New Statewide Walleye Limit?

I havent kept a limit of walleyes except from LOW in years.

This is inevitable with the emergence of newer sonar capabilities and FFS. Change it to a daily of 4 with a possession of 8 and we can move on.

Daily limit 4, possession limit 8; wold also like to see some lakes with size minimums. How much meat is really coming off these 13-14 inch walleyes???

Highbeeze24 wrote:

This is inevitable with the emergence of newer sonar capabilities and FFS. Change it to a daily of 4 with a possession of 8 and we can move on.

You think they are going to up the possession? I doubt that.

Ripjiggen wrote:

You think they are going to up the possession? I doubt that.

Doubt it, but it should be.

Yeah just don’t see the kill less one day but kill more in two days happening. Not in Minnesota.

daily and possession limit of 4 is fine with me.

Highbeeze24 wrote:

This is inevitable with the emergence of newer sonar capabilities and FFS. Change it to a daily of 4 with a possession of 8 and we can move on.

I’ve been around FFS multiple times and I’d bet less than 5 percent of the population who owns it uses it effectively . Go to the redwing dam and look how many people are catching fish with livescope vs those that aren’t . I was in a boat all weekend with livescope – the driver and other guy had a screen in their face all weekend . I had the 2 biggest fish with no screen lol .

I will trade you a 4 fish walleye limit for 2 lines open water statewide…..

The possession limit will be 4 as well as the daily limit if it gets through the rulemaking process.

I’m fine with it, and am surprised it’s taken this long to be a serious consideration

Only time I kept a limit was on Mille Lacs. One fish, 21 to 23.

I’d be fine if it went down to 2 or 3 fish personally. Also size slots on panfish. Rather catch fish than keep fish

There’s certainly nothing wrong with keeping a limit of walleyes.

OG Net_Man wrote:

I will trade you a 4 fish walleye limit for 2 lines open water statewide…..

Og net man for DNR commissioner!

Highbeeze24 wrote:

This is inevitable with the emergence of newer sonar capabilities and FFS. Change it to a daily of 4 with a possession of 8 and we can move on.

Yes, agreed.

And Accaroline- The croix has a 15” minimum, which is nice, and I wouldn’t mind it being 16” even.

In the Strib this am

Anderson: DNR wants to cut Minnesota walleye limit to four, but some want the idea thrown back
Minnesota’s lower-limit walleye plan will be announced as a DNR rule-making proposal in May. A 60-day public comment period will follow.

Minnesota’s walleyes aren’t threatened by the state’s six-walleye limit, some biologists say. Instead, climate change and shoreline destruction are the walleye’s primary threats, they say, and cutting walleye limits will do nothing to address either problem. (Dennis Anderson/For the Minnesota Star Tribune)

Only if President Donald Trump and Gov. Tim Walz squared off over a Department of Natural Resources plan to lower Minnesota’s walleye limit could the proposal be more controversial than it already is.

But even those political rivals couldn’t add more sparks to a fisheries management proposition that already is sizzling among walleye anglers — and the season hasn’t even opened yet.

The leader of one side of the squabble is Brad Parsons, DNR fisheries section chief. He concedes that while no scientific justification exits to reduce the walleye limit from six to four on all Minnesota lakes, it’s better to manage walleye harvests conservatively given that climate change, new fishing technologies, social media and evermore efficient anglers will pose broad-scale challenges to walleye fishing in coming years.

In fact, those challenges are already here, Parsons said.

“The DNR is often accused of being reactive rather than proactive,” he said. “In this case, we’re being proactive.”

Not so fast, say some retired DNR fisheries biologists and managers.

“Lowering the walleye bag limit isn’t going to do any good for walleyes or walleye fishing, and will only make some fishermen feel better about a problem we don’t have,” said Gary Barnard, a 43-year DNR employee and retired area fisheries manager stationed in Bemidji. “The DNR has one of the most extensive walleye databases in the world, and there’s nothing in it that suggests we’re over-harvesting walleyes.”

Talked about for years, and proposed (and defeated) in the Legislature in 2022, the lower-limit walleye plan will be announced as a DNR rule-making proposal in May. A 60-day public comment period will follow.

The soonest the lower limit could be effective is March of next year.

“We’ll take the comments we receive seriously,” Parsons said. “I’ve talked to a number of people about it already. Some resort owners have asked if we can keep the walleye possession limit at six, but the daily limit at four [with one over 20 inches]. Others say we should go to three walleyes, not four. It’s possible after we get feedback that we will modify our proposal. But right now, four walleyes statewide is our plan.”

Fisheries managers who object to the lower limit say it won’t improve walleye fishing because very few anglers catch more than one or two walleyes an outing. More importantly, they claim it would remove management options needed to regulate walleyes on a lake-by-lake basis, while unnecessarily burdening fisheries managers — and anglers — with lower limits that won’t help walleye populations.

In some lakes, they say, higher walleye harvest limits of certain sizes are periodically needed to spur recruitment of young fish into a population. That’s what’s happening on Upper Red Lake this year, where the DNR increased the walleye limit to five starting with the May 10 opener, with one walleye allowed longer than 17 inches.

Last summer’s Upper Red walleye limit was three until June 15, when it changed to four, with one walleye over 17 inches allowed in each period.

“For 20 years we’ve been managing Upper Red to maintain its spawning stock within certain parameters,” said Henry Drewes, who retired in 2021 as DNR Northwest Region fisheries manager. “This year’s five-walleye bag limit matches that management objective. It’s fitting the regulation to the specific lake, which is important.”

The DNR annually gathers detailed walleye population data on the state’s biggest walleye-producing lakes. But accumulating specific information on all of Minnesota’s 1,600 or so walleye waters isn’t possible, Parsons said, making tailored walleye management — and harvest levels — on all state lakes problematic.

“Where we have our best science is on our larger walleye lakes,” he said. “And most of those are already at four-walleye limits.”

Most … but not all.

Consider Winnibigoshish (“Winnie”), a 67,000-acre watery walleye haven that again this summer will be governed by a six-walleye limit with an 18-23 inch protected slot and one walleye allowed over 23 inches.

Winnie’s walleye limit exceeds those of Vermilion and Lake of the Woods and some of the state’s other big walleye producing lakes because the higher-harvest regulation best serves Winnie’s walleyes, while also benefiting anglers and area resort owners and other businesses.

If a new statewide four-walleye limit is enacted, Winnie’s walleye limit would be cut, Parsons acknowledged, even if that action won’t necessarily benefit the lake’s fishery.

What’s more, revising upward Winnie’s — or another lake’s — walleye limit once it’s governed by a statewide four-walleye restriction would be difficult, because such changes must be done through rule making, a time-consuming process. Annual harvest adjustments on Upper Red and Mille Lacs lakes, by contrast, can be made by “commissioner’s orders,” because they are governed by treaty arrangements.

“Part of the [rule-making] process is that if a relatively small number of people object to the proposed rule, the issue has to go before an administrative law judge for a decision,” Parsons said. ”I expect people will object to our proposal to reduce the statewide walleye limit, and we will have to explain our position to a judge who ultimately will give an opinion.”

Parsons conceded that some current DNR fisheries managers disagree with the limit reduction proposal. “But most support it,” he said.

The majority of the state’s Walleye Advisory Council, which offers feedback to the DNR, also supports the cutback, member Jim Justesen said. And a majority of attendees at a recent fisheries summit sponsored by the conservation group MN-FISH backed the idea.

Tom Neustrom, of Grand Rapids, is among fishing guides who believe lowering the walleye limit will help protect the fishery.

“People talk about the science of walleye management, but what about common sense?” Neustrom said. “The last time Minnesota had a walleye limit change was in 1956. With the new electronics that people have, you tell me what’s going to happen to walleyes in the next 15 or 20 years if we don’t do something. This isn’t about one person or one group. It’s about Minnesota and its fish.”

^^
“Instead, climate change and shoreline destruction are the walleye’s primary threats”

Crazy that they come up with this as the main issue in MN lakes.

The restrictions should be left alone and adjusted as needed on a lake by lake basis. Surplus lakes without any present issues or high fishing pressure shouldn’t have to be modified until the surveys prove that a problem is present.

I know this is an educated audience, but I am amazed at how many people do not understand DAILY and POSSESSION limits. A lot of people think they can catch a limit every day, even with fish in the fridge or freezer.

I cannot tell you the last time I kept a limit of fish, I catch, fillet and eat, rarely freeze any fish.

I am a science guy, so I will believe the biologist long before political appointed officials. Look how long it has been since they destroyed Mille Lacs.

You’d be amazed how many just don’t care about daily vs possession. Go fish Big Pine or Otter Tail in Perham in May and June. The folks of Polish heritage quite literally go out day after day and keep limits. There are some big freezers in that county.

Lower it to 4. None of the lakes are like Erie in this state, and 6 fish will feed a family of 4 healthy adults no problem, unless they are obese but we don’t need to cater to them. Happy Easter!

Attachments:

1. 

   FB_IMG_1745108997335.jpg
   

ganderpike wrote:

You’d be amazed how many just don’t care about daily vs possession. Go fish Big Pine or Otter Tail in Perham in May and June. The folks of Polish heritage quite literally go out day after day and keep limits. There are some big freezers in that county.

Lower it to 4. None of the lakes are like Erie in this state, and 6 fish will feed a family of 4 healthy adults no problem, unless they are obese but we don’t need to cater to them. Happy Easter!

Call the TIP line if regulations aren’t being followed.

ganderpike wrote:

You’d be amazed how many just don’t care about daily vs possession. Go fish Big Pine or Otter Tail in Perham in May and June. The folks of Polish heritage quite literally go out day after day and keep limits. There are some big freezers in that county.

Lower it to 4. None of the lakes are like Erie in this state, and 6 fish will feed a family of 4 healthy adults no problem, unless they are obese but we don’t need to cater to them. Happy Easter!

This has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever. If you’re so sure the polish people are out breaking the law do you call them in? Have you given tips that have lead to these huge freezers of fish you talk about? Also like your weight has anything to do with how many fish you need or can keep? Get real!

I hope each county DNR office has a say on their lakes are doing and would do vs just changing the limit. Take the Northern pike daily limit change a while back…10 fish!! Really? I’m lucky to catch 10 pike a Summer on our waters. We usually do pretty good on eye’s in May, but with 3 of us in the boat we’ve never came back to the dock with 18 at one time.

Swimjiggin wrote:

Take the Northern pike daily limit change a while back…10 fish!! Really?

10 pike/season? I probably catch 150 or more in a season targeting bass and muskie.

They are a serious problem in so many lakes here and virtually no one keeps them.

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Swimjiggin wrote:</div>
Take the Northern pike daily limit change a while back…10 fish!! Really?

10 pike/season? I probably catch 200 or more in a season targeting bass and muskie.

They are a serious problem in so many lakes here and virtually no one keeps them.

I do!! they taste great!!!

Gim is know the lakes he fishes generally, he’s not lying. He’s got a better chance of catching 10 sheepshead then pike.

Before the 10 pike limit was in place bowstring and sand lake had a 9 fish limit and I believe no size restrictions.

My brother and I ate that up, we pickle and smoke alot of pike there was a time when if that 22 to 26 slot was there you’d never need to release them, now there’s alit of them slot fish, do that 10 fish limit is working

I know you are making a dent in this problem Glenn. Good to hear things are improving in some localities.

I just don’t think there is a lot of popularity out there for it though like what you do. There just isn’t. Very few anglers are interested in harvesting a pile of hammer handle sized pike even though they are abundant and easy to catch. Seems like everyone wants walleye or panfish instead.

I pickle some of the smaller ones. The annoying small y bones dissolve right during the pickling process.

Lower it to 4. My opinion hasn’t changed.

Technology today is only a shell of what it will be 5-10 years from now.

Wow, my comment won’t post twice now after quoting someone..