Minnesota DNR Plans To Go Forward on a Statewide 4 Walleye Limit

Last fall the Minnesota DNR decides to move forward on a 4-walleye statewide limit. Personally, it would be fine proposing the 4-walleye s limit statewide for consideration if the DNR was 100% straight forward with the facts. Anglers should not expect the proposed regulation change to improve their angling success, and that data strongly suggests this regulation will have minimal if any positive effects on Walleye populations. It also sets a dangerous precedent for professional fish management into the future. I favor a more effective individual management strategy for the lakes in the State. Harvest is an important component for walleye recruitment. Attempting to stockpile fish or game doesn’t work.

May be so, but no individual angler needs 6 fish. 4 daily, possession is twice daily.

It should also be required for guides and all customers to pay for a Walleye stamp. At the very least, cap what they can keep, or pay more for a guiding license. Having guides hit the same 600 acre lake for weeks straight just so clients can keep 15” fish is absurd. Many, many examples all around MN.

To my knowledge the state doesn’t require guides to be licensed.

May be so, but no individual angler needs 6 fish. 4 daily, possession is twice daily.

I thought daily limit was your total limit too??

Dutchboy wrote:

To my knowledge the state doesn’t require guides to be licensed.

The state doesn’t, but the federal government does. Anybody receiving compensation to fish on navigable waters is required to have a US Coast Guard Captain’s license.

AK Guy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
To my knowledge the state doesn’t require guides to be licensed.

The state doesn’t, but the federal government does. Anybody receiving compensation to fish on navigable waters is required to have a US Coast Guard Captain’s license.

Isn’t that only border waters? I don’t think it applies to inland lakes and rivers.

Mike Schulz wrote:

May be so, but no individual angler needs 6 fish. 4 daily, possession is twice daily.

I thought daily limit was your total limit too??

You’re right Mike. The possession limit is the same as the daily limit in Minnesota.

Dutchboy, this is from US Coast Guard website. https://wow.uscgaux.info/content.php?unit=054-09&category=captains-license-info#:~:text=Licenses%20are%20required%20in%20order,require%20them%20for%20boat%20deliveries.

Licenses are required in order to legally carry passengers for hire. This includes charters for fishing, sightseeing, diving, transportation, teaching or any use which is considered a “passenger for hire” situation. Many companies require them for boat deliveries.

Regarding the guide’s license it has been on the agenda and discussed at previous Minnesota DNR Walleye Workgroup meetings. It was on the last fall’s meeting agenda but was briefly mentioned only. Some have suggested a guide’s license” handled outside the DNR. With parameters and fees put together by the guides and approved by the Minnesota DNR. Would MNFISH work towards creating a licensed guide program? A topic that is on a lot of angler’s minds these days and a large undertaking.

ganderpike wrote:

May be so, but no individual angler needs 6 fish. 4 daily, possession is twice daily.

You are over the limit LOL.
Possession = the daily limit.

It would be nice for a little give and take.
If they lower the limit to 4 give us two rods in the summertime.

Just me but it would be great to get two rods so when I troll by myself I could fish two different colors.

ganderpike wrote:

May be so, but no individual angler needs 6 fish. 4 daily, possession is twice daily.

The daily/possession part has already been corrected, but the rest of this statement is a nonstarter in any serious discussion about the daily bag limit. We are talking about a recreational sport fishery, not a subsistence fishery, so nobody NEEDS to harvest any fish at all. That argument does not stop at four, two or even one, so why go there?

10klakes wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ganderpike wrote:</div>
May be so, but no individual angler needs 6 fish. 4 daily, possession is twice daily.

You are over the limit LOL.
Possession = the daily limit.

4 daily, possession being twice daily, is what I proposed as a desired limit. Hand up, it wasn’t clear, but I should also expect internet fuds to bleed through their panties.

^^^^i think that would actually make it worse for the lakes.

Gary Barnard wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ganderpike wrote:</div>
May be so, but no individual angler needs 6 fish. 4 daily, possession is twice daily.

The daily/possession part has already been corrected, but the rest of this statement is a nonstarter in any serious discussion about the daily bag limit. We are talking about a recreational sport fishery, not a subsistence fishery, so nobody NEEDS to harvest any fish at all. That argument does not stop at four, two or even one, so why go there?

I am not going to spend time litigating internet comments, so be my guest to take the initiative.

A person should have the option to purchase a Walleye stamp for $30, and be allowed to keep 6 instead of 4. Turn keeping fish into a business supported by the people who do it. Better than not using science to set regulations anyways. *this^ is all hypothetical for the pitchfork brigade*

I’d be fine with the reduced limit if they truly meant “statewide” because I like simplicity. but we all know there are going to be 19,643 exceptions.

dirtywater wrote:

I’d be fine with the reduced limit if they truly meant “statewide” because I like simplicity. but we all know there are going to be 19,643 exceptions.

Like a 4 fish daily limit for the natives and the nets? Or a 4 fish limit throughout the year on Mille Lacs? Now we’re down to 19,641 exceptions.

Most of the big walleye lakes already have a 4 fish limit or less (Mille Lacs).
Sounds good to me if they reduce the remaining lakes to the same.
Lots of lakes that don’t have natural reproduction and have a 6 fish limit in the area of the state I live in.

Matthew Sandys wrote:

It would be nice for a little give and take.
If they lower the limit to 4 give us two rods in the summertime.

Just me but it would be great to get two rods so when I troll by myself I could fish two different colors.

I agree 100%. 2 lines for open water statewide and I would throw in a 15″ minimum length limit.

OG Net_Man wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Matthew Sandys wrote:</div>
It would be nice for a little give and take.
If they lower the limit to 4 give us two rods in the summertime.

Just me but it would be great to get two rods so when I troll by myself I could fish two different colors.

I agree 100%. 2 lines for open water statewide and I would throw in a 15″ minimum length limit.

LOTW Tourism would go broke.

I hope they cut the panfish limits in half next.

Agree on the 15 inch minimum. A 19-28 protected slot statewide would be nice too.

a 1 walleye limit would work for me!!!!!

think thats as many as I’ve caught the last 4 years!!!

I’m all for reduced limits on fish. 4 walleye is plenty. 5 crappies and gills is also plenty.

Hunting24seven wrote:

I’m all for reduced limits on fish. 4 walleye is plenty. 5 crappies and gills is also plenty.

Only 5 Gills is a huge no from me. I could agree on 10 at a minimum but would rather keep what I want up to 20.

I’ll be the bad guy. I like to eat fish. I like to eat fish even when there’s not a current bite or open season. I eat fresh fish and I freeze fish for later. Maybe all you guys calling for lower limits are just way better fisherman than I am. Cause I know I sure can’t just go get myself a mess of walleyes anytime I want a meal. Thats why I use the limit when they are biting and freeze some for later. No need for lower limits. The guys filling freezers to abundance and overlimits are not going to follow the new regulations anyway.

dirtywater wrote:

I’d be fine with the reduced limit if they truly meant “statewide” because I like simplicity. but we all know there are going to be 19,643 exceptions.

Agreed, if this isn’t in exchange for simplifying the regs across the board, I’m not interested since the science doesn’t support any impact per the DNR referenced in the OP. But 4 fish, 1 over 20″ statewide with no special regs anywhere would be great imo. Otherwise keep it 6 (*with 19,721 special regulations).

Only 5 Gills is a huge no from me. I could agree on 10 at a minimum but would rather keep what I want up to 20.
[/quote]
If the 5 gills were all 8”+ would that work?
Right now I struggle to find 8”+ gills. The over fishing in my area is pretty bad.
I do think they should go back to a daily and possession limit.

Just like the science not supporting a 4 walleye limit statewide, the science doesn’t support just 1 walleye over 20″ statewide either.
It’s a complex issue and like Gary said in his original post, rather than a 4 walleye limit across the state, a more effective walleye management strategy would be to manage each lake across the state individually or something similar to it, again based upon science.
It’d be a different approach to walleye management in the state that would take time and effort to get in place but I think that it could be done with the proper planning and leadership.

Individual angler limits have a proportionally small effect. For real change, we need to bring real changes to spearing and netting that take a toll on pre-spawn walleyes.
Legalized gambling alternatives are something to explore as an option if there is resistance to protecting our future resources.

mojo wrote:

Individual angler limits have a proportionally small effect. For real change, we need to bring real changes to spearing and netting that take a toll on pre-spawn walleyes.
Legalized gambling alternatives are something to explore as an option if there is resistance to protecting our future resources.

Arne Carlson gave that option away when he was Govenor.