Changes in MN daily bag limits +/-

[Backwater Eddy]

From my experance the longer someone has traveled to fish a area the less likely they are to keep anything, including a possession limit.By that I mean people from areas other than that would be considered local travel to fish for a species that is thought to be above average in size or quality for the experance not the meat.

The daily bag is of little concern to the long distance vacation angler in comparison to the local angler who more often fish's for a meal, and more often fish period.

Not all of course, but most who spend vacation dollars in a region fallow this pattern, including myself. Campers for instance are more likely to consume a daily bag limit than travelers by far.

So who is effected most by a reduced bag? What basic conservation questions do locals need to consider to protect there own fisheries in their own regions?

Reduced bag limits will not destroy tourism or limit local angler consumption but will protect the future and quality of the fish we fish for in the long hall.

What are your thought's?

Thank you.

------------------
Backwater Eddy...><,ND,>

[AquaMan]

BE, I see your point and agree to some extent that there are some travelers that do not keep limits due to storage issues, , preference, etc. However, I think that there are more "travelers" that keep limits then do not. More so then the locals.

Look at it this way. They are going fishing to catch fish and enjoy eating them. I have relatives from MO that come up just to fish and their group of 10 couples return to MO with limits or near limits every year. Ask the resort owners. They will confirm that, more often, the "travelers" are the ones keeping the fish to bring back home, not the "locals". The locals can get the fish anytime they want, sort of! At least that has been my experience.

Now, there are some that do exacly as you say and go for the experience and release all fish. But I think they are the exception, not the rule.

Could be wrong, but that is my HO.


AquaMan~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.·´¯° --- "It all begins and ends at the water's edge"

[R.E.F.]

Aquaman,
Your MO people kinda prove both sides of the argument. Even if they limit out, they go home with two days limits (in most states). How many of us locals would be satisfied with that few fish in a year? The other issue that comes into play is species. I would agree with Eddie that a lot less limits of eyes go home, but panfish is a different story.
RELAX...ENJOY...FISH

[AquaMan]

Yeah, you could be right. The question is so subjective, it is hard to pinpoint the exact percentages. Since most people will apply what they have seen and some have different experiences, this will be a hard one to nail down.

The MO clan does both pan and walleye a couple time a year. While I do more fishing in MN then they do and tak home fewer fish then they do anually. I have 3-4 trips a year that are "meat trips" the rest are C/R.

AquaMan~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.·´¯° --- "It all begins and ends at the water's edge"

[BD]

I have gone on group trips for years. The tendancy to have people that need to take home a limit depends on the makeup of the group. The guys that need to take home a limit are, most often, the ones that only get to go fishing a few times during the year. With family time, vaction limitations etc. there are a lot of them. The group I go with to LOW in June has these kind of fishermen. Most of them are worried about taking home a limit. My partner (Mr. Beans) and I could care less. If he takes home any, he cooks an "at home shore lunch" for the sisters at his churches convent. He is semi-retired and goes on at least six trips each year. If I take home any walleyes it will be enough for a meal for my wife and I. We have a small lake behind our farm and keep enough bluegills in the freezer for a meal once in a while so I don't feel the NEED to bring home a limit. The thing I feel a NEED to do is to catch the biggest walleye each day and for the week (it's nice to collect the pot and have the others contribute to cover my costs for the trip). One thing I do not like about some of the new limits in some areas is the slots. I would prefer a limit which has a trophy size cutoff such as only one fish over 18 inches. With the slots I hate to see the forced release of fish that are not going to make it.

"Why fish with an angle for sport? Because we remain atavistically hunters. The
predatory instinct strikes a deep and resonant chord in the male psyche. Some
of us fish to remain sane in a topsy-turvy, mechanized, frantic world." --- Carl
von Essen, M.D.

[ccarlson]

I don't think a limit of 4 would be a bad thing but you bring up a good point to think about. Most of us want to do a reduced limit or other necessary means such as slots in hopes that it will improve fishing. In most cases, that's probably a fair statement anyway.

Here's the point. The DNR numbers, which you may believe or not believe, indicate only a 7% reduction in harvest when going from 6 fish with one over 24" down to 4 fish with only one over 21". I just talked to a fish biologist the other day and he said that the 7% figure may even be a high estimate because there are several complicated factors that go into it. One that I'll try to explain is that if you have a school of walleye, only a certain number of those walleye are catchable in statistical terms (they call it exploitation). If the person who would normally catch and keep 6 fish keeps only 4 instead and releases or does not catch the other two that would have been caught under the old regs, it means that those two catchable fish are still in the system and are prone to being caught by the next person.So in a way, the fishery has not been improved by the regulation change. This factor was not taken into consideration when determining the 7% harvest reduction.
It sounds like it just may spread out the wealth a little to more anglers.
As a fisherman, I really want to believe that reducing the limit will improve fishing but I'm just not convinced that limits are the way to do it. Either way, it will be interesting to see.

[Ron]

As someone from California who fished MN two weeks a year for the last 20 years, I always wanted to take home a limit because that was all the walleyes that I got for the year other than a few meals in the cabin. I always felt that 6 was too high for the daily limit, and wouldn't mind if they lowered it, but if they did that, I would like to be allowed 2 days limit in possession.

[bob oh]

I don't know the answere Eddy, but I do know that on Erie, where limit has been lowered to 4 for march and April the charters are reporting canceled trips. I only do it part-time and I have had 2 cancel for April. And, most charter trips I see want to take home fish - a limit if possible.
Bob

[Winnie T]

Personnaly, the reduction to four doesn't bother me, and I think that the 7% harvest reduction should be added to other harvest reductions like the slot limit. Enough small percentages added together could make a significant inpact.

Where I believe the biggest impact could be made would be in better enforcement of existing laws. To do this, the state would have to allocate more money for law enforcement. I know on my home waters, Lake Winnibigoshish, that locals and tourists alike are keeping way more than is legal. During hot bites on Winnie, there are locals running back and forth from home to the lake. They may only take six at a time, but their freezers are way over the possesion limit, and I think this occurrs way more than any of us want to admit.

More enforcement, more people taking an active role in pointing out poachers will go a lot further in reducing fish take then any new limit reduction.

Take care, NPAA 105

[the viking]

for myself i don't think a reduction in daily limits would matter so much...i fish alot in the summer and generly have my fill of fish on each outing...by the end of summer i always have a few meals of walleye in the freezer to get me through till spring. i do see how it could affect our commrads who travel long distances for one or maybe two trips per year....i've also seen first hand how ontario's reductions and limitations have severly hurt their resort owner's...i fish ontario three to five times per season for about three to four days at a time....fresh walleye everyday and a few to take home...boat traffic was brisk when i started fishing ontario 20 years ago...now it's almost nil...in many area's the resorts are being subsidized by the goverment...much like our ag programs...this is first hand info from the owners....and i've known some of these guys for quite some time...In the long run i think it will kill the resorts..... it all started with lower and more restrictive regulations there has to be a middle of the road solution...i would agree with the lower daily limits if you could possess in transit one and a half
or two daily limits, with proper proof of your length of stay.

[MNBS]

I know that I was a little disappointed at first when Ontario lowered the walleye limit from 6 to 4. But, I't didn't take away from the quality of the trip for me at all. I ate fish most of the nights up their this last summer and didn't even bother to bring 8 home (My wife and myself). I had the best week of walleye fishing that I ever had this summer and not being able to take home as many fish didn't spoil my trip at all.

It's nice to eat fish, but most of us don't go out just for the meat. Those people are becoming more and more rare. I don't think that lowering the limit in Minnesota will affect how much I enjoy the sport at all.

I have confidence in the DNR bioligists and their suggestions. They have done a great job in Minnesota over the years at improving fisheries. I don't care it the limit is 4 or 6 or what the slot limits may be, but I don't want politicians deciding those things. I want the bioligists to be the ones to show us the data and to make recommendations.

Just my $.02

Bob