Reducing the Walleye Limit on Inland MN Waters

Four walleye bag limit proposal
Senator Carrie Ruud,
I have been researching the proposal to change the Minnesota statewide bag limit for walleye from 6 fish to 4. This led me to you as the author of that legislation and a support letter from Tom Neustrom.

In this letter I would like to address some of the statements and implications in Mr. Neustrom’s letter. At the same time, I hope to start discussion regarding walleye biology, and how well-intentioned actions can have unintended negative consequences. My qualifications include being an aquatic biologist by training and a Large Lake Specialist that managed one of Minnesota’s best walleye lakes for more than 30 years.

The first point Tom makes is an anecdotal account of contacts he has made and his perception that there is overwhelming support for the bag limit change. I am not contesting his perception; however, I am contesting the assumption that his contacts are unbiased or represent the majority of Minnesotan’s. The DNR supported an unbiased survey of anglers in 2018 (the most recent data available) and the question was asked if anglers wanted the walleye limit to stay at 6 or be changed to 4. The majority of anglers responding to that survey were in favor of keeping the limit at 6 fish.

Tom indicates that there is total support for the change in walleye bag limit in the State Walleye Committee (correct name Walleye Work Group). This is not true and members of the committee that do not agree have stated such on the Walleye Central web site.

Next Tom states that certain large walleye lakes have a 4-walleye bag limit (true) and those lakes have had “great success”. This is where I have to make some assumptions since he does not clearly state what area the success was in. If what he means by success is that anglers have higher catch rates than in the past (which appears to be the goal of the regulation change) that is not necessarily true and definitely not due to the 4 fish bag limit.

The lakes he cites have slot length limits that require immediate release of fish caught of certain sizes. Release of those fish makes them available to be caught and released again (recycling of fish) which does increase catch rates. Information from Mille Lacs Lake indicates that fish may be recycled many times which increased catch rates (the walleye were tagged and individual releases were recorded).

Another example is Lake Winnibigoshish where a protected slot limit was put in place. Walleye catch rates increased significantly while harvest rates stayed similar after implementation of the slot limit. The bag limit stayed at 6 fish on lake Winnibigoshish. The main point here is that increased catch rates are primarily due to length limits and not the lower bag limit. Creel survey data from Lake Winnibigoshish also indicates that few anglers have ever harvested more than 4 walleye in a trip. Creel surveys have been conducted periodically since 1938, and on the best fishing years about 5% of anglers harvest more than 4 fish in a trip. Most lakes don’t have the walleye population of Lake Winnibigoshish so the percent of anglers harvesting more than 4
fish would be much lower. If anglers don’t harvest more than 4 fish how can a 4 fish bag limit save fish and increase catch or harvest rates?

Then Tom makes the argument that increasing technology, number of anglers due to the pandemic, and an increase in wheeled fish houses will cause over harvest of walleye. These fears have been around for a long time. The introduction of depth finders, GPS systems, and most recently underwater cameras were met with similar fears. Through tremendous increases in fishing pressure and technological advances walleye populations have remained relatively stable through time.

Although the mechanism is not fully understood, walleye appear to be quite resilient to angling effort. The same cannot be said for northern pike and sunfish, and the DNR through application of the scientific method has begun to address those problems. If there was a problem with the walleye population the same methods would be used to rectify the problem.

Tom states that the DNR supports the bag limit change and that the limit change proposal is not driven by social opinions. I cannot comment on DNR support or motivations behind support if it exists, however, I find it hard to believe motivation behind the 4 fish bag limit proposal is not socially motivated. The Walleye Technical Committee has been left out of the bag limit discussion and the legislature has been the driving force behind it.

If the change is not socially based then why is the Walleye Technical Committee (the group responsible for evaluating and proposing solutions to walleye problems in Minnesota) not involved in the proposal?

Walleye biology is complex, and I hope this letter generates questions and discussion. I would like to make this letter available to all legislators that vote on this legislation. Please make this letter part of the public record.
Sincerely
Gerald Albert
Retired Lake Winnibigoshish Large Lake Specialist

Anyone have access to Mr. Neustrom’s letter? Found it and posted below.

Looks interesting.

Silly!!

It looks like Mr. Albert is refuting Neustrom’s proposal to change the bag limits to 4? Neustrom’s use of anecdotal evidence and citing support of an internet forum (no offense IDO) seems to me like he should not be the voice behind this proposal. Albert certainly turned Tom’s points upside down. Would love to see the limits go to 4, but it appears there could be some uphill battle involved.

From Dennis Anderson

MARCH 19, 2022 — 5:04PM
Brainerd area fishing guide Nate Blasing is president of Walleye Alliance, which is advocating for a reduction in the state walleye limit from six to four
Dennis Anderson Dennis Anderson @STRIBDENNIS
Nate Blasing is president of the Walleye Alliance, a Brainerd-based group that wants the Legislature to cut Minnesota’s walleye limit from six to four. Blasing, 43, is a part-time fishing guide and University of Minnesota Duluth graduate who studied environmental science and communications. In the interview below, he explains why his group wants to lower the state’s walleye limit.
Q: Describe the Walleye Alliance.
A: We’re a 4-year-old group whose members include resort owners, guides, tournament anglers and others. Our mission is to educate, conserve and promote responsible walleye fishing. We have between 400 and 600 members. We sponsor a couple of tournaments a year and hold a fundraising banquet.
Q: Are Brainerd area lakes your primary focus?
A: We’re based out of Brainerd. But we have statewide concerns.
Q: How do you rate Brainerd area walleye fishing?
A: It’s pretty good. But a lot of the more popular lakes in the area have zebra mussels, including Gull, Pelican, North Long and the Whitefish Chain. These lakes also get a lot of fishing pressure. Area guides started finding some years ago that it was harder to catch walleyes consistently. So we formed the Alliance and started meeting with DNR fisheries managers. We’ve since learned we don’t have a lot of natural walleye reproduction in area lakes and instead depend a lot on stocking. The DNR has historically stocked most of the lakes primarily with fry. The problem now appears to be that fry are not surviving because zebra mussels are taking away the fry’s food source. Fingerling survive better but are much more expensive and can be hard to obtain.
Q: Are fingerlings commonly stocked in area lakes?
A: Somewhat. The DNR started on Gull with some fingerlings and has since worked on Pelican and Whitefish. Lake associations have helped, and our group has purchased fingerlings to supplement DNR stocking. Fall electro-shocking surveys show a decrease in young of the year walleyes in many lakes. In response the DNR has added fingerlings to try to stabilize walleye populations. DNR creel data show these lakes are harvested at unsustainable rates in some years. When the fry don’t take there are several gaps in year classes for walleye populations
Q: What’s fishing pressure like on Brainerd lakes?
A: There’s significant recreation use of our lakes. Fishing pressure is also high — more than I can ever remember. In midsummer, early morning or evening is when you have to fish to avoid recreation boaters. Years ago, our smaller lakes didn’t have much pressure. Now it doesn’t matter how early you get there, trucks and trailers are in the parking lots.
Q: Do you guide only for walleyes or all species?
A: Depending on the client, I’ll fish for anything. Keeping fish is less important to people than catching them. In that respect, cutting the walleye limit will be a benefit because it will spread out the harvest, helping more people catch fish who otherwise wouldn’t.
Q: How receptive has the DNR been to your concerns?
A: As receptive as they can be. But decisions they make have to be biologically sound. On some things we’ve had to push pretty hard. But overall, we’ve been happy.
Q; How did you get the limit-cutting bill before legislators?
A: Years ago, some of us started talking about how we could get our voices heard. In time, we formed the Walleye Alliance and started talking to the DNR. Shortly thereafter, we contacted our state senator, Carrie Ruud, and told her about the walleye problem as we saw it and asked her for help. She agreed to author the bill cutting the walleye limit. We think it’s supported by a lot of anglers.
Q: The DNR’s Walleye Work Group, which originally was called the Walleye Advisory Committee, has some members who also want a lower walleye limit.
A: Yes, but we weren’t aware of them until three years ago at the DNR Roundtable. They wanted the DNR to do it by rule change. We chose the legislative route, supported by grass-roots anglers.
Q: Many DNR fisheries biologists oppose the change, saying it won’t improve walleye populations.
A: But DNR management supports it. I met on Sunday with Commissioner Sarah Strommen …
Q: On Sunday?
A: Yes, by Zoom and she expressed her support. I also appeared on a podcast with DNR fisheries chief Brad Parsons and he supported it. Many current DNR biologists also support it.
Q: What about fisheries biologists who say the limit would have to be cut to two or three to make a difference?
A: Simple math tells us four fish is less than six, so that’s a savings. Also, Minnesota’s six-fish limit, established in 1956, was based on a mix of social and biological considerations, so there’s precedent for our proposal being based at least in part on angler support.
Q: But what if popular opinion argued that no walleyes should be kept, or even that sportfishing should be banned altogether? Isn’t it a slippery slope to manage fish and wildlife by public opinion rather than by established standards based in science?
A: Most fishing limits are a combination of social and biological considerations. And our proposal isn’t entirely socially driven. When you consider recent changes in water clarity due to zebra mussels and the new, advanced fish-finding technology that is absolutely scary how effective it can be, and other changes affecting fisheries in recent years, there is a scientific component to our proposal. I’ll add that part of the DNR’s job is to listen to stakeholders. It’s not all about the numbers. The DNR has to take into account what the public wants.
Q: Then why not put all Minnesota fish and wildlife management to a vote, or to the whim of politicians rather that professionals? We already have a governor who awarded a teal-hunting season to his friends in southeast Minnesota against the recommendations of DNR waterfowl managers. Why not open it all up?
A: Keep in mind a small percentage of anglers catch most of the fish. I’m one of those anglers. If we’re willing to give up some fish that we would otherwise catch so others can catch them, or at least have a chance at catching them, that’s a good thing. The bottom line is a four-walleye limit with one allowed over 20 inches won’t harm any lake and it might help some.
Q: Do you expect the bill to pass?
A: We’re hopeful. When we talk to anglers about zebra mussels and fishing pressure and so forth, the proposal makes sense to them. Our goal is to ensure future generations have walleye fishing like we are accustomed to. It’s why we need to be proactive rather than reactive to protect the resource.
Editor’s note: To read a previously published interview with retired DNR area fisheries supervisor Gary Barnard of Bemidji, who holds an opposing viewpoint on cutting the walleye limit, go to https://tinyurl.com/46wherxe.
Outdoors columnist and editor Dennis Anderson joined the Star Tribune in 1993 after serving in the same positions at the St. Paul Pioneer Press for 13 years. His column topics vary widely, and include canoeing, fishing, hunting, adventure travel and conservation of the environment.
danderson

Public Record:

Four Walleye limit/with one over 20 inches

Senator Carrie Ruud,
We at the DNR Walleye Workshop have had a discussion at our meetings and internally changing the current walleye limit from 6 to 4 with one walleye over 20 inches allowed in the bag limit of 4.
This conversation was brought up for the last 5 years and we hope we are moving in the right direction to get this passed.

Over the years we have talked to thousands of anglers at boat launches, seminars, sport shows, and radio interviews and the over whelming support for the change has been a credit to the understanding from anglers the need.

Within our State Walleye committee there is a total support for the change and delaying this process will be detrimental to the process.

The majority of the large walleye lakes in Minnesota and including border water lakes such as Rainy Lake and Lake of the Woods have had in place a 4 walleye bag limit with great success and approval by anglers and business owners combined.

It has not been detrimental to business and in fact has created an upward spike in success. The is a positive move in the
right direction for the anglers of Minnesota and visitors as well.

In conversations with the DNR they also are in support of the change and publicly are supporting the moving forward with the Bill as a state wide regulation. With the pandemic upon us there is an influx of new anglers and with this addition there is an
added pressure on our bodies of water that may be a threat to populations of walleyes and other species.

Adjusting limits because of social opinions is not the driving force in these adjustments, but saving fish for future generations of anglers should be at the forefront of these decisions.

I want to take this time to thank you on behalf of the State Walleye Committee and the anglers of Minnesota in taking the lead on introducing this Bill to the legislative branch of Minnesota government and continuing to never turn your back on the future of our outdoors.

Tom Neustrom
Grand Rapids Minnesota
State Walleye Committee, Leech Lake Advisory Committee, Mille Lacs Advisory Committee

Where is Joe with a “We Don’t Know That”. ^^

It’s an interesting discussion. The DNR supports it even though they understand it really won’t make much of a difference and will be more of a social change. And most anglers will give a thumbs up because they rarely catch 6 to keep anyways.

Has there been any data to show that there has been unsustainable overharvest?

Less is more IMO and personally wouldn’t care if they changed it to 2. But I’ve been told time and time again from the MNDNR that “we can’t just make changes because the majority of anglers want the change”.

Thanks for sharing all the letters. This is complex and not as simple as just making decisions based on societal desires. Science has to play a role also. The issue is fairly defining as it sets a precedent going forward for just how that blend of science and anglers’ desires factor into decisions.

I support the limit being moved to 4 fish. I also agree that this isn’t going to substantially change what the average angler (myself included) sees for success rates. However, 4 is definitely less than 6 and there are many unknowns going into the future. If this could protect some fish or bolster populations, it’s worth it. Being proactive is always better than reactive. Technology isn’t going away, and the impact of invasive species and warming waters in many areas are still relatively new with little longitudinal data existing. It is short sighted to make rash statements saying these factors have NO impact on fish populations.

Seeing as the 6 fish limit is many decades old, at the very least it makes sense to have the discussion. We have more technology today on both the angling side and the scientific side to make decisions that could impact or protect fish populations for a long time regardless of how anyone feels on this particular change (for or against).

To the part about being detrimental to business, look at Red Lake. You can go catch fish, and up until recently, the limit was 3. Mille Lacs has the tightest regulations and it’s still a destination. 4 fish would be healthy for all fisheries.

Personally I dont really care if the limit is 4 or 6 because I cannot honestly remember the last time I kept a limit except for ice fishing LOW. Having said that if there is no merit or benefit to actually making the change, why bother doing it? If it doesnt improve fishing, it doesnt make any sense.

I would support a state-wide 4 limit only if it included Mille Lacs.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

The bottom line is a four-walleye limit with one allowed over 20 inches won’t harm any lake and it might help some.

Well, at least they admitted this is feel good bologna

Jimmy Jones wrote:

I would support a state-wide 4 limit only if it included Mille Lacs.

Haha. Mille Lacs will likely never have a 4 fish limit again. It’s going to be 1 or 0 for quite a while. Those regs should be coming out soon…

It’s also not managed by the Minnesota DNR. Nor is it managed by biology. so big difference. Also kind of moot point to even bring it into this discussion.

I support it because I don’t catch that many anyway. But my concern is that the guides are the ones who are really pushing this. They are on the water daily pulling limits for their clients . Are guides more of an issue at hand? There’s only so many fish in a system and they keep targeting them until they’re gone or harder to catch. Now it’s making their jobs more difficult.

I would say the 4 walleye limit makes the guide – client relationship a bit “easier” because more often you come closer to the limit or reach the limit. If a guide has three clients in the boat … much easier to get to 12 fish than 18.

There are a lot of people out there that judge the day by getting a limit whether it is 6 ducks or 3 ducks, 6 walleye or 4 walleye. If someone is paying a guide the expectations are often much higher.

Let’s just go five fish/specie limit for all species except perch. Use length and slot limits to manage population profiles.

May be you have a possession limit double the daily limit.

Brittman wrote:

Let’s just go five fish/specie limit for all species except perch.

Why not perch?

Doesn’t make a whole lotta sense to keep 5 muskies or lake sturgeon on a daily basis either. That’s how we almost wiped them out in the first place before strict regulations were implemented.

Who need five 30 pound Flatheads?

5 muskies or lake sturgeon? Damn, I hope that never happens! What a waste!!

Brittman wrote:

Let’s just go five fish/specie limit for all species except perch. Use length and slot limits to manage population profiles.

May be you have a possession limit double the daily limit.

I like it 10 Muskie cheeks would feed the whole family.

Fowldreams55398 wrote:

But my concern is that the guides are the ones who are really pushing this. They are on the water daily pulling limits for their clients . Are guides more of an issue at hand? There’s only so many fish in a system and they keep targeting them until they’re gone or harder to catch. Now it’s making their jobs more difficult.

There are some guides that actually give back by stocking fish in the lakes they frequent at the end of the year. Not all do this, but those that do I applaud. Otherwise I agree with you. They are generally earning a living off a natural resource and really have no skin in the game and chase the bite. Look at all the outfitters that left Mille Lacs for Red and then when the season closes on Red they head to LOW. Most of these folks dont give one rip about the fishery and they have wiped out some of the smaller panfish lakes because of heavy harvest.

Maybe there should be a limit for guide boats of 2 walleye per client, and the guide can’t keep any while on a paid trip…

Isn’t a CG license needed on Red?

If it is, I surprised that many would up and switch lakes.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Isn’t a CG license needed on Red?

If it is, I surprised that many would up and switch lakes.

Not sure, but I think Musky was referencing the Ice Castle “guides” that setup on early ice on Red, then move to LOW. Not boat captains. Also, I’m not sure how the licensing differs by winter vs summer.

If the trade off for a 4 fish limit is fishing 2 lines, I’m all-in.

-J.

It is common to see 3 or 4 guide boats on a spot in May and June in the Alex area when the spottail bite is on. Those boats are fishing for limits and it absolutely grinds my gears seeing that happen. I can think of two lakes that have been absolutely fished out. It happens in ND and it happens in MN. The same agency that conducts creel surveys also says it needs scientific metrics to create regulations is ironic.

BigWerm wrote:

Not sure, but I think Musky was referencing the Ice Castle “guides” that setup on early ice on Red, then move to LOW. Not boat captains. Also, I’m not sure how the licensing differs by winter vs summer.

Correct. The local resorts/outfitters on LOW are pissed. They have been very vocal about it on FB.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

A: Keep in mind a small percentage of anglers catch most of the fish. I’m one of those anglers. If we’re willing to give up some fish that we would otherwise catch so others can catch them, or at least have a chance at catching them, that’s a good thing

So, this statement reads that only a few catch a limit of 6. I’d agree.
Reducing to 4 is only a reduction for a few, I’d agree.
Of those few who can catch 6, the narrative suggests that guides are the dominant many.
Therefore, reduce guided limits.

The narrative being that by reducing limits from 6 to 4 it won’t hurt a lake, but MIGHT improve. No evidence to support except this guy’s “simple math”.

Why don’t he just limit his clients to 4… oh yeah, that’s because it is a bad business motto, clients will go elsewhere.

So this fella feels that he could impose his proposed changes onto his own business only if forced through legislation.

Fishy.

If vast majority cannot catch 4. Reducing to 4 has no impact. Other than the few releasing two that would’ve gone in bucket.

Garbola!!

It’s easier to catch a limit of 4 than 6 if your capable of catching a limit. We all know there are days and especially clients that make this challenging.

Tips come with limits. Limit gets easier. Tips more frequent. $$$$$$$$

Brian Klawitter wrote:

If we’re willing to give up some fish that we would otherwise catch so others can catch them, or at least have a chance at catching them, that’s a good thing.

This is my favorite.

There’s an assumption here that more fish equals more success. Poll the pool 4 fisherman sitting on hoards of fish falling short on limits a reduced limit at that.

Doesn’t seem that he needs the quantity for success, therefore the quantity for success already exists. Do the successful put their pants on differently? Equal opportunity for all should you choose to practice.

Takes more than being on fish to catch fish.

Feel good drama all the way