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.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
