I seem to remember John Viar telling me that if they had slot limits, different bag limits, or even increased size limits, it would produce bigger fish. But, on the other end there would be years where small fish are only being caught. I think he said something about the 5 year cycle of producing quality fish being compromised. From what I can see, this year was a banner year. Lots of quality salmon that are 3-4 lbs and very healthy lakers. Go fish a lake like Moosehead if you want to see a screwed up fishery. The fish are small and thin. Aside from catching a male salmon in the spring that's beat up from the previous fall's spawn, can anyone honestly say that the fish this year weren't extremely healthy? Leave it alone. They know EXACTLY what they are doing.

Hey Roofy,
Here's what you asked for and got.

"Just looking for some input and feedback from serious anglers, and see what people think and then take it from there. Please feel free to have your voice be heard, we can make a change! R.R.

Cal

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

apparently you all think i said F&G didn't or aren't doing their job, well you are ALL WRONG, i didn't say that. This was something i was thinking about bringing to them to see if it was at all possible, pro's and cons! it is called research. Being a member of east coast tuna and knowing a few of the board members and talking to them it was just an idea. Its all about the fish and the lake not you or I. I don't want the bass killed or the lakers depleated and enjoy catching fish no matter what it is. just thought i might go to F&G and set up a meeting with them and get their input on the idea of changing the lenght limit and get the true facts on the affects. I am glad that i made this post and got all the BS from everybody that totaly went off track of the message. Winni has the potential! R.R.

I am not one for eliminating fish species but certainly the Lake trout population has exploded when I look at my fish finder and the bottom of the lake is peppered with fish. But on another subject... My proposition would be to increase the length limit on rainbow trout from 15 inches to 18 inches and perhaps increase the number of fish. when about 2,000 fish are stocked in a 28 mile by 7 mile lake, that's a lot of space to get lost. but at least increase one of the two elements. As far as salmon goes my only complaint is for us experienced anglers to get on those inexperienced ones to throw anything back that isn't of quality size. Why keep a 15 inch fish anyways?? there's no meat there. but to mandate a length increase i agree is not for us to decide but for Fish and Game to decide.

Tibbs

Pretty sure you're supposed to keep a 15-18 inch fish and let the 3 lbers go. If my memory serves me correctly, F&G told me the 3 lb fish won't make it to 5 lbs if everyone keeps them. From what I've seen on the board, most of the bigger fish are the ones that go into the creel.

I vote for removing rainbow stocking. They don't fight anything a salmon and you can catch them in most another stocked waters of NH or Mass. Just my opinion.

i would vote rainbows out of newengland period and put more focus on salmon, browns, and brookies. the rainbows just dont seem the same as catching them out west, i dont think they really like the water here or something.

I agree with you Fishless, they just don't seem to thrive here it seems. However we caught 8 or 10 this year, especially the last week that would rival any Salmon 3 pound Salmon. If we could catch them like that (or bigger) all year it would be great, but it seems not that many make it over 3 maybe 4 pounds ???

I think they are a worthwile game fish, but something seems to lack in the mmangement. They dump em in all year long it seems most are about 14 or 15 inches. Then again, they are put in and tagged for the Ice Derby which is a big deal for many.

John S.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

i would vote rainbows out of newengland period and put more focus on salmon, browns, and brookies. the rainbows just dont seem the same as catching them out west, i dont think they really like the water here or something.

A lot of Maine lakes there are just two many lake trout.This has a negitive effect on the salmon.My point if there needs to some kind of balance.In the amount of lake trout taken from winni. I agree fish game does an excellent job managing Winni. Im sure they are keeping an eye on the laker population.And there is a better chance of catching a Nice Laker.Then a Nice salmon.

Roofy, good idea but, "Squam did have an 18" limit" on Salmon to try and make it a "Trophy lake", didn't work and they went back to 15". I'll try and find out from Viar why it backfired on them, I'm assuming it was forage/vs mouths to feed..

But it has been tried with noi success.

Now about Lakers, I don't think there should be any size or catch limit, this is one of the biggest reasons our Salmon don't get bigger in Winni. I caught my first Laker of the season yesterday in Squam, I think the lack of Lakers in Squam is one of the main reasons the Salmon do so well there. Some 2 year old Squam Salmon are as big or bigger than an average 3 year old in Winni, documented.

Sometimes I wish there were natural Lakers in Squam, when the Salmon bite is slow, but then again I remember the good days and I'm glad there are no natural Lakers in Squam.

John S.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A lot of Maine lakes there are just two many lake trout.This has a negitive effect on the salmon.My point if there needs to some kind of balance.In the amount of lake trout taken from winni. I agree fish game does an excellent job managing Winni. Im sure they are keeping an eye on the laker population.And there is a better chance of catching a Nice Laker.Then a Nice salmon.

I kind of have the mindset that I would rather have the chance to catch bigger salmon (5-8 lbs), then to catch a bunch of 2lb. fish. I kind of agree with Roof Rafta, it doesn't hurt to at least take a look at how this could be possible. If you've ever fished the Finger Lakes in NY. you'll understand that it's possible to have both size and numbers. The largest of these lakes are just about the size of Winni. The fish on average are much larger than Winni., with alot more variety. You can catch rainbows, browns, lakers, salmon, and even walleye out of these lakes. Every time you go out you have the chance to catch what around here would be considered the fish of a lifetime.(ie. Browns in the teens, Rainbows from 8-12 lbs., Atlantics from 6-9lbs, and Lakers all day long over 7lbs., with a good shot at them in the teens. I know alot of these lakes are deeper than Winni but I'm not sure if that is what makes them so awesome. By nature Atlantics are a pretty fragile fish which is why they're an after thougth on Lake Ontario. They basically don't stock them there in any significant #'s because they don't do as well as many of the other trout/salmon species. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to stop stocking Atlantics at all, I love to catch them as much as anyone. I just think if there's a way we could have a Finger Lakes type fishery around here, then why not explore it? Maybe it would be worth our F&G talking to the NY F&G to see if there are any similarities/differences between the bodies of water. I'm no biologist which is why the pro's should investigate these matters to see if they're feasible. I do know that every time I leave the Finger Lakes, I do so with a good deal of envy.

"Landlocked Salmon are King in NH", be hard to change the fishery. Fish and Game have said that they will do whatever the people paying the bill want in regards to rules and the type of fishery we want. But I think they pretty much do what they think is best regardless and I think they do a pretty **** good job at that.

If they put less Salmon in Winni it would improve the average size of Winni Salmon, but it wouldn't be what the majority want, big numbers. However I do think that if that's what the majority want, quality over quantity, that type of fishery could happen in Winni.

There is nothing wrong with us making suggestions, but they know what will work and what will not. I doubt they would ever change anything if it were not in the best interest of the fishery, no matter what the license holders want. The thought of Walleye eating up our precious Smelt populations would keep most NH Fish and Game biologist up nights.

I think the way they designate certain Lakes for certain species is a great approach, many of us would love to see a good Walley lake, etc. if it were possible, but not one of our Salmon Lakes..

John S.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I kind of have the mindset that I would rather have the chance to catch bigger salmon (5-8 lbs), then to catch a bunch of 2lb. fish. I kind of agree with Roof Rafta, it doesn't hurt to at least take a look at how this could be possible. If you've ever fished the Finger Lakes in NY. you'll understand that it's possible to have both size and numbers. The largest of these lakes are just about the size of Winni. The fish on average are much larger than Winni., with alot more variety. You can catch rainbows, browns, lakers, salmon, and even walleye out of these lakes. Every time you go out you have the chance to catch what around here would be considered the fish of a lifetime.(ie. Browns in the teens, Rainbows from 8-12 lbs., Atlantics from 6-9lbs, and Lakers all day long over 7lbs., with a good shot at them in the teens. I know alot of these lakes are deeper than Winni but I'm not sure if that is what makes them so awesome. By nature Atlantics are a pretty fragile fish which is why they're an after thougth on Lake Ontario. They basically don't stock them there in any significant #'s because they don't do as well as many of the other trout/salmon species. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to stop stocking Atlantics at all, I love to catch them as much as anyone. I just think if there's a way we could have a Finger Lakes type fishery around here, then why not explore it? Maybe it would be worth our F&G talking to the NY F&G to see if there are any similarities/differences between the bodies of water. I'm no biologist which is why the pro's should investigate these matters to see if they're feasible. I do know that every time I leave the Finger Lakes, I do so with a good deal of envy.