Walleye bag limit lowering…..

biggill wrote:

Thanks for some factual info dtro. I agree 100% with everything you said. Specifically the need for a social change.

To add to it, reducing limits are subject to reduce license purchases (revenue) as well. Why travel from WI to Red Lake when you can go to Devils lake for higher limits?

I also want to note that most MN lakes are put and take (stocked) lakes with little or no spawning. There is no biological need for slots in those lakes but reduced harvest should have a positive impact.

Devils Lake is being stocked

Mike Stephens wrote:

And way too many tournaments with awful mortality rates.

On this point Mr. Stephens, you and I are in complete agreement.

Interesting how an article about reducing fish limits due to increased use of fish finding electronics, gps mapping, facebook announcement of hot spots and improved ice fishing mobile houses leads to an almost unanimous outpouring of “we need to eliminate the freezer fillers”.

We spend a tremendous amount of money on our fishing equipment today. And what’s wrong with filling up a freezer with fish for a big fish fry? I like to get a good amount of fish then have 10 – 20 friends over for a big fry. As long as I’m within my possession limit what’s wrong with this.

If I hook up the boat on a nice summer day, and head 1-2 hours north to fish, I don’t want to come home with 5 crappies. I work M-F, so I can only fish weekends and if we have something going on a weekend, it might be 2-3 weeks in between fishing trips. Again, I’m going to be pissed if all I can take is 5 crappies.

Maybe we should find other solutions to this “problem”. Increase license fees and increase enforcement so the illegal freezer fillers get caught. I haven’t had my license checked in 7-8 years. Maybe we should use data to identify and solve this “problem”. What happens if the decrease in bag limits increases fish population and stunts fish growth. Now we are stuck with small fish and a set of regs that will be hard to change again.

I can see the response here are largely in favor of some type of bag limit changes, but let’s not get crazy and if there’s a problem (poaching, violation of possession limits) lets tackle that problem instead of putting restrictions on those that follow the rules and take some fish from time to time to eat.

After reading all these responses with widely varying opinions…

…I’m glad I don’t work for the DNR. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

cougareye wrote:

Interesting how an article about reducing fish limits due to increased use of fish finding electronics, gps mapping, facebook announcement of hot spots and improved ice fishing mobile houses leads to an almost unanimous outpouring of “we need to eliminate the freezer fillers”.

We spend a tremendous amount of money on our fishing equipment today. And what’s wrong with filling up a freezer with fish for a big fish fry? I like to get a good amount of fish then have 10 – 20 friends over for a big fry. As long as I’m within my possession limit what’s wrong with this.

If I hook up the boat on a nice summer day, and head 1-2 hours north to fish, I don’t want to come home with 5 crappies. I work M-F, so I can only fish weekends and if we have something going on a weekend, it might be 2-3 weeks in between fishing trips. Again, I’m going to be pissed if all I can take is 5 crappies.

Maybe we should find other solutions to this “problem”. Increase license fees and increase enforcement so the illegal freezer fillers get caught. I haven’t had my license checked in 7-8 years. Maybe we should use data to identify and solve this “problem”. What happens if the decrease in bag limits increases fish population and stunts fish growth. Now we are stuck with small fish and a set of regs that will be hard to change again.

I can see the response here are largely in favor of some type of bag limit changes, but let’s not get crazy and if there’s a problem (poaching, violation of possession limits) lets tackle that problem instead of putting restrictions on those that follow the rules and take some fish from time to time to eat.

I think your definition of ‘freezer filler’ is different than what a lot here are talking about.

When I think freezer filler, I think of retired cabin owner on Mille Lacs who ‘remembers the good ole days’ and catches a limit of fish 4 times a week and stuffs his freezer.

Or the 1-2 dudes a year who get caught with like 150 sunfish in their freezer.

philtickelson wrote:

I think your definition of ‘freezer filler’ is different than what a lot here are talking about.

When I think freezer filler, I think of retired cabin owner on Mille Lacs who ‘remembers the good ole days’ and catches a limit of fish 4 times a week and stuffs his freezer.

Or the 1-2 dudes a year who get caught with like 150 sunfish in their freezer.

I see your perspective here but what I’m getting at is should we adjust bag limits due to people doing just that or should we find a solution to catching/punishing/deterring these folks?

My thought is that we should be using statistical analysis to determine the best course of action. The DNR should know that for every 100 boats they check, how many violations of various kinds are they finding. That stat can be extrapolated to the population of people fishing.

Then you have to say, if we were able to reduce these violations by XX% what would that cost and what would we gain (ie an ROI).

Reducing bag limits because too many people violate game laws is punishing those that follow the rules!!

Let’s consider an alternative if this is the main problem.

ET

There is no “I” in fishing. Oh wait, there are a couple.

These are general observations and aren’t directed at any body here in particular.

There are so many things wrong that where do you start trying to correct them?

People don’t want their “prized” species limits messed with but on the other hand could care less about other species. I fall into that category. I value Pike & to a lesser degree Walleye. I have zero interest in panfish limits, Sturgeon, Catfish,Trout ect. But how do you regulate all that to be fair to everyone? Do you offer different “stamps” to a species? You buy a basic license giving lower limits but have the option of buying additional stamps to increase your limits? Example…. base license costs $20 and you get 5 panfish, 2 Walleye & 2 Pike or something like that. In addition you can buy a “stamp” for Walleye that allowed another 2 in possession for $20 dollars.Or $20 to double your panfish. Or $20 for Pike ect. You could actually pay $100 or more if you wanted to double all the basic limits. That would allow people to enjoy the species of choice but also the hardcore guys could really get after it. A lower base would make it affordable for the once a year people, vacationers, catch & release folks all to participate. Higher additional fee’s allow the DNR to get added revenue without hitting the whole spectrum of fisherman. In addition you could offer a TROPHY stamp for each species. A angler could register a trophy (matching that stamp) each year for a cash prize for the largest fish of that category. Say 50% of all the stamps sold in that category. The DNR could then make a big deal media wise of that while still stuffing the coffers.
Those are just a couple of thoughts. They still need to drastically bump up the number of CO’s. Far to many people taking fish that shouldn’t be killed causing us to think outside the box like we are.

There will not be an easy fix to this.

Consider the border waters and the lush limits to be had there. Yes, a pool or maybe two had a trail size limit on sunfish that went permanent along with reduced limits but that’s a small area compared to the whole state and all of its border waters and varying limits and doesn’t even address state-wide limit reduction to walleye/sauger. If this ideology is to work both sides of the border need to agree to limit reduction and probably before the state as a whole gets addressed with changes.

In reading this material I see that technology is addressed….as it should be. Along side of the technology is the suggestion that license fees get raised. This opens up some other ideas. Maybe have two types of licenses. Have a single person, non-tech license that allows , say, half of the limit of each species including crappies, sunfish, perch, northern, bass, and walleye/sauger with no increase for those who opt to not have locators and fancy electronics outside of simple trolling motors. For those who feel they need all this hot rod stuff to fish, let them have at it and take their limits but increase their licenses according to boat value as it is rigged.

Like many here I am fine with c/r and I am also fine with coming home with 4-5 crappies for the dinner table. If people think that they need more, take the kids fishing with ya. Take the wife. There are a ton of ideas to think about, many of which will raise eyebrows and hackles. I’d be fine with closing all fishing state wide on the evening of November 30th and not opening ny fishing up until January 1st thru February 15 at which time all fishing is closed except to that done in naturally occurring open water, along with a season long 4 walleye/sauger limit, 5 crappies and 5 sunfish with no sunfish kept over 9 inches.

I haven’t seen an actual dnr conservation officer in over 5 years near any faribault area lakes. The sheriff is out in his boat in full force.

Lower the daily limit,but raise the possession limit. 3 walleyes per day, 6 in possession.

Instead of drastically raising license fees, add another sticker we need to put on our boats. You could increase fees based on year and length.

cougareye wrote:

I see your perspective here but what I’m getting at is should we adjust bag limits due to people doing just that or should we find a solution to catching/punishing/deterring these folks?

The two are not unrelated.

By lowering the limits, we would be making it more difficult for those who grossly violate the possession limits to stay legal on the water and yet continue to break the law by amassing huge quantities of fish at home.

Let’s say we decreased the walleye limit from 6 to 3. We’ve just made that freezer filler have to work twice as hard if he’s going to go out and try to put 100 walleyes in his freezer because he’s going to have to do it 3 at a time instead of 6 at a time.

Or, even better, he’s going to choose to violate the new lower limit and he’s going to get caught and hopefully this will lead to him also being nailed for over-possession.

I agree, there is no absolute way to stop the chronic freezer filler from doing so if he’s motivated enough and willing to take enough risk, but a lower limit makes him take more risk if he’s going to continue to break the law.

I like having a bunch of people for a fish fry as well, but I do it only when I can do it legally. For example, when camping and when we have 6, 8, or more license holders in one place, we’re legally entitled to keep enough fish to make a big fish fry possible. Great.

But I don’t feel that I’m entitled to break the law to do a big fish fry anytime I want by keeping fish over the possession limit. I figure between panfish, walleye, and the occasional northern, there’s plenty of opportunities to keep enough fish and stay legal. I fish because I like to fish and be outdoors. The occasional meal of fish is strictly a bonus to me and I would keep fishing regardless of how many fish can be kept.

Grouse

Grouse

David Blais wrote:

I haven’t seen an actual dnr conservation officer in over 5 years near any faribault area lakes. The sheriff is out in his boat in full force.

Lower the daily limit,but raise the possession limit. 3 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes per day, 6 in possession.

Instead of drastically raising license fees, add another sticker we need to put on our boats. You could increase fees based on year and length.

How does raising the fee for Boy Scout canoes help the fishery? How does a higher fee on the cruisers help fisheries? All that does is cut the pie in more ways. The only way to add funding for fishing is through license increases. I understand what you are saying but don’t see how it helps anything.

cougareye wrote:

Interesting how an article about reducing fish limits due to increased use of fish finding electronics, gps mapping, facebook announcement of hot spots and improved ice fishing mobile houses leads to an almost unanimous outpouring of “we need to eliminate the freezer fillers”.

We spend a tremendous amount of money on our fishing equipment today. And what’s wrong with filling up a freezer with fish for a big fish fry? I like to get a good amount of fish then have 10 – 20 friends over for a big fry. As long as I’m within my possession limit what’s wrong with this.

If I hook up the boat on a nice summer day, and head 1-2 hours north to fish, I don’t want to come home with 5 crappies. I work M-F, so I can only fish weekends and if we have something going on a weekend, it might be 2-3 weeks in between fishing trips. Again, I’m going to be pissed if all I can take is 5 crappies.

Maybe we should find other solutions to this “problem”. Increase license fees and increase enforcement so the illegal freezer fillers get caught. I haven’t had my license checked in 7-8 years. Maybe we should use data to identify and solve this “problem”. What happens if the decrease in bag limits increases fish population and stunts fish growth. Now we are stuck with small fish and a set of regs that will be hard to change again.

I can see the response here are largely in favor of some type of bag limit changes, but let’s not get crazy and if there’s a problem (poaching, violation of possession limits) lets tackle that problem instead of putting restrictions on those that follow the rules and take some fish from time to time to eat.

Nailed it! Go get the offenders not punish the guys that follow the rules to a tee. Lower the limit to 3 or 4 to make it harder on the poachers? Thats silly. Lakes can handle limits of 6 (which doesn’t happen that often anyways…). More CO’s and more calls to TIP is what is needed…RR

Put some facts and science behind the reasoning for lowering limits. Besides catch and release fanaticism. Special reg’s already exist on lake’s that warrant them.

Personally I hate fish that’s been frozen, so fish rarely go in my freezer.

Lake’s need way more than just regulations to stay good fisheries. Everyone is talking about bucket fillers being a major problem, what about habitat issue’s, lake’s full of stunted gils, crappies and small pike that keep getting released. It’s more complex than blanket regulations. There’s lake’s it should be illegal to throw small pike back.

If you fish for only fun, you’re an easy target for anti everythinger’s. It’s hunting that comes under fire usually but fishing is on their radar as well. It’s more palatable if fishing is looked at more as food gathering vs it’s fun to drill a sharp hook in a critters mouth just for fun.

Fishing is better than when I was cutting my teeth in the 80’s and early 90’s. Fishing isn’t always easy, nor is there big fish everywhere. Nor should it be.

I’d like to see some facts and figures, vs just knee jerk reactions.

Remember a thread before on the freezer fillers, or whatever you call them, and thought for the most part we all agreed these people are pretty far and few. Let alone singly would have that large of an impact on any decent body of water.

This is where the tech aspect I think really comes in, note of the bite gets out with all the fancy hold the fish close to the camera pics and tailgates full that the next guy wants in, then the next then the……This is where lakes get mauled IMO. Not bc grumpy stubborn Gramps Hermit in his shack has 50 crappies in his freezer.

Absolutely raise the fines on those frezzer fillers, absolutely get more COs circulating, but limits in of themselves can be the only answer for most bodies of water bc I truly believe most follow the rules.

basseyes wrote:

If you fish for only fun, you’re an easy target for anti everythinger’s. It’s hunting that comes under fire usually but fishing is on their radar as well. It’s more palatable if fishing is looked at more as food gathering vs it’s fun to drill a sharp hook in a critters mouth just for fun.

Isn’t hunting looked at more as food gathering?
—-

Moving on…

I used to think fishing was full of conservation minded individuals. I think I was pretty naive. And it isn’t just a Minnesota/Wisconsin thing.

I would be willing to lower limits if they would let us use two rods. A little give and take.

I would love to run one rig with confidence lure and switch out the other line and try new things.

mplspug wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>basseyes wrote:</div>
If you fish for only fun, you’re an easy target for anti everythinger’s. It’s hunting that comes under fire usually but fishing is on their radar as well. It’s more palatable if fishing is looked at more as food gathering vs it’s fun to drill a sharp hook in a critters mouth just for fun.

Isn’t hunting looked at more as food gathering?
—-

Moving on…

I used to think fishing was full of conservation minded individuals. I think I was pretty naive. And it isn’t just a Minnesota/Wisconsin thing.

Sport fishing is a very easy target, that concerns me long term.

There’s a gaping chasm between preservation and conservation. One is religiously fanatical, rigid and irrational in regards to facts. The other is based in facts and is able to listen and adjust. I personally prefer conservation vs preservation. There’s renewable resources that don’t need an ideological view founded more in unrealistic visions of utopia, vs soundly managing resources.

As anglers we’ll be painting ourselves into a corner. If lake’s need special reg’s, put them in place. If it just seems it’s a good idea to be a do gooder without factual based science, it’s not a good idea, even if it “feel’s” like it.

Dutchboy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>David Blais wrote:</div>
I haven’t seen an actual dnr conservation officer in over 5 years near any faribault area lakes. The sheriff is out in his boat in full force.

Lower the daily limit,but raise the possession limit. 3 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes per day, 6 in possession.

Instead of drastically raising license fees, add another sticker we need to put on our boats. You could increase fees based on year and length.

How does raising the fee for Boy Scout canoes help the fishery? How does a higher fee on the cruisers help fisheries? All that does is cut the pie in more ways. The only way to add funding for fishing is through license increases. I understand what you are saying but don’t see how it helps anything.

My thought was to increase the price of boat ownership ever year.. Kidding.

I would say people with boats generally fish more then people without. So the couple times a year my fiancé comes in the boat or a friend tags along, why should they have to deal with an increase in price…I know there is daily fishing licenses’

Wow, those of you that only keep 10 panfish for a meal for more than 1 must eat a lot of salad and potatoes, let’s all spend our money and go fishing, take pictures,stay at a resort, buy gas,or just fill up the boat and or vehicle, stay at a campground and tent it, let’s all go to mn and eat a hotdog, burger and pizza, then go pay for a fish fry cause you can’t keep enough have a meal, just think how lucky the ones are that like to eat fish, but if we make enough copies of the pictures we should all be good

A lower bag or possession limit is not going to solve the problem of “sportsmen” that kill MANY TIMES their limit of fish by releasing fish that they’ve caught while fishing water that’s WAY too deep to successfully release them.

basseyes wrote:

Put some facts and science behind the reasoning for lowering limits. Besides catch and release fanaticism. Special reg’s already exist on lake’s that warrant them.

Personally I hate fish that’s been frozen, so fish rarely go in my freezer.

Lake’s need way more than just regulations to stay good fisheries. Everyone is talking about bucket fillers being a major problem, what about habitat issue’s, lake’s full of stunted gils, crappies and small pike that keep getting released. It’s more complex than blanket regulations. There’s lake’s it should be illegal to throw small pike back.

If you fish for only fun, you’re an easy target for anti everythinger’s. It’s hunting that comes under fire usually but fishing is on their radar as well. It’s more palatable if fishing is looked at more as food gathering vs it’s fun to drill a sharp hook in a critters mouth just for fun.

Fishing is better than when I was cutting my teeth in the 80’s and early 90’s. Fishing isn’t always easy, nor is there big fish everywhere. Nor should it be.

I’d like to see some facts and figures, vs just knee jerk reactions.

Right On!

Outdraft wrote:

Wow, those of you that only keep 10 <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish for a meal for more than 1 must eat a lot of salad and potatoes, let’s all spend our money and go fishing, take pictures,stay at a resort, buy gas,or just fill up the boat and or vehicle, stay at a campground and tent it, let’s all go to mn and eat a hotdog, burger and pizza, then go pay for a fish fry cause you can’t keep enough have a meal, just think how lucky the ones are that like to eat fish, but if we make enough copies of the pictures we should all be good

Dude, you can buy salmon at the store for $10/lb. Sounds a lot cheaper than what you are spending. Also, please use periods, I almost passed out reading this.

mplspug wrote:

Also, please use periods, I almost passed out reading this.

Don’t be that guy Pug

nhamm wrote:

Remember a thread before on the freezer fillers, or whatever you call them, and thought for the most part we all agreed these people are pretty far and few. Let alone singly would have that large of an impact on any decent body of water.

This is where the tech aspect I think really comes in, note of the bite gets out with all the fancy hold the fish close to the camera pics and tailgates full that the next guy wants in, then the next then the……This is where lakes get mauled IMO. Not bc grumpy stubborn Gramps Hermit in his shack has 50 crappies in his freezer.

Absolutely raise the fines on those frezzer fillers, absolutely get more COs circulating, but limits in of themselves can be the only answer for most bodies of water bc I truly believe most follow the rules.

With our history I can’t believe I am saying this but X2 to your post…RR

Seriously, I guess you get to travel and fish and stay for free good for you it must just drive you crazy that not everyone dots there their iiiis and crosses their there it’s …………..lmao…. Lmao….

nhamm wrote:

Don’t be that guy Pug

I’ve always been that guy. I poke things.

Outdraft wrote:

Seriously, I guess you get to travel and fish and stay for free good for you it must just drive you crazy that not everyone dots there their iiiis and crosses their there it’s …………..lmao…. Lmao….

You live in Wisconsin you don’t have to travel and stay at a resort or campground to fish you made it sound like it costs you thousands of dollars each fishing trip so I was just saying there are cheaper alternatives like staying in Wisconsin where I am sure the fish limits make the cost per pound more economical.

[/quote]

Matthew Sandys wrote:

I would be willing to lower limits if they would let us use two rods. A little give and take.

I would love to run one rig with confidence lure and switch out the other line and try new things.
I would support lower limits if I could run more than 1 line also, most states around us allow more lines. ND allows 2 days possession limit, 2 lines summer , 5 in the winter.
Wisconsin is also a multi line state.
I understand the pressure due to the larger population of MN.

Not only is the DNR looking at lowering limits, but they are also facing a budget crisis. New revenue is good right? So how about we be a little creative and add a 2nd line bonus endorsement/stamp? I’d be glad to pay another $10-15 bucks for another line and all that would be almost entirely revenue for the DNR as there would be little costs involved in implementing it. The Catfish group I am part of has made 2 lines one of our number 1 initiatives but we have hit a brick wall at every turn.

Outdraft wrote:

Wow, those of you that only keep 10 panfish for a meal for more than 1 must eat a lot of salad and potatoes, let’s all spend our money and go fishing, take pictures,stay at a resort, buy gas,or just fill up the boat and or vehicle, stay at a campground and tent it, let’s all go to mn and eat a hotdog, burger and pizza, then go pay for a fish fry cause you can’t keep enough have a meal, just think how lucky the ones are that like to eat fish, but if we make enough copies of the pictures we should all be good

A lot of us have the attitude that we’re not out there using the lake as our own private fishmonger’s counter.

If you absolutely won’t fish unless you have the chance to kill bucketloads of panfish, then sooner or later you’re going to be leaving the sport anyway. Might as well be sooner rather than later.

We are way, way past the point where what is kept by sport anglers doesn’t matter one jot in the overall population. Because of population and technology, anglers are capable of trawling out lakes with tremendous efficiency.

I fish because I love to fish. I love the people, I love the outdoors, the surroundings, I love the machines we use, I love the traditions and the heritage of it. If the DNR said that’s it, no more keeping fish ever it would matter not one bit to me. I’d buy my fish at the fish counter and keep right on fishing on the lakes.

Grouse