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

Maybe before tossing around a bunch of hypothetical Walleye regulation options, we should identify what it is we are trying to fix. Generally, that is how regulation changes are made. Is there a problem with the existing regulation? Is that problem affecting quality size, overall abundance, recruitment, spawning stock…..? If so, then select a regulation type that best addresses that specific problem.
The current proposal seems to have skipped step one.

Red Eye wrote:

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.

I also do this and would prefer it be left alone. I do agree with the guides taking clients out and taking limits of 13-14 inch fish is not helping.

Gary Barnard wrote:

Maybe before tossing around a bunch of hypothetical Walleye regulation options, we should identify what it is we are trying to fix. Generally, that is how regulation changes are made. Is there a problem with the existing regulation? Is that problem affecting quality size, overall abundance, recruitment, spawning stock…..? If so, then select a regulation type that best addresses that specific problem.
The current proposal seems to have skipped step one.

Now why would we want to bring logic and science into the argument? I dont much care what the limit is because its extremely rare for me to keep a limit of fish unless I am coming from Canada or LOW. I know the regs are frustrating because each lake may have different regs, but maybe they should or need to based on all of what you said which I believe is what you are getting at. There is no one size fits all. Many lakes are put and take lakes with no natural reproduction and those lakes need to be treated differently than a natural reproducing lake that does not get stocked.

Some of you need to realize that the current 6 fish limit was not founded on any “science”. Just like a closed(no fishing allowed) walleye season is not science either.

The change to a 4 fish limit will not affect most anglers. There are some whom feel this a pro-active movement do to the every increasing efficiency for todays anglers. Today electronics, mapping, and improved gear are increasing catch rates. 4 fish for a 1 meal is quiet plenty for 1 person, if you have other house members gift them todays limit and go catch another limit for yourself tomorrow.

at the end of the day you can still catch as many as you want.

Maybe it will have a positive effect. But it will not have a negative effect.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250017402_Creel_Limits_in_Minnesota_A_Proposal_for_Change

Science.

Anyfish2 wrote:

Some of you need to realize that the current 6 fish limit was not founded on any “science”. Just like a closed(no fishing allowed) <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye season is not science either.

Everyone that has researched the walleye management in Minnesota realizes that the 6 walleye limit wasn’t based upon science when the regulation was established in 1956. Since 1956, though, which is almost 70 years ago now, walleye fisheries management science has advanced greatly and in today’s world, there is little reason not to base management decisions on science. There is currently no scientific evidence showing that a 4 walleye limit is needed statewide.

So your argument is, that limits should be set at the highest level, until it has negative repercussions?

Do you think the efficacy of anglers is not increasing?
Our seasons changing has no effect on reproduction going forward?
Livescope, side imaging, and Accurate GPS maps are not putting more stress on walleye populations?

What is the negative impact of 4 VS 6?

Waiting an additional week or not at all when using fish that I have legally kept to prepare a meal for my family. Not everyone has the option to “go out and get another limit tommorrow”.
I get it, I’m not subsistence fishing, but its gonna make great deal of difference as whether I’m gonna pack up, spend money on gas, bait, potentially lodging and food to drive several hours away to fish when I cannot even bring enough home for a single meal. A lot of the appeal of fishing to me is the opportunity to enjoy the physical fruit of my effort. I don’t much care about trying to catch the biggest, I find mounting fish as trophies silly, and don’t really count fooling animals with brains the size of peas much of an achievement. Beyond that, lowering limits, particulary on panfish, in the absence of corresponding slot limits, will simply push harvest to larger fish and result in stunted populations (which would seem to defeat the purpose).
I also fully understand what seems to be the impulse towards gatekeeping the outdoors that seems to be the true animus to much of what passes as debate on outdoors topics these days. Trophy culture will be the death of hunting and fishing, not any electronic. I hear more impassioned arguments about how whatever controversial topic being discussed affects tournament anglers that 95% of the population couldn’t care less about, than I ever do about what can be done encourage more folks to take up angling. More time spent on running down fellow outdoorsman and women for “not doing it right”, than spent on figuring out how to recruit more youth into the sports.
I mean do what you want, but making fishing even less of a value proposition than it is now certainly isn’t gonna make it grow, if thats even what anyone wants anymore.

Captain Musky you nailed it. Thank you…

Anyfish2 wrote:

So your argument is, that limits should be set at the highest level, until it has negative repercussions?

Do you think the efficacy of anglers is not increasing?
Our seasons changing has no effect on reproduction going forward?
Livescope, side imaging, and Accurate GPS maps are not putting more stress on walleye populations?

What is the negative impact of 4 VS 6?

No, my argument is that we should let the MN DNR biologists make the decision whether a 4 walleye limit is needed statewide. They’re the professionals and they are some of the best if not the best in the nation. The internet biologists should just let them do their jobs.
The DNR biologists know what’s going on in the fishing world like everyone else and if they have recommendations to make based upon their scientific findings to safeguard and improve our walleye fishery, they’ll make them.

Maybe I have misunderstood your stance Karry. I agree we have some of the best biologists in the nation.
Are our biologists against the regulation change?
Is this just a bureaucratic decision? because this is a DNR decision and they seem to have made it.

Wildlifeguy, I can appreciate your stance. You’re not wrong in legally possessing your catch to feed your family. But will that extra 2 fish effect your meal plan? I mean this in, if you go fish by yourself do you bring 6 home each time? if so, maybe bring one of your kids, your wife, or all of them and bring 4 for each of them home. Typically 4 walleyes (8 fillets) is more than enough for 1 person, usually 2 people.

Anyfish2 wrote:

The change to a 4 fish limit will not affect most anglers………., if you have other house members gift them todays limit and go catch another limit for yourself tomorrow.

at the end of the day you can still catch as many as you want.

You have explained exactly why the proposed bag limit reduction is not expected to significantly reduce harvest or improve walleye fishing.

What is the negative impact of a 4 fish bag? Asking all anglers to give up harvest opportunity (regardless of how many achieve it) for no significant gain.

Get it done.

4 fish on the river surely hasn’t hurt anything. My armchair observations show it hasn’t changed much in my boat for catch rate or size structure in a system where the fish grow so rapidly and forage is plentiful. The debate was presented regularly on here whether or not “Science” said the change was needed, but in the end I liked the idea of being proactive versus reactive…especially in a complex situation where both MN AND WI have legal jurisdiction over the same resource. The stars really had to align to make the change, so I supported it when the chance was there.

If I really want a fish fry for a group – I can still take my wife and oldest daughter out and troll up a limit of a dozen 16-18″ fish if I wanted when the bite is solid. The argument against the change being people “liking to eat fish” is flawed at best.

Unpopular opinion… I think a FFS ban would be more beneficial to our fisheries as a whole than reducing the walleye limit from 6 to 4.

There, I said it. I’ll let myself out.

But then what would Josh Makowski do with all his GoFund Me money you guys are sending him.

Hello all,
First time poster longtime reader SE MN resident. Felt this topic was enough to voice opinion. I would be all game for a statewide 4 fish limit 15-18″ with 1 over 28″ and after 3-5 years of data collection visit 15″-20″ slot. The state can fund this by bringing back $25 yearly ice house licenses (including portables) and I portable alot.

It’d be nice if the DNR would focus on increasing stocking. Our stocking program is pathetic when compared to other states. Most of the lakes they dump walleyes don’t even have a fishable population. Maybe focus on stocking less lakes but more fish in the lakes that can support it. Dumping fry in so many small lakes doesn’t do much other than feed the fish in the lake. The dnr needs to work smarter…but they are the government so…

Th reduced limit doesn’t change much other than some of the big lakes that don’t already have special regs. Most of the big walleye fisheries already have a limit of 4 or less.

That said I’m for it. Would have much preferred reducing the panfish limit by half.

Josh Makowski is just getting back into the sport. He’s only asking for money at this point not locations so I doubt he’ll be getting his limit anyways. Unless we give him enough money for FFS that he uses to stun the fish into slumber with radio waves and then plucks them out destroying the sport of fishing for all good Minnesotans.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

Dumping fry in so many small lakes doesn’t do much other than feed the fish in the lake.

Many of the lakes they stock fry or fingerlings in are loaded with hungry, aggressive northern pike that pick off anything and everything. Its just feeding the bottomless pit. And of course no one wants to keep snot rockets either even though they are abundant and easy to catch. Everyone wants walleyes or panfish.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

Would have much preferred reducing the panfish limit by half.

I agree, I think there is bigger issue with panfish given there’s no closed season.

FinnyDinDin wrote:

That said I’m for it. Would have much preferred reducing the panfish limit by half.

I would also like to see size restrictions on panfish. There is no need to keep a 10″ sunfish or a 13″ Crappie.

gim wrote:

Many of the lakes they stock fry or fingerlings in are loaded with hungry, aggressive northern pike that pick off anything and everything. Its just feeding the bottomless pit

You think your favorite bass dont do the same thing.

JEREMY wrote:

You think your favorite bass dont do the same thing.

So do your sacred walleyes.

Most gamefish are cannibalistic and won’t hesitate to eat each other.

My point is that stocking something when there is a burgening, aggressive over population of one species (as demonstrated by pike having a daily bag limit of 10 in most of the state), continuing to stock it is fairly pointless.

The dnr analyzes a fishery before they stock Muskies or trout. Yet they blindly dump walleyes in tons of lakes with no regard to survival rates. Makes no sense.

Some of the lakes they put them in aren’t even fished regularly. I know of a couple duck lakes that just about never get fished that get walleye stocked in them. Total waste.

That’s exactly what I’m saying Finny. In some places it makes almost sense to blindly and regularly stock a lake with a particular species. Its expensisve and wasteful.

Sure, I’ll just cancel all other activities they might have going on, increase that lodging cost and call it a day. It appears you missed the point of the rest if what I said. Basing policy on the case use of people who fish only for trophies, or tournamments, means ignoring the preference of what, 75%-85% percent of the fishing public, who does NOT have the ability to fish whenever they would like, aren’t wanting to spend weeks “patterning the bite” or anything but trying to go enjoy the outdoors in the little time they have, and hopefully bringing home a treat to enjoy for their efforts. It smacks of elitism from those who really don’t seem to want anyone but themselves able to enjoy the resource. As to how many fish is enough, get yourself some growing teenage boys and see how long those 8 filets last.

buckybadger wrote:

Get it done.

4 fish on the river surely hasn’t hurt anything. My armchair observations show it hasn’t changed much in my boat for catch rate or size structure in a system where the fish grow so rapidly and forage is plentiful. The debate was presented regularly on here whether or not “Science” said the change was needed, but in the end I liked the idea of being proactive versus reactive…especially in a complex situation where both MN AND WI have legal jurisdiction over the same resource. The stars really had to align to make the change, so I supported it when the chance was there.

If I really want a fish fry for a group – I can still take my wife and oldest daughter out and troll up a limit of a dozen 16-18″ fish if I wanted when the bite is solid. The argument against the change being people “liking to eat fish” is flawed at best.

Except when you can’t. I’ll probably get out 5-10 times this year, probably on the lower end. Why? Because I have a job that is busy in the summer, so no time then, and because I’m a parent with multiple kids in multiple activites school/sports/church etc… What this reads to me is that my 5 times out catching two fish more than what the diehards desire, is SO destructive to the fisheries that I should just not bother. Not the game hogs, not the poachers, me. Well I suppose when everything just goes to c/r only, folks can finally be satisfied that only pure, proper fishing, by only those with the right trophy seeking mind set will be the only ones fishing.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

Sure, I’ll just cancel all other activities they might have going on, increase that lodging cost and call it a day. It appears you missed the point of the rest if what I said. Basing policy on the case use of people who fish only for trophies, or tournamments, means ignoring the preference of what, 75%-85% percent of the fishing public, who does NOT have the ability to fish whenever they would like, aren’t wanting to spend weeks “patterning the bite” or anything but trying to go enjoy the outdoors in the little time they have, and hopefully bringing home a treat to enjoy for their efforts. It smacks of elitism from those who really don’t seem to want anyone but themselves able to enjoy the resource. As to how many fish is enough, get yourself some growing teenage boys and see how long those 8 filets last.

Going to have to get those boys catching their own fish. Works in my house. Each kid supplies some fresh fish to the fish fry and then I’m able to invite the folks over. If it’s just my catch then we have to have no company and lots of sides

FinnyDinDin wrote:

The dnr analyzes a fishery before they stock Muskies or trout. Yet they blindly dump walleyes in tons of lakes with no regard to survival rates. Makes no sense.

Some of the lakes they put them in aren’t even fished regularly. I know of a couple duck lakes that just about never get fished that get walleye stocked in them. Total waste.

Doesn’t sound like a waste. Sounds like a back pocket walleye hole. The dinner bell some would say

gim wrote:

JEREMY wrote:
You think your favorite bass dont do the same thing.

So do your sacred walleyes.

I dont hold walleyes sacred or any fish for that matter. They all taste good to me. Only kind I havent tried is a muskie and i wouldnt be against that either. If you wanna take a shot at me about wanting to protect a fish it would be flathead catfish. Think they should all be released. Coolest fish in these parts.

Has anybody on this thread actually researched the information used to make these decisions? Its available. Hell I even dropped a link to one of the reports used. Everyone like to react but no one likes to be educated. The number one driver of limits and size restrictions is fisherman satisfaction. Those little surveys that you use to bitch and complain determine your not a happy fisherman and that more fish/ larger fish would potentially make you happy. The obvious flaw is the total inability to make some people happy.