Surprise!

This just showed up at our landing on rosy today.
It’s going to be kind of strange because half the Lake is in Crow Wing the other half is in Cass

Attachments:

1. 

   FB_IMG_1614646178086.jpg
   

Eelpoutguy wrote:

This just showed up at our landing on rosy today.
It’s going to be kind of strange because half the Lake is in Crow Wing the other half is in Cass

But that says leech lake???? Not roosevelt???

A local just sent that to me. I will confirm where he took that pic.

You are correct, it’s Leech.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

You are correct, it’s Leech.

Leech lake, Cass and Hubbard counties.

So the Dnr mixed a regulation with 1 lake(Leech) and 2 Counties?

Isn’t Leech in Cass County?

That wasn’t very well thought out.

The 2021 Reg’s have a lot of limit changes.
For example the Whitefish chain is down to 5 and 5.

I need to get more info on the sign posting, I checked a map and Leech doesn’t appear to be touching Hubbard County.

haleysgold wrote:

So the Dnr mixed a regulation with 1 lake(Leech) and 2 Counties?

Isn’t Leech in Cass County?

That wasn’t very well thought out.

I believe there is a very small portion in Hubbard on the west side.

The 2021 regulations are on the DNR site now that have all of these new bluegill and/or crappie limits on certain lakes.

blank wrote:

The 2021 regulations are on the DNR site now that have all of these new bluegill and/or crappie limits on certain lakes.

so does the paper handout.

haleysgold wrote:

So the Dnr mixed a regulation with 1 lake(Leech) and 2 Counties?

Isn’t Leech in Cass County?

That wasn’t very well thought out.

EPG posted that then confirmed it wasnt on rosy but in fact on an access to leech. for me i wouldnt get to uptight about the county listed, the lake listed would be the red flag for me whatever county.

the DNR news release i read said that signs will be posted at the lakes with the new regulations when they become available, which to me meant they where behind on getting the signs.

So I do not fish Leech for panfish, but my question is if they do not have a sign up are we expected to follow the new rule or old rule?

John Rasmussen wrote:

So I do not fish Leech for panfish, but my question is if they do not have a sign up are we expected to follow the new rule or old rule?

well i’m going to answer this on what I be doing…….following the new rules. i have the new regs with me when i go fishing, hunting to for that matter. if i’m going to a lake i dont really know the rules….i look to find out.

i would say there expecting you to know the rules and to abide by the new ones.

John Rasmussen wrote:

So I do not fish Leech for panfish, but my question is if they do not have a sign up are we expected to follow the new rule or old rule?

You’re expected to follow the new rule, on all of the lakes and regulations that took effect on March 1, 2021, whether a sign is posted or not.

You can view the new regulations synopsis here, or get a paper book where you buy your license in person.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/regulations/fishing/index.html

FYI – There are 117 new areas with revised limits for 2021.

I was board and counted them.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

I need to get more info on the sign posting, I checked a map and Leech doesn’t appear to be touching Hubbard County.

Kabekona Bay goes into Hubbard county.

Personally, I don’t care about the change in regulation, but really wish the state would move to more uniform regulations across the state. For the average outdoorsman (that hunts and fishes) we are up to about 500 pages of regulations, and while that is a minor hassle for me, it is a significant barrier to entry for people looking to start up either hobby. I try and recruit new people all the time, and often get “well if I wasn’t going with you or someone who knows the rules, I wouldn’t do this on my own.”

Prior lake has a 5 & 5 limit also. Pretty popular metro lake.

I think they are going to post at all accesses, but even if it’s not posted, I think you are responsible to know the rules.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

FYI – There are 117 new areas with revised limits for 2021.

I was board and counted them.

This is the sole reason why I’m for the 4 fish walleye limit that’s being proposed. It would have such little biological effect on the lakes, but would simplify the regulations. If/when they pass the walleye limit change, I’d be supportive of a statewide change in panfish limits as well for the same reason.

glenn57 wrote:

well i’m going to answer this on what I be doing…….following the new rules. i have the new regs with me when i go fishing, hunting to for that matter. if i’m going to a lake i dont really know the rules….i look to find out.

i would say there expecting you to know the rules and to abide by the new ones.

Easiest for me is to down load the current regs to my phone.

As far as the county being listed along with the name of the lake; That is just an identifier for the named lake. For example; “Round Lake” about a dozen counties have a lake named “Round Lake”. Adding the county, narrows it down to the specific lake.

18 dam pages of special regs in this year’s MN reg book! This has gotten ridiculous. Isn’t the North Dakota regs like 4 pages total.

Don’t see how the 4 fish walleye limit changes anything in reguards to simplifying the rules. Almost all the lakes with special walleye regs have slot regs as well. Doesn’t change a thing IMO.

Red Eye wrote:

18 dam pages of special regs in this year’s MN reg book! This has gotten ridiculous. Isn’t the North Dakota regs like 4 pages total.

Um 60,000 fishing license sold in North Dakota over 800,000 license sold in MN. It is not the same sand box. If MN only sold 60,000 license I don’t think there would be a need for any regs.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Don’t see how the 4 fish <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye limit changes anything in reguards to simplifying the rules. Almost all the lakes with special walleye regs have slot regs as well. Doesn’t change a thing IMO.

That’s what I thought too. A uniform slot limit wouldn’t work on all the big walleye “factories.”

I’d be fine with a statewide panfish limit cut in half and that may not be too far off in the future.

Personally I don’t see what a state wide slot limit or statewide panfish, walleye or pike limit would work.

To many variables, and not every lake is alike. Granted all these regulations are cumbersome.

I guess I thought more of the special reg walleye lakes were 4 fish, one over 20″. Looking at the regs, I see that’s not the case.

It is what it is I guess, but I’m curious on the methodology. In a couple of the lakes I’m familiar with that went to a 5 and 5 limit, the issue isn’t abundance, but size structure. How does dropping the limit, particularly for sunfish as it’s a big change, without instituting a max slot do anything to help? Won’t it incentivize those who are inclined to keep fish to keep the absolute largest ones they can, since the limit is so reduced? Wouldn’t a 10 fish limit with say an 8 inch, or even 7 1/2 max slot do a better job to fix a stunting issue?

EPG
The sign posted says “Limit of 5”
So is that 5 total or 5 sunfish and 5 crappie for a limit of 10 total. Sign itself is confusing in my opinion. I know it says sunfish AND crappie but to the vacationer that fishes 1 week a year it is confusing.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

It is what it is I guess, but I’m curious on the methodology. In a couple of the lakes I’m familiar with that went to a 5 and 5 limit, the issue isn’t abundance, but size structure. How does dropping the limit, particularly for sunfish as it’s a big change, without instituting a max slot do anything to help? Won’t it incentivize those who are inclined to keep fish to keep the absolute largest ones they can, since the limit is so reduced? Wouldn’t a 10 fish limit with say an 8 inch, or even 7 1/2 max slot do a better job to fix a stunting issue?

In my opinion, I think a reduced limit is the better solution for a couple different reasons. Enforcement is so much easier to simply count the number of fish, rather than measure every single one. And when you’re dealing with a fish where even a 1/2″ is significant to it’s overall size, it seems like it could be an enforcement challenge.
Also, if there is a maximum size limit, I’m a bit concerned that the fish won’t have a chance to reach the large size if the only fish kept are under that max size. I think a reduced limit with no size restriction can help balance that out. That’s my very unscientific personal opinion.

mxskeeter wrote:

EPG
The sign posted says “Limit of 5”
So is that 5 total or 5 sunfish and 5 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>crappie for a limit of 10 total. Sign itself is confusing in my opinion. I know it says sunfish AND <em class=”ido-tag-em”>crappie but to the vacationer that fishes 1 week a year it is confusing.

It’s 5 crappies and 5 sunfish. Minnesota doesn’t do aggregate limits on “panfish”. I get your point about how that could be confusing to newcomers though.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

It is what it is I guess, but I’m curious on the methodology. In a couple of the lakes I’m familiar with that went to a 5 and 5 limit, the issue isn’t abundance, but size structure. How does dropping the limit, particularly for sunfish as it’s a big change, without instituting a max slot do anything to help? Won’t it incentivize those who are inclined to keep fish to keep the absolute largest ones they can, since the limit is so reduced? Wouldn’t a 10 fish limit with say an 8 inch, or even 7 1/2 max slot do a better job to fix a stunting issue?

Empirical Evidence. MN has had similar regulations on lakes throughout the state, and the experimental lakes generally show improved size structure in bluegill and crappie.