We all know the benefits of catch and release and proper handling of fish that we intend to release. But what about the fish we decide to eat for shorelunch or take home. Nothing beats a 3 course shorelunch with a side of Pilsner or Kokanee.
I know we all enjoy a nice walleye fry, and for the most part all the fish that come to the shorelunch at the camp where I work are under 18", and personally I see no reason for myself to keep anything bigger than 17 inches. There has been, on occaision, a walleye that is 20 or 22" that is brought to the shorelunch. And on one occaision a 26" Walleye was brought in. We will graciously refuse a fish of this size as we cannot justify eating a walleye for lunch that is so important to maintaining the resource, and it just makes sense that we would fry up two 17" Walleye instead of one big fish. So what about the fish that we keep to take home? Should we apply the same set of ethics to all the other speices as well. Do we need to take home a 22" Walleye when an 17" walleye will do just fine? How bout a 37" Northern Pike, that took 10 or 15 years to get that big, or an 18" bass. I may be taking things too far when I say that we should also be releasing the 13 or 14 inch Crappies and perch( and I do, when possible ) but we have seen a definite decline in our Crappie population in the past few years. I think what works for one species will work for all species, I am no biologist but it seems logical. If you are gonna eat fish, utilize the most abundant part of the fishery, in our case on Lake of the Woods the 15 to 17 inch Walleyes are everywhere, there is no reason to eat a 24 or 26 inch fish, ever. Photograph the big ones and eat the smaller more abundant fish, dont let your ego bring big fish back to the docks are home for dinner, most everyone has a digital camera now and pictures are plenty of proof that you had a good day. Selective harvest works.
Take Care everyone Wayne
(2 comments)
