New Statewide Walleye Limit?

What’s a walleye???

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Eelpoutguy wrote:</div>
Paul Radomski, a DNR research scientist who wrote a book on walleyes in 2022, has said…Cutting the bag limit…wouldn’t save a measurable number of fish.

Agree.

It’s politicians fighting over something they know little about.

It must be that time of year.

This did not originate in the MN legislature.

I love how they present nothing in the form of scientific facts and it all was based on the opinion about “how much meat a person needs”. I lost a lot of respect for everyone in this video.

wormdunker wrote:

00% in support of reduced bags to 4. I am also good with the bag being possession as well.

I’m guessing you do not have many family and friend fish fry’s. That’s a little tough to do on a walleye possession limit of 4 or a sunfish possession limit of 10. I have a buddy who during lent has a friends and family meal most friday’s. I guess he would just need to cut those way down

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>wormdunker wrote:</div>
00% in support of reduced bags to 4. I am also good with the bag being possession as well.

I’m guessing you do not have many family and friend fish fry’s. That’s a little tough to do on a walleye possession limit of 4 or a sunfish possession limit of 10. I have a buddy who during lent has a friends and family meal most friday’s. I guess he would just need to cut those way down

That or make them catch there own fish. Your limit can supply who ever you want it to, but you don’t get to be greedy because you want to feed 20 people. In that case I should have shot 15 deer because I like to give it to friends and family.
Your reasoning is exactly what’s wrong with guys hoarding fish. Cut the limit to 4 cut the crappie limits and sunfish limits In half as well. Nobody needs more then 4 walleye in a day or more then double the daily limit.

biggill wrote:

This did not originate in the MN legislature.

<div class=”ido-oembed-wrap”><iframe loading=”lazy” title=”The future of walleye fishing in Minnesota….” width=”850″ height=”478″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/a0PTHxvswZA?feature=oembed&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share” allowfullscreen=””></iframe></div>
I love how they present nothing in the form of scientific facts and it all was based on the opinion about “how much meat a person needs”. I lost a lot of respect for everyone in this video.

Maybe not originated but defiantly pushed for or against from both sides. Plenty of evidence in the article posted.
If the DNR would do there job they wouldn’t need for politicians to be involved in the first place.
Not sure why their opinions even matter in this case.

Does MN technically have a ‘freezer’ limit once you are at home? I am in ND and have been told we do not. I do find it a little curious that MN’s walleye limit is higher than ND, MT (both 5), and SD (4).

slough wrote:

Does MN technically have a ‘freezer’ limit once you are at home? I am in ND and have been told we do not. I do find it a little curious that MN’s walleye limit is higher than ND, MT (both 5), and SD (4).

Yes possession is same as daily.

What’s the actual possibility of them allowing 2 lines during open water? Having a slip bobber in the rod holder while jigging would be a game changer. Even better yet go to 3 lines during ice fishing. I would think if you did this along with lowering the statewide limit it would not have any negative impact on the lakes. Only thing it would result in is everyone having more fun on the water. Another idea create an add-on license for 10 or 15 bucks that gives you one extra line open water and hard water.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

4 eys state wide along with 2 lines! Wait! I think the DNR is seeing that coming!

Best idea on this thread!!

I have been an advocate for two lines forever. On that note – why not a “2nd line stamp” like Iowa has(I think it was Iowa, not positive)? Could be a nice revenue stream and easy to enforce – an addition simple check when checking licenses.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

4 eys state wide along with 2 lines! Wait! I think the DNR is seeing that coming!

^^^^yeah this!!!!^^^^

Glad I read thru, didn’t feel like commenting but Bearcat is spot on above.

I’m all about a reduced bag for the bluegills and sunfish, but don’t really see the need for walleye reduction. I get a conservation license every year so I’m at half bag already. The license fee should go down to then since they aren’t going in my belly.

Sounds like a public opinion regulation change just like on the Mississippi.

Kruschpa wrote:

Sounds like a public opinion regulation change just like on the Mississippi.

That’s correct. The only issue I have with all this is that these people will claim it’s to protect the future of walleye fishing which there is literally no basis for.

Deuces wrote:

Glad I read thru, didn’t feel like commenting but Bearcat is spot on above.

I fully agree. With all due respect to those that make this argument, I don’t want fish populations to be negatively impacted because they or someone they know always puts on a fish fry and wants to continue to do so.

That’s an excellent idea. I’d love to see bag limits on all species reduced by 50% or more.

What BC said, or go to Cub and pick up some Zander.
Entitlement

Eelpoutguy wrote:

What BC said, or go to Cub and pick up some Zander.
Entitlement

Or Red Lake walleyes.

Pailofperch wrote:

What’s a walleye???

Right! Give me a fish that actually fights any day.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_8138.jpeg
   

Aboxy17 wrote:

What’s the actual possibility of them allowing 2 lines during open water? Having a slip bobber in the rod holder while jigging would be a game changer. Even better yet go to 3 lines during ice fishing. I would think if you did this along with lowering the statewide limit it would not have any negative impact on the lakes. Only thing it would result in is everyone having more fun on the water. Another idea create an add-on license for 10 or 15 bucks that gives you one extra line open water and hard water.

This is not a new idea and many variations have been suggested and tried and a couple of them even made it to the Governor for signature, but with the current regime, I say the possibility is close to zero. They have made it loud and clear they don’t want any part of it and in fact I was personally told that if I continued to pursue a statewide change, they would take the 2 lines on rivers initiative (which finally passed last year) off the table.

At least 60% of the MNDNR fisheries are in favor of 2 lines statewide (per internal survey) but those at the top won’t budge. How do I know this? Because someone sent me the survey and results.

Bearcat89 wrote:

Nobody needs more then 4 walleye in a day or more then double the daily limit.

100% agree. The poster I responded to said he was fine with the daily limit and possession limit being the same. I’m saying I’d prefer a smaller daily limit but the possession being increased to at least 2X the daily limit.

Bearcat89 wrote:

In that case I should have shot 15 deer because I like to give it to friends and family.

There is no current possission limit on deer. So if you want to keep a deer in your freezer from one year to the next to give to Friends and family go ahead.
I don’t see a problem of having family and friends over for a meal off of 1 deer, I do see a slight problem with doing so on a possession limit of 4 walleyes or 10 Panfish.

fishthumper wrote:

I do see a slight problem with doing so on a possession limit of 4 or 10 Panfish.

what is the problem there?

3Rivers wrote:

Because someone sent me the survey and results.

God bless the freedom of information act.

Keep the limits the same, reduce the hours people are allowed to fish, only the strong survive.

If you cut the daily limit … keep the possession limit at 6 or raise the possession limit to double the daily limit.

Unified slot limit or two options across MN … if it works, if it does not work eliminate it.

how about getting some restrictions on the tribes?

I’d be fine reducing the statewide walleye daily limit to 4…if the possession limit was increased to 8!!!

The article cites neighboring states and Ontario having a 4 walleye daily limit. I’m pretty sure most of those neighboring states also have a possession limit that is twice the daily.

Seems like a reasonable compromise!!!

The question remains. Why reduce the limit?