Click here to order with free shipping.Team Iceshanty Patches! Most iceshanty boards are represented
As a primary walleye fisherman that's fished in different states, I can tell you first hand that not only in Montana, but other states as well, it's kind of taboo amongst walleye fisherman to keep the bigger fish, unless you're planning a mount. There's different statistics available on walleye breeding, but what it breaks down to approximately is fish in the 20" range have the most fertile eggs, while fish 24"+ produce less fertile, but drastically more eggs. Here in Montana, there aren't very many bodies of water that are managed as walleye fisheries, with the only notable lakes being stocked being Frances and Fort Peck, I believe (there are some smaller little reservoirs that get stocked to, but lakes like Tiber, Fresno, Nelson, ?Canyon Ferry?, Holter, and Hauser are all left to natural reproduction. It boils down to clear favoritism for trout by FWP, which I suppose is understandable due to their range and the amount of money they bring in. Thus, pulling the big mamas out of the lakes is frowned upon. Taking smaller fish is much more encouraged, as it will increase the chances of a healthy population of smaller fish that can grow into medium and large fish, as there theoretically should be more food available to them, especially since walleye grow fairly slowly. That being said, it is perfectly in your rights within the law to keep the big fish that apply to your limit. Just don't be surprised if some folks are cranky when the fish is dead in your picture, as opposed to a picture where it is going to be released shortly thereafter. I for one put all the big mamas back and only keep the smaller fish (13"-17") usually, as there are plenty of those available in the lakes across the state. Hope I was able to help you understand a little better!
I see it from both sides and support both options when one catches a large fish (keep it or release it).The catch and release philosophies of large fish should apply to all species, if that's your standards. Large panfish reproduce and provide food for predators so they in turn can achieve larger sizes. 16"-20" bass , 20"+ walleye and 30"+ pike take a long time to achieve that size, etc., it all comes full circle. What can become irritating is the angler who criticizes keeping a big fish of one species but will post a picture of themselves with a bucketful of 12"+ perch or other large species they plan to keep. But it's ok because it's not their preferred target species.
Some folks like you and I and I'd guess a lot of the folks here on IceShanty do the type research necessary to know the information about ideal spawn size, egg counts, etc.
I don't mind someone keeping a trophy to mount, I have one. For walleye anymore i'll throw anything over 20" back, we have plenty of small walleye in all these lakes to take some home for a fish fry. If you enjoy fishing for walleye, but take ten pounders home to eat, you're a moron, not only did you kill that one, but also about 300000 potential new walleyes. Montana is so hostile to walleyes it's up to us to regulate ourselves if we want these fisheries to thrive.
So you have the guy that catches 1 big eye a year,keeps it,gets ribbed by every expert on the net.Then you have the guy that catches 20+ a year and releases them all with a 10% fatality rate (at best)and gets praised for his skills....makes perfect sense.
Any data to support this claim or are you just tailoring numbers to support your opinion?
The reason im posting this is because lately ive been seeing people post pictures of their nice walleye they catch and getting shunned to no belief. Other people will post pictures of giant pike, lake trout, crappie, and so on with people saying nothing. Me personally only get to fish for walleye once or twice a year so I keep every one I catch within the laws because the wife and I love to eat them. Just curious what you guys think.
Theres plenty of info available on the studys done,as high as 20% in some cases.