So I’m hoping someone can explain what this rule change is that we’re all hoping for? I know it has to do with using 10″ bullheads as live bait, but I don’t get why that’s in need of a DNR rule change… I thought bullheads were on the rough fish list but NOT on the prohibited bait list. Ergo I was under the impression that there wasn’t a restriction on the size of the bullheads you use for live bait.
Mn has a 7″ size limit.
There are so many jokes to be made… but I’ll save the mods having to come in here and delete any posts. 
I’m glad I asked, though, because I didn’t realize that and would probably have ended up busted over it. Thanks!
Kooty is correct.
Bullheads 7 inches and smaller are considered minnows. We can have 288 in possession and transport them alive.
Bullies over 7 inches are considered a rough (game) fish with 100 as a limit and can not be transported alive.
So really it’s not about using them as bait, it’s more about transporting them alive.
Dead bullheads tell no tails and don’t catch flatheads well. 
That’s weird, but I’ll take your word for it.
The rule book classifies bullheads as rough fish (as distinct from game fish, I thought) and states that you can’t use game fish, carp or goldfish for bait. I _assumed_ that meant that freshwater drum, bullheads, suckers, etc., were all fair “game” for being used as bait.
I wish they’d put details like this in the rule book so that guys like me, who do care and try to follow the rules don’t end up MISINTERPRETING things based on the scanty information in the freakin book. I researched this topic (insofar as the rulebook is concerned) to the point that ppl were getting tired of me naming page numbers and quoting paragraphs at them. So I’m a bit peeved with the DNR at the moment.
As if that’s unusual…
So how do ppl get around using 2# suckers for muskie bait? Or are suckers considered “minnows” no matter how big they are? 
And I suppose this means we should all be making sure any fish we take home with us are dead before we leave the boat landing? I mean, apparently keeping them in the livewell till you get home and ready to clean them is illegal unless you’re going directly from the water to home or the cabin. But if you’re lake-hopping, you better kill the 4 walleye and 3 crappie you caught on Lake 1 before you move to Lake 2, right?
So then…technically, you can catch a 10″ bullhead and put it on the end of the line as bait ? You just cannot leave the water with it alive ???? I really don’t get any of this catfishing/bullhead stuff ?????
big G 
I have never targetted flats, and probably won’t in the foreseeable future (can’t see driving that far south to fish….), so this is a serious question.
If a warden checks you on the water, do they actually measure your bait, or just take a gander at it and see if you are trying to comply? If you trap or catch a bunch of bullies and have a few that are 7-1/8″ long, is that a ticket in the making? Or do they even check at all? I am curious, because in all my years of fishing other species, I have never had a warden check my bait????
Tim
i can’t remember the last time i was checked by the warden at 1:00 am, on some backwater run…
not saying, just saying… 
Yes, you can catch a larger bullhead on the same water and use it. It’s about transporting them, not possessing or using them as bait.
If you have them in possession though, you better be prepared to prove you caught them on the same body of water.
For suckers it’s 12” max.
Thanks for clarifying that Dtro.
Fisher Dave and I had our bullies checked for size at Mille Ruins once. Other than that one of our IDO Members recieved a written warning for having 7.25 inch fish in his bait tank.
You’ll have to wait for the book, but that’s how this whole bullhead length change stated back in 2004.
Here’s another dumb question. Say we are seining or fishing for bait 100 yards upstream on a smaller river from where that river runs into the bigger river. Can you technically transport those 10″ bullheads from one river to the other? I mean, the fish can freely move between them naturally.
As long as you are in a boat and don’t walk them across dry land.
I have one answer to that question. Some may agree and some may disagree….
Answer: Not a dumb question at all…but some questions are better off not asked.
Post deleted by Briank
Quote:
Deleted
I need an explanation on this on, unless Google doesn’t let me down.
>>>>>OFF TOPIC POST to follow:
Ido encourages and welcomes viewing and more importantly, posting from government employees.
As fisherman and sportsman, there’s always been a complaint that the DNR (and government in general) do not communicate with us.
The reason most will not post on any message forums is because they end up being a target and they simply do not want to be beaten up in the forums for policies they most likely didn’t have anything to do with, except enforcing them or trying to explain them to the general public.
As with Ido’s Policies, threats, name calling ect will end up with having your posts remove and your account ended.
This is not to say there can’t be a debate. We all learn from both sides of disagreements.
Please PM me if there’s any questions as to the message I’m communicating. I’ll be happy to clarify.
Back to the thread>>>
Quote:
Quote:
Deleted
I need an explanation on this on, unless Google doesn’t let me down.
well, my post got deleted…but i’ll explain.
and brian – my post was not an “attack” on the CO’s.
I know first hand that the CO’s monitor the hunting and fishing forums. and it is not in their primary interest to see how we feel about rules and regs. they monitor these forums, especially threads with pics, to help them “clean up” poaching. but sometimes, things do not work out that way.
ask the guy from Ely on minnesotawaterfowler.com that had a CO show up at his house after posting up a pic of a 3 man limit of ducks this past fall, and only two people were in the pic. they were not smart enough to figure out the third person was taking the picture.
and after this happened, it was verified by the admin of the site that the DNR contacted him to get ISP info from the person who posted the pic, so they could track him down.
that is why for you who are on a couple of the more popular waterfowl forums, nobody posts pics anymore. don’t need to add fuel to the fire…
keep posting up pics of limits of walleyes, and there is a good chance Ol’ Green Jeans will show up at your door, asking to check your freezer. 
this also correlates to Brian making the statement, that some questions are better not asked. as, you ask those questions, and then the next thing you know, you’re “conveniently” getting checked more often then not.
this is not an assumption, or an attack at the DNR. just a fact that i stated was all.
A lot of eyes watching these sites…
I wanted bunny cop explained. I never heard that before.
Sure, I can see COs and biologists not being able to comment on things, but you’d think the commissioner could have a lackey type up a response to questions and reply to an email.
Quote:
I wanted bunny cop explained. I never heard that before.
Bunny Cops, and Ol’ Green Jeans, just a couple references of the State’s Finest. 
Quote:
Sure, I can see COs and biologists not being able to comment on things, but you’d think the commissioner could have a lackey type up a response to questions and reply to an email.
that would then mean that they could not ticket us for “grey areas”, and confusing laws. they are just looking out for the best interest of the DNR’s budget.
Ah, I assume that is sort of derogatory, so I won’t be using that one.
Back on topic though, I am back to being ticked at the legislature again. The 10″ bullheads would have been a done deal, but they had to stuff a bunch of garbage in it.
This from a trusted source:
Despite the G&F bill veto, all is not lost on the prospects of using bullheads over 7″ in Minnesota…
The rule change to allow bigger bullies was moving on two tracks – in the legislature as a statutory change, and through the DNR’s rule making process. The rule process does not require any action by the legislature.
The rules process had progressed as far as presenting the proposed changes to an administrative law judge, which is more or less the last step before adopting the rule. The judge had some technical issues with part of the proposed rule relating to commercial use of suckers, so the DNR put the process on hold pending the outcome of the legislative session.
Now the the G&F bill is dead, the DNR is going to move ahead with the rule making process again. They need to make some technical changes to the proposed rule to satisfy the judge’s concerns, and they’ll re-submit it to the administrative law judge again.
So barring something really off the wall happening in the Admin Law hearing, it seems highly likely that the rule change will be going into effect as we’d hoped.
So it’s probably only a matter of time before the rule goes through either way.
At the risk of stirring the pot –
What is the reason for a 7″ cap on bullie length? Is the 7″ limit simply an unintended result of some other well-intentioned restriction?
In reading this thread, it appears to me that this law was only implemented a short while (5-6yrs or so?) ago……is that true, or did it just start being an ‘enforced’ law then?
With most laws, whether I agree or disagree with them, I can see the good intent that the law was originally passed with, but this one is not apparant to me.
Tim
Darren, I believe that has been what Brian has been saying that we could see the change as early as August.
Timmy, I am not 100% sure, but I believe that a while back they allowed the use of bullheads as bait. Before that I believe it was illegal. I am not sure of the size restriction other than maybe in their eyes a bullhead over that sizes could be table fair. So maybe they were trying to prevent people from using fish others would eat? Quite frankly, the more I think about it, the more I am baffled by the size restriction. I am sure that has been answered in an ald thread, but I have forgotten the reasoning.
Yeah – like I said – with most laws, you can look hard and see the well-intentioned reasoning – no matter how foolisht he outcome wight be. But with this law, it sure seems odd to me(and by the sounds of it, I am not alone).
The 7 inch law has something to do with commercial fishing. What, I’m not sure, but that’s what the DNR said in our first meeting.
Here’s a little know fact that I can’t back up.
The original recommendation was to allow bullheads of any size to be used as bait. Somewhere along the line, it was feel that 10″ should be the cap. The reason was so I’m told to prevent our bait from turning into a unwanted population in one of our lakes (or rivers) were they isn’t a population now.
Darren, did that quote come from Linda Erickson-Eastwood?
Perch…check your pm’s please.
Quote:
Darren, did that quote come from Linda Erickson-Eastwood?
No
Thanks, time to remind her we are still here and waiting.
Quote:
The reason was so I’m told to prevent our bait from turning into a unwanted population in one of our lakes (or rivers) were they isn’t a population now.
That makes no sense to me. Sounds more like wishful thinking. What is the difference? Even if a 7″ is not mature enough to spawn, it will be eventually.
I think all of us arm chair and professional biologist would agree with you Pug.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
