Lake of the Woods anglers caught with 72 walleyes, saugers

  • Musky Ed
    Posts: 673
    #2074050

    BK, in case there was some confusion in what I said, I most certainly do agree that they are all poachers, but just emphasizing the fact that alot of popular guides are just as guilty, or in fact, more so guilty than the few fisherman of catching over their limit, but everyone, including the dnr, seems to want to avoid this subject. Heck, it’s so blatant at times, we even see this practice on some of our local fishing shows. But just maybe the guide actually has no fish in his freezer at home at the time.

    Umy
    South Metro
    Posts: 1942
    #2074052

    In all of my years – only been checked once.
    I have been out 133 times in the past two years ( not counting ice)
    and have never even seen an officer.
    Would gladly pay more too if that meant enforcement of the rules!!

    Umy
    South Metro
    Posts: 1942
    #2074053

    Enforcement is a disappointingly small portion of the DNR budget. The DNR has a huge scope of responsibility in additional to hunting and fishing management – forestry management, land management (state parks, SNAs, WMAs and more), mineral rights oversight, non-game fish and wildlife management, environmental impact statement vetting and more. The idiots in the legislature continually add scope, add administrative overhead and cut funding. The Legislature is still pissed that the voters took control of money for the outdoors out of their control with the Legacy Amendment and do all in their power to claw back funds. The DNR isn’t perfect but they get a bad rap. It’s the Legislature that is largely at fault for the weaknesses of the DNR.

    That Legacy fund was a joke. Got Pi- – ed away to agencies and orgs that A. did not need it B. Used it fund the EXACT same programming as other publicly funded agencies C. gave it to orgs that has their own funding streams already ( spent 34 years in the public sector – this is ACCURATE)

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #2074054

    I guess I just haven’t seen that Ed, but then I don’t get a chance to watch much tv.
    I do know that the DNR follows up on every complaint they recieve and it seems that it if was a recorded show, it would be easy for them to step in.

    I find it hard to swallow that any “high profile” guide would want to be called out for taking any illegal fish. It’s not like it’s going to be good for their business.

    I know we had a guide on IDO a few years back that posted a lot of fish. People assumed that he had an over limit in his freezer. Once the DNR knocked on his door, they confiscated a package of venison that was gifted to him although improperly labeled. It was returned to him after the gifting was cleared up.

    I don’t know about others but I would be making a tip call if I watched it on TV. Not saying it doesn’t happen…but saying I would do my part.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #2074057

    That Legacy fund was a joke. Got Pi- – ed away to agencies and orgs that A. did not need it B. Used it fund the EXACT same programming as other publicly funded agencies C. gave it to orgs that has their own funding streams already ( spent 34 years in the public sector – this is ACCURATE)

    I’m not on the Legacy Fund Oversight Committee. Could you tell me which of these projects wasn’t value added to MN? Not being confrontational, just don’t have the time to go through each one to see if they fall under A,B or C.

    Projects

    Brad Dimond
    Posts: 1434
    #2074065

    Umy wrote:
    That Legacy fund was a joke. Got Pi- – ed away to agencies and orgs that A. did not need it B. Used it fund the EXACT same programming as other publicly funded agencies C. gave it to orgs that has their own funding streams already ( spent 34 years in the public sector – this is ACCURATE)

    I don’t disagree that the Legacy Amendment has not had the intended impact. As I state earlier, IMO it is the fault of the Legislature. Those clowns can’t look at any funding stream without sticking their greedy fingers in to it, turning it into a political football or both.

    Missouri has many of the same issues related to their dedicated outdoor funding but they seem to manage them somewhat better than we do in Minnesota.

    gimruis
    Plymouth, MN
    Posts: 17110
    #2074066

    In all of my years – only been checked once.
    I have been out 133 times in the past two years ( not counting ice)
    and have never even seen an officer.

    I have been fishing and hunting central MN for over 20 years now and I have not once run into a conservation officer. I frequent two of the more popular lakes in the area too, Mille Lacs and Minnetonka. The only DNR I encounter are the interns/invasive species surveyors at the public access. Almost all of my hunting is on private land though so I wouldn’t necessarily expect to see one there.

    My Father and I did once get pulled over by the Hennepin County Water Patrol many years ago on Lake Minnetonka because he thought we were idling too fast in a minimum wake zone. They checked our PFDs and watercraft registration. Didn’t even check our angling licenses.

    KP
    Hudson, WI
    Posts: 1361
    #2074067

    I go up to LOTW every winter and go through Ballards Resort. The past 4 years in a row we have had the DNR stop at our shack and check our licenses. Granted probably easier to check up there when all the houses are in a similar area.

    Bearcat89
    North branch, mn
    Posts: 20051
    #2074069

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Umy wrote:</div>
    In all of my years – only been checked once.
    I have been out 133 times in the past two years ( not counting ice)
    and have never even seen an officer.

    I have been fishing and hunting central MN for over 20 years now and I have not once run into a conservation officer. I frequent two of the more popular lakes in the area too, Mille Lacs and Minnetonka. The only DNR I encounter are the interns/invasive species surveyors at the public access. Almost all of my hunting is on private land though so I wouldn’t necessarily expect to see one there.

    My Father and I did once get pulled over by the Hennepin County Water Patrol many years ago on Lake Minnetonka because he thought we were idling too fast in a minimum wake zone. They checked our PFDs and watercraft registration. Didn’t even check our angling licenses.

    If you weren’t physically fishing then why would they check that?

    gimruis
    Plymouth, MN
    Posts: 17110
    #2074070

    If you weren’t physically fishing then why would they check that?

    Well we were clearly in a fishing boat and had rod/reels on board sitting out.

    They are mostly looking for drunk boaters out there. This was in May before the warmth of summer had arrived.

    Netguy
    Minnetonka
    Posts: 3155
    #2074072

    I was surprised to see all the people were young. Usually it’s the old timers who grew up keeping everything they caught.

    Jon Jordan
    Keymaster
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 6005
    #2074076

    Don’t want to get too far off topic, but Legacy funds have been wasted since day one. Here is an example:

    Joe Soucheray: Your tax dollars bought $10K sheet on poles, aka ‘art’

    (Pioneer Press: John Doman)
    By Joe Soucheray | [email protected] | Pioneer Press
    PUBLISHED: August 12, 2013 at 11:01 p.m. | UPDATED: November 7, 2015 at 12:18 p.m.
    When voters passed the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment in 2008, did you think you were going to provide $10,000 to some woman to hang a sheet in her yard?
    I didn’t think so. The voters had only one thought in their heads. They were thinking of that old Hamm’s Beer sign behind the bar that shows the rippling, pure, blue water of a northwoods lake with towering pines hugging the shoreline. Why, in voting to additionally tax themselves, the voters practically could smell the campfires.
    Who wouldn’t want clean water and towering pines?
    I was dismissed as possibly too radical to be offering counsel, but no real good can come from giving a government a new pot of money because the government will only grow in such a way to use the money up.
    Oh, the voters knew there was something in the amendment about funding the arts, but the important thing was to save those pine trees and those deep blue lakes, and if a few people got a few bucks to create a bronze sculpture of some famous Minnesotan, so be it.
    Did you sign up for some woman to get $10,000 to hang up a sheet in her yard? In an eye-opening piece in Sunday’s Pioneer Press, we learned that the expansive Minnesota State Arts Board has multiple tens of millions of dollars of legacy money to disperse as part of the arts and cultural component of the amendment.
    The woman who hung up the sheet, Barbara Claussen, apparently had a dispute with a neighbor. She felt threatened. She decided that she would establish a “barrier” in her yard that consisted of a piece of cloth about the size of a closet door. She hung the cloth on a contrivance of aluminum tent poles.
    Why she thought that was an effective barrier or how it occurred to her to apply for public money is anybody’s guess, but why the state arts board actually granted her $10,000 is not a mystery at all.
    We learned something crucial in that Sunday story. An unelected group of people who make up the board have no standards whatsoever that apply to proposals for public money. Yes, they turn down proposals, but the board’s director, Sue Gens, said the board does not decide what is good art but intends instead to provide artistic experiences.
    In other words, we, the great unwashed, do not understand art and have been told that we will be expected to provide experiences so that art — which can be quite literally anything — should be accommodated with public funding. Art — which can be quite literally anything — needs to be made available to more of the public and so on.
    But there is a fatal flaw right from the get-go. There is nothing public about Claussen hanging up a sheet with a butterfly on it, or whatever, in her own yard. And as for the $10,000, shouldn’t the board go back to her and reclaim about $9,992? A couple of aluminum poles and a sheet couldn’t cost much more than about $8. Even then, why should she get $8 for something in her own yard, which is not public?
    Other examples of grant winners include a guy in Ely who got $10,000 so he could paddle around on Lake Superior in the hopes of getting inspired for the furniture he wishes to make, and an author who got $10,000 to develop her social-media skills to strengthen her identity and grow her audience. That’s what happens when you give the government a new pot of money. They will spend that money.
    The other morning, on the corner of Fourth and Wabasha streets, a young guy had set up about five overturned five-gallon plastic tubs. He was beating on them with drumsticks. But he wasn’t any good. He had no rhythm. There was nothing that suggested syncopation. He was just banging the sticks on the tubs.
    With no standards in place, no means to measure worth and credibility, that guy is as good a bet as anybody to get $10,000 from the arts board “to demonstrate the nature of random sound in an urban environment.”
    And all you saw was that Hamm’s Beer sign behind the bar at that place up at the lake.
    Joe Soucheray can be reached at [email protected] or 651-228-5474. Soucheray is heard from 1 to 4 p.m. weekdays on 1500ESPN.

    Netguy
    Minnetonka
    Posts: 3155
    #2074081

    I go up to LOTW every winter and go through Ballards Resort. The past 4 years in a row we have had the DNR stop at our shack and check our licenses. Granted probably easier to check up there when all the houses are in a similar area.

    3 or 4 years ago I fished out of Ballard’s two weeks in a row before Christmas. Got checked both trips. One time we were getting close to our limit and we were going to count them when we caught the next fish. When he asked how many we had, I said 20-22. There were 3 fisherman. He said, “Oh, I’ll count them for ya.” It was 21 and legal for walleyes. I knew we weren’t over limit.

    I’ve been checked on Red twice in open water. One time I hadn’t kept any yet since they had to be under 17 inches. He told me where to go to catch keeping sized fish and he was right. The other time they checked our licenses but didn’t check our fish. They did a safety check. I didn’t have a fire extinguisher since I put it in the house for the winter and forgot to put it back in the boat. Didn’t give me a ticket but asked me what I was going to do when I got home. I said put the fire extinguisher in the boat.

    Checked once on Red during the winter. 3 fisherman. Kept our limit of 3 or 4, cleaned them and went to JRs and cooked them all. Ate most of them that night and finished the rest for breakfast. Kept another limit that day and while cleaning them at West Wind there were another group in cleaning. They only had a few perch, walleye and northern. One saw our fish and said “You did pretty good?” I said, “We did the same yesterday.” We ate about half the fish that night at West Wind.
    The next day we kept the fish we needed for our limit. As we were coming off the lake at West Wind’s, the conservation officer was sitting there. He followed us back to the cabin. Checked our fish for that day and the fish we had in the cabin. Everything was OK except one walleye touched 17 inches and it had to be under. Asked what we used to measure it and said a tape measure. Suggested we get a bump board similar to what he used. Asked to check the back of the truck, found nothing. Asked what was in the snowmobile trailer. I said a snowmobile and flip over fish house. Rooted around in there a little and found nothing. Went on his way. So the other group of guys in the fish cleaning shack must have called TIP on us.
    The next spring was the first time you had to trailer with the boat plug out. I drove up to Red to fish it in the spring and right when I turned of 72 to the main river access, the same officer was there checking for boat plugs.
    They can check me anytime. Always legal.

    Brad Dimond
    Posts: 1434
    #2074104

    Jon Jordan –

    Absolutely agree that the compromises made to get the Legacy Amendment passes sucked. Arts, parks & trails as well as the fish & game funding should have been discrete but it never would have made the ballot without those compromises. Not all of the funding is well used but it’s better than the alternative (morons in Legislature playing politics with DNR funding).

    Jon Jordan
    Keymaster
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 6005
    #2074118

    Absolutely agree that the compromises made to get the Legacy Amendment passes sucked

    The amendment passed with no art/parks funding. (Only Lessard on ballot) Then the greedy politicians got their grubby little paws into the fund. F-ing criminals. chased

    -J.

    stout93
    Becker MN
    Posts: 957
    #2074122

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>KP wrote:</div>
    I go up to LOTW every winter and go through Ballards Resort. The past 4 years in a row we have had the DNR stop at our shack and check our licenses. Granted probably easier to check up there when all the houses are in a similar area.

    3 or 4 years ago I fished out of Ballard’s two weeks in a row before Christmas. Got checked both trips. One time we were getting close to our limit and we were going to count them when we caught the next fish. When he asked how many we had, I said 20-22. There were 3 fisherman. He said, “Oh, I’ll count them for ya.” It was 21 and legal for walleyes. I knew we weren’t over limit.

    I’ve been checked on Red twice in open water. One time I hadn’t kept any yet since they had to be under 17 inches. He told me where to go to catch keeping sized fish and he was right. The other time they checked our licenses but didn’t check our fish. They did a safety check. I didn’t have a fire extinguisher since I put it in the house for the winter and forgot to put it back in the boat. Didn’t give me a ticket but asked me what I was going to do when I got home. I said put the fire extinguisher in the boat.

    Checked once on Red during the winter. 3 fisherman. Kept our limit of 3 or 4, cleaned them and went to JRs and cooked them all. Ate most of them that night and finished the rest for breakfast. Kept another limit that day and while cleaning them at West Wind there were another group in cleaning. They only had a few perch, walleye and northern. One saw our fish and said “You did pretty good?” I said, “We did the same yesterday.” We ate about half the fish that night at West Wind.
    The next day we kept the fish we needed for our limit. As we were coming off the lake at West Wind’s, the conservation officer was sitting there. He followed us back to the cabin. Checked our fish for that day and the fish we had in the cabin. Everything was OK except one <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye touched 17 inches and it had to be under. Asked what we used to measure it and said a tape measure. Suggested we get a bump board similar to what he used. Asked to check the back of the truck, found nothing. Asked what was in the snowmobile trailer. I said a snowmobile and flip over fish house. Rooted around in there a little and found nothing. Went on his way. So the other group of guys in the fish cleaning shack must have called TIP on us.
    The next spring was the first time you had to trailer with the boat plug out. I drove up to Red to fish it in the spring and right when I turned of 72 to the main river access, the same officer was there checking for boat plugs.
    They can check me anytime. Always legal.

    So maybe I’m confused and not following, but isn’t the possession limit 6?

    Karry Kyllo
    Posts: 1261
    #2074133

    The possession limit is 6, but in addition to the three adults there was also a juvenile involved. Each had their 6 fish limit of walleyes and saugers. Since they were legal for 24 walleyes and saugers, 72 walleyes and saugers makes them 48 fish over their limit.

    Netguy
    Minnetonka
    Posts: 3155
    #2074135

    So maybe I’m confused and not following, but isn’t the possession limit 6?

    For the Upper Red Lake story, the limit was 3 or 4 walleyes?

    For the LOW story that was 3-4 years ago it was 8 aggregate with only 4 walleye. Now it’s 6 aggregate with only 4 walleye.

    stout93
    Becker MN
    Posts: 957
    #2074147

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>stout93 wrote:</div>
    So maybe I’m confused and not following, but isn’t the possession limit 6?

    For the Upper Red Lake story, the limit was 3 or 4 walleyes?

    For the LOW story that was 3-4 years ago it was 8 aggregate with only 4 walleye. Now it’s 6 aggregate with only 4 walleye.

    THanks, yeah I was referring to the LOW story. Must have read the post wrong since it sounded like a daily limit was being used…

    Sylvanboat
    Posts: 980
    #2074179

    In Illinois all govt employees work from home. So DNR cannot check you unless you go to their house. Privacy laws prohibit the state from disclosing addresses.

    TheFamousGrouse
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 11545
    #2074297

    Enforcement of existing rules would do just as much to protect resources as reducing bag limits.
    I know everyone hates “paying more”, but I’d still gladly pay another $10 a year on my fishing license if I knew it went 100% towards CO’s in the field enforcing bag limits.

    Totally agree, but the bigger issue is not the guys on the water or in the truck with an over-limit of fish. By far the bigger issue is the rampant violation of the possession limits.

    The last time I was checked by a CO while fishing was on a WI trout stream over 10 years ago. I haven’t been checked in MN for over 25 years.

    Just look at the DNR’s roster of Conservation Officers. I saw the list once and the areas they cover and it’s unbelievable how few there are and then do the math on the COs per hundred square miles.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16634
    #2074302

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
    Enforcement of existing rules would do just as much to protect resources as reducing bag limits.
    I know everyone hates “paying more”, but I’d still gladly pay another $10 a year on my fishing license if I knew it went 100% towards CO’s in the field enforcing bag limits.

    Totally agree, but the bigger issue is not the guys on the water or in the truck with an over-limit of fish. By far the bigger issue is the rampant violation of the possession limits.

    The last time I was checked by a CO while fishing was on a WI trout stream over 10 years ago. I haven’t been checked in MN for over 25 years.

    Just look at the DNR’s roster of Conservation Officers. I saw the list once and the areas they cover and it’s unbelievable how few there are and then do the math on the COs per hundred square miles.

    From a reliable source….there are 185 Co’s in the State. You read that right, 185

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 11447
    #2074305

    I fish multiple times a week in the summer and have not been stoped in 20 years. Honestly wish I would as then I would know others were getting checked. I have called TIP on a couple using two lines pan fishing. (Minnesota)
    I told them two lines were illegal in Minnesota and they said mind your own business. I left before I ever saw an officer.
    I have seen folks using 2 lines corking on Mille Lacs and have politely reminded them of the laws. They didn’t seem to care either.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16634
    #2074308

    There are 87 counties in Minnesota, so we have a tad over 2 CO’s per county.

    gimruis
    Plymouth, MN
    Posts: 17110
    #2074314

    Maybe the solution is to make the punishment more severe. I think we can all agree that there is a lack of enforcement due to a lack of officers.

    Sort of like getting caught baiting for deer. Zero tolerance. If there was the threat of losing something valuable like a rifle, fishing rod/reel, or hunting/fishing privileges on the first offense, perhaps more people would voluntarily follow the rules. I don’t know, I’m just spit balling here.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16634
    #2074316

    The issue there becomes the slots. Hard to nail a guy hard if he is 1/4″ over on the measurement. However you can nail the hell outa them on a gross infraction.

    Imagine putting these guys names, photo’s, their crime and the fine on a billboard in their town. Think somebody else would think twice?

    Brad Dimond
    Posts: 1434
    #2074324

    Minnesota data:
    86,939 square miles
    155 COs, more than 10% of positions are open
    >560 sq. miles per CO on average
    5.7M people in the state
    1.1M anglers
    550k hunters
    CO pay range 56,835 to $74,709

    It’s insane. There are 3,000 employees at the DNR, 5% of the DNR employees are in the field doing enforcement. Needs to change!

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16634
    #2074329

    They have been top heavy in St. Paul since I was a kid. The question always is…do you give the white shirts a raise or hire more field staff. The answer is in the numbers.

    Dan
    Southeast MN
    Posts: 3748
    #2074332

    It’s insane. There are 3,000 employees at the DNR, 5% of the DNR employees are in the field doing enforcement. Needs to change!

    Be curious to see how that compares to law enforcement. Obviously you need admin support, instructors, etc. but at least to my knowledge you get the law enforcement done being out and about. Can’t enforce or even have a deterrent presence if there’s 5% in the field.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16634
    #2074343

    I would think with 185 CO’s it would be easier to poach than be a drug dealer.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 91 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.