limits for walleye will not change

[curt quesnell]

in the news today...the dnr reports limits will not change for
walleyes in minnesota...


curt quesnell

[srj]

Curt, what is your take on the unchanged limit? I wish it had been lowered. It's unfortunate the citizens group input was ignored. I use statistics often but two areas I suspect they are corrupt in are fish management and the annual preseason waterfowl survey. Although the DNR makes the argument that lowered limits would only result in a small reduction in harvest, it would appear that would be a move in the right direction. Also, the one fish over 24--why not 19. Or 20. The rule seems to work well enough on L-O-W. And 6 bass? Come on DNR-try being proactive for a change. Probably not Garbers style.

[curt quesnell]

i am glad they didnt change the limit just to make a change.
a 3 percent reduction in harvest doesnt warrent action (from 6 to 5).

according to the press release citizen input favored not changing
the limit.

i have read the creel census reports from lake of the woods and
overharvest isnt a problem as far as numbers go.

what i do favor are experiments in size limits.

if you practice catch and release, please handle the fish with
care.


curt quesnell

[srj]

Curt, the citizens committee did recommend a lowered walleye limit just as the DNR's internal team did. I'm unaware of other surveys of citizens that may have occured. The DNR does have a useful website at dnr.state.mn.us with sectional links to all DNR departments. They are also quite good at returning inquiries. Keep up the good posting.

[curt quesnell]

sorry srj..i did not blow you off, i have been looking for the
press release that i had read to answer your question. there was
a link on one of the posts somewhere on walleye central and i just
cant find it again sorry.

if they had changed the limit i may have shook my head a little
but i would not have complained much. i have followed creel census
results on lake of the woods for many years now and the lake can
definately handle some harvesting. catch and keep fishing within
the legal number and size limits on this lake is fine. all that
is needed is normal hatches to keep everything in check.

there are bad year classes every now and then and huge year classes
and they all even out.

i have no data or no clue about harvest effects on small lakes or
stocking or any of that.

lake of the woods has (for as long as i have fished there) had very
generous limits that differed from the rest of the state.

some lakes can handle a big harvest, some cant. these are the things
that i hoped they would address if they started to make changes
in limits statewide.

again, i would be very much in favor of more selective size limits
and "slots"...this type of experiment seems to be able to help
the overall size of the fish in a system. this type of harvest
control seems to make more sense for a lake that naturally produces
a harvestable number of fish.

lakes that suffer population depletion from overharvest obviously
need some kind of protection thru lower limits.


curt quesnell

[Hawgeye]

My only concern is where would the fishing population be today if the most avid anglers did not practice catch and release? In my opinion, CPR has done more for conservation than any limit change could ever do...Just my opinion...

[steve fellegy]

catch and release fishing, started and promoted by 'those tournament guys', is fine...UNLESS...the restrictions on the lake are too tight.
mille lacs fishermen killed more pounds of walleyes by being forced to
not keep any fish this past season, than if they would have kept the
daily limit. (my personal observation only) catch and release can be overdone, no doubt. changing the limits by a fish or two changes nothing. changing the limit to two or three a day probably just creates a lot of dead walleyes floating onto my shoreline to rot. on a fishery where live bait is predominently used,and the bite is good, too much catch and release creates a sorry, sad situation. and the dnr numbers seems to be way off in that scenario too.(only my opinion)
s.f.

[Dave in Walker]

Your right Steve on what happened at Mille Lacs this past summer, because of the tight rules and the tremendous open water season the lake experienced ,the numbers of floating walleyes was incredible, particulary in that hot spell when the water was so warm. Catch and Release in warm waters when fish are coming out of that deeper water is not real effective. I think lakes have to be managed on a individual basis but realize that could be a nightmare.

[Gary Korsgaden]

Thanks to Steve Fellegy, you make way too much sense. While "catch and release fishing" was popularized by those "tournament guys" it as also in some cases allowed for abuse of the resource by many. Delayed mortality as seen on Mille Lac's this summer is a issue. Put it this way what is it better for the resource, the angler who gets his six fish and goes home or the angler who catches dozens of walleyes, handling them, pulling hooks out being selective putting them back, in the process take his six walleyes, while the others he has handled all day die later and come floating to the surface. The net result he has killed more walleyes than the everyday angler that takes his six fish and goes home. This brings to the next point prefishing at tournaments,hundreds of walleyes are handled each day!!What about the delayed mortality of those fish. There is not a perfect world but one must practice "catch and release fishing" responsibly. Lastly I attended many of the town meetings. To make a impact the limit of walleyes should be lowered to 3 fish if we are to be sincere about helping the resource.

[jerry]

Okay that's fine for limits. How about a bigger issue: when will Minnesota step into the 21st century and allow using more than one line? This archiac (sp) law is as old as the hills and needs to be updated.

[Gary Korsgaden]

Please expandd on why you feel this rule is archiac. I see both sides, for the angler using two lines allows for two techniques to determine what works the best. Second some might not like the increased pressure on the resource. I would like more of your thoughts.....

[s.f.]

from my meager experience, i don't see many people, relatively speaking, utilizing the 'two line' system in open water. and if they do, in most cases, there fishing might actually become worse since most aren't able to manage things well. so, maybe being more lenient with the law wouldn't have a negative effect on things. but really, is the out cry for the change big enough? for ice fishing it was there.
how much lobbying have you done for this concept? should there be a poll for minnesota fishermen on wc on this subject?
and by the way, our personal experience on the big boats at mille lacs, showed that, for example, 6 lines consistently would catch as many as 12 lines. (a given percentage of fish willing to bite, no matter the amount of lines, during a given period of time, on a given spot)
#49

[Gary Korsgaden]

Steve,once again,you clearly demonstrate that you are deeply in touch with angling both from the past and the present. The Fellegy perspective is one that I highly respect can't say that for too many other anglers. Your perspective is one that comes from hundreds of hours on the water, not a bunch of gobly-goop written just to fill pages of magazines and sell equipment. If you can't tell, I feel that between your brother Joe and you Steve we have the best walleye anglers ever to wet a line, bar none. Thanks for your insight myself and others should take heed.

[jerry]

In my personal experience, I do not see this as an opportunity to exploit or put added pressure on the resource. From the standpoint of an individual who likes to fish and likes to maximize his oportunity to catch (and release about 99%) his quarry, the chance to use more than one line, in my opinion, creates a more positive fishing experience for me. I'm not measuring this in quantity of fish caught but in opportunity to catch.

I would like to see someone produce a document or something substantial that shows fishing with two or more lines leads to exploiting and overharvesting the resource. It simply isn't the truth. I've watched from the side here in Wisconsin as fisherman from Minnesota, when discussing this issue, have talked of anglers from other states coming to Minnesota and catching all of "their" fish. Last spring, this was a hot topic here on Walleye Central. I've tried to find the archived bits, but couldn't find them. I found it ridiculous to see people argue so vehemently against two line fishing.

Personal experience being what it is, when I take out a group to fish here in Wisconsin, whether it's for walleyes on Lake Winnebago or for trout/salmon on Lake Michigan, more lines maximizes my opportunity to give my clients a positive experience. In the end, isn't this what our sport is all about?

[curt quesnell]

It wasnt too many years ago that you could use two lines on Lake of
the Woods while trolling. That went by the wayside without squack
or squabble so it must not have been in the forefront of importance
to the lakes fishers.

I had 4 downriggers mounted on my Pro-V and it just seemed crowded
so I took one off. As it turned out, using 3 was easier to manage
and seemed to be just as productive as 4 riggers were with 4 people
in the boat.

The point is, quality is just as important (if not more) as quantity when it comes to the number of lines you are using. Obviously,
2 people in a boat can put a better spread trolling with boards if
they could use 2 lines each.

While I have no preference between one or two lines I would be
favorable and supportive of 2 lines for trolling. I think I would
still only use one line each but if my setup were different who knows.

A good question for pondering on a winters day

curt quesnell