Four Walleye Bag Limit: Watch For It In 2022

[Gary Korsgaden]

Originally Posted by Rdg

Not sure where I would draw the line - but its certainly not 4 fish.

Walleye fishing continues to transition away from table fare and more into a sport fish. The continued success of Walleye tournament circuit's is only going to add to that trend. If you look objectively at the state of fishing - from electronics to invasive' s the pressure on the resource is only increasing.

I would flip that question around - is there some biological evidence that suggests 6 fish is the right amount? Honestly - any argument to keep bag limits the same just sounds like whining about being able to keep less fish without it.

RDG yes walleye fishing is transitioning from the table to a sport fish and it is happening to so much of our fish and game resources and yes the 4000 or so tournament anglers have a loud voice too, one that over powers the hundreds of thousands of other anglers. Your right RDG fishing is becoming a sport for the elite.

Electronics like live scope is changing the way we can catch fish. A jig, with some bait a bobber and a fishing rod all one needs. It is all about the industry these days, not the sport, and the money it can generate. My wife and I live in the woods and connected, we want the science to manage the resources. Not some hot shot telling us what we can take or should release. Dropping the bag to four won't make much of a difference according to the biologists and I believe them.

Bass in the state of Minnesota is another under utilized fish. Don't keep a smallmouth these days but some of the same complain there are too many. By the way the elites call them donkey's. We don't want wolves wiped out, but because of social reasons they are not being managed like they should.

Listen to the whiners if one keeps a couple of smallmouth bass or a 23" walleye, whining that comes from the tournament crowd. No one stomps on the tournament crowd while pre-fishing catching and releasing fish out depths of water and temperatures not conducive for survival. Or guides that get wind of a hot spot then beat to death with client after clients. Yes these are the same who want a 4 fish limit. It looks good, feels good so it must be right. Sorry don't stake much faith in those that say, do what I say not what I do.

Last fall I watched the anglers with their live scope, at a high profile tournament eyes glued to their screens in large groups on top of each other, following the fish they want to try and get to bite. So is this how we want the "sport" of fishing to be?

RDG there is enough evidence for me that going to 4 won't make walleye fishing 30% better as been promoted....I remain

My rant....

[Gary Korsgaden]

Originally Posted by KPKyllo

Gary,

Interesting topic and thanks for bringing it up.

Do you know what Parsons actually means when he states "the idea has social merit to underscore the scarcity of the resource"? If there is no scientific justification to support a statewide reduction to four walleyes per bag I'm curious about what he bases his claim upon that "there is a scarcity of the resource"? I assume he's talking about a scarcity of walleyes but his real meaning is difficult to understand.

To answer your question, I much prefer taking the politics and the social aspects out of fisheries management decisions and base decisions solely upon science but I know that's unrealistic.

MN Guy,

Why do you have so much disdain for the DNR? In many cases, they can't make the fisheries management decisions they know are best because their hands are tied politically. How would you like to be criticized for every decision you make? I know that I certainly wouldn't like it.
They have a thankless job in many cases.
Myself, I think they do a great job.

Good question....hard to get a answer anyway a clear one. First heard of "scarcity of the resource" appreciate yours and everyone's input

[waldowillie]

And good luck with taking social reasons out of decision making in Minnesota. University presidents who oversee teaching sound reasoning are now being paid about 10% of the salary given to the coach of a successful football program. The social experience of attending football games has become more important than academics at universities. Going from 6 to 4 may pass without sound judgement and many won't be surprised.

1) Minnesotans will have to make sure they have just 4 walleye in their freezer which will lead to more room for corn dogs and tater tots.

2) Less non-residents may come to Minnesota for fishing; but have no fear the Minnesota Department of Tourism has been working on a new slogan to off-set the decline: "Come to Minnesota the California of the Midwest".

[Wallychowder]

Originally Posted by waldowillie

And good luck with taking social reasons out of decision making in Minnesota. University presidents who oversee teaching sound reasoning are now being paid about 10% of the salary given to the coach of a successful football program. The social experience of attending football games has become more important than academics at universities. Going from 6 to 4 may pass without sound judgement and many won't be surprised.

1) Minnesotans will have to make sure they have just 4 walleye in their freezer which will lead to more room for corn dogs and tater tots.

2) Less non-residents may come to Minnesota for fishing; but have no fear the Minnesota Department of Tourism has been working on a new slogan to off-set the decline: "Come to Minnesota the California of the Midwest".

And Alaskan Pollock !!!

[Rdg]

Originally Posted by Gary Korsgaden

RDG yes walleye fishing is transitioning from the table to a sport fish and it is happening to so much of our fish and game resources and yes the 4000 or so tournament anglers have a loud voice too, one that over powers the hundreds of thousands of other anglers. Your right RDG fishing is becoming a sport for the elite.

Electronics like live scope is changing the way we can catch fish. A jig, with some bait a bobber and a fishing rod all one needs. It is all about the industry these days, not the sport, and the money it can generate. My wife and I live in the woods and connected, we want the science to manage the resources. Not some hot shot telling us what we can take or should release. Dropping the bag to four won't make much of a difference according to the biologists and I believe them.

Bass in the state of Minnesota is another under utilized fish. Don't keep a smallmouth these days but some of the same complain there are too many. By the way the elites call them donkey's. We don't want wolves wiped out, but because of social reasons they are not being managed like they should.

Listen to the whiners if one keeps a couple of smallmouth bass or a 23" walleye, whining that comes from the tournament crowd. No one stomps on the tournament crowd while pre-fishing catching and releasing fish out depths of water and temperatures not conducive for survival. Or guides that get wind of a hot spot then beat to death with client after clients. Yes these are the same who want a 4 fish limit. It looks good, feels good so it must be right. Sorry don't stake much faith in those that say, do what I say not what I do.

Last fall I watched the anglers with their live scope, at a high profile tournament eyes glued to their screens in large groups on top of each other, following the fish they want to try and get to bite. So is this how we want the "sport" of fishing to be?

RDG there is enough evidence for me that going to 4 won't make walleye fishing 30% better as been promoted....I remain

My rant....

I would argue that Tournament anglers are some of the best caretakers of fish out there. If a high profile tournament loses a fish - its a rarity.

On the flip side every DNR violation I see is one of the "Hundereds of thousands" of "meat fishermen/women".

I'm not sure I would say its becoming a "sport of the elite" - plenty of people without all the bells and whistles performing very well in whatever tournament. Electronics like livescope just enhance a skill set, they dont create one - you're either good or you're not.

I don't see how tournament anglers stacked and staring at screens is any different than 50 old lunds stacked on the same rock pile with jigs/bobbers/whatever. I trust the people that are dependant on keeping that fish alive in order to cash a check than I do the guy that has a 20 year old livewell in a boat with a questionable maintenance history.

You want the science to dictate how the resource is managed? Fine - the only real way to do that is to increase the DNR budget to the point where they can individually manage each lake and the limits associated with it. Each lake is different - different pressures - different forage base - different everything, not sure how you can logically apply a blanket statewide limit with such variables and claim to care about "science".

I'm still waiting to see the science that backs the 6 fish limit - as far as I can tell that was a limit that was set decades ago when we understood VERY little compared to what we know today.

[Wrktfsh]

Leech has had a four walleye limit and, while a tad annoyed at first, has not proven to be an issue.

[Walleye101%]

Originally Posted by Rdg

I would flip that question around - is there some biological evidence that suggests 6 fish is the right amount?

Great question Rdg. The biological evidence can not identify a "right amount" across all lake types, big, small, stocked, natural, etc. But the biological data collected over many decades under a 6 fish limit can tell us it's not the wrong amount, needing to be changed. If there were significant negative trends in biological indicators such as abundance, mean size, lenth distribution, age distribution, spawner abundance, etc. supporters of this regulation change would be sounding the alarm. Instead the message has been, no scientific justification for lowering the limit, only some possible social benefits.

[Rdg]

Originally Posted by Wrktfsh

Leech has had a four walleye limit and, while a tad annoyed at first, has not proven to be an issue.

Lake of the Woods has a 4 Walleye limit and is the premier Walleye fishery in the state.

[Walleye101%]

Originally Posted by Gary Korsgaden

On a lake-by-lake basis, the Department of Natural Resources already departs from the state's six-walleye bag limit to protect populations on special lakes such as Upper Red, Mille Lacs, Vermilion and Kabetogama.

........., and it would simplify a set of fishing regulations that is bloated with exceptions to the rule.

A couple of you mentioned 4 bag limits already in place on Leech and Lake of the Woods, and a few other exceptions were listed in the article quoted above. Thought it would be interesting to see how much this would simplify regulations "bloated with exceptions".



350 - number of MN lakes with special regulation (all species)

1,700 - approx number of MN lakes with walleye
51 - number of lakes with special walleye regs (size and/or bag limits)

23 - number where walleye bag differs from statewide (1,2,3,4 or 10 fish bags, most in combination with special size restrictions)
12 - number of 4 bag limits (most in combination with special size restriction)
2 - number with 4 bag limit (no special size restrictions)


As far as I can tell, only Leech Lake and Lac Qui Parle would move from special regulations to statewide regulation under this proposed change.

[Gary Korsgaden]

Originally Posted by Rdg

I would argue that Tournament anglers are some of the best caretakers of fish out there. If a high profile tournament loses a fish - its a rarity.

On the flip side every DNR violation I see is one of the "Hundereds of thousands" of "meat fishermen/women".

I'm not sure I would say its becoming a "sport of the elite" - plenty of people without all the bells and whistles performing very well in whatever tournament. Electronics like livescope just enhance a skill set, they dont create one - you're either good or you're not.

I don't see how tournament anglers stacked and staring at screens is any different than 50 old lunds stacked on the same rock pile with jigs/bobbers/whatever. I trust the people that are dependant on keeping that fish alive in order to cash a check than I do the guy that has a 20 year old livewell in a boat with a questionable maintenance history.

You want the science to dictate how the resource is managed? Fine - the only real way to do that is to increase the DNR budget to the point where they can individually manage each lake and the limits associated with it. Each lake is different - different pressures - different forage base - different everything, not sure how you can logically apply a blanket statewide limit with such variables and claim to care about "science".

I'm still waiting to see the science that backs the 6 fish limit - as far as I can tell that was a limit that was set decades ago when we understood VERY little compared to what we know today.

Can't tell where your from, but if Minnesota you are one person I would endorse for a committee position we need more like you. Comment on tournaments, most complaints are based on social criteria not sure a good idea to handle these with regulations. Tournaments in the State have approved immensely the past five years. Would agree "most" tournament competitors are good caretakers of the resource or at least try to be. Wish organizers would be aware and schedule events at times of low mortality risks....setting a better example. Some of the summer tournaments on Lake of Woods, fish caught in deep water raises eye brows. As a physician friend told me expect and accept waste as part of the harvest procedure.