MN Proposed Bag Limits

[Chad]

I attended a meeting by the DNR last night in Detroit Lakes, MN where the DNR had an open discussion on reducing the bag limits and restructuring the limits on most fishing in MN. I was pretty disappointed in many of my fellow anglers. Many of the people there are against the limit changes and basically dont understand the reasoning for the proposed changes.

My 2 yr old son has a video tape which teaches a lesson about selfishness. Most of the people who spoke there last night need to watch it and take note. I've been doing some fishing seminars for a couple church youth groups and I ask the question, "How many kids have had fun catching a big fish?". They all raise their hands. I then ask if they think they should put the fish back so that someone else can enjoy catching it or if they should keep it. 99% of the kids say put it back so that someone else can have the enjoyment of catching that fish again. Too bad the adults just dont get it!

I dont have any problem with those keeping a few smaller fish but lets not get greedy. If you fish for subsubsitance, ie every meal, every day, I think there is a cheaper way once you figure in bait, tackle, gas, etc... Most people fish for enjoyment.


Just my 2cents.

Chad Maloy

[cisco]

Very well said.

[EAGLE EYES]

Ditto Chad! Very good example, I don't understand people's greed sometimes. I've seen people hammer their own area lakes and wonder why they just can't seem to find em' anymore? Duh! Their not there anymore that's why! :-(

[Dave in Mpls]

Speaking for walleyes, why should we even entertain the thought of reducing bag limits at this time? Anglers aren't taking too many fish, the DNR simply isn't putting them into the lakes! The Accelerated Walleye Stocking Program in Minnesota is a joke, as the numbers of stocked fingerlings has actually decreased since the inception of the program. If the limits are reduced, the DNR is simply going to use that as another excuse to reduce their stocking efforts. In addition, reducing the walleye limit to say 4 from the current 6 isn't going to make greater than a 10% (actually, more like 7%) decrease in harvest.

The talk of decreasing bag limits in the State is purely political. There is no biological data to support the need for reduced limits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of slot limits, selective harvest, etc, etc, but these need to be tailored more to specific bodies of water, with perhaps the exception of northern pike.

Reducing bag limits (for walleye) makes about as much sence as instituting a barbless hook requirement to save a person $200 and a trip to the emergency room.

[WELL SAID!!!! BLONGER]

Three years ago, everyone was screaming about the low stocking counts. Now that we have the "Accelarated" program. Which in the last two years has accounted for a smaller yearly number/pounds of walleyes stocked then in the years prior to the "fix". Go figuire???

It seems that everytime the DNR starts catching heat on on topic, they invent a "NEW" one just to shift the attention.

We haven't even come close to fixing the stocking problem, and they've got us fighting againest each other about a whole new topic. (I'm only talking the walleyes here). It's too bad that we can't stick together on this one and not waste our time belittling each other.

[Gary Kvitek]

Limit reduction to four is fine ,we should all concentrate on slot limits for lakes five thousand acres or more ,take care of the already productive lakes ,all we haveto do is look to Rainy lake for proof positive it works.A lot of good memories come from looking at some fishing trip pictures of the big ones you let go!!
goodfishing....Gary

[Hawgeye]

Chad,

I have to agree with you. I was planning on attending the meeting as well but had a prior commitment. I can't speak for anyone but myself but here is my viewpoint.

I fish 2-3 times per week in the summer. I have 2 kids and my wife who fish and like to eat fish. 85% of the time I fish alone or with a friend so I seldom have access to take home more than a limit worth of fish at a time which I never do. Reducing limits will only affect those people who guide, are poor fisherman, or only get out a couple times a year. For those people who fish frequently like myself, if I kept fish every time I went out, my family would have to have a meal of fish almost daily. I love fish but I am sorry, I do not want to eat fish more than a meal or two per week. I have yet to here a valid arguement to protect the limit now in place except guides who are afraid to lose business because of the reduced limits.

Chad, I know you fish Pine Falls in the fall and we can only take 4 fish home for the entire trip. If we were to place a dollar on those 4 fish, that would be the most expensive delicacy that I would ever eat. I'll bet you are like I am, it isn't taking home enough to get you through the winter, it's the good friends, catching trophy walleyes as well as a lot of walleyes, taking photos and letting them go.

As I said, you are absolutely correct Chad!

[Ron]

I thought for many years that the walleye limit should have been lower. My concern, however, is that this might not be the year to do it. The reason is the 14 per day, 42 in possession on Lake Oahe in South Dakota. I think lowering the limit might kill a lot of hard-working Minnesota resort owners. I know it's easy to say "let the meat hogs go to South Dakota," but it isn't that simple. With the nature of the finicky walleye, some days you catch a lot and some days you catch none. I think the average Joe vacationing in Northern Minnesota would like to have a few "up north" fish fries and take a meal or two home, and he may need to keep more than four (on a good day) to make that happen. Northern Minnesota desperately needs vacation dollars to make it through the year.

[curt quesnell]

something tells me we are in for a reduction in bag limit of
walleyes. at first, i thought that would be ok. but the more
the subject gets bandied around the more i hope they leave the
limit at 6 and work the slot limits angle more.

lakes with slot experiments ongoing are seeing good results.
like mille lacs and rainey lake. i dont see a lack of fish
as a problem statewide. i can see smaller limits on lakes that
are stressed but thats not the case in most places.

if they want a to build quality fisherys, they seem to be on
the right track with slot limits.

if you want to keep 4 fish do it, if you want to release em
all do it. to you a trip is a once or twice a week deal. but the
family that travel hundreds of miles to contribute some pretty
fair dollars to minnesota tourism isnt gonna deplete the school
taking 6 fish each home.

im not going militia or anything but i hope that the rules dont
change just for the sake of changing.

the meat hogs will be with us always, the double dippers the
cheaters...more power to the honest fisherperson who decides
to keep a legal limit of fish. he doesnt deserve to be called
any derogatory name.

hats off to all who attend a meeting and voice your opinions
on this subject that will effect us all

curt quesnell

[Wenty]

I don't think there's any question that catching the fish is what it's about. I could feed my family for life on what I have tied up in fishing gear and on the trips I make. And like any forward thinking person, I want today's children and their children to enjoy the thrill of fishing. No doubt that a snapshot of you and that "about to be released fish" will have life long memories. I just hope angelers are well versed on the proper way of handling and photographing their prized catch. I've seen too may people catch a nice 7 lbs. walleye, only to drop it four times in the boat and have the photo session last longer than the one did on my wedding day. Catch your fish, take a pic if you want, and get it back in the water quickly and gently. Now you're a sportsman!

[Chad]

I am all for barbless hooks. Put a treble in to my hand this summer. I fish Mb in the fall and have never had a problem loosing fish. Lose lots of bait but not fish.

[AMAZED]

I DONT GET IT... HOW DO THE PEOPLE AT THE TOP ALWAYS GET THE COMMON MAN TO BELIEVE THE BURDEN LIES IN HIS HANDS. THERE IS SO MUCH WASTE IN GOVERNMENT,AND THE DNR IS NOT EXEMPT. MAYBE SOME OF THE MONEY THEY WASTE ON THE FANCIEST RIGS TO CHASE THE SNOWMOBILERS AND THE FANCY BOATS AND THE FANCY 4X4 PICK UPS ARE JUST A LITTLE TOO MUCH.WHY DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE BEST OF EVERYTHING? I DRIVE A VERY ECONOMICAL CAR AND HAVE A SO SO BOAT BECAUSE IT IS ALL I CAN AFFORD AND I DONT GO TO THE PUBLIC WITH MY HAND OUT BEGGING FOR MONEY.

[Borch]

I was at the bag limit meeting myself in St. Cloud. The dnr represnentives stated that they DO NOT support the bags limits recommended for walleye and bass by the advisory committee. The reason being that 1. A reduction of 2 fishing in the bag limit for walleyes will actually result in less than a 7% decrease in the annual take for walleyes(Even lower impact on bass). 2. Contrary to popular opinion, walleye and bass populations are in better shape now than they were 15 years ago. 3. With a 6 fish possession limit people actually can keep the same number of fish legally whether it is a 4 or 6 fish daily limit. Reality is that there is a far greater need for change in panfish and northern pike. Both categories populations are exploding with very few quality fish available. If there are going to be changes it will(should) occur with sunfish, crappies, perch and northern pike. The biology actually supports changes in these categories. For walleyes, slots were talked about and how each lake needs to be assessed for need, not the state overall. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

[PW]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-24-01 AT 08:04PM (CST)[p]Borch - very well put. I was at the Bag limit meeting in Brainerd and the same information was said. The DNR doesn't think that a change in walleye bag limits will make a noticable effect. What I don't understand is the statement they made there saying it takes up to 10 years of gathering data to determine what lakes should have special slots and what they should be. I don't think it took that long on Winnie or Rainy ?

[Chad]

Unfortunately with government there is always a political twist to things. In order to make any difference in the walleye population they would have to cut the limit to 2. This would be totally unaccecptable to most. So enters the politics. Lets compromise at 4.

As someone else pointed out, micro managing each lake would be the ideal plan. However, this too is unaccecptable since we are all not willing to pay $200 per lic in order to pay for the program.

One person in our party did come up with a good suggestion. Keep the lic price the same but call it a conservation lic. You only get 4 fish just like in MB. Then create a new lic where you can have the existing limit of 6 but charge double the price.

One last point. I dont remember hearing too many people creat a stink when the duck numbers were down and the limit was reduced.

[RS]

Chad,
I also attended the meeting in D.L. In my opinion, at least the DNR is giving us a chance to voice our opinion what ever it may be. I know at the meeting a lot of the opinions , in my eyes, were from people who only cared about filling their freezer. Some of those people just don't understand that maybe the DNR is trying to improve our fishery, maybe not, but I'll give them some credit for trying. They didn't have to have these input meetings, they could have just went ahead and made changes without any advisory committee or public opinions. I agree on most of the proposed changes and think that "change" in this situation will be beneficial in the long run. No matter what the change will be somebody out there will not like it. In the mean time we can still do our part, practice and preach catch and release, but once in a while keep a couple for dinner.
Just my thinking!!
RS

[Borch]

Is the walleye population down? Where is your data to support this? Based on MN DNR reports(lake population sampling), the walleye population has better numbers now than in has in several years. Yes, anglers report that there are individual lakes which appear to be down and others which haven't produced fish like they have in years. But is this a population issue or just a hot bite? As far as the duck populations and limit reductions based on population data, I don't have any problem with at all. As long as decisions are based on fact rather than feeling. In regard to the person saying that a majority of comments being made by people who want to fill their freezer at the public meetings. In St. Cloud that was not my observation. In fact quite the opposite was true. There were several people there in favor of the 4 fish limit. As I in my earlier post, I do not believe the 4 daily, 6 in possession will reduce the number of fish kept at all. People will still fill thier freezer if they choose to do so. Legally I can keep the same number of fish on any given weekend trip. The only segment that the proposed limits help is the resort/campgrounds, etc... As people will need to stay another day to bring home those last 2 fish. Of coarse, this is assuming that everyone limits out on each trip(again DNR data does not support this idea).

[Borch]

I almost forgot,

Chad I most defintely aggree that selective harvest is the key. We don't need to keep everything we catch and those big ones don't taste very good either. I know it's tempting during a slow bite to keep a 23" walleye. But in my mind if it's under 15" or over 20" it's going back(Depending on specific lake regualtions the range could constrict). People should not keep more than they will use.

[ufda]

Please understand guys that I spend very little time in MN (in good years 2 weeks). I do most of my fishing in AZ. So, my interest is just in accuracy. (Or the future as I intend to retire before too long.) Some people say reducing the bag limit won't reduce the harvest. Others say it will only reduce the harvest by a small amount like 7% (I think the DNR was quoted with this percentage). So, my question is, "how many walleyes are harvested in MN each year? 2 million? 3 million? more?" So what is 7% of 3 million... say 210,000? If you don't think that is significant and don't want them, ship them to AZ and we will stock them in our reservoirs. I know, now you don't think that 210,000 is much of a stocking program, but please recognize that you are talking for the most part about adult sized fish, not fingerlings. Or, if not to AZ, then how about shipping them to Clear Lake by Gibbon which probably froze out this year. Then, when I come up, I'll know where to go.
IMNSHO
ufda

[irv johnson]

Re; Reduced limits in Minn. We have a problem somewhat like this in Green Bay with yellow perch limits reduced. They are THE eating fish in Wisconsin.
About 10 years ago the limit was reduced to 25 yellow perch. Now, they want to cut it to 10 or 5. In these 10 years the DNR has been "studying" the problem. No results. Their answer to is cut it further.
Sportsman have given good imput for solutions The WHITE perch are hardier(taste terrible) and eat the yellow perch spawn. Lots of white perch!
Cormorants eat 1# of perch a day or more--can outswim (35 mph)the yellow perch and can dive to 150 feet and they are Federally protected!!And theres estimated at 1 million of them in the Lake Michigan basin.
We call them flying rats. Regulate them and you'll help the yellow perch.
We have zebra mussels, alewives, etc.. too, but the culprits we can address right now are the perchs main enemys.
It takes putting pressure on government. Mobilize and the quicker the better.!!!

[irv johnson]

Re; Reduced limits in Minn. We have a problem somewhat like this in Green Bay,Wisconsin with yellow perch limits reduced. They are THE eating fish in Wisconsin.
About 10 years ago the limit was reduced to 25 yellow perch. Now, they want to cut it to 10 or 5. In these 10 years the DNR has been "studying" the problem. No results. Their answer to is cut it further.
Sportsman have given good imput for solutions The WHITE perch are hardier(taste terrible) and eat the yellow perch spawn. Lots of white perch!
Cormorants eat 1# of perch a day or more--can outswim (35 mph)the yellow perch and can dive to 150 feet and they are Federally protected!!And theres estimated at 1 million of them in the Lake Michigan basin.
We call them flying rats. Regulate them and you'll help the yellow perch.
We have zebra mussels, alewives, etc.. too, but the culprits we can address right now are the perchs main enemys.
It takes putting pressure on government. Mobilize and the quicker the better.!!!