Anglers Continue To Catch Fish on a Hot Bite Once A Limit is Achieved

On Facebook I saw a post from an individual apparently representing a tackle company fishing on a Minnesota Lake. “WE caught our limits of crappie to eat and released over a 100 more.” When I read this asked myself why an angler would boast about this? Fortunately, the fish weren’t caught out of deep water, so barotrauma impacts kept to minimum. But hooking mortality still can be an issue. How do some of you feel about this? call me what you want, and the world isn’t perfect what I think is right certainly others will not feel the same. But doing this doesn’t leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. Agree any amount of harvest, certainly will result in some waste. It doesn’t make any sense.

When the higher power blesses me on a hot bite I ain’t leaving after catching 4 walleye and heading home . You shouldn’t have to fish 40 foot deep anyways …

I’m mainly a catch and release guy so I don’t see this any different than if I get on a hot bite and don’t keep anything.

Pretty sure in MN once you keep that last fish in your limit, you are done. The next fish of that species you catch puts you over the limit. Released or not.

-J.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Pretty sure in MN once you keep that last fish in your limit, you are done. The next fish of that species you catch puts you over the limit. Released or not.

-J.

I thought this was the case too but someone pointed out in the manual that you can indeed continue to fish on a catch and release basis even if you have your daily limit.

Not that I condone it, especially in deep water, but its legal.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Pretty sure in MN once you keep that last fish in your limit, you are done. The next fish of that species you catch puts you over the limit. Released or not.

-J.

I believe it says specifically that you can no longer intentionally target a particular species once you have your limit in possession.

I usually stay 1 or 2 back from my limit if it’s a fun bite. Say, a good night bite on rattle reels in a wheel house. If a fish then can’t swim away, I still have room in my bucket. No stringer sorting in MN.

My only answer is about why would they boast that. All about feed their ego. Lot of that on Facebook fishing and hunting groups.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Pretty sure in MN once you keep that last fish in your limit, you are done. The next fish of that species you catch puts you over the limit.

-J.

Not true. It doesn’t count as part of your limit until it’s in your possession.

Per regs:

Immediately released fish are only retained long enough to unhook, measure, and photograph. Fish not immediately released are counted as part of an anglers daily and possession limit.

Page 32 under “Possession” states:

Once you reach your daily possession limit for a species, you may keep fishing but all fish of that species must be immediately released and no culling is allowed. If fishing is good you may want to stay below the limit to accomodate keeping a deeply hooked, legal sized fish.

Pailofperch wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
Pretty sure in MN once you keep that last fish in your limit, you are done. The next fish of that species you catch puts you over the limit. Released or not.

-J.

I believe it says specifically that you can no longer intentionally target a particular species once you have your limit in possession.

I usually stay 1 or 2 back from my limit if it’s a fun bite. Say, a good night bite on rattle reels in a wheel house. If a fish then can’t swim away, I still have room in my bucket. No stringer sorting in MN.

I understand the rule as Jon has mentioned.

I also adhere to a practice like POP. I’d rather catch fish than take a limit and have to stop fishing. I seldom keep a limit anyway.

Ok, I stand corrected for inland regs. Must have been another state or lake I was thinking of. (Page 32 of MN regs) I know I was warned one time many years ago.

-J.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Ok, I stand corrected for inland regs. Must have been another state or lake I was thinking of. (Page 32 of MN regs) I know I was warned one time many years ago.

-J.

I also stand corrected. I just looked. That is a rule or two I feel has surely has changed. I won’t change the way I do things though as I feel it makes more sense.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_20250204-200352.png
   

I know in WI waters pretty sure once you reach the limit for a species, you must stop fishing for that species. This includes catch and release fishing. This is what the regulation reads anyways.

First its bad for people to keep their limits and now we even get mad when people catch and release…

I know that catching and releasing fish in deep water a problem at LOTW but it’s taboo subject and nobody wants to talk about it.
Attached is a from a recent Facebook post on Lake of the Woods Fishing and it’s a tally of the number of fish caught evidently by individuals in a house. I know from the post that they were fishing in water over 30′ deep.
Sure it’s fun to boast and brag but please have some respect for the resource.
Just because a fish can be pushed back down the hole doesn’t mean they’ll make it.
We all know better.

Attachments:

1. 

   475897049_952080370444014_261060354092347902_n.jpg
   

I never understood how they could say you were fishing for a specific species. I’ve caught Bluegills on 9 inch long Rapala, I’ve caught bullheads on top water flies, I’ve caught Bass on 1/16th ounce jigs. Anything could happen when you have a line in the water.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

I know that catching and releasing fish in deep water a problem at LOTW but it’s taboo subject and nobody wants to talk about it.
Attached is a from a recent Facebook post on Lake of the Woods Fishing and it’s a tally of the number of fish caught evidently by individuals in a house. I know from the post that they were fishing in water over 30′ deep.
Sure it’s fun to boast and brag but please have some respect for the resource.
Just because a fish can be pushed back down the hole doesn’t mean they’ll make it.
We all know better.

Tell that to all the outfitters that rent shacks. You hit six fish what are you going to do all day sleep on a wooden bench and wait for the bomber to come back.

I don’t see an issue to keep fishing.
I’m not the type to boast about, but don’t really care if someone does.

Matt Moen wrote:

I’m mainly a catch and release guy so I don’t see this any different than if I get on a hot bite and don’t keep anything.

Ditto

And if I recall probably a dozen years or so ago, the DNR clarified a bunch of vague rules in the handbook. This was one of them. CPR is a good thing. No reason to stop fishing unless you’re only catching them deep.

I assume they guy was bragging about the tackle he reps, about how great of a fisherman he and his buddies are…

I personally would have switched to another species or headed out to clean fish and have a few beers.

If the fish had a high survival rate I don’t see any issues.

Myself and a lot of others drive hours to fish waters that are catch and release only (spring Rainy river for example)

mark-bruzek wrote:

First its bad for people to keep their limits and now we even get mad when people catch and release…

Yep ! Pretty bizarre. Don’t even get me started on the guys who want to ban lead tackle … next it’ll be gas outboards

I agree with most on the subject. About the only lake I fish that is deeper water is LOTW.
We might catch our limit and catch a lot of fish doing so. If the bite is good what we keep gets pretty strict.

I will take my limit once a year of perch and walleye and then I’m CPR the rest of the year. If a limit is the end of your fishing then I would be done fairly early in the season. I don’t see anything wrong with CPR. We’ve all had days where you’re sorting through the dinks to scratch out 5-10 keepers. Those days can well beyond 100+ fish.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

Attached is a from a recent Facebook post on Lake of the Woods Fishing and it’s a tally of the number of fish caught evidently by individuals in a house.

My question is why didn’t “C” give “P” the hot lure??

mark-bruzek wrote:

First its bad for people to keep their limits and now we even get mad when people catch and release…

That was my initial thought. Pretty soon it will be like that for just fishing in general. Kind of amazed on how many people don’t actually know the regs honestly.
Heck my kid could catch a 100 sunfish off our dock and probably keep a limit if I really wanted to clean them. Is that so bad?
How do we know they didn’t sort through 100 smalls to keep their limit of keepers or threw 100 12/13 inchers and kept their limit of 10/11’s.

I agree with POP as that is how I usually operate. I only have a family of 3 so don’t need much as I will just go fishing again for another meal if I choose to.

Gary Korsgaden wrote:

On Facebook I saw a post from an individual apparently representing a tackle company fishing on a Minnesota Lake. “WE caught our limits of crappie to eat and released over a 100 more.” When I read this asked myself why an angler would boast about this? Fortunately, the fish weren’t caught out of deep water, so barotrauma impacts kept to minimum. But hooking mortality still can be an issue. How do some of you feel about this? call me what you want, and the world isn’t perfect what I think is right certainly others will not feel the same. But doing this doesn’t leave a pleasant taste in my mouth. Agree any amount of harvest, certainly will result in some waste. It doesn’t make any sense.

Don’t take this wrong as I am not trying be a jerk but after rereading your post I am not clear on what part is not sitting well with you?

Is it they kept fishing after keeping a limit? Which we don’t actually know
Is it they caught so many? And they shouldn’t have kept fishing a hot bite?
Or is it the boasted about it on the net?

“Agree any amount of harvest, certainly will result in some waste. It doesn’t make any sense.”

This part kind of confused me as well?
What waste are you referring to when harvesting a fish.

Again I am just trying to understand your post a little better.

You guys must hate catch and release fisherman then ?
This makes no sense. And is no different then a guy practicing catch and release. I know if I’m on a hot bite I’m still fishing. Couldn’t imagine all the times I would have missed out on if I couldn’t keep fishing after I kept my fish. But oh well. It’s legal and I will keep the catching and releasing going after my limit, just like the reg book says is fine and legal.

Your fine, let me try to clarify. There is a certain percentage of fish that don’t survive due to hooking mortality and how the fish is handled before released and the length it is out of the water before released. Hard to determine as it depends on the situation again how its handled. This is called hooking mortality. Happy to read that most understand not a good idea to fish deep water ex: 25 and deeper due to barotrauma. Harvest is the wrong word, because some fish will not make it due to just fishing wasted, is what I tried to get at. Catch and release fishing was put in motion years ago as a means to encourage releasing larger fish of a species that an angler may not want. Personally, my opinion catching the limit and continuing releasing 100 or more, doesn’t show respecting the resource when in their next breath screaming for lowering the limits when in reality by doing so won’t do any good. Thank you everyone who took the time to respond. Jason Mitchell is one promoter that does it right.

Bearcat89 wrote:

You guys must hate catch and release fisherman then ?
This makes no sense. And is no different then a guy practicing catch and release. I know if I’m on a hot bite I’m still fishing. Couldn’t imagine all the times I would have missed out on if I couldn’t keep fishing after I kept my fish. But oh well. It’s legal and I will keep the catching and releasing going after my limit, just like the reg book says is fine and legal.

There is a major difference between legal and ethical. Ethics are difficult if not impossible to regulate. Is catch and releasing well over a hundred fish in deep water ethical?

Fish that are released have a better chance of surviving than fish that ate kept.