting for the occupant to back out. It is a legal act but many of us would recognize the act as rude.

The subject of this thread is more complicated but there are opinions being expressed for the same reasons as when we see that unthoughtful fellow dart into the parking space. Those on each extreme, "keep and eat everything" (even if it exceeds what you are capable of eating), and "catch and release all day" (even if a certain percentage will become floaters), see each other as being rude in that they are wasting piscene resources to which other people also have a right. Perhaps they are both right in that they are recognizing waste.

The position most safe from criticism, regarding waste, is Mad_Angler's 4th option. That is closest to my own behavior although, if I caught a 40-inch pike while on a solo trip, I would throw it back unless I had hooked it in the gills or other vital location. In other words, I wouldn't necessarily keep everything. I would exercise judgement. I have behaved this way without a whole lot of thought, until now. I have always quit fishing when I had enough to eat, without stuffing myself. Partly, this is because I am not a great fisherman and partly, because I realize there are other things to do in the BW.

I leave you with a quote, used by multiple members over the years as a personal quote, and also posted by Bogwalker as a QOD.

"Many men go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after."
-Henry David Thoreau

Hats off to Walden Pond. As far as "Live and let live".. it pertained to a man eating a fish he caught; and ONLY to that. I did not find it unethical or immoral (but you DO have a point: legal doesn't necessarily make it right). As far as adultery goes, I have never condoned it and never will and feel that it SHOULD STILL be illegal. But if I catch a fish and I'm hungry--.. I'm probably gonna eat it and maybe a couple more. And not drop my chin or lose a moment's sleep over it. And personally, I feel it's less harmfull (environmentally) than catching and releasing all day long. You are right, "Legal" should mean more than it does on a lot of subjects and aspire to a higher law. "Popular" and "The Almighty Dollar" (eg.) seem to have taken some of the "moral" out of "legal". It IS a SHAME! But I have opened many a Mason jar of cold-packed pickled suckers, bones and all and been glad to get 'em and felt NOT the least bit guilty about it. When I leave this earth and answer to a Higher Law, adultery will NOT be one of my worries, OR eating fish I caught! "Poor People Have Poor Ways" OTH

I caught and ate a 23" walleye last weekend in the BWCA. What does that say about me?

Very Tasty!

evil kip!

I'm glad you fessed up before I ratted you out! HA!

What's next Kip, adultery? :)

I made it through about 25 of these posts before I couldn't take it anymore. Catch and Release is very effective if done properly. Unless you are fishing live bait rigs with a single hook, or extremely slow on the hookset you should 99/100 be hooked in the lips or mouth; ie: a very releasable fish. The one time the fish isn't hooked good is a good fish to eat or for people who know how to take hooks out, a releasable fish. Gill hooked fish are the only fish that I believe die. The bass livewell experiment is not comparable or relevant to this topic. Getting banged around in a livewell for however many hours takes a toll on any fish. I practice a lot of CPR, but I would eat a 25" or under walleye if hungry enough. A fish out of the water for 1 minute is a healthy fish still swimming today. IMO

Whatever, the fish gave me a nice fight, he was my only walleye of the trip, and he looked even better on my plate! So there! I'm evil and selfish. But at least my stomach was full. :)

overthehill,
I was not commenting on your fishing habits, eating habits, or your views on marriage. I was just drawing attention to the phrase "if it's legal...." and illustrating its wide range of implications. Law only describes the outer limits of acceptable behavior.

Occasionally, moral behavior may occur outside the limits of acceptable behavior and the law. Since I quoted Thoreau, I will use his example. He went to jail rather than pay a toll tax which was designed to prevent blacks from voting.

Assorted replies:
I don't believe adultry should be against the law either. I'll leave that to the Taliban.
I understand, from Euell Gibbon's "Stalking the Wild Asparagus," that canned sucker is quite good.
I use the phrase "live and let live" a lot.

Jeratric, No problem. I s'pose I should brush up on composition while typing. As far as the origional subject of the thread; I don't find it immoral or outside parameters of acceptable behavior to eat a 25" walleye (they're much more plentiful than some think) . Nor do I find it immoral to eat the daily bag limit. (I also admire H.D. Thoreau for standing on principal.) Sincerely, Overthehill (p.s. I might add, I've never eaten a 25" walleye and seldem eaten the bag limit. That was when there were more than 2 in our party)

May say a couple of things with out bearing the wrath from the rest of you?

I find it interesting that this thread has over 90 posts dealing with someone that kept a fish and ate it. Yeah, it was a nice sized fish, but get over it. It happened.

We can all sit around and beat this topic to death and where are we going to be in the end. No one is going to say something so profound that a member here will read it and change the way they do things. Seems as thought every month or so this topic gets brought up and we all get bent out of shape because of our passionate beliefs dealing with taking a large fish for dinner. It happens.

I find it kind of comical that the few people (compared to the number of people visiting the BWCA each year) that visit this website discuss keeping one large fish when we all know that there are those out there that keep a full stringer of large fish and we never hear a word from or about them. We know it happens. Why don't we discuss those people?

I don't know, its like a friend tells me all of the time, "opinions are like butt holes, we all have them and..."

If you catch a large fish and want to eat it, then eat it. If you want to C&R it, then do that. Its your fish once you catch it. If you do it legally, than there is nothing anyone can do to you no matter what you decide to do with it!

Basser8239,
People get bent out of shape over this for the same reason they get bent out of shape over motor use, bathing in lakes, and leave no trace. People care. It's amazing how many people on this board rant and rave about those topics but will rape a lake of many large fish so that future generations will not have the same great fishing they have. Legal doesn't always make it right.

I love it how I select "messageboard" and get "opinionboard"! How does that work? You're right Basser everyone's got one and there is no way mine has changed from what I've read here. I can see the passion that people have over this topic but am not convinced that those of us that fish are ecoterrorists.

Curious - What is the statute of limitation on lake rape in MN anyway??

"Curious - What is the statute of limitation on lake rape in MN anyway??"

Wow, that is really funny. Fishing doesn't make you an ecoterrorist. Not practicing selective harvest just might though.

CPR,

I care about the outdoors too. All I'm saying is that so many fish get taken out of the lakes in the BW and some are small and some are large but they do get taken. That's just what happens.

Compared to the couple of dozen or so people that have responded to this thread, there are many, many more people that never see it and practice C&R and/or they harvest fish too. We can all discuss this topic until we are all blue in the face and its still going to happen.

It's just how things are.

Basser

CPR,

I love animals just as much as you do... they're DELICIOUS! Get over yourself. We're not talking about commercial harvest... this is about a guy who kept and ate a fish. Bigger than average, yes. Trophy, no. Illegal or immoral, absolutely not. No lake was "raped" in the process of eating this fish.

If people want to practice catch and release, I'm all for it. I throw back most of the fish I catch in the BWCA and only keep what the group can eat for dinner. However, when people start throwing around words like "rape" and "adultery" it's getting a bit over the top. Obviously, no resource is infinite but I can't think of an example of any fisheries resource that has been depleted or degraded by single hook and line fishing.

Any time you throw around drama filled words like "rape" and "adultery" when describing the consumption of a Walleye you need to be prepared for a quip like Basser's... very witty!

Take a deep breath, it's going to be ok... (but not too deep, you might rape the world's air supply.)

"Take a deep breath, it's going to be ok... (but not too deep, you might rape the world's air supply.)"

jamotrade,
Another comedian? Are you serious. HaHaHa I won't even bother locking horns with a juvenile like yourself. Guys like you don't catch fish anyways. Any true fisherman would throw back a 25" walleye if it appeared healthy. Then they would catch a few "eaters" for the fish fry.

I hope people aren't keeping whole stringers of large fish due to the Fact that you can only keep one fish over 20". Poaching is a problem but not the topic of this forum. Everyone is commenting on whether to keep it or not, and those that fight the Topic ARE STILL spilling their opinions, so don't try and belittle us for ours. There is a reason we have limits and regulations, abide by them and the fishery should be strong for many many years.

CPR,

Your an idiot!! No, I'm not stating my opinion either, its a fact, you really are an idiot!

"Guys like you don't catch fish anyways. Any true fisherman would throw back a 25" walleye if it appeared healthy. Then they would catch a few "eaters" for the fish fry." Are you serious? Why would you say that? I mean, one way to look at what you said as ridiculous is you that you are saying, why kill one big fish when you could kill three little ones? That just makes me laugh!!

OK, enough of this nonsense. All of you PETA supporters need to lay off and get a life and go eat some bean sprouts or something. Fish are going to get eaten. Some are going to be small and some are going to be big. Sorry if that disturbs you. Its going to happen!

Wow, the moderators are no where to be found when a member starts bashing a "guest". (the idiot reference) Basser8239, I understand. You have an anger problem. Probably picked on a lot as a youngster. Keep your chin up kid. Keep your lines tight, I'm out!

At least I'm man enough to post as a member and not guest!

Oh, BTW, the moderators probably agree with me!

Buh bye, CPR...

jamotrade,
Please go back and read, one word at a time, my two posts. Hopefully, you will be able to see that the word "adultery" was not used in connection with fishing or the eating of a walleye.

Although the last thing I would want to do is stir things up (chortle, chortle), I have found an article in today's paper (Fresno Bee) that will be of interest to readers of this thread.

Here is the link: http://www.fresnobee.com/sports/outdoors/story/862089.html (Sorry. While I saw Adam's "Posting A Link 101," I never enrolled in the class.)

I noticed the article while reading (the hard copy version) about Wisconsin's chances against Fresno State. Not to worry Wisconsinites, the Bulldogs practice "catch and release."

Regardless of what you think of this topic, I think we officially killed this fish by talking/posting it to death.

thlipsis29

I feel proud in a sense that one of my posts got this much attention... but I agree with thlipsis... It's time to put it to bed.
G'night, 25-inch walleye discussion. May you sleep long and never wake again.

Congrats richierch4. It's not everyone who can produce such a long thread.

that's a 30" fish. tossed it back. they taste like carp when they get that size. i don't keep any big fish any more. the smaller of any species are just better eating. if you want to keep one like it, eat it, hang it on the wall, whatever...that would be up to you.

Sorry, Jeriatric, my bad.

I re-read your post and you are right. That troll got me all whipped up into a tizzy and I kinda flew off the handle.

I apologize.

Hey jamotrade and Basser8239,
Read and learn the facts,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://www.fishingminnesota.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1529666/all/Fall_Walleyes

I never believed in re-incarnation until now; I thought this thread was finally dead.

thlipsis29

For those of us old enough to remember... Rod Serling:

Picture this if you can- a fish is eaten by a man, an Internet thread takes on a life of its own, a clash of wills that never come to a denouement.... welcome to (long pause) the Twilight Zone!

Dee Dee Dee Dee - Dee Dee Dee Dee................

A. Not facts, just another thread of opinions.

B. Sounds like he kept his "one over 20" so nothing wrong...

Buh bye

Bah...

City folk.

On my computer, this thread is several feet long....too long to digest. We should release it.

So....who eats smallies?

Eat them all, please....smallies I mean

Sorry to nock the scab off this one....just an observation.
Just got my Fall BWJ. An article in there shows a man with a stringer of 10, rather large, walleyes. Article says that 5 guys caught 25 walleyes from 18 to 24 inches and kept the 10 smallest. I measured the zipper on my raincoat at 28 inches....it looks similar to his, and compared that to the fish. You be the judge.
Also, this group was "displeased" to see another group with a stringer of good sized smallmouth destined for the frypan.
Still, if 5 guys(good fishermen) eat 10 walleyes a summer out of Quetico, I don't think it's going to take a big bite out of the fishery. Maybe to help out, they should eat another stringer of smallmouth too!?!?
Just an FYI

Eat all the smallmouth you can catch! Give 'em away if you have to!

It seems like the slot limits that have been implemented in the past, have always been reactive as opposed to proactive. So I would say that if the DNR ever enacts a slot limit up there it will be to repair an over fished fishery.

well, seems as though he could have had brats...in that case, i think it was wrong to eat such a fish. i ate 27 inches of walleye once...because that was all i had.

My brother-inlaw and I were 2 days into a 5 day trip with no fish even looking at our lures we went out at dusk and we landed a 37 inch northren out of a cold thomas lake, I cleaned him and we ate him for two days, 5meals, witch was the best thing we could have done, because we didn't catch another fish till the last day! keep what you need to survive, release the rest!

I can't clean fish so I don't keep anything, but I do leave them for the gulls and they really like the walleye 25" and bigger. It's kind of odd thou, they (gulls) don't always go for the smallies. They will sometimes leave them for the other scavengers. Do you think the gulls have standards too?