I was just reading the Lawrence Lake report and seen something about the DNR changing the limits for sunfish to 10. I see no mention of this in the Wisconsin DNR regulations for border waters. It is still 25 here so what gives. Or is it since I am on the MN. half of the river I obey the MN regulations with a WI licence.
Thanks,
Bear
Okay I found out the answer to my own question, which I guess I already knew. You must obey the laws on whichever side you are fishing on. My question is how are they getting these regulation out to the public so they know that the bag limit is reduced. I am a very avid outdoorsman and am top of most things happening on the river and had no idea on this. So how is someone supposed to know who isn’t up to date on the changes of the river. Has this change been coming about for a long time?
Bear
I love fishing bluegills through the ice, and I for one am very glad to see some tighter regs. Down on the Iowa/Wisconsin waters there was no limit for a while.
I used to laugh at the guys that I would run into up and down the river that would complain that the panfishing just isn’t what it used to be. “I remember when it was no problem taking 2 limits a day when the fish were biting good.” I heard many of them say.
DUH, I wonder why it’s not the same any more. I think the panfish regs could use some tightening in WI and Iowa. Why deplete the resource? 10 nice gills is plenty enough for a good fish fry. Just because they are “panfish”, it doesn’t mean that there is an endless supply of them. Nobody says that you have to stop fishing after you catch your limit, you can still fish for fun and let them go.
Beav
I personally am in favor of these regulations and with they would do it in WI also. Like you say 10 gills is more than enough for one person or a few people. Personally I wouldn’t want to clean many more than that.
Later,
Bear
This topic has been discussed for over a year now. There were many public input meetings held up and down the river (on both sides). I know Dan Dieterman and Tim Schlagenhaft from the Lake City DNR office put in numerous hours of their own time conducting these meetings in the evenings. It was on the radio, in newspapers, in last year regs as “Possible Changes Next Year” and posted at bait shops. I’m not jumping on ya Bear…I just wanted to give Dan the credit he deserves. I know from when I worked in the Lake City office he really worked hard to get public input about this. I know from fishtheriver.com that you fish a lot and are active in this sort of thing. I’m surprised too that you didn’t hear about it. Anyway, just wanted to let ya know. Give the lake city office a call if you have any questions about it. 651-345-3365. I’m sure they would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thanks.
Hey Beav, Tightening the bluegill and crappie limits on the IA. backwaters won’t work because there aren’t any. But there SHOULD BE! I posted on this before and some of my peers on pools 9 & 10 disagreed with me,but I haven’t changed my mind yet and I don’t see it happening soon. Most of us who ice fish do it often and we simply don’t need to fill the freezer on one trip. My family likes to eat fish and we do keep fish, Two adults and two teenagers can eat alot of fish, but not a five gallon pail full a day. I’m not trying to step on any toes here, but thats my opinion……..B
I’m with you. Any place that has no bag limit on pan fish is just begging for the ‘greed’ factor to kick in.
10 saugers, no limit on pan fish…..what are they waiting for and what are they trying to accomplish? Promoting over harvest is what they are doing.
I impose my own limits. Unfortunately not everyone else does.
BB, when you figure it out let me know.
Beav
I have to agree with ya BigB. Just can’t reason why the Ia. DNR fisheries boys won’t recommend limits on size or possession of panfish. Could it possibly be fear of losing license sales to out of staters who come to Ia. each spring to fill the freezers?
I don’t really want to seem nasty here, but if the states surrounding us and even the southern states see the need, why not Ia?
Some times the governtment answers to the money and resorts preasure them.but if you look at the private resorts in canada I mean the fly in type at 2,000oo or 5000oo ones it,s catch and release ONLY, just 2 small eyes per-person for lunch and thats it,no take home.Lets face it with the tackle and electronics we have and trolling motors,the fishing is also heavier than it was years ago. To be honest all fish should be returned at least untill the fish increase.On the rock river south of rockford Il. to rt. 38 the DNR finds 100 bucks for having a bass in possesion,and Elgin To Aurora has the same (Fox River). Lets be honest guys were not starving. to save the outdoors for my grand kids the buck stops with us! My generation started taking to many, we did,nt have the knowledge they have now, we got spoilled by the big limits and know when we cut back sombody wines. If we had a small limit years ago we would,nt be in this mess
DNR Info on the effects of panfish limits
So there’s that then. I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade, but railing on people is probably the least effective method of affecting change. A panfish limit of 10 certainly wouldn’t put a dent in my fishing, but those who are likely to abuse the current ‘no limits’ scheme are the ones who will just go out more often and still get their freezer full.
10 fish bag limit of Sunfish??? I would have to say if thats all you could keep many fisherman who pursue panfish would figure its not worth the trip and stop fishing. 10 bluegills would not go far to the father with a wife and 3 kids at home. I agree with Beaver in voluntarily restricting my own harvest. I rarely bring home over 20 fish. I think we have to be careful that we don’t become so restrictive that we turn people off of fishing instead of turning people on to fishing.
As the owner of one of those underwater cameras rest assured that when the fish aren’t biting that doesn’t mean the fish are not there. I’ve seen times when the bite is poor when the river bottom will be teeming with inactive crappies and bluegills.
It’s an interesting article, but it pertains to Iowas inland lakes. I have always wondered why the tri-state area of MN,IA andWI can’t agree on some type of regulations on the boundary waters..ie..the Mississippi River. Why should fishing regs be different when you cross an invisible line that runs along the main channel of the river?
I don’t mean to rail on anyone. I just think that the inconsitency from the states that share the same fishery is a problem that should be addressed.
Beav
I really wish that I could have found the article that I was originally looking for. About two years ago, they had a write-up on the affects of limits on panfish, where they compared data from inland rivers and lakes in states with and without limits. What they found was that fishing pressure had minimal impact on panfish, with environmental factors (spring flooding, low water, etc) and the population of predators in the system being the largest contributors.
I know that there are fish-hogs out there. While they may be few and far between, they are definitely the ones that get the most attention from other people out on the ice. The only time a 15 fish limit would have impeded my adventures was last year, when we were catching crappies on a small lake in NE Iowa. The lake had a bad winterkill last year, so our self-imposed limits flew in the face of mother nature.
I for one wouldn’t mind limits, just want to make sure we’re not getting into a “holier than thou” habit and stepping on toes. Flyrod purists have monopolized that practice for years, and I don’t think the sport is any better for it.
Okay then, I don’t want to step on any toes, or fingers for that matter. But(you knew that was coming didn’t you) the river is unique in that the panfish tend to winter in well known areas, often relatively small and shallow sloughs. The fish and fishermen both concentrate in these spots and the threat of serious overharvest is more serious than in most lakes. At least in my opinion. I’ll be quiet now, Good Night and May God Bless.
Good point, B. I’ve always thought that Crappies were particulairly at risk, since they are a schooling fish. One reason that I didn’t understand why there was no limit on numbers.
What do you guys think about length limits instead? Can youl imagine what would happen if all the dinks were allowed to reach spawning size? I’ll try to get ahold of someone at the IDNR to see if they have more information on panfish limits in general, as well as limits on size vs. numbers. If their only excuse is the cost, then I would be baffled, since they change the deer regs practically daily and nobody complains about the cost.
Have you checked the new prices for 2002 non-resident fishing/hunting licenses in Iowa?? It will be a Wisconsin non-resident license for me this year…. bumped the license from $22.50 to $36.00 and added a $3 fish habitat fee. BTW – they didn’t increase the resident license fee one thin dime!!
Here is a link to the price change information: http://www.state.ia.us/government/dnr/organiza/fwb/wildlife/pages/feeincrease.htm
Barc
It’s downright shameful the way that out of staters are gouged in Iowa. Have you looked into a deer tag? About $400!
The fish habitat fee was new this year, so in effect, licenses went up for everyone. At the beginning of the year, they were proposing fees high enough to make my resident’s license here more than my MN license!
Have not yet heard back from the DNR on the email I sent them regarding limits. Hopefully soon.
I don,t mind paying the increase in licence fee if it goes to the hunting & fishing management,but in some states ,like Illinois the fee goes in the general fund, so it is more of a tax than a licence fee this way the politicians can spend the money any way they want.
Got a reply from the DNR, here it is:
In reply to:
John; biologically bluegill and crappie are prolific enough to sustain good fishable populations without the implementation of number limits. Water quality and quality habitat are most responsible for sustaining fishable bluegill and crappie populations. The filling of Mississippi backwater areas with sediment is having the most adverse impacts on bluegill and crappie populations. Any limit regulation, no matter how restrictive will not improve populations when habitat degradation is responsible for poor fishing.
But panfish number limits have been discussed by Iowa DNR staff. Proponents for the number limits have argued in favor for socialically reasons. DNR staff are hearing more and more from anglers such as yourself that anglers should not take huge quanities of panfish for ethical reasons. I believe that the DNR will eventually implement number limits for panfish but I don’t see this happening soon. If number limits are implemented the DNR will state that their purpose is for ethical reasons and not biological reasons.
Thanks for rooting out a DNR reply John. All in all, I’ll just stick with my personal limits and keep looking down my nose at the (hogs) who fill the freezers with tomorrow’s fish.
Now, would that be an ethical or biological response?
It seems like you could really have a lot of fun with this… After you’re done catching what you want, sit for 1/2 hour and fish without bait on your hook – all the time complaining loudly that they’ve quite biting. That should keep the onlookers from piling on your spot after you leave.
On the Wisconsin side we have a 25 fish limit on bluegills now. I’ll have to admit that it feels good to see those people who are after numbers to have to quit after they catch their 25. Otherwise I think they would have continued until they caught a pail full.
I attended the public meeting the DNR had in Winona when the limits were suggested. Their research suggested in well known wintering areas 90-100% of the adult sunfish were being removed from the system! IMHO a size limit would have been a much more effective tool in reducing this overharvest. Can you imagine a pool with a 8″ size limit? A trophy sunfish area? One can only hope.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
