Another Unpopular Thread (Politics)

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Matt Wodziak wrote:</div>
The only thing we know for sure is that a 0 fish limit is literally the only one guaranteed not to harm the fishery.

Not according to the DNR. Mille Lacs has been a 0 fish or nearly 0 fish limit (super tight slot for 1 or 2 fish) since 2014, and according to the scientists in St. Paul Hooking mortality still kills tens of thousands of pounds of fish every year, to the point a lake that used to support 200k+ pounds of fish taken out yearly, can only support a fraction of that now.

Upper Red rebounded quickly, but only because the RL Band agreed to limit their own harvet to hook and line angling. The Mil lacs band hasn’t agreed to anything like that….and the numbers prove it.

Personally I don’t really care too much one way or the other on a 4 fish limit, and wish they would focus on making the regs more uniform across the state and simpler for all. We don’t need 1000 pages of hunting and fishing regulations.

Ripjiggen wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Matt Moen wrote:</div>
The bottom line is decisions, whether this or any other, are based on opinions. Facts and data inform decisions, but decisions are based upon a group or individuals interpretation of the data. That interpretation results in an opinion.

Anyone who says, “just give me the facts” or “just give me the data” is completely discredited in my book. There are hundreds of inputs to decision making, especially when it comes to public policies. The data, science, and facts are just one small input to the decisions that are made.

So, the “follow the science” argument is weak at best. Completely agree with the opening paragraph but this has been going since long before the pandemic.

The “science” of limits will never be the only decision making criteria….

I only have one data point to add.
More <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>ice fishing leads to more shanty’s.
More shanty’s leads to more prostitution.
Just sayin.

…..And one less Ohio Mayor. He resigned yesterday. I guess Ohio is still open for business.

Haveyou ever noticed that those who can’t consistently catch fish inevitably blame their lack of success on a lack of fish? I’ve seen it among weekend deer hunters, too. They’re usually blaming the wolves or something. I have a pack on 17 wolves denning up within 1/2 mile of my hunting land, yet haven’t failed to fill at least one tag (rifle, or bow) for 38 straight years. You just learn to pattern the wolves and use it to your advantage. There’s a definite difference between a hunter and a shooter.

duh queen wrote:

Haveyou ever noticed that those who can’t consistently catch fish inevitably blame their lack of success on a lack of fish? I’ve seen it among weekend deer hunters, too. They’re usually blaming the wolves or something. I have a pack on 17 wolves denning up within 1/2 mile of my hunting land, yet haven’t failed to fill at least one tag (rifle, or bow) for 38 straight years. You just learn to pattern the wolves and use it to your advantage. There’s a definite difference between a hunter and a shooter.

Any time I get skunked I tell my kid there isn’t no fish in this lake. And deer in the woods. Been saying that for years.

duh queen wrote:

Haveyou ever noticed that those who can’t consistently catch fish inevitably blame their lack of success on a lack of fish?

Years ago a state representative tried to blame muskies for eating all of the walleye and crappies in the lakes for the county he represented too.

Man! I wanna fish muskies in that lake! They must be huge. Unfortunately, dodging all that BS left behind by the politician would likely ruin the mood.

Ripjiggen wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Matt Moen wrote:</div>
The bottom line is decisions, whether this or any other, are based on opinions. Facts and data inform decisions, but decisions are based upon a group or individuals interpretation of the data. That interpretation results in an opinion.

Anyone who says, “just give me the facts” or “just give me the data” is completely discredited in my book. There are hundreds of inputs to decision making, especially when it comes to public policies. The data, science, and facts are just one small input to the decisions that are made.

So, the “follow the science” argument is weak at best. Completely agree with the opening paragraph but this has been going since long before the pandemic.

The “science” of limits will never be the only decision making criteria….

I only have one data point to add.
More <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>ice fishing leads to more shanty’s.
More shanty’s leads to more prostitution.
Just sayin.

It is literally impossible to find a flaw in that logic.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dee J Anders wrote:</div>
Haveyou ever noticed that those who can’t consistently catch fish inevitably blame their lack of success on a lack of fish?

Years ago a state representative tried to blame muskies for eating all of the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye and crappies in the lakes for the county he represented too.

Didn’t the same representative also claim to shoot geese off his lawn because they were crappin’ all over it?

uninc4709 wrote:

Didn’t the same representative also claim to shoot geese off his lawn because they were crappin’ all over it?

Lmao ya that’s the guy. I forgot about that part.

A 4 fish limit hasn’t changed anything for me on Pool 4. I have the same success rates and catch roughly the same size fish. I’ve had 30 fish days where I’ve kept nothing, and I’ve had 4 fish days where I kept 4 fish.

I did support the change however. It seems that the border water regulations were roughly the same for decades. Although I think the fishery is fine now, 20 years from now with the rate of technological changes in fishing and pressure I think things will look different. To get two separate states on the same relative page doing something proactive that most anglers involved in surveys supported seemed like a net win for the future. The Border Water regulations are an entire different animal with the co-management that is required. Changes are much more difficult to make. Other fisheries exclusively within MN may have a shorter leash to pull for changes where being proactive isn’t as lengthy a process.

The biggest issue with regulation changes are that it all still hinges heavily on the enforcement of possession limits. I don’t know someone personally who has ever even been questioned about what they have at home or in their possession, or what they gifted to someone who still has it in their freezer. We could all go on and on with stories about the people who fish a hot bite for 4 consecutive days and are seen walking out of a cleaning shack each of those days (legally or not). Unfortunately I do not have the faith in humanity that I once did when it comes to honesty, conservation, and valuing a resource…especially with today’s technology compounding this.

tbro2 wrote:

The funny thing about “follow the science” is that science is always changing. Changes much faster than people are willing to change their opinions about the science. Hence the “masks wont help” to “everyone must wear cloth masks” to “cloth masks dont help, has to be surgical/n95 mask” parade we’ve seen over the last few years. Remember, science says 15 days to slow the spread!!!

I will stay out of the walleye limit debate. That one usually ruffles some feathers somewhere

Hey now, I was wearing 5 layer KN95s in October 2020, but then again I read about Dr Linsey Marrs studies from 2011

I don’t think the 3 walleye limit here did any good as they have to be over 18″ but shortly after that went through there was a low flow issue on the river below the dam that resulted in a lot of dead fish. The previous reg was limit of 5 over 15″ and I think the only reason for the change is that some people wanted a trophy walleye fishing area

i dont think i ever caught a limit of walleyes in a full season. much less in a weekend, forget about a day!!!!!1

i just spent 3 1/2cdays on lake of the woods and caught 2!!! lots of saugar though!!!!!

glenn57 wrote:

i dont think i ever caught a limit of walleyes in a full season. doah ??? much less in a weekend, forget about a day!!!!!1

Go go Mille Lacs in June. Its easy to get a limit there (zero)! LOL

glenn57 wrote:

i just spent 3 1/2cdays on lake of the woods and caught 2!!! lots of saugar though!!!!!

That’s rough by LOW standards. Did you mark any fish higher up in the water column? Most of the time those are larger walleyes.

CaptainMusky wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>glenn57 wrote:</div>
i just spent 3 1/2cdays on lake of the woods and caught 2!!! lots of saugar though!!!!!

That’s rough by LOW standards. Did you mark any fish higher up in the water column? Most of the time those are larger walleyes.

Yea we did. I was afraid they were snot rockets. I did try a few times but no dice.

Gimruis, the natives can have that lake for all I care