Glen and Sheldon, Gary Barnard is the retired DNR officer in the Bemidji area.
got it….to different Gary’s. both have great input!!!
pretty sure this guy from Grand Rapids took over in Bemidji when he retired. believe Dave Weitzel is his name!!!
Gary you have been a wealth of information thanks for chiming in.
Thanks CaptainMuskie,
I am just trying to bring some biological perspective to the discussion. This proposal seems to be driven more by emotion and virtue than any sound objectives or biological rational.
The DNR just hosted its annual Roundtable where leaders of Statewide sporting groups, outdoor media and others gather to hear about DNR high priority initiatives. It’s usually the opportunity for research biologists and resource managers to dig into the details and explain the hows, whys, and expectations for any new proposed statewide regulation changes. The statewide Walleye bag limit initiative wasn’t even on the agenda. Seems a little odd, doesn’t it?
Changing the walleye limit will have zero effect on me other than I could potentially not keep as many fish as I would have otherwise. Being able to keep fish isn’t important to me. If I do catch a walleye, it will likely be coming home with me unless it is what I deem too big or out of Mille Lacs with the restrictive limit and slot.
What I have gathered from reading this thread is that the main reason for the proposed change is to give anglers an easier-to-achieve goal, which will, in theory, boost their satisfaction level. That reason is good enough for me. If there are 10,000 satisfied fishermen because of the change and 1,000 or 5,000, or 9,999 disgruntled ones. Yes, they have done the right thing. It is only wrong in my mind if it is an even split or more disgruntled anglers than satisfied ones. Talking about the wisdom or lack of it biologically may make you feel good, but it is missing the point of the change entirely. If you oppose the regulation change, you need to hire a reputable public polling agency and commission a poll on the subject. I would presume the DNR has already done that, and you are not going to like the results you get. If the DNR has not done its due diligence and the polling reflects that the change would be a loser for them, you will probably open their eyes and win the argument.
Changing the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye limit will have zero effect on me other than I could potentially not keep as many fish as I would have otherwise. Being able to keep fish isn’t important to me. If I do catch a walleye, it will likely be coming home with me unless it is what I deem too big or out of Mille Lacs with the restrictive limit and slot.
What I have gathered from reading this thread is that the main reason for the proposed change is to give anglers an easier-to-achieve goal, which will, in theory, boost their satisfaction level. That reason is good enough for me. If there are 10,000 satisfied fishermen because of the change and 1,000 or 5,000, or 9,999 disgruntled ones. Yes, they have done the right thing. It is only wrong in my mind if it is an even split or more disgruntled anglers than satisfied ones. Talking about the wisdom or lack of it biologically may make you feel good, but it is missing the point of the change entirely. If you oppose the regulation change, you need to hire a reputable public polling agency and commission a poll on the subject. I would presume the DNR has already done that, and you are not going to like the results you get. If the DNR has not done its due diligence and the polling reflects that the change would be a loser for them, you will probably open their eyes and win the argument.
Hear ya
More limits resulting in a talking point for tourism, guides and others promoting fishing in Minnesota. University of Minnesota did a poll. The question was skewed to imply reducing the limit would improve walleye fishing. Then asked if pollsters would approve of the limit change. The results were split down the middle. Are anglers ok with it even though it will not improve walleye fishing? As you pointed out a majority would be for it and that number might be higher than one might think. Some have said guides would benefit being able to get a limit quicker allowing more clients within a day. I don’t agree this would happen. Guides I know are booked for a segment of time getting limit early would be either mean more fish caught and released or changing to a different species until the segment of time is used up.
Changing the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye limit will have zero effect on me other than I could potentially not keep as many fish as I would have otherwise. Being able to keep fish isn’t important to me. If I do catch a walleye, it will likely be coming home with me unless it is what I deem too big or out of Mille Lacs with the restrictive limit and slot.
What I have gathered from reading this thread is that the main reason for the proposed change is to give anglers an easier-to-achieve goal, which will, in theory, boost their satisfaction level. That reason is good enough for me. If there are 10,000 satisfied fishermen because of the change and 1,000 or 5,000, or 9,999 disgruntled ones. Yes, they have done the right thing. It is only wrong in my mind if it is an even split or more disgruntled anglers than satisfied ones. Talking about the wisdom or lack of it biologically may make you feel good, but it is missing the point of the change entirely. If you oppose the regulation change, you need to hire a reputable public polling agency and commission a poll on the subject. I would presume the DNR has already done that, and you are not going to like the results you get. If the DNR has not done its due diligence and the polling reflects that the change would be a loser for them, you will probably open their eyes and win the argument.
Agree
Being that most anglers below the age of 30-40 are bass fisherman are programed for C & R and are likely to find walleye fishing tedious and boring the limit does not matter to them, last opener I spent most of the day bass fishing with my son, just shook my head, my Dad was rolling over in his grave.
What I have gathered from reading this thread is that the main reason for the proposed change is to give anglers an easier-to-achieve goal, which will, in theory, boost their satisfaction level. That reason is good enough for me.
Bass Pundit,
I understand how a self proclaimed bass angler might not be concerned about lowering the Walleye harvest limit.
To clarify, the study referenced earlier (Thanks to Riverrat for providing the link) about bag limits and angler satisfaction was published in May of 2001. The idea of reducing bag limits to increase angler satisfaction was floated at a DNR Roundtable around that time and did not find much support among attendees. I don’t know how much perceptions may have changed since then, but that has not been offered as an objective for the current proposed rule change. Actually, that premise for the proposed rule change would have more social science to support it than the vague rational currently offered.
It seems what matters is pinning down why the change is being proposed by the DNR. If you have no target or targets to shoot at, it will be tough to knock the regulation change down if that is your goal.
Bass fishermen in this state have been aiming at and making slow progress in changing the Closed Season for bass into a catch-and-release season. I think MN is the final holdout in the US. The DNR Commissioned a public survey in 2024 that was overwhelmingly favorable to the change. We are really close now to overcoming that final hurdle.
We are really close now to overcoming that final hurdle.
Are we though? What makes you say that is more likely to happen sooner than later given it hasn’t happened already?
It seems what matters is pinning down why the change is being proposed by the DNR. If you have no target or targets to shoot at, it will be tough to knock the regulation change down if that is your goal.
Wouldn’t it be the responsibility of those proposing the change to identify why the change is being proposed?
That’s what is being discussed and questioned here, the need and reason for the proposed regulation change.
Not if they hold the power to do it unless there is significant opposition pushing back. The Government sometimes operates like special interest gangsters. You think your voice matters, that may be naive.
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
Gary Busey Would like a word with you.
In our household it is just my wife and I. We both like wild game and fish. We keep a small stash of fish, walleye, panfish, salmon and lake trout. The only time we would have a limit of 12 walleyes is fall and spring to tide us over until fishing season is open again. Otherwise with the availability living in a lakes area, catch what we want to eat for a fresh fish meal. The concern I have is the fashion in which this proposal is moved through. It did not pass the legislative process. Now rule making process is the last step before a law judge.
Thank you all (especially Gary) for your time answering my questions. This has been a great thread.
The current DNR commissioner has spoken often about the risks in long term DNR funding due to the declining or level license sales across hunting and fishing.
IMHO if you look at what changes have been made during her tenure, I can’t speak to any that seem to encourage license sales growth, and could point to a number of things that would seemingly hinder license sales. This would fall into that category as well imo.
Once the DNR is no longer beholden to outdoorspeople via license sales, there will be even less attention given to improving our hunting and fishing experiences or growing the opportunity and access to the places needed for it. And from my perspective Commissioner Strommen longs for the day the DNR is no longer primarily funded by outdoorspeople, previously referred to as people living among the rocks and cows by the Governor.
Spot on BigWerm
Everytime Fish and Wildlife budget issues are discussed people start calling for more general fund money to support F&W programs. If you want a department even less beholding to hunters and anglers I can’t think of a way to speed that along faster.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
