Limits? What do you think?

[The Great Guide]

In Minnesota there is lots of talk about reducing limits on Walleyes and pan fish. There is also lots of talk that slot limits are better because the spawning populations can be protected. Slots worked wonders on Rainy Lake. I tend to think that slots are the way to go with maybe reduced limits on targeted lakes. However, technology seems to be stacking the odds in favor of the fisherman. Should technology be limited?

So what do you think???

TGG

[Hans]

I have somewhat mixed thoughts on the subject.

While technology is certainly increasing angler success rates, I have the feeling that the growing CPR movement might be counteracting this, resulting in not much change in the actual harvest rates.

Also the use of other harvest-limiting techniques (slot limits, size limits, short seasons on some species such as smallies, etc.) is helping keep the populations healthy.

Nonetheless, I still have a sentiment which says some of the limits are too high (walleyes and bass, especially). I'm not a scientist, so I can't justify it any stronger than "it's my feeling" and it "sends a good conservation message".

However, there is another side to that coin. Reducing limits might send another (unwanted) message also. That negative message will be that the fishery is in trouble, persuading casual anglers to give up the sport, and not introduce their kids/grandkids. I think it might also be construed by non-Minnesotans that our fishery is going downhill, and tourist dollars will diminish. This could translate into less legislative support for DNR funding, and in effect become a spiral of unintended consequences.

Sigh. I guess there are no simple answers.

Hans

[Gilligan]

Guys were ice fishing small lake here for perch. No one was catching a thing except guy with underwater camera. Perch would come up mouth the bait and spit it. Without aid of camera to tell when to set the hook you didn't catch fish.

I really have mixed emotions on the cameras but then that is what guys were saying about our fishfinders 20 years ago. I guess if we are going to get all the new bells and whistles we need to be more diligent in practicing catch and release/ selective harvest.

[fishguy]

I firmly believe that the limits should be reduced on most species. Who needs 30 sunfish? Or 5 largemouth? There is just to much fishing pressure on the popular lakes to support it all of the time. If you wanna perfect example of what minimal fishing pressure can do to a lake, hop on a float plane and land a few hours north of the border.
Slots are also a good thing. Every state I've been in that has slots on their fish, guess what--the fish were generally bigger, you had to fish longer to keep a bunch to eat--but it was a nice sized buch too. Missouri had a 10" slot on crappies, It was hard to catch one under 10!
Slots?--Look at Mille Lacs, gets hammered all year ---the fish are big! Rush Lake, Ottertail County, was good until a few magazine articles years back, It's hard to catch a nice"keeper" now. You have to catch 6 or 7 to maybe keep one 16" fish, opposite years ago--the lake has good sizes of forage too.
Technology, Yeh depth finders/graphs etc helped catch more fish--but the fact is 90% of the fisherman that own them, can't operate them. It's still 10% of the fisherman catching 90% of the fish. If anything, the GPS has allowed more repeat large catches by everyone. I don't let clients carry one in my boat, do you? Guides and launch captins also need to take responsibility to educate the clients. I agree though, the restrictions must match the technology out there, the pressure, and be adusted atleast for various classes of lakes.

[BD]

Let's have a tournament:
1) It will be held on a lake that hasn't had a tournament before;
2) No prefishing (entrants must not have fished that lake before);
3) Plain charts are allowed (no Hotspots maps etc.);
4) No electronics;
Sometimes I wonder what would happen:

"What an idiot is man to believe that abstaining from [meat] and eating fish, which is so much more delicate and delicious, constitutes fasting." --- Napoleon Bonaparte (b.1769 d.1821)

[curt quesnell]

im not sure what i think about limits being reduced.

i would hate to see a 2 fish walleye limit, a 5 fish panfish limit. i hope that slots turn out to be the answer, while i think they are confusing, the reasoning sounds good.

if i had a vote i would vote to leave things the way they are
now. i am not militant about it. if limits change, and slots
abound i will go along with them whole heartedly and hope that
everyones best interest (quality fishing) is being served

curt quesnell

[gofishmn]

I would be all for a reduced walleye limit. I think a 4 fish limit would be good. I fish alot as a guide on leech lake. There are times when fish are stacked on a point or a flat (or any other of many locatoins) and the fish get pounded by anglers somtime for days. On Leech many anglers just fish where groups of boats are fishing and a spot that has 3 or so boats may have up to 20 or 50 by mid day. Im not complaining we all want to catch fish but its the numbers of fish that are removed from the lake that have me conserned.

I remember one year when the ice remained on the lake untill just the day before opener. No one had a clue as to how the fishing would be and one would have thought maybe not so good. But the fishing was outstanding. The problem was the females had not left the shallows yet and it was a slaughter of big fish. So maybe a slot would have saved some big eyes. I think one fish over 21 inces instead of one over 24 would help.

This is not an educated opinon but just my thoughts.

Gofish

[Observer]

Tough Guy would win this hands down.

[bob oh]

I probably shouldn't respond to this since I live in Ohio, not MN, but I have thought about these issues and I am still not sure what I believe. But, what if we lower the limits so much and make it so difficult to catch a few to take home that the marginal fisherman (not us nuts) says, "hey, it ain't worth it." License sales drop, profits for the fishing industry and the state dip, and we become less and less important in the scheme of things?? Still, if we aren't vigilent the resource disappears??
Heck topic is too tough,
Bob

[GullGuide]

Yea, that would certainly show who the real fisherpeople are! Or those who are just lucky...:)
>"////=<

[Hans]

GPS doesn't catch a fish. At best it takes you back to where there were some fish on a different day, probably under different conditions. If they're still there (a big "if") you still gotta persuade them that your bait/lure is gonna taste good today.

Hans

[Dave in Mpls]

I personally think slots are the way to go. They have definately worked on Rainy, and the trend seems to indicate that they are working on Mille Lacs.

As for the limits, it's a toss-up. The DNR says that decreasing the walleye limit from 6 to 4 will only decrease harvest by something like 13%, so I think it's more political than anything else. My biggest concern about reducing the limit is that the DNR will reduce their stocking efferts perportionally. I also worry about the tourism economy as well. The reduced perch limit has certainly put a crunch on resorts this winter. I'm not saying that people need 100 perch per day, but I think it was the stigma of the reduction, not the actual numbers.

Another thing to consider is the prairie lakes in the South-West portion of the state. These lakes harbor tremendous numbers of small fish, with very few fish over 2 pounds. I think these lakes should be open to walleye fishing year round, with increased limits, to clean out some of those smaller fish. These lakes get so weed choked in the summer that they are really only fishable about 4 months a year anyway.

Keep the limits where they are, institute slot limits where there is a need, don't make us license portable ice houses that are not left on the ice overnight, and give us two lines in open water. Sorry, Hans...had to throw that in :)

JMHO

Regards

[LundBOY]

I think reducing our limits are a great idea.
I think having a walleye limit of four instead of six.
I think of a total limit of 20 crappies and sunfish with no more than 15 of one special species. As for northerns with the 24 to 40inch must go back thats greeat lets just screw the spearers out of something like me truly love.

[IaCraig]

I am for slot limits on game fish as long as they allow me to keep a couple eaters and the occasional nice 1 that is hooked deep and will die anyway. As far as lower limits on panfish, I had always heard that if sunfish become over populated they become stunted plus they become tough on nests of other fish???? If there is any truth in that, then lower limits may be counter productive.

IaCraig

[GullGuide]

This might open a whole can of icky, slimy, stinky worms but.....
How does the MNDNR propose to enforce a slot limit on Pike when it comes to darkhouse spearing? You can't spear and release, and anyone who says they can tell how big a fish actually is before they spear it is just kidding themselves. Is this a way for the MNDNR to try and abolish the sport?
What are your thoughts on this one?
>"////=<

[ccarlson]

When the discussion first came up months back, I was in favor of reducing to 4 walleye. So were nearly all the people that took part in our Brainerd Chapter's walleye alliance survey. Since that time, the dnr stats have hit home with people that a reduction of 7% is all that we would see if it went from as is down to 4 fish with one over 21 inches. It seems most of us really like the idea of slots for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the fishery. The proposal of keeping the 6 fish limit with only one over 19" most resembles a slot. I too, like Dave from MPLs, think it will be a way for the dnr to reduce stocking. I also fear that it will also make it harder for more widespread special regulations (slots) to be implemented because the average person will say, "hey, you already reduced my limit and now you want to tell me what fish I can and can't keep?" By going with the 6 fish, one over 19", we are setting ourselves up for the best transition to more special regs as well as hushing those people that fear a limit reduction will hurt tourism. A 7% reduction in harvest simply doesn't mean much to improving fishing in my mind.
By the way, we had another survey and all respondents have since changed their mind away from the 4 fish limit based on the limited harvest reduction. Everyone responding indicated a preference for the 6 fish, one over 19".

[Hans]

I think (might be mistaken) that northern spearing is prohibited on lakes that have size limits on northern pike, so it shouldn't be an issue.

Hans

[Eyez]

Does anyone know what the harvest reduction will be if they go to a 6 fish 19" slot? In SD we have a 4 fish limit, and many lakes are 1 over 20". I personally think that 6 is too many, but when you talk about harvest reduction percentages, shouldn't you also talk about number of lines that can be used? Wouldn't it make it more likely that on a day when a guy can only catch 4 fish on 1 rod, that he can catch 6 or more on 2 rods? Especially when trolling? What about a reduction to 4 fish, 1 over 20", and 2 rods allowed? Basically the same as what we have in SD.


Eyez

[Dave in Mpls]

The number of rods that can be used is just that, the number of rods. The number of fish and size of fish which can be kept is just that, the number and size of fish which can be KEPT. Can somebody PLEASE explain to me just how these two are related!!! The fact is, they are not!

I can only have three shells in my gun while goose hunting (less light geese), but there is not limit on the number of guns I can have. Regardless of how many guns I have in the blind, I can still only take my limit of geese.

Regards

[Hans]

Yeah, but I want to see you SHOOTING two 12-gauges at the same time! <BSEG> ;-)

Hans

PS: I can have 50 rods in my boat at the same time, but I can only use one at a time.

[Eyez]

I don't mean to offend you Dave, you and I have always gotten along here. Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate, but my intention is to bring up a situation that has not been discussed yet.

The number of rods a person is allowed to use will, at least in some situations on some days affect the number of fish caught. On a day when a guy is trolling raps and he catches 3 walleyes while trolling one rod, is it not very possible that him adding a second rod will make it easier for him to fill his limit of 6? I'm speaking purely from a harvest situation. I know that when the bite is on, it doesn't matter how many rods a guy uses, he's gonna get six fish, and keep them if he wants to. You will have a tough time reducing harvest on days when the eyes will bite anything, but there are far more days when you squeak out 3 or 4 fish. If the average harvest per person per day is 4 fish, why not make that the limit. That will reduce the harvest at least some because 5 and 6 fish days will not be possible, reducing the average number of fish kept per day. Then you can add slot limits to reduce it further. If going to a 4 fish limit with one over 21" will only reduce the harvest 7 percent, then 4 fish must be pretty close to what most guys are getting already. The slot will reduce the number of fish that can be kept, and the extra rod will allow them to catch more fish, but not necessarily keep them.

I would not have mentioned this except that some earlier posts mentioned the issue of some fisherman possibly being worried that they were having something taken away from them if the limit were dropped to 4. The people that would feel like they are losing something would be appeased by adding a second rod. It makes it easier for a mediocre fisherman to get a few fish, but while reducing the daily limit to 4, you insure that the harvest will not go up from what it is already. Then you can play the card of the slot limit, and adjust that according to what results you want to see in harvest reduction.

The analogy of 3 guns in the blind is flawed, it would be more accurate to compare having 3 shooters in the blind. You can only shoot one gun at a time, but you can fish more than one rod at a time.


sorry for being so long winded.


Dusty

[Dave in Mpls]

You have obviously never seen me shoot!!

All kidding aside, I respect your input and opinions, Hans. I think on this, we shall just agree to disagree :)

Regards

[Dave in Mpls]

No offense taken, my man.

The analogy with the guns is this: More than once I have taken more than three geese out of a flock by picking up my second gun, so what's the difference if I would have had 5 shells in the first gun in terms of getting a limit. Nothing. In regard to your analogy that it should be compared to the number of shooters - you've obviously never hunted with my partners!!

I have no problem with a reduced limit, in theory. I personally think that the limit for walleyes should be 3. My fear, as I previously stated, is that the DNR would then reduce stocking by half, and I can't live with that. The Accelerated Walleye Stocking in MN is a joke already.

A limit is a limit is a limit. How we get to that limit shouldn't matter. That's my point.

Regards

[205]

Of course this is just my opinion, but till the DNR's start cutting the limits on commericial fishing (which we all pay for in the end) I'd be slow about letting the gov. drop the limit. You need to come down here where not many of the walleye get put back. But god forbid, eat a bass around here. I think it would be vice versa up there in the North. True sportsman dont take more than their share. I truly dont believe that the fishermen that take fish to eat are hurting the population of fish anymore than the tournament anglers and the commercial fishermen. Let me give you an example down here. There's a lot of Bass tourneys held here on the Ohio River. The month of May is the worst here. Anyway, boats head up 50 miles, down 50 miles. All come back to the weigh ins. A big percentage of the bass took are shes and are just returned at the place of the tournament. A lot of hatches are gone forever, cause them shes are not gonna swim 50 miles back to their nest. I guess what I'm trying to say is I think we can go a little overboard on this issue. I've been eating fish for fifty some years, and I think the fishing now is better or as good as it was fifty some years ago. Im a tournament fisherman myself, but I still like eating and feeding my family fish. Just my opinion. Russell

[Eyez]

Point taken, and I understand what you're saying. I guess my suggestion is almost as much of a PR game to keep people happy by giving them something in return for taking something, all at the same time, accomplishing a goal, or at least preparing to make changes to accomplish a goal.

It kind of surprises me, that in a state with as many walleyes and fisherman as MN, that the stocking program is not more advanced than it is. SD is probably stocking the same number, if not more walleyes each year than MN is, just to maintain the fisheries. I guess it shows how amazing the natural fisheries in MN are.


Dusty

[River_eye]

You are right that a GPS doesn't catch fish, but neither does a boat or a motor, they just make it a ##### of a lot easier.

River eye

[River_eye]

I'm all for reduced limits on fish. I fish on the Winnipeg river and up here it's deemed a high quality management area, we have a limit of 4 walleyes under 15" per person.

Up here, if there is a lower limit, people see it as a good thing, and these are usually recognized as the higher quality lakes.

I don't think any intelligent person would think a lake was in bad shape just because they lower the limits on it. Although there are a lot of dense people out there.

River eye

[Bobber]

Stop all fishing during spawning time. Stop the natives from overharvesting. More conservation officers. Stronger laws. Bigger fines and penalties. More restocking. We all know what needs to be done.....

[FlyBoy]

Dave,

You are driving up hill. I find it a little interesting, this topic (multiple lines) has come up multiple times. The majority of the posts I saw were kind of along the lines of "Yeah, 2 would be ok, what ever I guess"... But there are a couple of people that are dead set against it. They seem to be civil about it, but they have strong opinions (much like you and I probably).... You put it best when you said "lets agree to disagree"... You and I aren't ever going to understand why a limit is more than a limit, and they are never going to see it our way. Neither way is perfect I'm sure.


-John

[Firetiger(MN)]

I fish many smaller lakes and I see too many smaller walleyes harvested. I know that keeping them not illegal, but I would like to see a minimum of 15". Lake Waconia (Carver county) has a minimum of 16" and is now starting to produce nice walleye. I would also like to see two lines in the summer. A limit is a limit no matter how quickly or slowly you fill it.


LMITOUT

[Hawgeye]

There are many good discussions regarding two lines as well as slots and limit changes. I am a fisherman that typically will only keep 2 to 3 walleyes at most when I fish. I fish frequently and have several opportunities to fill the freezer even if I only kept 2 fish a day. I have had several days that I have caught 20+ walleyes and kept only the injured ones. I hate throwing back a dead or dying fish because of a gill hook. This is why I am opposed to slots.

On the other hand, I use barbless hooks except on jigs and rigs so avoid damaging the fish so I seldom injure the fish I catch. I overall am for slots because I like to have a shot at a trophy picture. It is nice to have the option to take a trophy home that one of my sons may catch.

I am for slots, for limits to 4 fish with one option for anything over 28". Nothing between 22" and 28" can be kept. This is the way the Winnipeg River is by Pine Falls and I think the restrictions are perfect. As for two lines in the water, I think there are several people like me that are there to catch fish, not keep fish. If I catch a few more walleyes because of using 2 lines, I will likely not keep more fish...