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

  • Don Meier
    Butternut Wisconsin
    Posts: 1717
    #2312323

    Butt hurt over FFS ? LOL How about catch and release only then , lets ban any sonar 2d down or side and GPS ? Maybe no power motors gas or electric ? Row row your boat ??? Lol Ridiculous bans are the downward spiral. Why would anyone want to go backwards and use inferior equipment ? Certainly not me . Fisheries are regulated by bag limits . Where i fish many bodies have reduced bag limits already . They also have size requirements . Unless people do not trust the people making those decisions ? Why would anyone willing want to go backwards and use inferior equipment , not me .

    Obsession
    Maple Grove
    Posts: 106
    #2312328

    *** Unpopular (but logical) opinion alert ***

    Designate a handful of lakes (ideally geographically distributed) as trophy catch-and-release only lakes. This approach has worked well in Colorado and other western states where portions of river are designated “blue ribbon waters.” This gives tourney organizers and trophy anglers clear places to target alpha fish. Leave harvest encouraging regulations in place on the remaining lakes.

    JEREMY
    BP
    Posts: 4129
    #2312331

    Cannot do that it go strictly against MN statute # 8efe28aeba5bfd44

    Matt Moen
    South Minneapolis
    Posts: 4568
    #2312333

    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.

    You can have 4 licenses in the boat based upon what appears to be your family size. That’s 24 fish currently based on the daily limit. You have plenty of fish.

    And, the regs aren’t changed based upon pro’s and what they want. The regs on P4 were changed based upon public surveys and input. Just like they are being changed now. There isn’t any elitism. Sounds like if you are this passionate about limits you should get more involved.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 23816
    #2312334

    The obvious flaw is the total inability to make some people happy.

    You can only please about 20% of the people 80% of the time.

    Eelpoutguy
    Farmington, Outing
    Posts: 10788
    #2312339

    I would be ok with only catch and release. Just let me fish with 2 sticks in the summer.

    Matt Moen
    South Minneapolis
    Posts: 4568
    #2312340

    *** Unpopular (but logical) opinion alert ***

    Designate a handful of lakes (ideally geographically distributed) as trophy catch-and-release only lakes. This approach has worked well in Colorado and other western states where portions of river are designated “blue ribbon waters.” This gives tourney organizers and trophy anglers clear places to target alpha fish. Leave harvest encouraging regulations in place on the remaining lakes.

    I actually like this. We kinda have this with pool 2 but when I lived in CO the blue ribbon waters were awesome to fish.

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 8641
    #2312343

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

    Ding ding ding…we found the disconnect.

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 8641
    #2312344

    I’ve got 2 kids and a third on the way, have a full time job and a part time summer hustle that’s become more than I intended, and manage leased ag land too in my non-existant spare time. I’m not sure what time or being busy has to do with it?

    I simply stated that Pool 4 was in no way hurt by going to 4 fish limits, and that there are still avenues for family people to get out and put a nice big fish fry together if that’s your intention. I’m pretty confident most of those facts would apply to the rest of the state if things are moved to a 4 fish limit. It’s proactive against the relatively new unknowns with FFS, changing water temps, invasives, variable pressure, etc.

    Anyfish2
    Posts: 118
    #2312364

    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.

    Wildlifeguy, in no way was I trying to attack you or your situation! I am just now graduating my youngest. I totally understand how having kids in activities spring, summer, fall, and winter cut into ones fishing time. However, at no time in the last 21 years, have I felt slighted by only being able to keep 4 walleyes on the bigger lakes that already have the regulation. When we go on vacation we limit ourselves to 2 walleyes a person and only panfish that are deep hooked for our fish fry. Most years we can catch more than 2 a person, but usually not 6 per. why do we limit ourselves? because we dont need to max out limit and then limit our enjoyment on other days.

    I would guess, if it goes to 4, you will not even notice it.

    Wildlifeguy
    Posts: 405
    #2312369

    While I’d love my boys and my wife to be out there fishing with me, it’s just not happening. If that’s what it will take to make a meal (and in my case justifying the expense for all the crap it takes to get one) then it will just mean less fishing for me. While I’d love to be able to drop thousands for an “experience” I can’t justify it for something that literally provides no payback beyond happy feelings. I already catch crap for spending too much on a “hobby” as is, don’t need more. I’ve pretty much stopped going after panfish cuz the lakes I used to frequent dropped the limit, and certainly cannot justify more expense to go further, to bring back even less (what do you suppose 5, 7 inch bluegills will feed?) I guess I just don’t have a place in today’s “outdoors” scene.

    Iowaboy1
    Posts: 3853
    #2312376

    I get one week per year to go fishing in MN, if I can catch my limit allowed by state law, I will bring that limit home, I am the only one in the house that eats fish so I am able to stretch that out through the winter and I enjoy every bite pardon the pun.

    So, with that, lets stir the pot a bit.

    Could it be that the proposed decrease in the limit is to have more fish available for increased populations that eat fish?

    Is it so that more lakes can be netted across a broader area and once again ‘science’ says we can share?

    OR, is it so that Mille Lacs fisherman can say, Hey, we can catch half a limit?
    I mean, when before you could only catch two compared to everyone elses five and that didnt seem fair, but now if statewide limit is four, it doesnt sound near as bad.
    ( assuming the two fish limit stands for any length of time )

    Heck, lets take this way out there, IF we have more fish in the system that means more chemicals can be taken out of the system because they are spread out over greater numbers therefore reducing the amount of chemicals per fish making them safer to eat??
    I tossed that out there because someday even with warnings in place someone is going to get sick and find a lawyer that will take the state to court because they got sick from eating too many polluted fish, in this day and age warnings mean nothing.

    Carry on.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 17059
    #2312393

    Since Sheldon lit the fuse i’ll toss the gas on. Science or no science the DNR is doing what they like. Not you, your brother, sister or nephew can change that. Your opinion and vote doesn’t count. You can protest by not buying a license, thats ok they will just lobby for an increase in funding and your tax dollar will pay anyway. You can send your representative an e-mail protesting, thats ok a staffer will read it and you will get a canned response but nothing is changing.

    This is the DNR we are talking about. They answer to nobody and are beholden to nobody. You all get up off your recliner get on your knees and be thankfull the DRN lets you have what they are giving you. coffee

    mxskeeter
    SW Wisconsin
    Posts: 4129
    #2312397

    WLG a question?
    Do you enjoy just fishing? Or do you only enjoy catching and keeping fish?
    Me personally I enjoy being on the water fishing period! Catching is just frosting on the cake. But that is just me.
    If your SO complains on your time fishing and can only justify it if you bring home a limit, you have my sympathy.

    Bearcat89
    North branch, mn
    Posts: 21246
    #2312400

    While I’d love my boys and my wife to be out there fishing with me, it’s just not happening. If that’s what it will take to make a meal (and in my case justifying the expense for all the crap it takes to get one) then it will just mean less fishing for me. While I’d love to be able to drop thousands for an “experience” I can’t justify it for something that literally provides no payback beyond happy feelings. I already catch crap for spending too much on a “hobby” as is, don’t need more. I’ve pretty much stopped going after <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish cuz the lakes I used to frequent dropped the limit, and certainly cannot justify more expense to go further, to bring back even less (what do you suppose 5, 7 inch bluegills will feed?) I guess I just don’t have a place in today’s “outdoors” scene.

    I fish 95 percent of the time with out keeping fish. I do it for enjoyment. I hear what you are saying but respectfully don’t see it the same way. If I was only fishing for meat, then maybe I’d be more concerned, 90 percent of the days I do fish locally I wouldn’t even get a 4 fish limit.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 23816
    #2312402

    Wildlifeguy, no offense but if you are looking for a fish fry based on your posts you are far better off just buying the fish. Lent is around the corner and lots of awesome fish fries for that too so take them all out.

    FinnyDinDin
    Posts: 953
    #2312403

    While I’d love my boys and my wife to be out there fishing with me, it’s just not happening. If that’s what it will take to make a meal (and in my case justifying the expense for all the crap it takes to get one) then it will just mean less fishing for me. While I’d love to be able to drop thousands for an “experience” I can’t justify it for something that literally provides no payback beyond happy feelings. I already catch crap for spending too much on a “hobby” as is, don’t need more. I’ve pretty much stopped going after <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish cuz the lakes I used to frequent dropped the limit, and certainly cannot justify more expense to go further, to bring back even less (what do you suppose 5, 7 inch bluegills will feed?) I guess I just don’t have a place in today’s “outdoors” scene.

    Take up tulibee fishing. You can fill a big otter sled with them when you get on them. I’ve done it in my younger days. They taste okay fried and are good smoked. You can keep lots of burbot too and they taste great.

    If you are worried about saving money on fish, Cub Foods is probably your cheapest option. Much cheaper than catching them yourself.

    gim
    Plymouth, MN
    Posts: 18308
    #2312408

    Or pike. The daily bag limit is 10 for crying out loud and they need to be thinned big time. Not to mention how easy they are to catch. The DNR is dang near begging people to keep more snot rockets with such a liberal daily bag limit. Take advantage of it. They are pretty good eating out of cold water if you remove the y bones.

    Ripjiggen
    Posts: 12182
    #2312409

    They answer to nobody and are beholden to nobody.

    I beg to differ.

    LabDaddy1
    Posts: 2634
    #2312413

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

    I would say 10 crappies/gills.

    And I’m fine with 4 walleye limits. Last/only time I caught and kept a one-man limit was on the croix and I ended up throwing one or two back at the end… Also am cool with a statewide 15” min. That’s how it is on croix/p3 and you can see the results daily.

    walleyesforme
    Posts: 505
    #2312414

    I’d like to see Minnesota treat non residents like the Canadians do. Go to a non resident walleye limit of one or two. Also raise the non resident license fees for hunting and fishing. It’s time Minnesota put its people first.

    Wildlifeguy
    Posts: 405
    #2312419

    Or pike. The daily bag limit is 10 for crying out loud and they need to be thinned big time. Not to mention how easy they are to catch. The DNR is dang near begging people to keep more snot rockets with such a liberal daily bag limit. Take advantage of it. They are pretty good eating out of cold water if you remove the y bones.

    I agree and I do. Its probably the least well received, of course,

    Wildlifeguy
    Posts: 405
    #2312420

    Or pike. The daily bag limit is 10 for crying out loud and they need to be thinned big time. Not to mention how easy they are to catch. The DNR is dang near begging people to keep more snot rockets with such a liberal daily bag limit. Take advantage of it. They are pretty good eating out of cold water if you remove the y bones.

    I agree and I do. Its probably the least well received, of course,

    Wildlifeguy
    Posts: 405
    #2312421

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Wildlifeguy wrote:</div>
    While I’d love my boys and my wife to be out there fishing with me, it’s just not happening. If that’s what it will take to make a meal (and in my case justifying the expense for all the crap it takes to get one) then it will just mean less fishing for me. While I’d love to be able to drop thousands for an “experience” I can’t justify it for something that literally provides no payback beyond happy feelings. I already catch crap for spending too much on a “hobby” as is, don’t need more. I’ve pretty much stopped going after <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish cuz the lakes I used to frequent dropped the limit, and certainly cannot justify more expense to go further, to bring back even less (what do you suppose 5, 7 inch bluegills will feed?) I guess I just don’t have a place in today’s “outdoors” scene.

    Take up tulibee fishing. You can fill a big otter sled with them when you get on them. I’ve done it in my younger days. They taste okay fried and are good smoked. You can keep lots of burbot too and they taste great.

    If you are worried about saving money on fish, Cub Foods is probably your cheapest option. Much cheaper than catching them yourself.

    Not a fan of the tulies, they do put up a decent fight, though. Its not the price of the fish, like I said I am not subsistence fishing here. Its the value proposition of the whole process, Its not like I’m getting greater value in my fishing experience from the reduced limit, I really din’t care about catching the biggest fish, nor do I need it to be shooting fish in a barrel to feel like I’m satisfied with an outing. The only tangible value I’m getting from the experience beyond the enjoyment of being outdoors and fishing, is the fish I get to enjoy as a result The enjoyment doesn’t change either way, so no benefit there, and my costs aren’t going down, in fact they are increasing. I am paying more to get less. Not because of anything I did, but due to the actions of others who won’t be forced to change their behavior in any way, they’ll be no MORE illegal now than they already were. All this, as was stated earlier, because OTHER anglers, with an entirely opposite view of the sport, answered a survey, apparently.

    Wildlifeguy
    Posts: 405
    #2312422

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Wildlifeguy wrote:</div>
    While I’d love my boys and my wife to be out there fishing with me, it’s just not happening. If that’s what it will take to make a meal (and in my case justifying the expense for all the crap it takes to get one) then it will just mean less fishing for me. While I’d love to be able to drop thousands for an “experience” I can’t justify it for something that literally provides no payback beyond happy feelings. I already catch crap for spending too much on a “hobby” as is, don’t need more. I’ve pretty much stopped going after <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish cuz the lakes I used to frequent dropped the limit, and certainly cannot justify more expense to go further, to bring back even less (what do you suppose 5, 7 inch bluegills will feed?) I guess I just don’t have a place in today’s “outdoors” scene.

    I fish 95 percent of the time with out keeping fish. I do it for enjoyment. I hear what you are saying but respectfully don’t see it the same way. If I was only fishing for meat, then maybe I’d be more concerned, 90 percent of the days I do fish locally I wouldn’t even get a 4 fish limit.

    I completely get that point of view, I clearly don’t take the same gratification as some do from the act of fishing itself. It could be the fact that I primarily ice fish, for the reasons above (and the fact I didn’t have a boat until recently), and ice fishing isn’t exactly what I’d label as “exciting”. In fact I have no problem with c/r outside of the sanctimonious nature of some of its biggest proponents, and what feels to me like a desire to make it non-optional from some folks. It feels like folks dislike folks who keep fish legally more than the criminals sometimes.

    mxskeeter
    SW Wisconsin
    Posts: 4129
    #2312423

    WLG
    Go to Lake Erie. You can keep 6 walleyes a day everyday you go fishing. Go for a week and keep 42. Problem solved.

    Karry Kyllo
    Posts: 1309
    #2312431

    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.

    All I’ll say is that fisheries biologists make recommendations based upon factual data and the data doesn’t support a 4 walleye limit statewide. You’ll have to connect the dots from there.

    Baitwaster
    South metro
    Posts: 494
    #2312434

    Over time, we anticipate reduced creel limits would function more as an educational tool and may help anglers develop more realistic expectations of Minnesota’s fisheries.

    That’s the last sentence from the abstract linked to riverrat’s post. More for ego than environment.

    Also states less than 5% of fishing trips culminate with the harvesting of a limit. So how would a reduction in limit (on paper) reduce what already isn’t being done?

    With that said – I’m more in favor of size/slot restrictions than lowering the limits.

    If you lower limits, your still going to have people going to the honey hole day after day filling the freezer if that’s what they do. At least with size restrictions, you have a chance at preserving a resource.

    isu22andy
    Posts: 1892
    #2312442

    I talked with a warden one time about limits – he said it’s funny , when everyone’s catching and bringing them home Im not doing my job and need to crack down on the limits and restrictions. Just bucket fulls of fish . When no ones catching them I need more restrictions . Often times the same conversation in the same day .

    It’s funny how that works especially pool 4 . You fish it enough someone’s always catching fish – always . Somewhere somehow someway . Somedays its you and not the other guy . . Always humbled .

    Also I don’t have FFS but put me in the camp GPS has caught more fish than FFS .

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 8641
    #2312443

    Although I’ve admitted I’m fine with a 4 fish limit, we can pass rules/policies/laws/executive orders until we are blue in the face (see our national government)…and it really doesn’t matter without universal enforcement and the funding to do so.

    There have been possession limits for as long as I can remember. Yet in our area of the river it is the most difficult to enforce/least enforced law despite being crucial to protecting the resource.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 107 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.