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

Anyfish2 wrote:

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?

Anyfish,
I am not interested in any argument at all, but am very encouraged to see this thread has turned from personal preferences to a useful discussion on the biological implications, or lack thereoff, of this proposal.

To answer your question, if you dig a little deeper you’ll see that few if any of those large walleye lakes are managed with a stand-alone 4 bag limit. In fact almost every current special walleye regulation lake with a reduced bag has it in combination with some type of size regulation. When effects of these regulations are evaluated the size protection part always accounts for the largest portion of the harvest saving.

Also worth considering, regarding your comparison of harvest impacts on small vs. large Walleye lakes, is that the same bag limit does not function the same on all lakes. Bag limits can only reduce harvest where there is a resonable chance of anglers achieving them, and that only occurs on a regular basis on those highly productive lakes with high walleye densities and high catch rates. If the intent of the reduced bag limit is to improve walleye fishing, wouldn’t you choose a regulation that would impact the poor walleye populations?

Reef……i’m aware they put some back in..but there getting these fry from somewhere going to some other lake!!!!!!

wasnt this thread about walleyes??? leave the sunfish/crappie limits where there at!!!

CaptainMusky wrote:

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.

Exactly. Walleye stocking is a management tool, just like harvest regulations, to be used where and when useful and necessary.

Gary Barnard wrote:

Exactly. Walleye stocking is a management tool, just like harvest regulations, to be used where and when useful and necessary.

Gary, to be clear, is your stance to leave the limit at 6 statewide?

In your experience, what do you feel would be the Maximum number of walleyes for a daily/possession limit statewide, that would not impact fisheries? loaded question I know. But individual lake regulations would be near impossible to implement do to the fact we just survey lakes every 4 years or longer for most lakes. Monitoring all the lakes more often is not feasible at this time.

I do have concerns for many lakes that are smaller in size, some you may know well that I fish every year. I have seen the increase in boat numbers over the years and I see more and more fish being taken out every year. But I can certainly understand if we are still well within our harvestable surplus. I just hope we wouldn’t wait until we have to make reactionary changes. Your thoughts are very appreciated.

glenn57 wrote:

Reef……i’m aware they put some back in..but there getting these fry from somewhere going to some other lake!!!!!!

Right, they are taking some eggs from lakes like Winni, Woman and the Whitefish Chain. Then fertilizing those eggs and hatching fry to be stocked in other area lakes and then some also put back into the lakes they took the eggs from. Not sure the % perhaps Gary knows. I would hazard a pretty dang confident guess that successful fertilization in a lab is MUCH higher than in the wild so I expect its almost like a wash between what they are taking out and what would have “survived” to what they are actually putting back in as fry.

Does the DNR have notifications when they stock a lake or is that kept secret.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Does the DNR have notifications when they stock a lake or is that kept secret.

Not sure how timely they update it on Lakefinder. But you can see thier stocking number on lakefinder for each lake you look at.

Anyfish2 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
Does the DNR have notifications when they stock a lake or is that kept secret.

Not sure how timely they update it on Lakefinder. But you can see thier stocking number on lakefinder for each lake you look at.

I think it would be cool to take the Grandkid down and watch sometime.

It’s probably not super exciting. Stocking 100k fry looks like dumping out a milk jug

Attachments:

1. AQOhVi3DvfUrCCG0V3EDHI8ADuK2-xVrqScS22kAQ2f6q8M06KWDNOCUO2qrOg9uquNu8aAcjB6SQIRexKQXQtWv.mp4

I really don’t think going from 6 fish to 4 does anything except make the DNR look more proactive.

Will it change walleye fisheries. Nope
Will it make more universal regs. Nope
All the lakes with special regs will still have them.
Will it change fisherman’s behavior and where and how often they go. Nope
Will it change how much fish one consumes in a year. Nope
At least not enough to matter.
Will it change opinion of walleye fisherman in what should be done.
Nope

The one thing it does do is gets it closer to tighter restrictions in the future.

gim wrote:

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

And they rely on natural reproduction now. So your point was kind of pointless.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

I think it would be cool to take the Grandkid down and watch sometime.

I have been on the Pine River by Whitefish with the kids multiple times when they were netting and stripping walleyes it is an absolute blast. I dont know if they post when it is starting, but if you are around it is usually pretty easy to figure out when. There is almost always ice on the lake yet.

gim wrote:

Apparently one person wasn’t. But I see now he clarified his initial post on the subject.

Come on Gim! If this was directed toward me you have got to be absolutely bonkers. Anyone with half a brain knows what “stocking a lake means” and it isnt dumping them in there one time or a couple years. The only reason those two lakes were stocked were obvious reasons that we all know about. Didnt require any explanation to anyone but you apparently. I guess I also failed to mention that Mille lacs was stocked that one Spring too because the hatch was so dang bad over the course of a few years but I digress. We ALL knew why and we ALL know it doesnt or hasnt continued.

CaptainMusky wrote:

I guess I also failed to mention that Mille lacs was stocked that one Spring too

Mille Lacs has never been stocked with walleyes. Muskies only.

Its all good. I understand your point made.

gim wrote:

Mille Lacs has never been stocked with walleyes.

It absolutely was! It was like a decade or possibly more ago. It was after a string of terrible reproductive seasons and about a couple of years in of little to no harvest. They were hoping to enhance the rebound and all the eggs were from native fish because they didnt want to taint the Mille Lacs fish because to that point it was never stocked.
Found it…
https://www.messagemedia.co/millelacs/outdoors/mille-lacs-walleye-stocking-project/article_5a47307e-0635-11e6-b846-8f1eee4e7078.html#:~:text=The%20Minnesota%20Department%20of%20Natural%20Resources%20has,there%20are%20not%20enough%20walleye%20to%20spawn.

Well I’ll be. I was wrong. Good case, good info.

Anyfish2 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gary Barnard wrote:</div>
Exactly. Walleye stocking is a management tool, just like harvest regulations, to be used where and when useful and necessary.

Gary, to be clear, is your stance to leave the limit at 6 statewide?

In your experience, what do you feel would be the Maximum number of walleyes for a daily/possession limit statewide, that would not impact fisheries? loaded question I know. But individual lake regulations would be near impossible to implement do to the fact we just survey lakes every 4 years or longer for most lakes. Monitoring all the lakes more often is not feasible at this time.

I do have concerns for many lakes that are smaller in size, some you may know well that I fish every year. I have seen the increase in boat numbers over the years and I see more and more fish being taken out every year. But I can certainly understand if we are still well within our harvestable surplus. I just hope we wouldn’t wait until we have to make reactionary changes. Your thoughts are very appreciated.

Anyfish,
Yes, my recommendation is to leave the statewide limit at six unless the data indicates some logical reason to change.

I don’t care to speculate on what the maximum number might be, because it’s irrelevant. There is no interest in changing upward and it would be impossible to meet the need and reasonableness requirement for an upward adjustment anyway.

DNR already has authority for special regulations on individual lakes, has for decades, and even has a reduced bag option (3 fish) in the walleye regulation tool box. But if you look at the reg book there have been very few implemented. There just has not been much interest or need from Area Fisheries Managers.

I understand your concern about the sustainability of smaller lakes. Many of those are maintained by stocking so really the entire adult population is “harvestable surplus”. In many of our fingerling stocked lakes we would like to see a higher return to the angler from the stocking investment.

What’s lost in this bag limit discussion is that recruitment (production and survival of young fish) is the biggest driver of walleye populations. Far more important than harvest mortality. While most of the factors that effect recruitment are random, weather related and out of the control of fish managers, harvest from high density population can actually stimulate recruitment by removing recruitment suppression. We shouldn’t just assume that harvest is bad for Walleye populations.

Gary you have been a wealth of information thanks for chiming in.

I agree with you Captain Muskie Gary has been a wealth of knowledge with his 43 years of experience on this topic. Let me point out that other Area Managers and fisheries experts like Gary have expressed their objection to the statewide four fish regulation, proposed, with letters and sit down meetings with Brad Parsons Head of Fisheries and I can only assume the DNR leadership has heard them also. The 4 walleye Statewide limit still moves forward.

As important this issue is to Minnesota’s anglers and the States outdoor heritage am wondering why MNFISH is silent. Wishing they would look into some fisheries data and take a stand.

I am going to level with to what transpired on the 4-walleye bag limit. When I first became a member of the Minnesota Citizens Walleye work group. Heard about the statewide 4 walleye limit proposal, and it seemed reasonable to me. My answer was “If the Minnesota DNR can provide data that showing it would better the walleye populations and fishing within the State am all for it”. During the meetings that followed kept asking for the data, it still was not produced. So, for that reason, am against it. This effort is driven in large part from the Commissioner’s office. The rationale it is ok, change the limit if the public says its ok in an effort to be pro-active and as the Head of Fisheries stated publicly. As the past as shown when a walleye lake within the state experiences problems. The Area Fishery Managers can take action and use what is necessary to resolve the problem. During my tenure on the Committee repeatedly asked for lakes felt to be in peril, t and needed help, that request was never answered. Area Fisheries Managers are split on the proposal. The Minnesota DNR lost a respected Area Fisheries Manager due in part to this. A Minnesota Senator I have close contact with tells me the MN DNR department is a mess. Has anyone heard any updates about the 40 or so vacancies within the Department are they being filled?

Gary……i’ve had on and off over the last 5-6 years had conversations with the fish people from the Grand Rapids DNR office……and there always short handed with people on the ground. every time they tell me they are short workers and due to budget cuts!!!!

but yet…..people out there keep saying Mn DNR system out there is one of the best!! if thats the case……why so many openings!!

Glenn57. What I was stating was the comment from a Senator I know. As far as the fisheries side of things feel top notch, excellent at data collection, test net surveys and understanding what to do when stepping in to help a lake. As far as the many openings, those that have left comment negatively to the politics. Field researchers I speak to tell me the statewide 4 walleye bag limit will do nothing to the help the resource.

Gary Korsgaden wrote:

Glenn57. What I was stating was the comment from a Senator I know. As far as the fisheries side of things feel top notch, excellent at data collection, test net surveys and understanding what to do when stepping in to help a lake. As far as the many openings, those that have left comment negatively to the politics. Field researchers I speak to tell me the statewide 4 walleye bag limit will do nothing to the help the resource.

Gary, do you lend any credence to the thought of being proactive when changing the regs? This was one of reasons mentioned by the DNR.

With the proliferation of FFS, what seems like substantial increase in ice fishing pressure, etc., this seems like a reasonable way to look at it. If we wait until there is enough data to show a problem, it could be potentially too late and hard to undo the damage done by overfishing. What are your thoughts?

Gary Korsgaden wrote:

Glenn57. What I was stating was the comment from a Senator I know. As far as the fisheries side of things feel top notch, excellent at data collection, test net surveys and understanding what to do when stepping in to help a lake. As far as the many openings, those that have left comment negatively to the politics. Field researchers I speak to tell me the statewide 4 walleye bag limit will do nothing to the help the resource.

point taken…..and i dont disagree……maybe its the higher up politics when it actually comes for them people to actually do what needs to be done…thats what they tell me…lack of help!!!!!!

i know when i’ve followed up with them they were very open on the info they found and didnt hesitate to tell me the truth !!!

since those conversations i’ve since got involved and currently a member of the Jessie Lake Watershed Assoc since i learned bending there ear alone doesnt do any good unless you have an organization behind you.

Gary Barnard, If you are the same guy I have quizzed in the past with my concerns about what our ethanol plants do to our aquifers at the consumption rate of 44 million gallons of water daily are doing to your lakes up there, welcome to IDO, you are a wealth of information.
The last few years with data centers being built left and right, that consumption has gone up substantially here.
We even discussed a certain lake or two up there that for whatever reason cannot maintain water levels even in wet years, if I remember correctly the average dock length was over three hundred feet on those lakes, is that issue still occurring ??

Back to adding to this discussion, what I have seen in put and take lakes is once walleye get to catchable size the lakes are overran with fishermen until the population decreases to a point where they are almost fished out, I see this on the smaller lakes and not so much on larger ones.
A lake I frequent has that problem, fortunately it is connected to several other lakes that walleye can get into and out of with ease and I want to believe the population changes due to them following forage in and out of those lakes.
I wonder though, is rainfall or lack of a factor? water temps? I know fish like to roam a lot and it could be just their nature to do so.
I also know fishing pressure will cause them to go deep, move on, etc.

One lesson I learned from Steve Fellegy is that stocked fry tend to roam the most of any walleye out there, it would be interesting to know how and why that is a factor, hate to use an old cliche but are fry lacking the ” herd mentality ”
Radio tracking here has shown that fingerlings tend to never leave where they settle in once stocked, and many of those dont leave their habitat even during spawn.
Sorry I didnt take this thread anywhere, just rambling.

Again, if this is the same Gary, I still owe you a day in my boat.

OK I’m confused. I see a Gary Barnard and A Gary Koesgaden posting? I assume not the same person but pretty much the same knowledge.

Help me not be confused?,

I kept thinking Gary Banard name was familiar to me. Gary did you use to work out of the Bemidji DNR office?

The DNR guy i had conversations with from the Grand Rapids moved over to Bemidji to take over i believe. Don’t recall the name though

Glenn, I am Gary Korsgaden Let me clarify I have a interest in the outdoors since a child. Never been an employee of the Minnesota DNR. I live south of Park Rapids, Minnesota. My history includes fishing guide, sporting goods representative, a couple of outdoor radio shows and weekly/daily outdoor news columns. Have written for INFISHERMAN, FISHING FACTS, and FUR-FISH-GAME and have done a number of fishing seminars. Taught a fishing school in several communities. In the past ten years became a committee member of the MN DNR Walleye Workgroup and the Large Lake Group Lake of The Woods Committees. My last writing assignment was with GAME AND FISH MAGZINE, a 5-part series discussion covering the variety of fishing that exists within the State and the MN DNR FISHERIES involvement to their success. Hope you can see how my path would across with Minnesota DNR Fishery Biologists and Area Managers as I sought their input on fishery issues within the State. Appreciate the interest and hope it explains how I came to this point.

Matt, What is important is solid year classes, spawning habitat, weather and food available none of which can be controlled by regulations or bag limits. Additional concerns is aquatic invasive species which are in 8% of Minnesota lakes of which 3% is zebra mussels and warming of our walleye waters. None of these negative factors and the result can be controlled by bag limits, the walleye population will adjust because of them. So in actual terms harvest would benefit in these situations balancing the numbers to the forage and habitat available.

Gary Korsgaden wrote:

Glenn, I am Gary Korsgaden Let me clarify I have a interest in the outdoors since a child. Never been an employee of the Minnesota DNR. I live south of Park Rapids, Minnesota. My history includes fishing guide, sporting goods representative, a couple of outdoor radio shows and weekly/daily outdoor news columns. Have written for INFISHERMAN, FISHING FACTS, and FUR-FISH-GAME and have done a number of fishing seminars. Taught a fishing school in several communities. In the past ten years became a committee member of the MN DNR Walleye Workgroup and the Large Lake Group Lake of The Woods Committees. My last writing assignment was with GAME AND FISH MAGZINE, a 5-part series discussion covering the variety of fishing that exists within the State and the MN DNR FISHERIES involvement to their success. Hope you can see how my path would across with Minnesota DNR Fishery Biologists and Area Managers as I sought their input on fishery issues within the State. Appreciate the interest and hope it explains how I came to this point.

yep, appreciate the response. Agree with your invite!

I fished and snowmobiled the park rapids area some time ago, had friends that had a place there, the Schackmans. Also new a doc Gardner that practiced medicine there for a while.

Deleted