Home   |  Message Board   |  Information   |  Classifieds   |  Features   |  Video  |  Boat Reviews  |  Boat DIY
Popular Radio Show Comment and Interview 4-fish - Page 2 - Walleye Message Central
Walleye Message Central

Go Back   Walleye Message Central > Walleye Message Central > Strictly Fishing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-19-2021, 04:22 PM
Gary Korsgaden Gary Korsgaden is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Park Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 3,573
Default Don't bow out

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Minnesota guy View Post
100%.
It's why we have a DNR. It's their job to deisgn regulations that maintain the quality of the fisheries & wildlife. I perfer they use science, but they can toss dice against the wall for all I care. They just need to get it right.

They seem to get pushback on fishing regulations but very little on Deer (CWD). I wonder why that is?

Maybe i'm missing your point on where you want the discussion to go. I'll bow out.
Its a good discussion and you bring a lot of insight to the table. There are two distinct opinions

1) People that decide on social reasons

2) Those that side on the science.

Both have merits. Honestly I am one that likes numbers and factual science who also considers the social side of the issue and wants the decision made strongly on science. Like you said well we have a DNR let them maintain the quality of the fisheries. Example, Socially some feel stocking lakes is the only answer, putting more walleyes in the lake will make it better. Unfortunately, it doesn't in some waters, as test results show.

Minnesota Guy some people like yourself catch 6 walleyes, but creel survey's taken sometime ago show 3.8 fish per angler as a average. So if we apply that number going to four won't be effective. Add in a number of lakes that are put and take waters, walleyes stocked in them grow fast and are maintained only by stocking. Some biologists feel best that anglers are allowed to take them, so feel 6 is a good number.

So in essence going to four serves a message of conservation, which is good one.

Deciding wildlife management socially takes much of the science out of it. Of course it is ok.

Minnesota Guy please stay in the mix of this. There are a lot of questions and the states walleye population is that important to take all avenues into consideration.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #12  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:05 PM
That Minnesota guy's Avatar
That Minnesota guy That Minnesota guy is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: International Falls Mn.
Posts: 6,324
Default

As somebody who seldom fishes for and seldom catches Walleyes, I don't really care what the social media crowd thinks. I pay for with my license and taxes for the DNR to do whats best for the fishery. (I'll leave the hunting side out) If, people disagree with the proposals there still are telephones, letters & e-mail that they can voice their opinions through. This (WC) isn't a place for a debate as A) not everybody responding lives here. B) it's a pretty die hard group here who I doubt want changes in limits C) don't appear (at least to me) to be the sorts that will contact anybody.

Pissing & moaning is far easier.

I have noticed the Twins baseball team hardly ever asks our opinion on how to run the franchise. They hire what they consider to be experts to do that very job. How does that differ from what the DNR is tasked to do in Minnesota?
__________________
Teach your kids how to think.....not what to think.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:29 PM
sportfish1's Avatar
sportfish1 sportfish1 is online now
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Duluth, Mn
Posts: 651
Default

Could it be that the decisions by the twins management only affect the twins and not all taxpayers?
__________________

Crestliner Sportfish 1750
Johnzuki 115
GMC Sierra
Fish in the box!
Beer on ice.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:32 PM
That Minnesota guy's Avatar
That Minnesota guy That Minnesota guy is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: International Falls Mn.
Posts: 6,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportfish1 View Post
Could it be that the decisions by the twins management only affect the twins and not all taxpayers?
No, it's the same premise. The majority of residents in Minnesota don't fish and could care less what the DNR does.
__________________
Teach your kids how to think.....not what to think.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-19-2021, 09:35 PM
sportfish1's Avatar
sportfish1 sportfish1 is online now
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Duluth, Mn
Posts: 651
Default

Interesting point of view.
__________________

Crestliner Sportfish 1750
Johnzuki 115
GMC Sierra
Fish in the box!
Beer on ice.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-20-2021, 02:40 AM
Gary Korsgaden Gary Korsgaden is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Park Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 3,573
Default Right Again

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Minnesota guy View Post
No, it's the same premise. The majority of residents in Minnesota don't fish and could care less what the DNR does.
Your right again.....Minnesota Guy. Are our fish and game resources managed to fit peoples desires, socially, instead of what is actually best for the actual resource?

Example: The 54" musky restriction was decided by those that want to catch a big musky. When really fisheries biologists wanted a lower size requirement. It is good to keep a few of these fish.

Whitetail deer: The DNR is encouraged to manage for bigger bucks from certain groups.

As far as residents not caring what the DNR does, very true. Is the public marching to what socially is being promoted? not what is right for the resource.

Think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-20-2021, 06:29 AM
Baseline Baseline is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northern, MN
Posts: 2,758
Default

Having a 4 fish limit isn't going to be any big deal to me personally. However, it should be based on science or at least a good guess based on research and lake surveys.

Most walleyes in MN come from about 6 major lakes and the Mississippi River. Most of those lakes already have special regulations restricting walleye take. The rest of the major lakes, at least the ones I fish, seem to have good populations of walleye. Many of them have special regulations limiting take and have size restrictions. These special regulations have improved the overall quality of fishing on the major lake I go to. So why not just keep the current system.

There is also a lake not to far from me that had the limit increased to 10 with a restriction of no walleye over 14 inches. This was necessary because it was over populated with small walleyes and has been for years. There is a lake right next to it where they reduced the walleye limit and narrowed the keep size. Seems individual lake management is necessary.

I think if the MN Legislature makes the move to put the limit at 4 then that should be the rule for all lakes and the end of special regulations. My personal opinion is that the 4 fish limit is being pushed by a small group of people and is not being driven by the majority of Minnesota fisherman or the DNR. It won't make any difference in the over all size, catch rate or the quality of the fishing experience.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-20-2021, 12:05 PM
Walleye101% Walleye101% is offline
Minnow
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Bemidji MN
Posts: 13
Default

I think where Mr. Korsgaden is going with this thread is that MN DNR Fisheries managers already have the tools they need to manage MN walleye populations, and that a 4 fish statewide bag limit is not needed, and would not necessarily be beneficial to most MN walleye fisheries.



Many people have the false impression that simply harvesting fewer fish will improve walleye populations. The reduced bag limit proposal perpetuates that perception.



The reality is that walleye populations are constantly fluctuating in response to mortality (both natural and harvest induced) and recruitment of new fish to the population (both natural and stocked). Attempts to stockpile more walleye by reducing harvest may be offset by increased natural mortality and less recruitment due to density suppression effects.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-20-2021, 04:26 PM
kzoofisher's Avatar
kzoofisher kzoofisher is online now
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kalamazoo, Mi
Posts: 4,418
Default

I have to interject one thing because people keep repeating a logical fallacy.

Both the existing regulations and the new proposal are based on the same science and are equally valid scientifically. Where they differ is on their social goal. The implication that the 6 fish limit is somehow more scientific than the 4 simply isn't true, it just tries to achieve a different social goal. Would the 4 fish limit achieve its goal? I guess that depends what the goal is, and from what I've read here and heard in that interview I'm not sure anyone knows the goal. But one thing is sure. Fisheries don't get managed for what is best for the fish. They get managed for the greatest public benefit while providing an acceptable level of harm. That's the goal of stocked fisheries and why they're so often considered "put and take". The stocked fish hurt the native fish so taking them back out again as quickly as possible minimizes their harm while providing a benefit to license holders. Wild fisheries tend to get managed more conservatively than stocked because the size of year classes can't be guaranteed. Think about that when you think about what a reasonable statewide limit is.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-20-2021, 04:44 PM
Walleye101% Walleye101% is offline
Minnow
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Bemidji MN
Posts: 13
Default

Kzoofisher,
You are spot on about no one identifying a goal for the limit reduction. However, the intro to the podcast claims the MN walleye fisheries are declining, and that Blasing will explain how the 4 fish bag limit will help. So that implies that the goal would be harvest reduction to improve or protect declining walleye fisheries.
However the podcast failed to address either evidence of fisheries in decline or how a four fish limit would help. In fact, they admitted that a 4 fish bag would have minimal effect on harvest but was a step in the right direction. If the real goal or intent is to eventually get to a 2 or 3 fish bag they should be honest with MN anglers.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.