DNR Rulemaking: Taking Fish on Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Waters

  • Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1875879

    DNR Rulemaking: Taking Fish on Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Waters

    What is this rule about?
    This rulemaking will change the rules for fishing seasons on Minnesota’s border waters with South Dakota. (Edit: typo? Wisconsin)

    What will this rulemaking will do?
    The proposed expedited rules are about adjusting Minnesota’s fishing on the boundary waters shared with Wisconsin to ensure consistent regulations for all anglers. The rule amendments modify possession limits for taking walleye and sauger, northern pike, channel and flathead catfish, shovelnose sturgeon, crappie, sunfish, yellow perch, and white and yellow bass in the Mississippi River, including Lake Pepin. The rule amendments also modify length limits for walleye, sauger, northern pike, channel catfish, and flathead catfish.

    With few exceptions, regulations on possession and size restrictions for gamefish on the Minnesota and Wisconsin border waters of the Mississippi River have been largely unchanged since the 1940s and 1950s. The most recent changes were in 1990, when minimum size limits for bass (14 inches) and walleye (15 inches) were implemented. Over the last 20 years, however, regulations for gamefish in inland waters of both states have undergone substantial changes, and regulations on the border waters are now very different than those in either state.

    In addition, aquatic habitat loss in backwaters and side channels due to sedimentation, chemical and hydrologic changes due to land use practices and climate change, and increasing abundance of invasive species all have the potential to significantly impact the long term health of fish populations on the Mississippi River. The proposed changes are intended to be a proactive measure that will allow the river to sustain high quality fish populations into future decades.

    The DNR is using an expedited rulemaking procedure to make these changes effective by March 1, 2020, to coincide with Wisconsin’s similar regulation change.

    Who might be affected by these rule changes?
    Recreational anglers
    Officials in bordering states
    Where do I send my comments?
    You have until 4:30 p.m. on Friday, October 4, 2019, to submit comments to the DNR contact person listed below.

    You may request a hearing on these rules. If at least 100 persons submit a valid request for a hearing and a sufficient number do not withdraw their requests (reducing the number below 100), then a public hearing will be held before an administrative law judge. The Notice of Intent to Adopt Expedited Rules tells you how to submit a request for hearing to the DNR contact person.

    Where can I get more information?
    The following rulemaking documents posted at https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/rules

    Rulemaking documents:

    Proposed rules
    Notice of Intent to Adopt Expedited Rules
    If you want a free copy of the proposed rules, call or email the DNR contact person listed below.

    DNR contact person: Shannon Fisher, Fish and Wildlife Division, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4020, 651-259-5206, [email protected]

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 8185
    #1875882

    I’ve got an email in to be sent a copy of proposed changes. If someone already has them could they share them here?

    My guesses:

    1. Bag limit reduction on all species of panfish from 25 to 10 per species

    2. Sauger/Walleye combined bag reduction to 4 or 5 from the current 6 fish.

    3. Reduction in catfish bag limits.

    riverruns
    Inactive
    Posts: 2218
    #1875904

    toast waytogo

    About time!

    MN DNR Fisheries – Lake City
    Lake CIty, MN
    Posts: 158
    #1875906

    Gotta run for a meeting, so no long post today, but here is the link to the rule markup language posted with the text BK shared above.

    https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/rules/wi-mn_borderwaters_rule.pdf

    I can try and address any questions either via e-mail or here over the next couple of days as I have time.

    The link to the Rulemaking process page containing the text BK posted is here.
    https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/rules/fisheries/mn-wi-fishing-regulations.html

    Nick

    Dennis Williams
    Apple Valley, MN
    Posts: 244
    #1875908

    Edit – Nick responded before I finished typing.

    I Like the “All Pool Option” for walleyes. Wouldn’t mind if they applied it to the whole state. Get tired of all the different regs and the thick fishing regs book.

    From November, 2018

    The Minnesota and Wisconsin DNRs are now seeking public input on the recommended changes to daily
    bag and size limit regulations. Proposed changes are:
    White Bass:
    Proposed Regulation= Daily bag limit of 10 with no size limit.
    Current Regulation = Daily bag limit of 25 with no size limit.
    Largemouth/Smallmouth Bass:
    Proposed Regulation = Daily Bag limitof 5 and a 14” min. length (NO CHANGE)
    Channel/Flathead Catfish:
    Proposed Regulation = Daily bag of 10 (combined), only 1 over 30 inches daily.
    Current Regulation = Daily bag of 10 (MN) and Daily Bag of 25 (WI), with no size limit in either state.
    Northern Pike:
    Proposed Regulation = Daily Bag limit of 3, with only 1 over 30 inchesdaily
    OR
    Daily Bag limit of 2, with no size limit
    Current Regulation = Daily Bag limit of 5, with no size limit.
    Sunfish*, Crappie, and Yellow Perch:
    Proposed Regulation = Daily Bag limit of 10 OR 15 Sunfish
    Daily Bag limit of 10 OR 15 Crappie
    Daily Bag limit of 10 OR 15 Yellow Perch
    Current Regulation: Daily bag limit of 25 Sunfish, 25 Crappie, and 25 Yellow Perch
    *Sunfish includes Bluegill, Pumpkinseed, and Green Sunfish
    Walleye and Sauger:
    Split River Option
    Proposed Regulation for Pools 3 and 4 = Daily Bag of 4 combined, 15 inch minimum lengthfor
    Walleye, only 1 Walleye or Sauger over 20 inchesdaily.
    Proposed Regulation for Pools 5, 5A, 6, 7, 8, and upper 9 = same as above, but only 2 Sauger in the
    Daily Bag.
    OR
    All Pools Option
    Proposed Regulation for Pools 3-9 = Daily Bag of 4 combined, 15 inch minimum lengthfor Walleye,
    only 1 Walleye or Sauger over 20 inches daily.
    Current Regulation (for all Pools) = Combined Daily Bag of 6 with a minimum length of 15 inchesfor
    Walleye.
    Shovelnose Sturgeon:
    Proposed Regulation = Daily Bag Limit of 3 with no size limit.
    Current Regulation = Daily Bag Limit of 10 with no size limit

    https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/lakecity/index.html

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1875914

    Daily walleye of 6 minimum 15″.
    Pools 3&4 could handle twice that harvest.

    Tom Sawvell
    Inactive
    Posts: 9559
    #1875922

    toast waytogo

    About time!

    X2

    The only ones “flamed” by this proposal are those who probably abuse the current regulations now.

    grubson
    Harris, Somewhere in VNP
    Posts: 1616
    #1875926

    Daily walleye of 6 minimum 15″.
    Pools 3&4 could handle twice that harvest.

    Maybe, but why? We’re talking sport fishing here, not subsistence fishing. How many fish do you think you need? I think the entire state could benefit from limit reductions on all species aside from invasive carp.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1875949

    Maybe, but why? We’re talking sport fishing here, not subsistence fishing. How many fish do you think you need? I think the entire state could benefit from limit reductions on all species aside from invasive carp.

    Walleye is the harvest fish. Hardly a sport fish as far as the general public is concerned. Also, this isn’t about ‘the state’. Almost all MN lakes are crap in comparison to the great fishery that pool 3&4 are.

    You can do what you want with the state… This is a unique fishery not to be compared or managed similar to 10,000 junk lakes.

    grubson
    Harris, Somewhere in VNP
    Posts: 1616
    #1875953

    Walleye is the harvest fish. Hardly a sport fish as far as the general public is concerned. Also, this isn’t about ‘the state’. Almost all MN lakes are crap in comparison to the great fishery that pool 3&4 are.

    You can do what you want with the state… This is a unique fishery not to be compared or managed similar to 10,000 junk lakes.
    [/quote]

    Yea you’re right like always, walleyes aren’t sport fish at all!!
    Forget the fact that they are the most popular sport fish in either mn or wi as far a the genaral public is concerned.
    If all the other lakes in mn are junk wouldn’t you be concerned for the last remaining non junk fishery? Maybe try to protect it even?
    Personally I don’t think that pool 3&4 are that great, there are many other better fisheries in northern mn.

    eyeguy507
    SE MN
    Posts: 5215
    #1875964

    10000 junk lakes! Are you serious? Have you even ventured off the river? LOW and UPRL are the 2 most unreal walleye destinations in the country if you ask me.

    eyeguy507
    SE MN
    Posts: 5215
    #1875965

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
    How many fish do you think you need?

    As a Wisconsin resident, I prefer my freezer has 12 walleyes ready for a big fry.

    Very common answer for a Sconi…hey at least you’re honest.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1875978

    Yea you’re right like always, walleyes aren’t sport fish at all!!
    Forget the fact that they are the most popular sport fish in either mn or wi as far a the genaral public is concerned.

    Most popular harvest fish.

    Bass would be the most popular sport fish… People release bass.

    Catfish is the most popular in the us.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1875981

    LOW and UPRL

    Yeah they’re so good that the regulations change often and they have lower limits and closed seasons.
    toast

    Add to that they grow slower and don’t get as big.

    But your right, they aren’t bad, no sir. There are 10,000 other lakes in MN that you cannot compare on the same yard stick.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1875985

    UPRL is a cookie cutter walleye harvest Mecca. It it not a sport fishery. It is a harvest fishery. Popular because walleye is the harvest fish.

    grubson
    Harris, Somewhere in VNP
    Posts: 1616
    #1876001

    Most popular harvest fish.

    Bass would be the most popular sport fish… People release bass.

    Catfish is the most popular in the us.
    [/quote]

    You’re confused. Sport fish are fish that are pursued for fun.
    Subsistence fishing is fishing in order to get food to survive on.
    None of us are subsistence fisherman. We’re all sport fisherman, unless you live in rural Alaska or have a commercial fishing license. Some choose to keep fish to eat, but it’s not out of necessity. All fish are potentially harvest fish, plenty of people eat bass. Just because you chose not to eat anything but walleyes doesn’t mean everyone else does the same. Also just because you only fish walleyes to harvest doesn’t mean everyone does. Some people enjoy just catching fish.

    If URL was catch and release only I’d still go for the fun (or sport) of catching walleyes.
    The lakes up north have special regs and seasons to protect the amazing resources they are.
    I’d like my grandkids to experience the great fishing we have in MN and I believe that special regs and seasons are helping ensure that happens.
    The best thing we can do is trust the biologists and fisheries professionals that actually know what that are taking about.
    Self appointed experts feeling entitled to however many fish they see fit is a danger to our resources, period. No matter how good the fishery is.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1876003

    The best thing we can do is trust the biologists and fisheries professionals that actually know what that are taking about.
    Self appointed experts feeling entitled to however many fish they see fit is a danger to our resources, period. No matter how good the fishery is.

    Ah. Thanks for supporting my position. You see, where your confused is this proposal for walleye harvest change of regulation came from public surveys…. Absolutely NOT biological an scientific study… Which supports more harvest.

    And your assumptions of me are incorrect…. But thanks for making it personal. Most people go that route when they have nothing else to pull.

    grubson
    Harris, Somewhere in VNP
    Posts: 1616
    #1876004

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
    The best thing we can do is trust the biologists and fisheries professionals that actually know what that are taking about.
    Self appointed experts feeling entitled to however many fish they see fit is a danger to our resources, period. No matter how good the fishery is.

    Ah. Thanks for supporting my position. You see, where your confused is this proposal for walleye harvest change of regulation came from public surveys…. Absolutely NOT biological an scientific study… Which supports more harvest.

    And your assumptions of me are incorrect…. But thanks for making it personal. Most people go that route when they have nothing else to pull.

    Which assumption that I made was incorrect? For that I am sorry.
    Did the biologists suggest doubling the daily limit? That’s what I’m disagreeing with….

    jon amundson
    Posts: 143
    #1876005

    I’m in agreement with fbrm. I don’t see any need for a change. The science doesn’t call for change why change. The current regulations have worked and it is a premier fishing destination for almost all species. Trophy caliper fish along with sustainable populations. These border systems are different than any other body of water. To compare to any other would be unfare. These are truly as good as it gets for most species with current regulations.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1876006

    Which assumption that I made was incorrect? For that I am sorry.

    Just because you chose not to eat anything but walleyes doesn’t mean everyone else does the same. Also just because you only fish walleyes to harvest doesn’t mean everyone does. Some people enjoy just catching fish.

    Apology accepted man.

    Did the biologists suggest doubling the daily limit? That’s what I’m disagreeing with….

    Your asking the wrong question.
    Did the DNR bring these changes about as a result of a public (call em arm chair biologists) survey

    Yes.

    Has the DNR published studies that show walleye harvest has no impact to numbers. Yes. Spawn conditions are the far and away biggest contributor to numbers.

    And… The past several spawns have been excellent condition. You will see a phenomenal fishery the next 7 years!!!

    I am disagreeing with the DNR making changes based on surveying the public. Seems to be based on your opinion of my posts that you would agree. Just don’t seem like you know the whole story behind the reasoning for change.

    eyeguy507
    SE MN
    Posts: 5215
    #1876007

    UPRL is a cookie cutter walleye harvest Mecca. It it not a sport fishery. It is a harvest fishery. Popular because walleye is the harvest fish.

    True, but I was referring that it is one of many lakes that aren’t “junk”. When you can go and catch 100 eyes per person in a day, that is ridiculous really. I’ve never had a 100 fish day on the river in my lifetime(probably 500 outings?) but I have had multiple trips to UPRL that hit at or near 100 fish in a day. The regs change mainly because of the netting and the fact that it is basically a small city out there in the winter.
    Honestly I am amazed that lake isn’t fished out yet.

    matt
    Posts: 659
    #1876008

    Red and Lotw have special regs because the fish are so easy to catch,this draws a ton of people that cant catch a walleye anywhere else.Ton of other lakes with plenty of walleyes even within the metro however very few take the time to fugure them out,works for me.

    FishBlood&RiverMud
    Prescott
    Posts: 6687
    #1876009

    Yeah I’m not going to trade a day in the boat catching 4-10# eyes for a hundred 1-2# eyes in an ice village. To each their own. Been there done both.

    And yes, just like when conditions are prime on red, you can pull a hundred in a day.

    I fish 190 times a year… On the river.

    philtickelson
    Inactive
    Mahtomedi, MN
    Posts: 1678
    #1876015

    I don’t care what you do with those walleyes, but please for the love of god lower the limit on panfish. They get POUNDED in SE MN in the winter. The difference between, say, 10 and 25 is huge, much bigger than the difference between 4 and 6, I would know. A lot of people don’t know that about me. But I know a lot about numbers. There isn’t another person on earth that knows more about the difference of those numbers than me.

    Anyways, I don’t know what the limit for anything really should be, but I agree with FB&RM that it probably shouldn’t be a public survey…That seems like admitting they don’t know how to manage the fishery.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1876022

    The proposed changes are intended to be a proactive measure that will allow the river to sustain high quality fish populations into future decades.

    I believe the regs are proactive. And in some cases reactive and that’s ok too as long as the public knows it. <almost a quote Nick.

    The goal of the surveys last fall was to see what the average angler wanted to see on the river. If it was something the biologist could see working, the GOAL was to “give the lady what she wants”. (Sorry, an old Zig Ziggle quote)

    Obviously it’s easy to lower a walleye limit then it would be to raise it to 25 per person per day like WI’s catfish limits are now… so why not do what the majority of people want?

    FBRM trying to get the same rules on one stretch of river is more then difficult with two states involved. Since you are mostly a c&r big fish guy, I’m a bit surprised at your reaction. But that’s ok too.
    I’m just tickled pink the number of hooks allowed won’t be changing for either state. You know MN isn’t going to go to 3 hooks allowed…WI will need to come down to two.

    Since I don’t need to have 12 walleyes in my freezer, (I’m just not that good of a walleye guy), I’m patting the DNR on the head for doing something that maybe unheard of prior to this…working together for a common goal with another state.

    Well done gentlemen.

    PS If a person feels strongly opposed to the new rules….

    You may request a hearing on these rules. If at least 100 persons submit a valid request for a hearing and a sufficient number do not withdraw their requests (reducing the number below 100), then a public hearing will be held before an administrative law judge. The Notice of Intent to Adopt Expedited Rules tells you how to submit a request for hearing to the DNR contact person.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1876023

    That seems like admitting they don’t know how to manage the fishery.

    The DNR has said for years that the Pool 4 walleye fishery is not in danger. In fact just as good as it was in the ’60’s.

    Just a few short years ago they opened it (and the rest of the state) to Lake Sturgeon C&R.

    Looks to me like they are trying to keep the most people happy knowing not everyone will be happy. waytogo

    85lund
    Menomonie, WI
    Posts: 2317
    #1876026

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>grubson wrote:</div>
    How many fish do you think you need?

    As a Wisconsin resident, I prefer my freezer has 12 walleyes ready for a big fry.

    Very common answer for a Sconi…hey at least you’re honest.

    Don’t lump us all in with him with the sconi bs. I’m all for protecting this resource so my grandkids can enjoy it too. Lower them and put a size limit on saugers. I do remember a short while ago when saugers were much bigger. I must be one of the few who don’t give a rats azz about football so I don’t think all MN Vikings fans suck. I prefer to judge a person after meeting them. I married a MN girl and her family is pretty cool.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 111 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.