Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

80481

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I understand and agree that the LOTW walleye population requires incremental management. However, more needs to be done to reduce/eliminate commercial fishing and abandoned/unmarked nets. Incrementally, more needs to be done with respect to the US border elements of the lake. Read more

Comment ID

80553

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Non-resident anglers crossing from Minnesota resorts for the day flagrantly eat limits of walleye for shorelunch and then go out and catch another limit to take back them. Everyone sees them doing it daily and the lack of enforcement is laughable. Read more

Comment ID

80968

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
if you are going to adopt the alternative option (which seemed to work pretty well for Rainy Lake) why not keep the number the same? 35 to 45 cm plus one over 70? It seem pretty dumb to change the 45 to 43 when there is already a standard set that seems to work in the northwest. Read more

Comment ID

81392

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
As a cottage owner on another area lake (Pickerel Lake off Minaki Hwy) I have a concern that reducing catch and possession limits on Lake of the Woods while not making the same changes on other area lakes could have the unintended effect of encouraging anglers to apply greater pressure to the walley Read more

Comment ID

81413

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Being an angler on lake of the woods I have seen the change in fish size over the years. I support preferred option as it is more than fair to still support the recreational side as well as the tourism side. It isn’t always how many fish you have in the freezer. Read more

Comment ID

81439

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I don’t have a problem with dropping the limits down to two however why not have the same size restrictions as the Winnipeg river 35 to 45 why 43 to confuse everything. Rainy Lake is 45Winnipeg rivers 45 where does this 43 come in. Read more

Comment ID

81446

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
My wife and I fully support the reduced limit to 2 walleyes …. and wish it didn’t include the option of any fish over 17 inches. Two only under 17 inches. The walleye population in Lake of the Woods has been decimated in recent years. Thank you.

Comment ID

81603

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am in support of the regulation change - however the rules surrounding "possession" need to include an allowance for photographs to be taken before release. With the regulations as is, anglers who catch a fish outside of slot size are prohibited from photographing before releasing the fish. Read more