DNR Rulemaking: Taking Fish on Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Waters

FBR….The change in limits doesn’t hinder you from catching all the walleyes you want. Have at it. its just that if you’re looking for a quick freezer fill, you may have to fish twice out of those 190 times a year. Honestly for me I’d be fine with a slot where every fish between 22″ and 32″ goes back with one over 32″ allowed. And a 4 fish limit. I’d like to see the dam fishing shut down anywhere closer than two miles below the dam during the spring run-off and spring high water periods.

And if you are truly talking about a sport fishery instead of a harvestry, then this statement “Yeah I’m not going to trade a day in the boat catching 4-10# eyes” is moot if you are keeping those fish. You make no mention of c/r, only your freezer.

I can think of a whole lot of things that could be worse than being able to keep only four walleyes.

eyeguy507 wrote:

I’ve never had a 100 fish day on the river in my lifetime(probably 500 outings?)

Too bad Vandy isn’t on here anymore. Greg Vandemark was a guide on pool four. When others were catching 20-30 walleyes a day he was having his 80 to 100 walleye days. How do I know? I talked to his customers and saw his fish clicker.

The one thing I’ve learned since logging in to IDO the first time is that my skills are better and worse then others. Not everyone enjoys the way I like to fish and what works for me doesn’t mean it’s going to work for someone else.

PS Although I quoted you Mr. Eyeguy, I’m not speaking directly to you.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
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.

You know a lot more about it than I do, maybe I’m just reacting to the verbage or way they explain it.

I’m more concerned about how the panfish get pounded further south.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

FBR….The change in limits doesn’t hinder you from catching all the walleyes you want. Have at it. its just that if you’re looking for a quick freezer fill, you may have to fish twice out of those 190 times a year. Honestly for me I’d be fine with a slot where every fish between 22″ and 32″ goes back with one over 32″ allowed. And a 4 fish limit. I’d like to see the dam fishing shut down anywhere closer than two miles below the dam during the spring run-off and spring high water periods.

And if you are truly talking about a sport fishery instead of a harvestry, then this statement “Yeah I’m not going to trade a day in the boat catching 4-10# eyes” is moot if you are keeping those fish. You make no mention of c/r, only your freezer.

I can think of a whole lot of things that could be worse than being able to keep only four walleyes.

X2 —- I see no mention of changing the possession limit, only the daily bag limit on the river. We all know how great of an angler you are FBRM (you’ve reminded us a time or two…) so you shouldn’t have any problem continuing to fill your freezer with easily caught walleyes.

Or maybe you’ll have to fish 193 days a year now

85lund wrote:

Don’t lump us all in with him with the sconi bs.

Yeah, i lived in MN 91% of my life.
The only thing I do in Wisconsin is sleep. I work in MN. I live 200 yds from MN. I only fish border Waters now. But, a Wisconsin address does allow me twice the daily… So that’ll continue. Bash what I can legally do all you want.

These charges are created from surveys. Not science.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

“Yeah I’m not going to trade a day in the boat catching 4-10# eyes” is moot if you are keeping those fish. You make no mention of c/r, only your freezer.

I catch and release over 99%.

I do prefer my walleyes between 19-21″ to eat though.
However I do feel strongly in support of DNR studies and would let you bring home those big walleyes if you wanted. It would make me cringe, but I wouldn’t hold it against you personally…pal

tangler wrote:

X2 —- I see no mention of changing the possession limit, only the daily bag limit on the river.

Are you feeling ok?
You know one is a multiple of the other right?
6+6=12
4+4=8

You do understand that 8 is not equivalent to 12?

tangler wrote:

We all know how great of an angler you are FBRM (you’ve reminded us a time or two…) so you shouldn’t have any problem continuing to fill your freezer with easily caught walleyes.

That’s just a douche comment

We all have our own opinions but really guys, take a breath. We are all fishermen (and women).

Share your passion, but keep the attacks on these pages. Waste of finger movement.

I’m heading down the Henderson for a catfish workgroup meeting.
Hopefully I’ll be able to restrain myself from spewing personal attacks.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

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?

Let me start by saying I don’t agree or disagree with anyone here. This statement has me a little worried that the consensus can be fairly easily skewed. The firm push toward c&r in the past 3 decades has significantly influenced public opinion on harvesting fish. It’s now severely frowned upon to take a trophy walleye from any body of water. Even those that stand to risk nothing if that fish is removed.

Managing fish harvest rules based on public opinion is setting a pretty dangerous precedence. I fear that animal rights activists may try to use this to their advantage at some point.

Hell, if I had it my way I’d make it another pool 2- catch and release walleyes and saugs! Ok, maybe one fish per day under 20 inches……. But, I would make it “you keep everything you catch regardless of size” from the scour hole with a one fish limit.

buckybadger wrote:

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.

It looks like the anticipated changes are pretty much spot-on with what I was predicting. I am not going to speak for other Pools as probably 80% of my angling is on Pool 4, 10% on Pool 5, and the other time on trips.

Pools 4 and 5 will benefit from the changes. Specifically, panfish more than anything. Ice fishing really decimates certain areas that get hit again and again with many shallow backwater areas filling in and fish clinging to the few deep spots in an area or with a little current to survive.

As far as walleye and sauger go, I think they too will benefit. It seems there have been some fairly impressive spawns in recent years, but being proactive with the limits could be a good thing if we were to have a string of years with poor spawns. Sauger numbers are really quite low once you get below Pool 4 in my opinion. The data shared over the years also suggests that the sauger population is average at best when compared longitudinally. I can recall two times in 2019 where my boat kept a full 6 fish limit for anglers (x2). I can also recall far more times where we kept 2 or 3 fish combined for a fresh fry that night and let the rest go on a 25-30 fish day.

If more anglers are thinking about the future and protecting the resource, I think it is a win for everyone who uses the resource regardless of opinions on bag limits. The right mindset is becoming the norm.

I have no problem with the new proposed regs…but you want to see a great sauger population on pool four?..extend the March and April refuge line down to the Hwy 63 bridge ..now that would be proactive..

I would like to see the walleye daily bag limit lowered but the fishery can handle what the numbers are at right now. So with walleye I don’t care what happens.
Now panfish is a different story. They need to be lowered in my opinion. Same with catfish.

You guys are CRAZY to let this happen without a public hearing. They give no evidence of a damaged fishery and only hypothesize future issues based on highly debated ideas. All while admitting that there has been virtually no need for changes in around 70 years. Send in your request for a hearing.

Glenn Marshall wrote:

You guys are CRAZY to let this happen without a public hearing. They give no evidence of a damaged fishery and only hypothesize future issues based on highly debated ideas. All while admitting that there has been virtually no need for changes in around 70 years. Send in your request for a hearing.

There was a public hearing. This is how it came about.

We went and expressed our thoughts and got this going. I’m all in favor of this and apparently so were the rest of the people that attended meetings. Come to think about it this was also available to be commented and voted online.

Didn’t you guys express your thoughts then?

Internet armchair biologists make me lol calling for more feel good regs with zero scientific data

ajw wrote:

Internet armchair biologists make me lol calling for more feel good regs with zero scientific data

Ya. I agree. Plastic straws at a Brewer Game!

Glenn Marshall wrote:

They give no evidence of a damaged fishery and only hypothesize future issues based on highly debated ideas.

In fact they have been giving evidence that the current regs are just fine.

These reg changes have nothing to do with data OR what the DNR has been recommending.

It’s all about giving the majority of anglers what they want.
And they admit that.

I was very disappointed at the turn out for the surveys.
Now that we see what people want in black and white, we get upset?

Either way, as Glenn suggested, send in your emails.

This will be your last chance if you disagree with them (the regs).

So in this case the public knows best? How about a public poll on how to regulate mille lacs? Think it would be closed right now? I think the biologist should make the regulations, not public opinion. There are changes that should be made that the biology supports. Panfish and catfish mainly, not saying that a minimum on sauger wouldn’t help, but if we change regulations over a popularity contest that is absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical.

Here we go…Mille Lacs.

So the Mille Lacs season is closed until Dec (whatever date), if the DNR took a survey of Mille Lacs anglers and they said “we would like it closed all winter”, wouldn’t you think the DNR would jump on that? Keep more fish in the system and yet keep the majority of the anglers happy. Sounds like a win/win to me.

Oversimplified I know, but it’s the same concept. If the people want a set of regs and the biology is there to allow it…why not give the lady what she wants?

Pretty sure life will go on and we’ll all be fine.

Nothing wrong with listening too the people. Looks like the river system will be able to sustain the new regulations.

With some panfish regulation adjustments, Pool 4 has potential to be one of the best bluegill and perch fisheries in the entire Midwest. Some of the legitimate 10″ bull gills sitting on the wingdams right now are tanks. If you think typical lakes kick out big perch, try your luck in the Spring on Pool 4 and your standards will change completely.

I’m glad to see these fish become more protected.

I don’t have a problem with the new regs , don’t need to keep that many fish in my opinion . I do think these decisions should be based on biology though , not public opinion . Been fishing pools 6 ,7,8 for 30 years , panfish population is as good as I’ve seen it . Cat fishing has been phenomenal . Great fishery with the current regs

buckybadger wrote:

I’m glad to see these fish become more protected.

A very nice elderly lady that started a resort on Leech with her husband once told me that when she was a child in the 1920’s the men would go out on Steam Boat Bay in row boats to fish walleyes. They would come in with boat loads of Eyes. Stack them up like cord wood and feed them to the dogs. Often wondered what fishing for walleyes would be like today if there had been more control back then.

If biologist say it’s not needed, what’s the point of having biologist or having research done on fisheries, if we deem their research or point of view insignificant?

Ignoring research and biologist is just as ignorant as over fishing a resource.

basseyes wrote:

Ignoring research and biologist is just as ignorant as over fishing a resource.

Where’s the research supporting this?

WalleyeChaserMN wrote:

Its about time that this happens and I for one am all for lower limits on walleye’s it should be reduced to 4 fish limit and Panfish should be reduced down to 10 fish . This is a long time coming there are several people that are meat hunters and not true fishermen or women they go out there to keep as many fish as they can and there are a lot of these people where I am from that do it every day and don’t even think of it as hurting the resources. I say do and do it as soon as you can and both MN and Wiscony should have to follow to the same laws of the land and I am sure not one person would think it isn’t the right thing to do but the true meat hunters and not the sportsmen or women that enjoy fishing.

Haha. Wow. So keeping your limit of fish makes you “not a true sportsman”? How’s the view from that high horse?

ajw wrote:

Haha. Wow. So keeping your limit of fish makes you “not a true sportsman”? How’s the view from that high horse?

Huh…..I don’t see where he says this. And people can keep their limit of fish….its just probably going to be 4 fish instead of 6 fish.

Why have your shorts knotted up? You live in North Dakota and have excellent fishing there…..where you can keep your limit and be a sportsman. You’re a lonnnnnng ways away from the MN/WI border waters and I’d dare say you have no dog in the fight.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Now that we see what people want in black and white, we get upset?

Yup.
Of course you know I was upset at the survey.
Was upset with the results.
Now upset with the changes.

Did I see this all coming from a mile away? Yup.
Is this an indication of what is to come in the future. Yes. Am I happy about that. Nope.
Was all this voiced? Yup.

What’s your point brian?
Voice it again? The people have spoken.

Do you support the common man making changes to our resources? Where does that stop.

Yes I fully understand how this all went about. Doesn’t mean I have to love it buddy.

Why is this the fishery where surveys empower change? Why not do it for all lakes one by one…

Downhill slide and yall just lubed the tarp.