Special Regs for In land Channel Cats??

Channel Cat Regs.

With the increasing popularity of Channel Cat fishing, would you be in favor of regulating Channels similar to walleyes, bass and muskies by having a maximum length limit on harvest for certain In Land Waters? The reasoning behind this would be to increase the size of Channels in certain In Land Waters.

For example: All Channels over 26 inches must be released. (I just picked that number out of the air)

Once you answer the poll, please explain your reasons why or why you’re not in favor of this.

Thanks All!

If popularity does continue to increase the resource could be exploited like any other and limits should be set to protect the resource. Hopefully limits could be set before the resource shows a decline from pressure.

Just my two cents.

Honestly, I answered out of some ignorance, because I haven’t fished anything but the Miss for cats and it is usually for flatheads. As it stands, I don’t think that the cat population is being exploited and those who target them I find are conservationally sound. They keep a few small eaters, if any. While I don’t think technically special regs are needed right now, I would’t mind seeing a 1 trophy and smaller posession limit. But I think that way for all fish.

Brian, can you change my answer to “I live in MN and AM in favor of special Channel Cat regs.”?

My brothers have cabins on a lake with special Pike and Walleye regs and my sister on one with special panfish regs. I have seen first hand how effective they are. My sisters lake has monster panfish and since they are panfish, that resource could be destroyed in just a few years.

Trophy cats are fun to catch. If a regulation can make the fishing expierience higher quality and more fun. Than I am behind it.

I cant find my reg book.. but I think there are already regs protecting channels in MN.

I think the inland regs here are 5 cats combined, not more than 2 can be flatheads, only 1 fish over 24″ is sounding about right. I believe the 24″ applies to both species. If it doesnt, it should.

In all honesty. I think pug hit the nail right on the head. There is not much pressure on channel cats that I have seen. I dont see were any reg is going to make any difference at all. Channel cats do quite well in reproducing just about everywhere. The lack of larger fish is probably a forage issue, not a harvest issue.

I hear what pug and Dave are saying…

Let’s try and keep the sippi out of this conversation…because I’m thinking only of In Land Waters.

I know it’s apples to oranges in a way…but the special regs on the Red River in Canada have proven to be a very effective way of increasing the size of channels for everyone…

I am aware that this poll will be slightly skewed as most of us don’t know what the limits are…as most of us are Catch Photo and Release.

You are correct Dave. Inland waters are set at a five fish limit, (only 1 fish over 24″. Not more than two can be flatheads)

Just thought there might be some folks against this law and included it.

I agree with pug and Dave also. As it stands I am allergic to fish and seafood, so I can’t eat fish anyway. Talk about being addicted, can’t even eat them and I honestly should not handle them too much. It hasn’t sent me to the hospital yet, knock on wood. So I guess what I am saying is if there is a chance it will improve our fishing, I am all for it

Can we add a subclause to state that anyone who purposely eats a catfish has to receive a full Psych. Eval? Yuck!

Little B?

If you don’t like cat’s…why are you holding cat bait in your avitar?

I should have qualified that statement! I have a healthy respect for those slimy, stinky, ugly denizens of the flooded timber, I just have no desire to meet one for lunch!

But in all seriousness, in answer to the original question, I am totally in favor of regulations that would create a better trophy fishery for channels in Iowa, and this really shouldn’t inconvenience anyone, a catfish over twenty inches, in my opinion IS pretty well inedible, sometimes the little ones are okay, but there’s just not much point in keeping a ten pounder.

And why keep a cat to eat when you can just eat the left over bait. Wait a minute, if you eat all the bait, what would you fish with the next time. What a dilema.

gocatfish, that is quite a dedication to forego your allergies and fish. I guess you don’t kiss them before the release then? I guess we can make an exception for you.

These potential regs would never hurt me personally, but they have a shot at helping me immensely, if in any way shape or form…even a fraction of the Red river’s success can be duplicated. Wis. has at least two bodies of water with the right genes and forage to produce fish in excess of 30 lbs. why not nurture that
situation. Anybody remember the picture of the 44.5 inch channel I posted last year? Why not improve all our chances at fish such as that?

Jason.

The conservation laws in effect are protecting and conserving the cats in MN just like the rest of the fish.
I do agree with the management direction of the Red River for conserving trophy fish. If after appropreate research on the part of the DNR to involved waters checked out. I would support just about any conservation actions For size or limit.
thanks
Larry

Yea no kissing fish b4 they swim free. I do let them get thier picture taken with me though The worst I reaction I have had is my eye swelling shut one night on the Minnesota river. I had just cut some fresh sucker up and got an itch on my eyelid, not thinking at all I itched away and 30 mins later I couldn’t see out of my right eye. Let me tell you driving on the river at night with one good eye is pretty nerve racking. needless to say it was a very long slow uncomfortable ride home. Good thing is over the counter allergy meds clear any reaction I get enough so I can keep fishing without too much irritation. Now I just bring GOOP hand wipes and a couple allergy pills and I am ready to go. I also wear surgical gloves when cutting my bait.

Quote:

---

Yea no kissing fish b4 they swim free. I do let them get thier picture taken with me though The worst I reaction I have had is my eye swelling shut one night on the Minnesota river. I had just cut some fresh sucker up and got an itch on my eyelid, not thinking at all I itched away and 30 mins later I couldn’t see out of my right eye. Let me tell you driving on the river at night with one good eye is pretty nerve racking. needless to say it was a very long slow uncomfortable ride home. Good thing is over the counter allergy meds clear any reaction I get enough so I can keep fishing without too much irritation. Now I just bring GOOP hand wipes and a couple allergy pills and I am ready to go. I also wear surgical gloves when cutting my bait.

---

I guess the traditional bullhead fight is out too.

Brian,

When you say “Inland waters” do you mean lakes? Are there lakes with fishable populations of Channels?

Rootski

Yes. The Horseshoe chain is pretty well chock full of them. Long Lake in New Brighton has them. The DNR’s website is a very useful tool to find lakes with channels as well.

Here is a nice list of the ones in the Metro area.

Twin Cities channel cat lakes

Yup…Rootski…what Dfresh said.

Great feed back guys.

Whoah! I think I just found my new bullhead pond!

Quote:

---

I hear what pug and Dave are saying…

Let’s try and keep the sippi out of this conversation…because I’m thinking only of In Land Waters.

Just thought there might be some folks against this law and included it.

---

Brian.. stop and think for just a second.. there is about 400 miles of In Land specified water of the mississippi river from hastings north. The Mississippi and Minnesota rivers in areas other than border waters are probably home to 80% (95% if you dont consider the lower mississippi or st croix)of the channel catfish in the state.. and is where most people fish for channel catfish.

Not all of us fish from pool 3 and down.

I guess I am not sure what you are asking anymore.. Considering stocking small lakes for trophy channels or what?

Im going fishing.. you guys figure it out.

Great info, thanks!

I beleive our current regulation of 1 over 24″ is just fine. There is no need for further regulation, even to attempt to produce a trophy channel cat water.
For one thing, there is very little pressure on channel cats in Minnesota. Trophy waters would be occuring naturaly. You need to have the right natural ecosystem to produce trophy fish, you can’t just put a regulation on any water and expect it to produce all 20 to 30lb fish.

You also can’t compare the regulations of the Red to our waters. For one thing the regulations did not produce the trophy fishery on the Red. It existed before the regulation. It may have had a part of maintaining the fishery but there has been no studies in Manitoba to prove that it has had any part in maintaining that fishery. Heck there has been no catfish studies on that water at all.
What is obvious however is part of the reason the Red is trophy water is its ecosystem consisting of a very LARGE body of water that provides and endless source of forage for channel cats.

If you take a look on the state side of the Red, there are no flatheads competing with the channels which helps to produce the larger than average sized fish in those stretches. Further south on the Red where fish are smaller, its simply due to the size of the river.

Your not going to produce trophy cat waters by trying to play mother nature. If the waters don’t have the resources to produce large fish, no amount of regulation will do it for you.

Dang!

Every time Fishhead posts…the thread dies!

Can anyone think of a lake that the channel fishing as improved because of the limits…in MN??

I’m not a fisheries biologist by any means…however…if we…(a state DNR) found a lake that the average size of channels was declining in…and it wasn’t because of forage…

Wouldn’t we be in favor of lenght limits??

Quote:

---

Every time Fishhead posts…the thread dies!

---

I sure hope its not because people think I know what I am talking about! I could very well be wrong and in most cases I am. Just ask my wife!

I can’t speak for minnesota, I am more concerned with Wis. But like I said I know of two bodies of water in Wis. that have coughed up 30 lb + channels. The word is out on Mendota, and the average size is declining…so I know regs such as this would be a real shot in the arm for Wis. We now have site specific trophy regs, on Pike, based on the body of water’s potential….why not channels?

Jason.

I would be in favor of it, I know they already have a possesion limit on inland waters in Ia. but I think a length limit would definatly produce bigger fish, like mentioned before anthing over 5 pounds just doesn’t taste very good.

Ed

Sounds like you’ve answered my question JetCat.

I’m wondering if there is any data or survey’s taken that would support lenght limits increasing the size of CHANNEL CATs.

Fishhead…I’m sort of in the same boat as you…except..my wife always say…”she’s wrong and I’m right…but that’s just the way it is”. Then she get’s her way.

I have fished the Red River once at Selkirk and every Channel Cat was about 12 lbs. or more. To do day I don’t understand why we didn’t catch anything smaller and also why it is rare, at least for me, to catch a Channel Cat over 10 lbs. on the Mississippi.

Any further inoput you have would be appreciated.

I have seen that on fishing shows on the Red. Of course they do edit them, but all the guides say you might have to wait an hour, but it will always be over 10#; actually I think they said always around 20#. The Red is just a special ecosystem for channels. Not sure if they have or ever figured out why. The Mississippi is more a typical ecosystem. Do you use live suckers for your Miss. cats?