Along the lines of Bobs "BigPerch" post......

[james_walleye]

This is inline with the post from Bob Jensen and the big perch overharvest in SD. I give the MN DNR lots of credit for placing slots on lakes such as Mille Lacs and Big Winnie along with getting input on reducing limits on species of fish BEFORE the problems occur. Some Minnesotans blast the slots on Mille Lacs for being too strict but i say hey this is great...i'd rather see slots to protect the fishery instead of waiting until the population is damaged and then placing slots to bring the population back. I read an article abbout the Mille Lacs slot and the predicted harvest for this upcoming season was 320,000 pounds(i believe...cant remember off the top of my head) but the harvest without a slot would be 680,000 pounds. Now it doesnt take a genius too see that a few seasons without slots and our world class fishery would not be "as world class". Esecially when you consider the extra 350,000 pounds of fish would be those 20-28"ers which are the prime spawners keeping the lake replenished from year to year. I for one would now like to see the MN DNR place statewide slots up. I've always been one to believe that if you are catching 20-25"ers that you gotta be catching a few 15-18"ers that you can keep to eat. But we all know that too many people wont voluntarily release those bigger eyes. Hence the need for statewide slots in my opinion.

[Bob Jensen]

Let me jump in here with some thoughts.

I too applaud efforts to regulate fish overharvest before it's too late. In speaking with some people in-the-know in SoDak and NoDak, there are efforts underway to prevent overharvest. Some of the lakes out there have already been hammered way to hard, and the fishing has suffered, in some of those bodies of water, in a short time.

The people who make the regulations often are way too slow in reacting. They do study after study, many of them five year studies. When the study is completed, it's too late and we have to start over again. The studies are often based on fish that live in computers and on stat sheets. Knowledgeable guides/anglers that spend huge amounts of time on many of the individual bodies of water could provide pertinent information much faster, more accurately, and for a lot less expense than many of the studies.

I am not trying to take shots at any of the people who do these studies or create the regulations. Many of them are sincere individuals who are interested in our fisheries, but they aren't allowed to do their job as best they know how.

However, I am tired of being told by fisheries personnel that anglers can't make an impact on the fish populations on a body of water. Angling pressure has ruined some bodies of water, especially the smaller lakes.

I have been doing seminars throughout the Midwest for the past several weeks and have had many discussions with lots of anglers regarding more progressive fishing regulations. Most anglers are very receptive to regulations that provide protection. They would rather catch big fish and put them back than just catch small ones.

That's enough from me for now, but I will continue to stress the need for progressive management of our fisheries, wildlife, and natural resources. Am interested in what others think.

Best Fishes,

Bob Jensen

[james_walleye]

I agree with ya Bob in respects to being tired of hearing that anglers cant make an impact on fish populations. How can anyone say that when you see the numbers the DNR presented on Mille Lacs (posted on my opening post). I fish Madison Lake near Mankato Bob and that was the lake i was referring too when i asked if you had fished near Mankato. This lake is something when ya learn how to fish it. But when ya learn how to fish it ya also have to learn how to release those big walleyes you start catching. I saw a picture in the bait shop 2 years ago of 3 anglers with 18 walleyes. Two 29"ers and one 27"er. The other 15 walleyes the guy at that shop told me were all between 22 1/2 and 24". Tell me why 3 anglers need that much walleye?? Now on the same lake i watch the same guy night after night catch and keep his walleye over 24" to eat and usually the fish over 24" he keeps is more like 27 or 28". Why i asked him? I was told it was none of my business. Well when you get more and more people keeping these fish year after year on a 1200 acre lake it will be my business when im catching fewer and fewer walleyes each year over 20". It will happen...no way a 1200 acre lake can keep taking this pounding each year.

[Backwater Eddy]

Technology alone has allowed the new angler to be of greater impact upon any given system that ever before, and it shall increase it's influence further I am sure.

A greater number of anglers use our nations recourses than ever before so this too will add even further to the pressure on fisheries.

Foresight, research, and proper implementation of management methods must be as high of a priority to anglers as buying that new fishing rod, or we will soon have nothing to fish for with it.


Backwater Eddy

“February is the month designed to teach people who don’t drink what a hangover is like.” Garrison Keilor

[stickboat]

The other post on this had the picture from Devils Lake. Everybody wanted to jump on these two guys. Most people that hire a guide only fish a couple days a season. Is the fifty they take home more damaging to the lake than the guys who only take 8 or 10 but do it twenty times a winter? I think the real enemy of the smaller lakes is mobility. We hear about a hot lake and don't think anything of driving 200 miles to get in on it. Then we complain about the big crowd thatwe are a part of.
I had an uncle who is now gone that was very fond of saying "IF YOU DIDN'T FIND EM, YOU DON'T FISH EM"