Reply by: FXA0 Posted: Aug. 15, 3:55:18 PM Points: 165
^ I wouldn't assume it came from that area at Boyd. It looks like it was just taken out of the livewell right before the picture. Fish aren't usually dripping water like that by the time you unhook them and grab them for a picture. But anything is possible.
Reply by: sreg8 Posted: Aug. 17, 5:16:16 PM Points: 6
Walleyeone, that fish looks DEAD in the photo do I doubt it was released. Most people don't realize how beneficial it is to release fish that size and just get a reproduction mount done. The 16-20 inchers are the ones they should be eating. Congrats on the catch Kyle!
Reply by: Goosehunter82 Posted: Aug. 18, 2:40:09 PM Points: 47516
Thoes big fish aren't very good to eat. Do they reproduce in boyd? I have no idea but if they do thoes big fish will be the big reproducers. Obviously we don't know maybe he did try to revive the fish and it just didn't make it. Either way great fish. Hopefully guys practice careful handling and safe release of thoes big ones.
Reply by: Eyefishing Posted: Aug. 19, 8:16:46 AM Points: 6
Yes, the walleye spawn in Boyd, Goosehunter, you said the right on both comments, that big of a walleye doesn’t taste very good. Boyd is not that big of a lake, there are not that many, that big in there to begin with. That fish is a prime spawner or was witch ever it is. But by the looks that fish doesn’t look in very good shape. That fish should of had CPR.
Reply by: 007 Posted: Aug. 19, 10:36:46 AM Points: 68
Great fish, and would be an excellent wall hanger. While eating large predatory fish like this does pose a mercury consumption risk, Walleye are sustained in Colorado almost entirely by stocking only. While they do go through the motions and exhibit physiological and behavioral changes from spawning, they do not reproduce successfully in most of Colorado's lakes and reservoirs. Even if there is some reproduction, it is extremely limited and insufficient to sustain the populations . Fishery surveys indicate that Boyd does not have self sustaining walleye populations and the fishery is supported only by stocking.
Reply by: Ajax5240 Posted: Aug. 19, 10:56:47 AM Points: 26993
As I understand it, Boyd lacks the necessary rocky structure for the success of a walleye spawn. Coupled with the silty bottom and recreational boat traffic which covers and smothers the eggs that are laid with silt preventing a healthy hatch.
Certainly a chance that a few may be successful in hatching, it is not the majority.
Great fish, and like everyone else I would hope that it is still swimming.. But provided it was his only fish over 21" the decision is his to make. If it became fish tacos, I hope it was the best eating big fish in the world. Better that it was enjoyed.
Reply by: cookster Posted: Aug. 19, 12:09:17 PM Points: 62623
That’s a super nice fish and congratulations to the angler. I’ve fished many years for a chance at an eye that big and have never come close but like said above it’s his fish and his choice what he does with it. Back in the day it would have been on my wall as a skin mount for sure but now I just want a chance to release a walleye of that size. Again congratulations to the angler.
Reply by: VolcanoSteve Posted: Aug. 22, 9:11:14 AM Points: 3
C'mon, give the guy a break! None of us know if the fish was deeply hooked and if it was even possible to release it. That, combined with the fact that the populations are sustained through stocking, means you should congratulate the dude and move on. Mercury? I seriously doubt he's going to develop mental illness from eating that fish. Some of you sound like pompous fly fisherman...
Reply by: VolcanoSteve Posted: Aug. 22, 1:38:41 PM Points: 3
FXAO - just kidding my man! I'm mostly a fly fisherman these days, but have a hard time with that subsection of our population who look down on spin fisherman, bait fisherman, and those who want to eat their catch. In the end, I'm just a fisherman!
Reply by: FXA0 Posted: Aug. 22, 2:25:03 PM Points: 165
^ I'm just kidding too. Most of the things I say on fishing forums is said in jest. But I do honestly believe everyone is a pompous jerk, except for me, of course. :) Cue for the audience to break out in laughter...
Reply by: elkinthebag Posted: Aug. 24, 1:51:34 PM Points: 2088
Just and FYI for all the guys using The Who cares they are stocked to maintain the fisheries. Have you ever worked the walleye nets in the spring. The state does not buy eggs and couldn’t afford to buy eggs. But they collect out of our public water to maintain the fisheries and sell some to other states in trade for like wiper and tiger Muskie stuff we can not produce. 18”-20” walleye only carry so many eggs 22”-24” carry a couple hundred more as you go up in size it turns to thousands.
Reply by: RogBow Posted: Aug. 25, 8:13:37 AM Points: 1663
That is understood, for lakes where they do actually put nets in to catch spawning walleye. Pueblo, Cherry Creek and Chatfield are the main producers. It appears the egg collection was huge this past Spring with a surplus of eggs taken that will benefit the state.
In lakes where eggs are not taken is does not matter whether or not someone keeps a 30" walleye every day if that is legal. It makes zero difference to that particular fishery. The only thing you will hear is the jealous people suggesting to release the fish for some reason, maybe so they too can have bragging rights later?
Reply by: elkinthebag Posted: Aug. 25, 11:18:12 PM Points: 2088
Boyd, carter , and horsetooth have had spawning nets placed in them when chatifeild and cherry creek fall short. They might not be the main stay netting lakes but what happens if one crashes. Stuff happen upon the catch fish die theybare not immune I know I have had to keep a couple that I felt guilty about. Not saying wrong or right just spreading a little education and from a bigger point in the world then what we see at the tip of or nose.
Reply by: Abel1 Posted: Aug. 26, 9:03:47 AM Points: 528
Congratulations to the angler. It may have been a good idea to let it go so it could grow that 3.5 inches and become a new state record and then go after it again but to each his own. I'll bet he had a lot of thoughts going through his mind at the time and any decision he was going to make would not have been easy. How long would it have taken to grow that 3.5 inches?
Reply by: FXA0 Posted: Aug. 26, 12:36:23 PM Points: 165
^ That walleye may never reach 35". Walleye typically reach their maximum length in their teens and may not grow any more beyond that. This chart shows that walleyes that are 20 and older aren't significantly larger than fish in their mid to late teens: [log in for link]
On the broader topic of selective harvest, I release big walleyes in Colorado, but it's not because I believe it will make a significant difference in the reproduction of walleyes:
1. For the most part, walleye populations in Colorado are sustained through stockings by CPW. 2. An old female walleye may lay more eggs than a younger one, but that doesn't necessarily mean those eggs result in more hatched walleyes. While bigger and older female walleyes produce more eggs, a greater proportion of those eggs aren't viable and won't hatch. In rough numbers, a female walleye lays 25,000 eggs per pound. A 4 pounder could lay 100,000 eggs, while a 10 pounder could lay 250,000. Suppose that, due to old age, the eggs from 10 pounder only have a 25% viability rate, while those from the 4 pounder have close to 100% viability rate. The 4 pounder will actually be more fertile in this scenario. Studies of Lake Erie walleye have shown that female walleyes in the 18-24" range are the most fertile, even though they don't lay as many eggs as the bigger and older ones. Prime size range may be different in Colorado, and it may even differ from one body of water to the next, but the general conclusion that older walleyes aren't as fertile as walleyes in their prime should hold. [log in for link]
What's the point of letting the big walleyes go then? They are are simply a scarce resource. A 10 pounder is probably 10 year old or more. That fish is much harder to replace than the 2-3 pounders. I believe walleyes stocked by the CPW only serve one purpose: to provide angling opportunities to anyone with a fishing license. From that perspective, following the regulations in place at Boyd already help to ensure that fewer big walleyes are kept (only 1 fish over 21" can be harvested per day). If you want to further "protect" the fishery, release the big ones. If you really want to maximize angling opportunities for others, don't fish. :) Even catch and release leads to some level of fish mortality. I honestly suspect that, on average, hardcore catch and release and selective harvest folks (inadvertently) kill more big fish (and more fish in general) than the casual catch and cook anglers. If you've killed a couple of big walleyes inadvertently, you have killed more big walleyes than the majority of anglers.
FXAO . . . . .execlent info on older vs. younger.You have more than answered my question about older females/bigger females vs. younger feamales. Its clear that the older the female gets, the less amount of eggs are viable.Its been a strange yr for egg collection.At C.C. they were on and off in 2 weeks.Major haul of eggs,Chatty was just OK,if not on the weak side,Aurora was a total no show and I don't know about Pueblo & JM.
Reply by: justahack Posted: Aug. 26, 8:19:54 PM Points: 0
To the OP’s buddy: Nice catch. Even if a large fish can produce more, what are the chances it ends up in the nets to get squeezed anyway? Literally millions of hatchlings are produced and released into CO waters each year. One kept fish doesn’t make that big a dent. Lots of kept fish might, but the rant here is about the one. Let it go.