GOLDEN STAR 2ND ANNUAL WALLEYE FISHING DERBY FEB 21st

Grizzly · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 5:50 pm

Maverick wrote:

I read an article for Mi Outdoor News a while ago which consulted A Fisheries Biologist on this issue. The following info is what was concluded The bigger females 10 pounds and up produce about 2 quarts of eggs. 4-7 pound females produce approx one quart of eggs. As long as the female is in good shape she will lay these eggs and if they are fertilized and conditions are right, they'll hatch. The genetics of these big females are usually very good, and the big fish are actually a whole separate resourse in their own right. There was also a study done at a university that I read about that found the larger walleye to be much more fertile for essentially the same reasons. More eggs laid, better genetics... I'm by no means a biologist so I go by what they write in their 200 page thesis studies...

there has been thousands of studies made over many years many contradict each other so who is to say who is right and who is wrong age of a fish in smaller lakes do not hold true to the bay of quinte in fact they have no real idea why the fish get so big here that is FACT........ you can have a 20 year old walleye in a back lake that tips the scales at 6 pounds a 20 year old BOQ fish can be 7-12 pounds way I see it is if a fish is 20 years old at the end of its cycle with just a year or two left to breed and a 5 year old fish that is just starting to prime and can span for the next 15 years or more the math adds to the favor of the 5 pound fish

Husky_Jerk · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:02 pm

So they just decided on 24.5" for the hell of it? Why not 22.5 or 26.5? Science my friend, science. And I agree that 5lb fish are important too, just not as important as the prime ladies.

Grizzly · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:09 pm

Husky_Jerk wrote:

So they just decided on 24.5" for the hell of it? Why not 22.5 or 26.5? Science my friend, science.

yes that's just what they did , I don't have the answer why but that's just what they did I know this to be fact it was an average they came up with with a size of fish study the MNR did with netting and fish surveys the year before they did away with the slot so yes some science did go into it and as I said they had to come up with a number so they did and its 24.5 if I had my way id push for the nothing over 18 inch slot , but that's just me.

Maverick · **Joined:** Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:32 am **Posts:** 586

Grizz do you honestly believe that they changed the slot to an "over" to please the masses? I remember when we had the slot limit for several years fishing was very tough at that point for any size of fish ... They removed the slot because the fishery had bounced back. Slot limits are not in place anywhere in the USA or Canada just to justify their existence. It's there to protect the species... I have to believe the mnr although not perfect I'm sure is on top of things and has the fisheries best interest at heart!

Husky_Jerk · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:21 pm

I agree with that grizzly, nothing over 18" would be perfect.

Maverick · **Joined:** Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:32 am **Posts:** 586

Grizzly wrote:

Husky_Jerk wrote:

So they just decided on 24.5" for the hell of it? Why not 22.5 or 26.5? Science my friend, science.

yes that's just what they did , I don't have the answer why but that's just what they did I know this to be fact it was an average they came up with with a size of fish study the MNR did with netting and fish surveys the year before they did away with the slot so yes some science did go into it and as I said they had to come up with a number so they did and its 24.5 if I had my way id push for the nothing over 18 inch slot , but that's just me.

I believe that your prob not far off on how they chose the size but I strongly disagree it had anything to do with pleasing the masses.

Walleye 9 · **Joined:** Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:05 pm **Posts:** 1985

Maverick wrote:

I read an article for Mi Outdoor News a while ago which consulted A Fisheries Biologist on this issue. The following info is what was concluded The bigger females 10 pounds and up produce about 2 quarts of eggs. 4-7 pound females produce approx one quart of eggs. As long as the female is in good shape she will lay these eggs and if they are fertilized and conditions are right, they'll hatch. The genetics of these big females are usually very good, and the big fish are actually a whole separate resourse in their own right. There was also a study done at a university that I read about that found the larger walleye to be much more fertile for essentially the same reasons. More eggs laid, better genetics... I'm by no means a biologist so I go by what they write in their 200 page thesis studies...

Not trying to argue here, but would it be safe to say according to this theory that if walleye harvested between 4-7 pounds doubled the amount of walleye harvested over 10 pounds, then the amount off eggs laid and hatched would be very close?? Not saying that the numbers would be doubled, but it's gotta be way higher I would think....

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

Grizzly wrote:

Maverick wrote:

I read an article for Mi Outdoor News a while ago which consulted A Fisheries Biologist on this issue. The following info is what was concluded The bigger females 10 pounds and up produce about 2 quarts of eggs. 4-7 pound females produce approx one quart of eggs. As long as the female is in good shape she will lay these eggs and if they are fertilized and conditions are right, they'll hatch. The genetics of these big females are usually very good, and the big fish are actually a whole separate resourse in their own right. There was also a study done at a university that I read about that found the larger walleye to be much more fertile for essentially the same reasons. More eggs laid, better genetics... I'm by no means a biologist so I go by what they write in their 200 page thesis studies...

there has been thousands of studies made over many years many contradict each other so who is to say who is right and who is wrong age of a fish in smaller lakes do not hold true to the bay of quinte in fact they have no real idea why the fish get so big here that is FACT........ you can have a 20 year old walleye in a back lake that tips the scales at 6 pounds a 20 year old BOQ fish can be 7-12 pounds way I see it is if a fish is 20 years old at the end of its cycle with just a year or two left to breed and a 5 year old fish that is just starting to prime and can span for the next 15 years or more the math adds to the favor of the 5 pound fish

A 5 lb fish in a back lake does not have the same food source that is available to the fish in Lake Ontario. That same food source is responsible for the die-off of the steelhead right now stateside. Thiamine deficiency!!! I'm sure you trolled through the mushroom clouds of bait on lake ontario this yr grizz. And I will pretty much garentee that's what it is. And also that 7lb fish u say, may not have the same genetics as the 12lb female and also may not make it another 15 yrs. due to natural die off and harvesting. I'm all for keeping your limit, and I do whenever I can trick enough of them to get my limit. I just don't think a tourney supporting this type of thing when it can be avoided is ethical.
Let's hope they get rid of that Atlantic salmon program and start dumping more chinooks in to clear up the thriving alewive population!!! Otherwise the Lakers and everything else we b doomed.

Maverick · **Joined:** Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:32 am **Posts:** 586

Walleye 9 wrote:

Maverick wrote:

I read an article for Mi Outdoor News a while ago which consulted A Fisheries Biologist on this issue. The following info is what was concluded The bigger females 10 pounds and up produce about 2 quarts of eggs. 4-7 pound females produce approx one quart of eggs. As long as the female is in good shape she will lay these eggs and if they are fertilized and conditions are right, they'll hatch. The genetics of these big females are usually very good, and the big fish are actually a whole separate resourse in their own right. There was also a study done at a university that I read about that found the larger walleye to be much more fertile for essentially the same reasons. More eggs laid, better genetics... I'm by no means a biologist so I go by what they write in their 200 page thesis studies...

Not trying to argue here, but would it be safe to say according to this theory that if walleye harvested between 4-7 pounds doubled the amount of walleye harvested over 10 pounds, then the amount off eggs laid and hatched would be very close?? Not saying that the numbers would be doubled, but it's gotta be way higher I would think....

There is certainly some validity to that reasoning... However I also think those ten lb walleye get that way largely because of genetics. Those are genes we want swimming around imo. A lot of these are opinions and were entitled to have our own.

Grizzly · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:32 pm

Maverick wrote:

Grizz do you honestly believe that they changed the slot to an "over" to please the masses? I remember when we had the slot limit for several years fishing was very tough at that point for any size of fish ... They removed the slot because the fishery had bounced back. Slot limits are not in place anywhere in the USA or Canada just to justify their existence. It's there to protect the species... I have to believe the mnr although not perfect I'm sure is on top of things and has the fisheries best interest at heart!

Joe. its all about balance and yes to please the masses the MNR wants to know what the masses think in fact they need to know from all levels they are always looking for a balance and its not an easy job for them..... they changed the slot size around the same time they changed the zones and BOQ became part of LAKE O and zone 20 before that time the slot covered all the lakes and balance was hard so it became zone 20 and BOQ fell into a new set of rules

Grizzly · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:35 pm

I think walleye have only one gene I believe they get so big because of food base and they are eating machines lol erie has more walleye but Ontario has bigger makes sense
Ontario is a bigger deeper lake

BigMac · **Joined:** Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:18 pm **Posts:** 1383

Grizzly wrote:

I think walleye have only one gene I believe they get so big because of food base and they are eating machines lol erie has more walleye but Ontario has bigger makes sense
Ontario is a bigger deeper lake

Isn't that like saying humans are all the same genetics. Not at all true. Many athletic families thrive from generation to generation. I feel same would happen with any species of fish or mammal except at a faster evolution due to shorter life span.

Grizzly · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:45 pm

BigMac wrote:

Grizzly wrote:

I think walleye have only one gene I believe they get so big because of food base and they are eating machines lol erie has more walleye but Ontario has bigger makes sense
Ontario is a bigger deeper lake

Isn't that like saying humans are all the same genetics. Not at all true. Many athletic families thrive from generation to generation. I feel same would happen with any species of fish or mammal except at a faster evolution due to shorter life span.

Genetics...DNA.... x and y chromosomes ... maaah, im not a scientist but if you wanna believe quinte walleye are some mutant strain of super walleye hell you go for it bud there is people right now in the MNR who think the walleye we catch could all steam from one perfect spwan season where every thing lined up perfectly back in the early 80.s and that's what brought them back to quinte and trust me those spawning fish were not 12 beauties we catch today but directly related in fact there was a native hatchery in dez that might have played an important roll to the walleye fishing we have today on BOQ

West Lake Willows · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:53 pm

There is absolutely no arguing that a 10lb walleye is more valuable to fishery then a 5 lb walleye.

There are several studies that prove the fry from mature walleye have a higher survival rate. Find me one that says otherwise.

Read this: Maternal influences on population dynamics: evidence from an exploited freshwater fish by PAUL A. VENTURELLI,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxbtlS ... sp=sharing

Scott

West Lake Willows · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:00 pm

You are talking two different factors on a spawn. Genetics vs environmental factors. Both play a valuable role on a fishery.

Scott

Grizzly wrote:

Genetics...DNA.... x and y chromosomes ... maaah, im not a scientist but if you wanna believe quinte walleye are some mutant strain of super walleye hell you go for it bud BOQ

Grizzly wrote:

there is people right now in the MNR who think the walleye we catch could all steam from one perfect spwan season where every thing lined up perfectly back in the early 80.s

HOME	Bait&Tackle	Bed&Breakfast	Boat Rentals	Campgrounds	Contact Us
Cottage Rentals	Guides/Fishing Charters	Hotels/Motels	Hunting Supplies	Ice Huts/Ice Guides	Marinas
Outfitters	QUINTE FISHING SERIES	Resorts	Tourism	Trailer Parks	Launches

Quinte Fishing

GOLDEN STAR 2ND ANNUAL WALLEYE FISHING DERBY FEB 21st

Who is online