Looks like limits are under review.

Stay up on the latest effecting
Our Minnesota Fishing – Its a New Year!

Jan 6, 2021

NEW YEAR’S LETTER FROM MN-FISH

WALKER, MN – Well, we’re off to 2021 and hopefully a better year for you and yours. Certainly our fishing days will be much brighter as the threat of Covid and our memories of the pandemic fade away. We can only wish for that.

Meanwhile, your MN-FISH board members are busy planning fish-improvement ideas with the Department of Natural Resources in the coming weeks ahead. We also intend to be active with Legislators in supporting or opposing legislation that impacts our treasured pastime.

As a member, please feel free to contact us about fishing issues that are on your mind.
If you don’t offer your two-cents, nothing will change. Get involved, In this new year, we also ask that you renew your membership by going to our website, MN-FISH.com.

Your continued support is critical. As a member, you’ll receive email alerts to pending legislation that you may or may not want to support by contacting your legislator.
At the moment, we are asking DNR to provide updates on their walleye stocking levels, programs and policies.

We also will be exploring the state’s investments in public boat access programs, including questions about access maintenance, parking and courtesy docks or lack thereof and who determines the presence or absence of courtesy docks.

As the legislative session progresses, we expect the DNR and lawmakers will review the state’s six walleye limit and consider a four walleye limit statewide. The issue has plenty of pros and cons and promises to generate a hefty debate, which may lead to another review of DNR’s walleye stocking efforts?

You may already have heard about the increase in fishing pressure on state lakes as a result of the pandemic. What does this mean down the road? Will new angling restrictions be warranted to give the fish resources a break? Something to think about.

As you can see, there’s no shortage of fishing issues ahead in the new year. But that’s good. Our mission doesn’t change as we intend to help shorten the time between bites in this great fishing state of Minnesota.

Together with your grassroots support we can KEEP Minnesota Fishing!

Good fishing,

Ron Schara, MN-FISH President

PS. Please renew your membership today!

Thanks for following, supporting and being engaged with MN-Fish! Together with your grassroots support we can KEEP Minnesota Fishing!

http://www.MN-FISH.com • 833-3MN-FISH (366-3474) • [email protected]
Contact: [email protected]

MN-Fish.com

Eelpoutguy wrote:

In this new year, we also ask that you renew your membership by going to our website, MN-FISH.com.

Your continued support is critical.

Why does the old saying “a fool and his money are soon parted” come to mind?

I have to manage to actually CATCH 4 Walleye before I can worry about what I can keep.

Maybe if the DNR were to make a 1 sq.mi. grid over the entire state and have different regulations for each mile it would help…
And color code it too.

mark-bruzek wrote:

Maybe if the DNR were to make a 1 sq.mi. grid over the entire state and have different regulations for each mile it would help…
And color code it too.

Making the statewide possession limit would remove some special regulation language, not add to it. Leech and Vermilion are two that come to mind. There are more lakes with special regulations of a 3 walleye possession limit so maybe they should to that instead for maximum simplification

Dutchboy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
In this new year, we also ask that you renew your membership by going to our website, MN-FISH.com.

Your continued support is critical.

Why does the old saying “a fool and his money are soon parted” come to mind?

It shouldn’t. I can’t comment on MN Fish specifically, but organizations are a whole lot more effective than individuals and organizations generally don’t function without money. Individuals with strong feelings about how things should go ought to find an organization that amplifies their voice and pay dues to it. The organization should use those dues responsibly and the member should keep in mind that nothing is perfect.

john23 wrote:

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

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
In this new year, we also ask that you renew your membership by going to our website, MN-FISH.com.

Your continued support is critical.

Why does the old saying “a fool and his money are soon parted” come to mind?

It shouldn’t. I can’t comment on MN Fish specifically, but organizations are a whole lot more effective than individuals and organizations generally don’t function without money. Individuals with strong feelings about how things should go ought to find an organization that amplifies their voice and pay dues to it. The organization should use those dues responsibly and the member should keep in mind that nothing is perfect.

I don’t mind paying for a voice. I just have no proof they do anything except cash a check. In fact that e-mail was about the first communication I saw since the last time they were begging for money. Show me what you do and I’ll be happy to show you the money.

I’m not a MN Fish member and will have to see more organization and communication before I would join/donate.

However, I think this is probably close to a done deal. Technology, pressure, AIS, etc. are all things that are often cited as collective reasons to reduce limits on species. It is hard to argue some of the points. It’s not a matter of “if”, but “when.” I think more precise and strict limits will continue to become common. If this protects our resources I can understand and get behind it.

My biggest concern is enforcement. We can pass laws and changes until we are blue in the face…without enforcement it doesn’t mean anything. It’s already illegal to operate a boat while intoxicated, stuff freezers, not control your wake, etc. Those issues are still a major concern though.

buckybadger wrote:

I’m not a MN Fish member and will have to see more organization and communication before I would join/donate.

However, I think this is probably close to a done deal.

It could very well be, and to what extent MN-Fish played a roll…we don’t know. However a reduced walleye bag limit was being considered long before MN-FISH was in existence.

Maybe they came along and helped the final push, or they came along and latched onto the coattails of an already likely accomplishment.

Perfect opportunity to attach their badge to a success and then make their plea for more support $$’s.

“Good afternoon. As you know, there has been a great deal of discussion over the last several years regarding the switch of the statewide walleye bag from 6 to 4. Senator Carrie Ruud and Representative Rob Ecklund will be introducing a bill to that effect this session, and the Department intends to support it and work with the legislators moving forward. This has moved rather quickly lately, and may be mentioned in the press tomorrow. So I apologize that I can’t provide you with further information right away, but we wanted you to hear from us first. I will share with you our rationale for support as soon as I can. I appreciate all the time and effort you all have put into this, and ALL the group’s work.

Happy New Year to all, may 2021 be a better year.”

Brad Parsons

Division of Fish and Wildlife | Fisheries Section Chief

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Dutchboy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>john23 wrote:</div>

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

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
In this new year, we also ask that you renew your membership by going to our website, MN-FISH.com.

Your continued support is critical.

Why does the old saying “a fool and his money are soon parted” come to mind?

It shouldn’t. I can’t comment on MN Fish specifically, but organizations are a whole lot more effective than individuals and organizations generally don’t function without money. Individuals with strong feelings about how things should go ought to find an organization that amplifies their voice and pay dues to it. The organization should use those dues responsibly and the member should keep in mind that nothing is perfect.

I don’t mind paying for a voice. I just have no proof they do anything except cash a check. In fact that e-mail was about the first communication I saw since the last time they were begging for money. Show me what you do and I’ll be happy to show you the money.

That’s fair!

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
I’m not a MN Fish member and will have to see more organization and communication before I would join/donate.

However, I think this is probably close to a done deal.

It could very well be, and to what extent MN-Fish played a roll…we don’t know. However a reduced walleye bag limit was being considered long before MN-FISH was in existence.

Maybe they came along and helped the final push, or they came along and latched onto the coattails of an already likely accomplishment.

Perfect opportunity to attach their badge to a success and then make their plea for more support $$’s.

“Good afternoon. As you know, there has been a great deal of discussion over the last several years regarding the switch of the statewide walleye bag from 6 to 4. Senator Carrie Ruud and Representative Rob Ecklund will be introducing a bill to that effect this session, and the Department intends to support it and work with the legislators moving forward. This has moved rather quickly lately, and may be mentioned in the press tomorrow. So I apologize that I can’t provide you with further information right away, but we wanted you to hear from us first. I will share with you our rationale for support as soon as I can. I appreciate all the time and effort you all have put into this, and ALL the group’s work.

Happy New Year to all, may 2021 be a better year.”

Brad Parsons

Division of Fish and Wildlife | Fisheries Section Chief

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

I am generally very fond of lower bag limits, but I sure wish the state legislature would stay out of specific fish and game issues. I believe it should be left to the DNR.

john23 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
I’m not a MN Fish member and will have to see more organization and communication before I would join/donate.

However, I think this is probably close to a done deal.

It could very well be, and to what extent MN-Fish played a roll…we don’t know. However a reduced walleye bag limit was being considered long before MN-FISH was in existence.

Maybe they came along and helped the final push, or they came along and latched onto the coattails of an already likely accomplishment.

Perfect opportunity to attach their badge to a success and then make their plea for more support $$’s.

“Good afternoon. As you know, there has been a great deal of discussion over the last several years regarding the switch of the statewide walleye bag from 6 to 4. Senator Carrie Ruud and Representative Rob Ecklund will be introducing a bill to that effect this session, and the Department intends to support it and work with the legislators moving forward. This has moved rather quickly lately, and may be mentioned in the press tomorrow. So I apologize that I can’t provide you with further information right away, but we wanted you to hear from us first. I will share with you our rationale for support as soon as I can. I appreciate all the time and effort you all have put into this, and ALL the group’s work.

Happy New Year to all, may 2021 be a better year.”

Brad Parsons

Division of Fish and Wildlife | Fisheries Section Chief

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

I am generally very fond of lower bag limits, but I sure wish the state legislature would stay out of specific fish and game issues. I believe it should be left to the DNR.

I agree. I don’t hire a truck driver to wire my house. I don’t hire a bartender to install plumbing. I don’t hire a teacher to perform surgeries. I sure as **** don’t want entitled lawmakers in St. Paul deciding the fate of our resources.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
I’m not a MN Fish member and will have to see more organization and communication before I would join/donate.

However, I think this is probably close to a done deal.

It could very well be, and to what extent MN-Fish played a roll…we don’t know. However a reduced walleye bag limit was being considered long before MN-FISH was in existence.

Maybe they came along and helped the final push, or they came along and latched onto the coattails of an already likely accomplishment.

Perfect opportunity to attach their badge to a success and then make their plea for more support $$’s.

“Good afternoon. As you know, there has been a great deal of discussion over the last several years regarding the switch of the statewide walleye bag from 6 to 4. Senator Carrie Ruud and Representative Rob Ecklund will be introducing a bill to that effect this session, and the Department intends to support it and work with the legislators moving forward. This has moved rather quickly lately, and may be mentioned in the press tomorrow. So I apologize that I can’t provide you with further information right away, but we wanted you to hear from us first. I will share with you our rationale for support as soon as I can. I appreciate all the time and effort you all have put into this, and ALL the group’s work.

Happy New Year to all, may 2021 be a better year.”

Brad Parsons

Division of Fish and Wildlife | Fisheries Section Chief

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

This is definitely an opportunity for a little “look what we did” type of advertising without knowing if there was any involvement whatsoever or will be. It also is confusing to see that there has been little, if any, communication between the directors of MN Fish and donors…and now all of a sudden this information of supporting limit reductions is released.

I support lower bag limits in most cases and also support anglers uniting and organizing. There are thousands of anglers who have the financial means and experience to create positive change while protecting resources and increasing opportunities. However, if this MN Fish group is going to be “the voice” of anglers, they’re going to have to step up their game. It will need someone whose sole job or day to day work is directing it, rather than a group of well known anglers in the industry who seem to promote things when it is convenient or timely.

I’m in favor of it. Now that we can’t keep as many, we should be able to use a second line.

3Rivers wrote:

I’m in favor of it. Now that we can’t keep as many, we should be able to use a second line.

X2

Heck – I sent them another check this year and on the memo line I wrote
“I wanna fish 2 corks in the summer”

Would allowing a 2nd line, double mortality rates from C & R ?

big_g wrote:

Would allowing a 2nd line, double mortality rates from C & R ?

We will have to ask the experts, our legislators

big_g wrote:

Would allowing a 2nd line, double mortality rates from C & R ?

Well only if every single person used a 2nd line and caught double the number of fish every time out. Can anyone say they caught twice as many fish when using 2 lines? Maybe once in a blue moon a small percentage will. But yeah more total fish will get hooked with more hooks in the water. That specific number is up for debate. Nobody really knows…

Imagine that. Walleye limit changes, nothing about panfish. Shocker.

I catch half the fish with 2 lines….I’m not smart or coordinated enough to manage. Maybe trolling….maybe.

Now, 3 lines ice fishing I’d be all for! There’d be nothing better than 3 tipups, a bucket, and a case of blue smoothies on a sunny day!

Certain types of fishing would be relatively easy to use 2 lines. Trolling, bobber fishing, and most types of ice fishing. Casting or jigging wouldn’t work very well since quite often you need both hands. I almost exclusively cast when I fish so having a second line would do nothing.

john23 wrote:

I am generally very fond of lower bag limits, but I sure wish the state legislature would stay out of specific fish and game issues. I believe it should be left to the DNR.

Well sorry, any changes such as this require state legislature approval. It’s the laws.

However, if it helps you sleep better…most of these proposed changes are put forth and are recommended by the DNR. After sometimes years of committee meetings, studies, research, citizen work group committee meetings/input, arguments and more meetings the DNR will put it on the table.

Legislators such as Carrie Ruud and Rob Eklund likely know little more about a walleye other than it makes a delicious sandwich. If the DNR says 6 sandwiches is too much for one person they can get by with 4, Carrie and Rob merely “serve” the DNR’s recommendation to the state gov party.

Maybe not every time but in most times the legislature eats the DNR’s sandwich.

gimruis wrote:

I almost exclusively cast when I fish so having a second line would do nothing.

That’s because you’re fishing in Minnesota where only one line is allowed open water.

If you’re fishing in Wisconsin where 2 lines are allowed open water you can float a sucker over the side of the boat and fan cast all around.

This ability does the opposite of “nothing” when targeting the big muskie.

You will never in your lifetime see a open water 2 line law in Minnesota.

mahtofire14 wrote:

Imagine that. Walleye limit changes, nothing about panfish. Shocker.

Right! I’m not usually one for more restrictions but something does need to be adjusted to Mn (and Wi.) panfish regs. Panfish are so vulnerable many times of the year.

Dutchboy wrote:

You will never in your lifetime see a open water 2 line law in Minnesota.

No say like that

Dutchboy wrote:

You will never in your lifetime see a open water 2 line law in Minnesota.

I also believed I would never be told that a boy is actually a girl just because he says he identifies as such…. so seeing two lines in MN would not surprise me all that much.

Dutchboy wrote:

You will never in your lifetime see a open water 2 line law in Minnesota.

I’ll gladly put a wager on that. It’s much closer to happening than you might think. Not to mention passed twice already and on the Gov’s desk only to be vetoed because of other nonsense.

3Rivers wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
You will never in your lifetime see a open water 2 line law in Minnesota.

I’ll gladly put a wager on that. It’s much closer to happening than you might think. Not to mention passed twice already and on the Gov’s desk only to be vetoed because of other nonsense.

The guy sitting in the Big chair that needs to sign off has shown no abilities to use common sense or reason. He will follow what his people tell him to do. In this case thats the DNR which hasn’t shown any interest in doing so.

I’ll stick with my theory until proven wrong.

Unfortunately I can’t be more specific, but the DNR has indeed budged a little bit on this.