After 90 posts we have learned what number people “are fine with”…..
how many walleyes “nobody needs”……and that a lower limit “wouldn’t hurt anything”…..but has anyone identified a sound reason for lowering the existing limit or what problem we are hoping to fix?
but has anyone identified a sound reason for lowering the existing limit or what problem we are hoping to fix?
Yes, it makes the DNR suits in St Paul, MN Fish and the preferred guides (Tom Neutstroms) feel good like the Ralphie in the Simpsons “I’m helping” gif.
Decisions, in any form, are never made just on facts. It’s actually the opposite…decisions are made upon interpretation of facts and data along with anecdotal evidence. All of which are opinions. So, to assume a decision on limits needs to be made solely on the “facts” is inherently wrong.
Here’s my take (I’m for the reduction in limits – I’d also like to see a movement to barbless hooks). Public sentiment is strong to lower limits and public sentiment drives what is ultimately a political decision. The only real “science” behind lowering limits is many walleye lakes are stocked and can’t naturally reproduce so a lower limit would help. I also think the DNR is hedging their bets…FFS and other technology will impact fishing. Now is the time, since the public generally supports it, to lower limits.
I would love to see limits set on a lake by lake basis but that’s impossible to legislate and enforce.
I do keep fish but it doesn’t drive why I fish so I do have some inherent bias in my opinions. Just want to throw that out there.
https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/research/hd/deer/2018_hd_deer_0024.pdf
Here is an example of a survey the DNR uses to determine deer hunting regulations in MN. This survey indicates that 86% of the people in NE MN feel the population is declined and in Central MN 56% felt the population declined. Due to the hunter dissatisfaction indicated by lower deer numbers you can assume that the DNR would move towards reducing bag limits in areas with lower hunter satisfaction in an attempt to increase numbers and satisfaction. I’m not a hunter I dont care about your opinions on deer populations this is just an example so people can see what a factor in DNR decisions is. This survey also indicated 55% of people had a moderate idea how the DNR makes its decisions so take that as you will.
We can’t compare deer to fish. For one, the insurance companies push to reduce the number of deer in an area. It is hard to hit a fish with your truck unless your truck goes through the ice first.
has anyone identified a sound reason for lowering the existing limit or what problem we are hoping to fix?
good question. playing devils advocate – do we have any evidence the current limits are “optimal” for lack of better words?
It is hard to hit a fish with your truck unless your truck goes through the ice first.
The man has a point. Haven’t seen you post in a while, been busy?
As DNR Fisheries head Brad Parsons tells FOX 9, walleye have come under increasing pressure in the decades since the six-walleye limit was imposed, including invasive species like zebra mussels and “more efficient anglers,” among others.
However, Parsons told the station that there is “not a walleye crisis by any means,” and described the proposal — which also calls for lowering the walleye possession limit to four — as “proactive.”
We can’t compare deer to fish. For one, the insurance companies push to reduce the number of deer in an area. It is hard to hit a fish with your truck unless your truck goes through the ice first.
I don’t know; had a salmon take out my headlight the other day on the highway. Sometimes visibility really sucks at twilight 
So blatantly saying that the post was about DNR process’s and not about deer was not clear enough. The most recent seasonal surveys are about deer. Next fall a bunch of surveys about fishing will come out. Those people will say that there are not as many opportunities to catch a walleye as there was in the good ol days. 55% will say they moderately understand how the DNR decision making process works. The DNR will reduce the limit. The people who say they understood how the process worked will take to a public forum and say they don’t trust or understand how the DNR makes its decisions and complain that the limit was reduced. The salmon limit will be dramatically increased due to lobbying from the insurance industry.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gary Barnard wrote:</div>
has anyone identified a sound reason for lowering the existing limit or what problem we are hoping to fix?good question. playing devils advocate – do we have any evidence the current limits are “optimal” for lack of better words?
Only about 70 years of lake survey data that apparently does not show any significant downward trend across MN Walleye lakes that can be attributed to overharvest under the current limit.
This limit reduction has been kicked around for about 8 years, plenty of time for biologists to sift through the available data. Don’t you think that if some significant negative trend existed they would lead the proposal with that?
Only about 70 years of lake survey data that apparently does not show any significant downward trend across MN Walleye lakes that can be attributed to overharvest under the current limit.
This limit reduction has been kicked around for about 8 years, plenty of time for biologists to sift through the available data. Don’t you think that if some significant negative trend existed they would lead the proposal with that?
just because its not going down doesn’t mean it couldn’t be better
Totally anecdotal, and I’ve only been walleye fishing for 20ish years (I’m 42 now), but I think it’s as good a time as ever for walleye fishing in MN. When I was a kid if someone caught a 25″+ walleye the whole neighborhood and/or town heard about it. A walleye limit was a really special treat, and anyone who could catch a walleye limit regularly was quite the fisherman. Now I’m pretty confident in doing one or both when I head out, and it’s not due to my skill or technology, the fishing is just that much better imo.
As for Parsons, he’s as spineless as you will find, he will say whatever his bosses (Strommen and the tribe) want. Last time I was at the DNR Roundtable I brought up his own words to him, and he denied them and claimed the journalist had misquoted him. Which is a big accusation, so I was surprised when he said he wouldn’t follow up with the Journalist on that either.
I’d like to think I’ve gotten better at fishing over time and all this poop I’ve bought wasn’t a complete waste of money 
I’d like to think I’ve gotten better at fishing over time and all this poop I’ve bought wasn’t a complete waste of money
Go from fishing all the time, to rarely for a few years due to kids, and then go again. It’ll make you question a lot of things , plus add in reverting to the Vexilar and old red hook has always put up #’s. 
Here are a couple of screen shots of once popular walleye lakes in Otter tail county. These screen shots are from OnX Fish which pulls its data from the DNR.
One of the lakes has very good natural reproduction. Not sure about the other 2.
I am not saying a lower limit is going to fix the problem but it sure isn’t going to hurt it.
Keep in mind if 5% are taking catching and keeping there limit. What is the percentage with 5 fish? What is the percentage with 4 fish?
IMG_4574.png
IMG_4573.png
IMG_4572.png
Gary, why do you think they are going to make the decision based upon data? Is that just your preference?
If recent changes have shown us anything, like the change to regs on P4, public sentiment, feedback, and surveys drive the changes.
Gary, why do you think they are going to make the decision based upon data? Is that just your preference?
Good questions. Yes, it is my preference, but it is also the law.
In the Legislative process (as was tried previously) the regulation could be changed by public opinion, constituents contacting legislators.
This time they are using DNR rulemaking authority which requires that you show need and reasonableness for the proposed regulation change. Need would be established using biological data to show the need for the rule change.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Matt Moen wrote:</div>
Gary, why do you think they are going to make the decision based upon data? Is that just your preference?Good questions. Yes, it is my preference, but it is also the law.
In the Legislative process (as was tried previously) the regulation could be changed by public opinion, constituents contacting legislators.
This time they are using DNR rulemaking authority which requires that you show need and reasonableness for the proposed regulation change. Need would be established using biological data to show the need for the rule change.
Thanks for the response. I wasnt aware about the “need and reasonableness” part. I assume the DNR would argue that need and reasonableness is broad and could be interpreted as a need based upon being “proactive” as the DNR has already stated?
You seem pretty well versed in this..thanks for the thoughtful responses.
I brought Pool 4 into the discussion, but should have done more to note that situation was very different. Pool 4 involved getting TWO states to work together. That involves more variables and was something that was worthwhile while momentum was there. That could be the last cooperative change to harvest regulations for another 40 years.
I supported the move (and took heat for it from some here). I am fine with the statewide move in Minnesota too, but am far less vested in the actual situation as I probably only fish inland MN waters a half dozen times per year. I do think being proactive is much easier than being reactive though.
Here are a couple of screen shots of once popular walleye lakes in Otter tail county. These screen shots are from OnX Fish which pulls its data from the DNR.
One of the lakes has very good natural reproduction. Not sure about the other 2.
I am not saying a lower limit is going to fix the problem but it sure isn’t going to hurt it.
Keep in mind if 5% are taking catching and keeping there limit. What is the percentage with 5 fish? What is the percentage with 4 fish?
Your data you posted is from 2016 , 2016 , and 2004 . A fishery can change a huge amount in 9 years .
Gary, I certainly will not get into an argument with a guy with 43 years of experience. But please help me understand why our large, most productive lakes in MN have all been converted to 4(ish) or less limit?
Common themes have been population declines, do too overharvest, poor reproduction, lake chemistry changes, or imbalance of size structure. Now if this can happen on our 40-100+ thousand acres lakes, what is happening on our smaller walleye lakes? It takes a lot less harvest on a 800 acre lake to have an impact than on a 40,0000 acres. at 1 walleye per acre a of 4 person, 6 fish limits, is a harvest of 3% (.03) of the population(800 ac) vs 6/1000th of a 1% (.ooo6)(40,000 ac). Of course angler effort is different, I dont want to venture a guess on hrs/per acre angler effort. But simply, the majority of our walleye lakes are smaller in size and may be more prone to overharvest.
Stocked lakes that are essentially put and take lakes due to no natural reproduction, are a different bird. The DNR fisheries probably have most of those lake figured out on what stocking numbers need to be to sustain a long-term fishable population, that is with a 6 fish limit. is there possibly concern that with how effective anglers are today that those stocking levels will need to increase to make up for the increase in harvest? That will cost more money that we all know is in short supply for our DNR programs.
All of the large most productive lakes I can think of rely solely on natural production and each of them receive a tremendous amount of fishing pressure pretty much year round. I am sure there is a much higher weighted avg harvest on those lakes than the smaller lakes though I have no hard data to back it up, but seeing all the boats and fishhouses it just stands to align in my head.
All of the large most productive lakes I can think of rely solely on natural production
Not all of them. Upper Red had to be restocked with walleyes when they closed it from commerical over harvest. And I can also recall a stocking of Leech Lake in recent memory too after they took out some cormorants.
But for the most part the bigger, more heavily fished lakes rely on natural reproduction. Part of the problem with stocking is that you dilute the genetic gene pool of natural repoduction with a stocked strain.
All of the large most productive lakes I can think of rely solely on natural production and each of them receive a tremendous amount of fishing pressure pretty much year round. I am sure there is a much higher weighted avg harvest on those lakes than the smaller lakes though I have no hard data to back it up, but seeing all the boats and fishhouses it just stands to align in my head.
what about the lakes like Winnie, for instance where the DNR is harvesting eggs tmyear after year. Think of all the walleye that could be there?
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CaptainMusky wrote:</div>
All of the large most productive lakes I can think of rely solely on natural productionNot all of them. Upper Red had to be restocked with <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes when they closed it from commerical over harvest. And I can also recall a stocking of Leech Lake in recent memory too after they took out some cormorants.
But for the most part the bigger, more heavily fished lakes rely on natural reproduction. Part of the problem with stocking is that you dilute the genetic gene pool of natural repoduction with a stocked strain.
I think we are all aware of what happened on Red Lake.
Red lake and Leech are not regularly stocked there were extenuating circumstances that led to both. I’m talking lakes that are stocked yearly, every couple years etc.
what about the lakes like Winnie, for instance where the DNR is harvesting eggs tmyear after year. Think of all the walleye that could be there?
They put some back in though. Cut foot sioux has about 1 million fry stocked per year. Vermilion is the same in that they collect eggs but then restock about 5 million a year. Whether that is less, equivalent, or more than how many would have survived without egg collection I don’t know.
I think we are all aware of what happened on Red Lake.
Apparently one person wasn’t. But I see now he clarified his initial post on the subject.
How about bag limits by season? Seems to me that lakes get absolutely hammered in the winter, especially good panfish lakes.
If you look at lakes within 50 miles of the metro, they get little pressure in the summer. I’ve seen it where there are maybe a handful of boats fishing on the weekend in the summertime. Contrast that with winter and you’ll have a couple hundred guys hammering the crappie holes on the weekend.
Put a 5 fish limit in the winter and 10 in the summer..maybe that helps?
This is just an idea…I don’t have anything other than anecdotal evidence. Just throwing it out there for the discussion.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
