Upcoming MN/WI Border Water Regulation Review Meetings

Attached find a news release with times, dates, and locations for the upcoming border water regulation review meetings being held jointly by the MN and WI DNRs.

The meeting format is being developed to capture information from attendees on their perceptions of the current status of a wide variety of species, and their opinions about bag and size limits for gamefish on the Mississippi River portion of the border waters between Minnesota and Wisconsin.

As always feel free to contact us directly with any questions you might have.

In addition to my contact information below the press release has official contacts for each agency involved (Kevin Stauffer – MN DNR and Jordan Weeks – WI DNR)

We look forward to hearing from you at one of the upcoming meetings,

Nick

Attachments:

1. 

   DNR-News-Release-4-30-2018.pdf
   

Thanks Nick!

There will be a lot of people at these meetings I’m going to bet!

Seems to be a big push for lower walleye limits and size limits for saugers.

I hope a few of the walleye folks will speak up about the excessive flathead catfish limits as well. 25 daily and 50 in possession.

I’ll do my best to make it to the one in Lake City or Wabasha depending on my schedule and report back.

Concerns I’ll definitely be sharing:
-reduced daily limit on walleye/sauger (especially from March 1 through the inland opener when fish are most vulnerable)
-reduced panfish bag limit (25 of any species is absurd – perch and crappies are absolutely decimated when they move into the backwaters of P4)
-avoiding any and all “slot” style regulations as I think they would hurt more than they’d accomplish on the river

Concerns I’d love to hear more details about:
-adopting a minimum size limit for saugers
-lengthening the “no fishing” zone below dams that would effectively close fishing for the scour holes and creating eagle food

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Seems to be a big push for lower walleye limits and size limits for saugers.

I hope a few of the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye folks will speak up about the excessive flathead catfish limits as well. 25 daily and 50 in possession.

I know absolutely nothing about flatheads (other than I catch a couple each year randomly). I’ll ask though.

I’ll help with the flatheads..well no, you said it already.

(25 of any species is absurd –

How many 10 to 40 pound fish does a person need? It’s excessive. /end.

I’d be for cutting the walleye/sauger daily limit in half and the panfish to 10.

Not sure why a person would need more than 6 catfish?

Protecting the upper end near the dam during the spawn would be good.

Walleye/sauger cut in half panfish to 10? 3 walleyes are you nuts? The fishery has and can handle these set rules. Why change them? I”m assuming your talking the whole stretch of the boarder and not just the sippi’. And this is the first of reduction in limits outside the the conversations of Millaxs Lake. Sorry for the spelling of that lake it gets me every time so I gave up. I will be there to voice my opinion and ask questions!!!

1hl&sinker wrote:

Walleye/sauger cut in half <em class=”ido-tag-em”>panfish to 10? 3 walleyes are you nuts? The fishery has and can handle these set rules. Why change them? I”m assuming your talking the whole stretch of the boarder and not just the sippi’. And this is the first of reduction in limits outside the the conversations of Millaxs Lake. Sorry for the spelling of that lake it gets me every time so I gave up. I will be there to voice my opinion and ask questions!!!

I guess our opinions differ….

Matt Moen wrote:

I’d be for cutting the walleye/sauger daily limit in half and the panfish to 10.

This sounds good and is what I hear from allot of other fishermen on the river. Once these fish move into certain areas the slaughter commences.

I will try to make it. Must say about the only change I would really like to see happen is a 13″ limit on sauger. Maybe a reduced bag limit of 4 during the spring until opener.

Honestly seems like everybody is saying science be damned and lets go for the “feel good” solutions to a problem that really does not exist.

So there is a slaughter and a 3 fish limit will stop that? My opinion is what it is so help me realize why a 3 fish limit is beneficial. I would think regulating those times of the slaughter be better than an across the board regulation. Sound familiar?
Just seems as though there are those that just cant stand meat eaters.

Jonsey got to the punch before me.

If you really want to protect the walleye I say regulations preventing the possession of Spam or Hamms in a boat is in order!

I’ll try to make it down there for the meeting in Red Wing…

munchy wrote:

If you really want to protect the <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye I say regulations preventing the possession of Spam or Hamms in a boat is in order!

Hey! don’t give them any ideas there bubba! In the underworld it is a well know fact those to ingredients when mixed becomes an elixir that promotes healthy joint tissue and life longevity. Eliminating one or the other may have dire consequences while on the water to some users.

Thanks Nick! Glad you posted this.

There will be us from the WI side of the river in Winona to support this.

Brian, your right on the catfish limit. We’ll support that, as well as the reduction in walleye and panfish limits on the pools down here. .
Shawn

For the month of April drop it to 4, with nothing between 20-28″ and one over 28″. Once inland opens the pressure drops way off anyways.

Is there many people keeping that many catfish? Nowadays I don’t know anyone who even fishes for them. I’m not including commercial fishermen

Outdraft, there is but admittedly only a few.

But that’s not the point. In fact if there wasn’t anyone fishing them or keeping that many, why would anyone care if the limit was reduced to 10 or 5 or 1?

The point is that it’s an excessive amount.

We have data that says the walleyes are doing great but people (not all) want to reduce the limit to protect/improve the fishery. We have very little data on the flatheads and a limit of 25 twenty to forty pound fish is ok?

I’d like to see that many get caught in a day. Oh wait no I don’t then I’d have to buy more gear to fish them

1hl&sinker wrote:

Walleye/sauger cut in half <em class=”ido-tag-em”>panfish to 10? 3 walleyes are you nuts? The fishery has and can handle these set rules. Why change them? I”m assuming your talking the whole stretch of the boarder and not just the sippi’. And this is the first of reduction in limits outside the the conversations of Millaxs Lake. Sorry for the spelling of that lake it gets me every time so I gave up. I will be there to voice my opinion and ask questions!!!

Why does the fishing world have to be reactive to everything rather than proactive? I’d rather take a few logical steps to protect a fishery for decades than wait for a problem and then try to bail water out of a sinking ship (see Mille Lacs).

The overall daily limit on saugers and eyes isn’t a huge concern (only from the original dates I posted of March 1 – inland opener where they’re vulnerable). I’d love to see it dropped to 2 or 3 during that time period and maybe 5 during the rest of the year. A slot limit would be detrimental to the fishery. There are studies that document slot limits being most beneficial in areas where fish grow extremely slow. In P4 and most of the border waters, forage is abundant and fish grow fast. The size structure seems to have a good balance already. I enjoy catching shorts knowing that the fishery is healthy. I also catch quite a few 3-5# fish.

As for the panfish…I watch buckets of 12-14″ perch get hauled out of the backwaters each and every spring. If that limit was cut to even 15, it could help protect the fishery while letting people still “eat meat”.

buckybadger wrote:

Why does the fishing world have to be reactive to everything rather than proactive? I’d rather take a few logical steps to protect a fishery for decades than wait for a problem and then try to bail water out of a sinking ship (see Mille Lacs).

I have no horse in this dog show as far as our state fish goes.

To answer your question above, I’m going to say that the people that doesn’t want to see changes (in walleye) regs are people that believe what the DNR data suggests. The fishery is just as good as it was back in the ’70’s. Even with all the new fangled electronics, latest high end fishing rods and $1,300 toilets.

Again, changing the limit to more or less walleyes won’t effect me either way. They have scales.

For me, 6 walleyes per person is excessive regardless of the data. The river can probably handle it unless there is a catastrophic year class. I’d prefer to err on the side of a conservative harvest.

25 panfish is just plain ridiculous and no one needs to fill a bucket like that.

So now that people have voiced what they think should happen, what do people predict will actually happen?

My Predictions:

-a bag limit reduction will be supported and take place starting in 2020. Probably a four or five fish limit (80% chance of a change)

-almost positive something will happen with regards to the panfish limits. I have no idea what it will exactly look like, maybe something like 10 or 15 of any one species? (95% chance of a change)

-I’m up in the air if any specific changes will come regarding saugers. I know we hear data that the fishery is stable and I believe that with walleyes, bass, pike, panfish, etc. However I know that the sauger populations are simply not what they once were. I’m thinking a blanket 15” minimum that applies to walleyes May be applied to saugers also (50% chance of a change).

-nothing will change that is seasonal or adds additional regulations despite strong feelings that the bag limit should be only a couple fish from March 1 through the inland opener. (5% chance of a change or additional regulation)

I think the walleye limits will be lowered as well. Not just for the river but for the whole State of MN.

I doubt there will be a slot for sauger.

The WI limit for flatheads will stay the same at 25 per day. Slim, but a chance MN will change ours to reflect the inland water regs.

I’m thinking panfish limits will drop. We are still riding on the high populations from the flooding a few years back.

Damn, now I’m falling into what I call “blinder” thinking.

These meetings are for the whole Mississippi River from Hastings MN to the Iowa border and I’m basing my thoughts on the area I fish which is roughly 30 miles long. With the exception of “excessive” limits, I’m not certain how my thoughts will impact other areas of the river. The pools that I don’t fish.

PS Adding the stretch of river from Prescott to Hastings into the border water regs certainly makes sense to me. If I ever get a ticket it’s going to be because I forgot and was fishing two rods on that inland water.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

PS Adding the stretch of river from Prescott to Hastings into the border water regs certainly makes sense to me. If I ever get a ticket it’s going to be because I forgot and was fishing two rods on that inland water.

X2. Adding that 2.5 mile stretch to the boarder waters would be a nice addition. It would take ALL the guesswork out of the regs. I know us on here know where the line is as it’s been discussed, but the general population only has a general idea. Make all of P3 a boarder water…There’s a few fishy areas on that stretch, but that’s not why I would be for the addition.

^ Unconfusion.

Speaking of skin in the game. Not trying to be combative. I can see why someone goes to pool 3 on regular basis would want a lower limit. A more constrictive reg in the spring makes sense but for the whole season I just cant be onboard. One that goes on a regular basis 3 or even 1 or none would be fine with them But how about the guy that travels from along ways away to get 3 fish. Forget them so the regulars can get what they want? Maybe the regulars should police themselves rather than having the government police everyone. Catch and release kills also ya know.And not like everyone on every day is pulling a limit of walleyes.
Sometimes proactive is guided by paranoia. As for one being reactive paranoia sets in also when someone tries to take something away in the guise of to er on the side of caution.

1hl&sinker wrote:

Speaking of skin in the game. Not trying to be combative. I can see why someone goes to pool 3 on regular basis would want a lower limit. A more constrictive reg in the spring makes sense but for the whole season I just cant be onboard. One that goes on a regular basis 3 or even 1 or none would be fine with them But how about the guy that travels from along ways away to get 3 fish. Forget them so the regulars can get what they want? Maybe the regulars should police themselves rather than having the government police everyone. Catch and release kills also ya know.And not like everyone on every day is pulling a limit of walleyes.
Sometimes proactive is guided by paranoia. As for one being reactive paranoia sets in also when someone tries to take something away in the guise of to er on the side of caution.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

^ Unconfusion.