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…