https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/lakecity/index.html
I just saw these posted and really haven’t taken the time to read details and form an opinion, but wanted to share the information.
What are other anglers’ thoughts?
Thanks for posting this. I would have liked to see separate bag limits for channel and flathead catfish but anything is better then now. I like the 1 over 20 for walleye.
It will be interesting down here on pool 9 where less then half the pool would change regs. Could be an enforcement nightmare.
I think its about time for these limit changes. Especially if it makes both states equal.
I’m still digesting the proposals, but my initial reaction is that the lowered bag for panfish is long overdue. There are so many bucket fillers when it comes to early and late ice that it’s depressing. Big perch coming into the backwaters to spawn are absolutely decimated on Pools 4 and 5 each Spring.
I also like the reduction for walleyes and saugers. The 15″ minimum on walleyes seems to work well and that appears to be staying in-place. 4 fish per angler is plenty to eat, and the 1 over 20″ opportunity should protect some mature spawning females in the spring. The only additions I would’ve liked to see was an extended no-fishing zone below each lock and dam before May 1 (double the current distance). There are thousands of dink saugers that become eagle food every spring when they are “released” by anglers that either don’t know what they are doing or simply don’t care.
Overall, I give credit to both the WIDNR and the MNDNR on their openness to the public and efforts to protect the resources for years to come. It’s far too often the DNR becomes a bashing target for anglers who aren’t as successful as they wish or don’t always understand the big picture. Hopefully enforcement of existing and potential regulation changes are only ramped up as well.
My journey though life is about over. 
Well if everyone would wear a PFD…it would be over. 
I agree way over due for some limit changes.
I’m also in favor of the proposed limit changes. I don’t fish panfish very often so I am not familiar with the current limits but 25 of each is an incredible amount of fish.
I would fully support the All Pools Option on Walleye/Sauger just for the sake of keeping it simple.
I’m also in favor of the proposed limit changes. I don’t fish <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish very often so I am not familiar with the current limits but 25 of each is an incredible amount of fish.
I would fully support the All Pools Option on Walleye/Sauger just for the sake of keeping it simple.
I have mixed feelings on this. For those who frequent the river…Pools 3-4 (4 especially) have a very different biological makeup compared to those further downstream. The sauger population diminishes rather quickly the further downstream of P4 you go (or at least in my uneducated experience). I do agree that simplified rules and enforcement are valuable though.
My biggest concern with any and all regulations is their enforcement. I averaged 3 days per week from April 15th to September 1st on Pool 4 and was checked exactly one time. Regulations protect nothing if not enforced. I may be rare, but I actually enjoy being checked by local CO’s. Most are very friendly and are very knowledgeable of the surrounding resources and fishing. If only there were more of them to help protect the resources.
Limit of 4, 1 over 20″
Limit of 4, 1 over 20″
.. I have to agree with fish blood. An the reason for that is. After 60 plus yrs. of YEAR AROUND fishing for walleyes an sugars. All data the wi mn dnr has. Have NOT shown any ill effects on the walleye/sugar population.!! The Major governing factor of the population of walleye/sugars is the SPAWN Good Spawn Bad spawn Awesome spawn Very very poor spawn an every thing in between spawns. That is the major thing for the up an down population of these fish.! NOT the Fishing pressure. The general walleye sugar population has not changed in the last 60 plus yrs.!! . RRR
The general walleye sugar population has not changed in the last 60 plus yrs.!! . RRR
But the thoughts and wishes of the fishermen have.
It was clear in the survey that people were in favor of more restrictive limits.
But the thoughts and wishes of the fishermen have.
It was clear in the survey that people were in favor of more restrictive limits.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>river rat randy wrote:</div>
The general <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye sugar population has not changed in the last 60 plus yrs.!! . RRRBut the thoughts and wishes of the fishermen have.
It was clear in the survey that people were in favor of more restrictive limits.
Couldn’t agree more.
There also hasn’t been the technology over the past 60 years that has and will continue to develop making it easier for the average angler to put pressure on fish year round. The sedimentation issues and the potential threat of Asian carp or other unknown invasives could also turn things south in the coming years compared to the last 60 years.
What is wrong with protecting a solid resource? People opposing bag limit reductions would be the first to pi$$ and moan (or most likely blame others) if gamefish populations take a hit.
Not everyone gets to fish the river 3 times a week from April throu September .some guys only get out Two or 3 times a year keep that in mind .too me these changes really don’t help ur average Joe trying to get a meal or two of keepers for his family the very few times he gets out and that same guy probably has no idea of the proposed changes going on so how’s he suppose to stop this ,four walleyes 1 over 20” that’s a kick in the teeth
You can wish in one hand and crap in the other .who took the survey a bunch of river rats who get spoiled and get to fish the river as many trips as they can year round . No these changes definitely wouldn’t hurt them
I love when emotions and not science win out…. I have no dog in this race but this comes up every year in ND in the spring too. People need a better understanding of carry capacity
Ya Randy, im in your boat,its looking like one of the last places in our area to be able to keep fish is comming to and end because what’s good or not good on a lake must be better for the river. Many people that panfish keep smaller ones which take more for a meal and also helps reduce stunting in certain areas
You can wish in one hand and crap in the other .who took the survey a bunch of river rats who get spoiled and get to fish the river as many trips as they can year round . No these changes definitely wouldn’t hurt them
The survey is/was open to anyone. You are one of those people who never vote, but always pi$$ and moan. The changes are not guaranteed, but are clearly supported by more than a few river rats.
Yes, I fish the river multiple days a week and keep maybe 6-8 walleyes total a year and maybe 15-20 perch. Out of curiosity, how many 15-20″ walleyes do you need for a “meal”???
Ya Randy, im in your boat,its looking like one of the last places in our area to be able to keep fish is comming to and end because what’s good or not good on a lake must be better for the river. Many people that panfish keep smaller ones which take more for a meal and also helps reduce stunting in certain areas
Really, Many people take the smaller panfish? You need to live here and see daily what happens when a good bite is found. The fish are pounded by the buckets when word gets out.
It doesn’t matter either if its panfish, walleyes, open water fishing or ice fishing, including tipup fishing. The people will flock too a good bite and in huge #’s.
Ill vote to protect our resource. I live on the river and can have my boat in the water in 5 minutes of leaving my house. My choice was to live here when I bought my house 26 years ago. I still have to follow the law with possession limit. Doesn’t make a difference if I live on the river or not.
BuckyBadger has a couple good points on enforcement. Sadly, neither Minnesota or Wisconsin can afford to have he kind of enforcement needed to protect the resources.
Riverruns alludes to the big rush to get to the hot bite and this is also a very real problem.
Personally , and in a perfect world, I think anglers should have enough backbone to police their own fishing and what they keep for food. If this was a common practice we would not be having this fray. River Rat Randy has a great point to make about spawning success year to year and as far as the fish and river are concerned this is about spot on, but we have this human element to deal with that can toss a chink in the workings of what’s natural.
When many of these limits were put in place people didn’t have the technology that we see today. Especially in the ice arena. A flasher can show an absolute idiot how to catch fish on the ice. Technology in a boat can go in the same direction. I wonder how many people could actually succeed at this fishing game using his smarts, not technology? I wonder how many people would actually fish if the TECHNOLOGY had limits placed on its use….maybe that’s the answer here since we know that a lot of people just can’t trim down their supposed fish needs and don’t want to give up limits that are passe.
For those that aren’t happy with the proposed regulations…
“6 to 8 pm November 13 – Red Wing Environmental Learning Center, 442 Guernsey Lane, Red Wing, MN”
There are two more locations for the proposed regulation changes coming up and posted in this thread.
I fish the river bordered by IL and IA which has had a six combined 15-20 slot with one over 27 allowed. This seems to have led to increased population of walleye in these pools. Pools bordered by IA and WI have seemed to have experienced lower populations without the slot. Based on our experience down here I’d recommend going to the slot with one over 20 and leave the limit alone until impact of the slot could be evaluated. I wish we had one over 20 here instead of one over 27. Studies show that we lose a relevant proportion of these fish every year whether harvested or not and it would allow us to keep a hurt fish that may not survive release. Once the limit is lowered it will never be restored even if science says it can be supported. Lowered limits are bound to negatively impact tourism to these areas. Don’t risk the financial hit to these areas if it isn’t necessary.
For those that aren’t happy with the proposed regulations…
“6 to 8 pm November 13 – Red Wing Environmental Learning Center, 442 Guernsey Lane, Red Wing, MN”
There are two more locations for the proposed regulation changes coming up and posted in this thread.
And to those that are happy with the direction this is going with the new proposed regulations, please also go and show the support for the change.
^ YES!
I know there are some (like me) that don’t like clicking on PDF’s and such so here’s the proposals in part. You will need to read the full PDF file if you want all the details.
PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC INPUT
White Bass: Daily bag limit of 10 with no size limit.
Largemouth/Smallmouth Bass: Daily Bag limit of 5 and a 14” min. length (NO CHANGE)
Channel/Flathead Catfish: Daily bag of 10 (combined), only 1 over 30 inches daily.
Northern Pike: Daily Bag limit of 3, with only 1 over 30 inches daily OR a Daily Bag limit of 2, with no size limit
Sunfish, Crappie, and Yellow Perch: Daily Bag limit of 10 OR 15 EACH for Sunfish, Crappie, and Yellow Perch
Walleye and Sauger: (two options are proposed)
Split River Option
– Pools 3 and 4 = Daily Bag of 4 combined, 15 inch minimum length for Walleye, only 1 Walleye or Sauger over 20
inches daily.– Pools 5, 5A, 6, 7, 8, and upper 9 = same as above, but only 2 Sauger in the Daily Bag.
ORAll Pools Option
– Pools 3-9 = Daily Bag of 4 combined, 15 inch minimum length for Walleye, only 1 Walleye or Sauger over 20
inches daily.Shovelnose Sturgeon: = Daily Bag Limit of 3 with no size limit.
Comments and completed questionnaires on the regulation proposals will be accepted through November 30, 2018.
Input received will be used to make a final recommendation on regulation changes. The earliest any regulation changes
would go into effect is March 2020 and there will be additional opportunities for public review and input in both states
prior to any final decisions.
Your input is still being asked for.
Makes me a bit uneasy when the DNR cannot trust their own judgment as to managing our waterways they seem to see a need to go to armchair biologist for help.
Our environment should not be governed by popularity in this case.
Makes me a bit uneasy when the DNR cannot trust their own judgment as to managing our waterways they seem to see a need to go to armchair biologist for help.
Our environment should not be governed by popularity in this case.
Ya I’m pretty sure that’s what they are doing. I’m sure no homework was done before they held the meetings asking our opinions on the regulation changes. 
Yes I was at one of the meetings. They provided awesome information.
You can always go to one of the meetings posted above to make your gripe. Might get better results there at the meeting than here. 
the DNR cannot trust their own judgment as to managing our waterways they seem to see a need to go to armchair biologist for help.
Let’s start over again.
The MN and WI DNR are interested in knowing the public’s thoughts on limits in the aforementioned areas. Once the comments are collected, they would propose recommendations if they would fit into their biology.
My take on this and I’m paraphrasing… If the biology says there’s nothing wrong with the limits now but the public wants lower limits, why wouldn’t they lower them and make “most” of the public happy. No matter what the limits are there will be some that aren’t happy.
If you want your view to be the majority, show your mug or complete a emailed questionnaire.
PS the meetings are more informative then just filling out the paper…IMHO.
“to make most of the public happy” is a misnomer. As stated in a previous post these are attended mostly by those that frequently visit that area so, in my opinion, it is a haphazard way of controlling our fisheries for a localized group and not for the betterment of the whole state. You look at the survey almost 50% attended live 5 miles or less from the river.
Gripe continued riverrun . 
If the MN & WI DNR just told people (with no transparency) that they had changed regulations as they saw fit for the resource…far more people would complain. Some of you here are beginning to paint yourself as the person that simply complains for the sake of complaining. I generally describe these types of people with a barrage of adjectives that may push the forum’s rules.
The DNR is NOT out to destroy resources, local economies, and wills of all citizens as so many of you want to project. Some proposed changes have been presented at multiple public meetings and in online surveys that anyone could participate in. The science may say that the fisheries are doing fine, but the changes could only either protect them further or maybe even help populations grow. Give them some credit for meshing science, public input, and law enforcement in a transparent way despite the constant unwarranted bashing from far too many people.
“to make most of the public happy” is a misnomer. As stated in a previous post these are attended mostly by those that frequently visit that area so, in my opinion, it is a haphazard way of controlling our fisheries for a localized group and not for the betterment of the whole state. You look at the survey almost 50% attended live 5 miles or less from the river.
Gripe continued riverrun .
Did you fill out the surveys? Did you travel to any of the meetings? Do you plan to attend any of the upcoming meetings? Have you talked with members of the Lake City Fisheries or other MNDNR officials on the topic?
If “no” is your answer to those questions…then I’d suggest you go find a different place to complain. Preferably a place that caters to the other people who complain as a hobby so you have others to converse with. This is right on par with not voting but bit***** about how things are run in government.
If you were in-fact at meetings and in contact with involved people sharing your opinions…disregard the second paragraph
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
