Bill Introduced For a Four Walleye Limit In Minnesota

[Gary Korsgaden]

[QUOTE=Gary Korsgaden;6395554]Thanks Custom Eyes yes I have. I volunteer and do what I can for the resource also involved on the Lake of Woods Fisheries Planning Committee. We agreed with the DNR's assessments to close the season to only catch and release in April for two weeks due to a reduction of the male walleye population. Recently experienced personal attacks on social media for my involvement on that committee by one individual that guides on the river. Calling us corrupt and the process corrupt. Trust me it is at times not worth it

In this tread tried give all of you a honest overview and as transparent as I possibly could. I welcome each ones feedback. Know that in the committee meetings share with the others, including Minnesota DNR always in attendance.

I do it for the future of the resource....

[Bobby Winds]

[QUOTE=yoopertrout;6395606]Would you rather have a good day of fishing and take home four fish? or a fair day of fishing with the chance of taking home six? If jealousy over tribal fishing makes your goal to keep as many fish as you can, you might like to google "cutting off your nose to spite your face."[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

[REW]

My one wish would be that anyone who fished and potentially removes fish from a lake - no matter their race, sex, size, ancient heritage or future change should all fish for and catch fish, and take home the same numbers and potentially the same size as everyone else.

i.e.
No special rules for one particular race or back ground.

No early or late fishing for one particular race or persons or back ground.

No difference in daily or possession limits for any one person or a person or persons with a unique back ground.

As the song goes -- Red, Yellow, Black and White - they are equal in his sight!

That song should be the back ground for any fishing regulations on a body of water in this or any other state.

Best wishes

[Bobby Winds]

[QUOTE=REW;6395676]My one wish would be that anyone who fished and potentially removes fish from a lake - no matter their race, sex, size, ancient heritage or future change should all fish for and catch fish, and take home the same numbers and potentially the same size as everyone else.

i.e.
No special rules for one particular race or back ground.

No early or late fishing for one particular race or persons or back ground.

No difference in daily or possession limits for any one person or a person or persons with a unique back ground.

As the song goes -- Red, Yellow, Black and White - they are equal in his sight!

That song should be the back ground for any fishing regulations on a body of water in this or any other state.

Best wishes[/QUOTE]

:bowdown::exactly::bowdown:

[Wrktfsh]

For those that like to flaunt the law it’s still business as usual. I can put the numbers of F&G officer sightings on Leech at zero over the past 10 years.

[Custom Eyes]

[QUOTE=REW;6395676]My one wish would be that anyone who fished and potentially removes fish from a lake - no matter their race, sex, size, ancient heritage or future change should all fish for and catch fish, and take home the same numbers and potentially the same size as everyone else.

i.e.
No special rules for one particular race or back ground.

No early or late fishing for one particular race or persons or back ground.

No difference in daily or possession limits for any one person or a person or persons with a unique back ground.

As the song goes -- Red, Yellow, Black and White - they are equal in his sight!

That song should be the back ground for any fishing regulations on a body of water in this or any other state.

Best wishes[/QUOTE]

I think that is what the native Americans wanted way back when, when we moved in and pillaged their fish and game food sources all to ourselves, ultimately resulting in the treaty rights they have today. Heck, in MI, white man moved in and killed every single elk that roamed this state. Totally decimated and hunted to extinction in the state.

[G I Mike]

Gary said -
"personally feel Carrie Ruud and the Walleye Alliance Organization should of been in contact with all of us."

Gary, as a member of the Walleye Alliance I guess I don't understand your comment, and yes I understand you framed it as "opinion".

I do understand you are personally invested in this cause because your DNR committee has been talking about this issue for a long time.

Your comment seems to indicate that Walleye Alliance / Nate / Carrie did this in some sort of vacuum, doesn't understand the science, and/or didn't discuss this widely within MN anglers just because your committee was not involved? I would argue just the opposite.

Walleye Alliance has also been discussing this issue for some time within our group, at our seminars, and also getting input far and wide with other sportsman's organizations. We were able to get legislative support to get it moving and I absolutely commend Nate for all of his work on this and taking action rather than just discussion.

I can understand you may feel left out, but criticism of another organization's methods fighting for the same cause seems unproductive...or more likely counter-productive to getting politicians to move forward on sportsman's issues.

Note: These is my personal opinion and I do not speak for the Walleye Alliance organization, but I am a member.

Mike Worden
Brainerd, MN

[MikeF]

I don't eat or keep fish.
Being outdoors and catching fsh trips my trigger.
The limit does not influence me on destination decisions. Catching does.

For those that keep fish, would the 4 limit tend to drive more people to just go to Canada for the same limit and a better bang for the buck with the current temporary non parity in currency?

I realize this is a discussion more to conservation, but wonder about the possible loss of tourist dollars for the local economy.

[Ltrain]

[QUOTE=Custom Eyes;6395696]I think that is what the native Americans wanted way back when, when we moved in and pillaged their fish and game food sources all to ourselves, ultimately resulting in the treaty rights they have today. Heck, in MI, white man moved in and killed every single elk that roamed this state. Totally decimated and hunted to extinction in the state.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that kind of how the world has always worked though? Through out time dynasties and cultures expanded and either destroyed or absorbed the previous occupants. So are you saying the US should not have expanded? We should have let Spain( then Mexico after winning their independence)have Florida, Texas and all the Southwest States and California and Great Britain have all the Pacific Northwest? You see if the USA didn't go forward with their plans of expansion the rest of the land would not have just been settled peacefully by the natives ,it was already occupied by other countries. Would these countries have been nicer or harsher compared to the USA? Do a little research and see how the Spanish Conquistadors treated the natives- raped mutilated and enslaved .

My point is what happened, happened, its how its always been. But that's in the past. What would be so wrong with what REW stated and just have equality now. You can't change the past you can only make sure you don't repeat it. Trying to right events that occured over 100 years ago by installing special sanctions just doesn't work, it creates inequality which really is exactly what you don't want in the first place.

[Custom Eyes]

[QUOTE=ltrain;6395720]Isn't that kind of how the world has always worked though? Through out time dynasties and cultures expanded and either destroyed or absorbed the previous occupants. So are you saying the US should not have expanded? We should have let Spain( then Mexico after winning their independence)have Florida, Texas and all the Southwest States and California and Great Britain have all the Pacific Northwest? You see if the USA didn't go forward with their plans of expansion the rest of the land would not have just been settled peacefully by the natives ,it was already occupied by other countries. Would these countries have been nicer or harsher compared to the USA? Do a little research and see how the Spanish Conquistadors treated the natives- raped mutilated and enslaved .

My point is what happened, happened, its how its always been. But that's in the past. What would be so wrong with what REW stated and just have equality now. You can't change the past you can only make sure you don't repeat it. Trying to right events that occured over 100 years ago by installing special sanctions just doesn't work, it creates inequality which really is exactly what you don't want in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Raping resources to the point of extinction or near extinction has NOTHING to do with expansion. Expansion could have happened just as it did without that behavior. Invalid and irrelevant argument on your point. As far as righting events from the past and equality in regulations today, as I see it, we still have not even come close to returning resources to any resemblance of what they once were before we destroyed them. Making progress, but still far short of the goals. Many states, including MI, are still to this day trying to reestablish elk herds and other animals we nearly wiped out or did wipe out to extinction. Whitefish, Grayling, and other fish species are just now starting to repopulate waters we drove them out of from man made pollution. Still not enough progress yet to have a fair and legitimate conversation about lifting treaty rights.