With our history I can’t believe I am saying this but X2 to your post…RR
Ya know, I actually agreed with you recently on a thread as well. Perhaps this is a start to a beautiful relationship. 
Ya cause I live across the street from every body of water in the state never said it cost thousands I just love it when people implement things that were never said it costs x amount of dollars to fish even for a day according to you I guess the resort’s and campgrounds in your state don’t appreciate the money tourism brings in I guess I was misinformed I see the mn nice in its true meaning now
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.
This seems like a no brainer. What exactly is the reasoning against it? Is it kind of the same argument that like electronics it makes people more efficient and successful?
I know that even when you have unlimited limits on the rods you can use, most people do not even bother. I am talking the vast majority of people will still use one pole. I am not saying people wouldn’t buy them and increase revenue, I am saying that it would have very little impact on the fisheries, a no brainer.
Increased harvest and hooking mortality is the biggest concerns with 2 lines. The easy argument is “a limit is a limit no matter how you get there” so why does it matter. Well, it’s not reaching the limit the DNR is concerned with since most of us never do, it’s overall increased harvest they think will happen. Musky and Walleye groups are afraid of the hooking mortality a 2nd line will have, especially when it will most likely have live bait on it since it’s pretty hard to toss 2 cowgirls at once, although it sure sounds like fun. 
Speaking of revenue, do they still offer a conservation license and why? Personally I think you are just giving up revenue. If someone chooses to take half limits or CPR the whole year, why should they get a break in the price?
I doubt it’s enough incentive to encourage people to pay less and keep less.
I also wonder how many of those they actually sell?
Increased harvest and hooking mortality is the biggest concerns with 2 lines.
I think there is a big difference in perception and reality there. If the fishing is decent to good, guys (and gals) generally won’t want to mess with 2 lines. Heck sometimes on slow days people don’t want to mess with 2 lines.
It makes me wonder if they have actually studied other states with laxed line laws or if they are just making assumptions.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>roosterrouster wrote:</div>
With our history I can’t believe I am saying this but X2 to your post…RRYa know, I actually agreed with you recently on a thread as well. Perhaps this is a start to a beautiful relationship.
We actually might have a 3 sum! 
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>nhamm wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>roosterrouster wrote:</div>
With our history I can’t believe I am saying this but X2 to your post…RRYa know, I actually agreed with you recently on a thread as well. Perhaps this is a start to a beautiful relationship.
We actually might have a 3 sum!
o-HELL-FROZE-OVER-facebook.jpg
Grouse, I do not always keep fish, I bass fish a lot and only keep one if it’s badly hooked, people that know me know that I’ve been letting walleyes go for over 30 years, before the catch and release push even started,that said if I want to keep fish for a meal I should at least be able to keep enough to make more than a sandwich, I too enjoy the outdoors immensely and enjoy every minute I’m out in it.
The bag limit needs to be lowered. Blame or causes can be debated until people are angry and showcase their lack of basic knowledge, but the end result will still be the same. No matter how it is sliced, the MNDNR is facing a short budget with a huge list of demands. I wish we would stop stressing over walleye populations in most of the state’s carp-filled pothole (and metro) lakes which haven’t had natural reproduction in decades. Instead, focus on some of the region’s rivers and the few naturally reproducing walleye lakes we still have to promote populations of those species.
Because of population and technology, anglers are capable of trawling out lakes with tremendous efficiency.
We need to be careful of generalizations like this. While this idea is theoretically possible, there also exists many exceptions to this generalization.
First case in point would be Lake Minnetonka. Basically within a metropolitan area, hosts multiple tournaments a year for varied species, has houses literally ringed around it and multiple boat launches, and we don’t hear that this lake is fished out.
You do hear about smaller lakes that get ‘fished out’ when the bite is hot. But what happens next, the fisherman move to another lake nearby. This allows that first lake to re-generate over a period of years.
Let’s stop with these guesses and move to a data driven system to make big decisions such is being considered.
ET
Let’s stop with these guesses and move to a data driven system to make big decisions such is being considered.
They tried that on Mille Lac and proved they have no idea what they are seeing.
Let’s stop with these guesses and move to a data driven system to make big decisions such is being considered.
They tried that on Mille Lac and proved they have no idea what they are seeing.
While I would like to say so true. 
I think there is a bunch of politics at play that hamstrung statistical management.
First case in point would be Lake Minnetonka. Basically within a metropolitan area, hosts multiple tournaments a year for varied species, has houses literally ringed around it and multiple boat launches, and we don’t hear that this lake is fished out
Umm a good day walleye fishing on Minnetonka is catching 3-5 fish. Despite it being HEAVILY stocked by the DNR, walleye fishing is so poor there is a private (successful) effort to stock grown walleye in it. If you want a meal of panfish from a city lake, you better plan on eating smaller fish because a limit of 10″+ crappie is next to impossible. I since moving to the cities 3 years ago, I have yet to have one day on the cities lakes that I would consider average to good. When I go up north I usually do good to very good. You don’t hear cities lakes being “fished out” because everyone has just come to accept poor to average fishing. This does not apply to catch and release species like Bass and Musky though…
Let’s stop with these guesses and move to a data driven system to make big decisions such is being considered.
Totally agree with this, but the DNR seems more politically driven every year.
How about a pay as you go system??? Regular license fees and limits, but you have to pay for each fish you keep. We could start with Walleyes,northern & bass at $1 per fish, pan fish could be $.50. This way the DNR could keep track of exactly how many fish are caught from each lake & re-stock, kind of like the scanner at the grocery store. This could simply be an app or they can have a checkout at each public access. Before anybody gets wound up, the above is all tongue in cheek. 
Feathers??….now that name sounds familiar! Could it be? Perhaps…
Showing up late and passing out judgments….
jud.jpg
I’m a big believer in there being two sides to every argument and that those sides, in an adult manner, argue that passionately then there’s got to be some truth to both sides. So considering that, I think there’s a lot of good ideas and suggestions on here, so I’m not going to go into the good ideas others have said.
One thing I’d just like to say is a big pet peeve of mine is the care taken (or not) in releasing fish. I’m not trying to sound like a big baby or Peta nut here but I think way too many people don’t take proper care when releasing fish. Sitting up high in a boat and softball-tossing them back into the water, I would imagine, cannot be good for a fish. Yeah most swim right away but if every angler kills a few fish each year because they think they’re too good to carefully release fish, well then there’s quite a few more fish available for the tables, to reproduce, and just to catch again.
A big part of this problem is the examples some fishing shows set. I’ve watched every fishing show on FSNorth in Minnesota at least once and some of them do a pretty bad job of demonstrating releasing with care. It’s kind of like how parents need to understand that children are always watching them for examples; some of these fishing shows need to figure out that if they’re just haphazardly tossing fish back in the water while they look at the camera then a lot of their viewers aren’t going to care either.
Funny, I recently visited a couple of small lakes from years past that have been fished out. Behold they have big pan fish again. No tinkering with bag limits or slot limits to be had. Just saying.
Oversight is helpfull when done correctly but not done correctly it becomes an agenda for a special intrest group.
Name the lakes so it can be independently verified. 
What’s the main objective to lowering limits?
How will it achieve the objective based on data and facts?
What are some adverse affects it could have?
Is it more socially based or factually based?
And how is that proven?
There is not actual data showing we need to change regulations statewide. As RR said should be a lake by lake basis you can’t manage the land of ten thousand lakes really over 11 by a single regulation. Many smaller lakes get very little pressure while other get heavy those lake may need more regulation. While Mille lacs is a mess and I don’t see that issue changed as it is not fishing harvest that hurt the lake in the first place. Each lake have there own set of issues and the best way this to do on a lake by lake basis. Yes that makes it difficult to regulate for officers and public to know the laws but it is your job to know the regulations on he body of water you are fishing.
Really the the state needs to change the way we tally a limit of fish, we need to go to a pounds of fish not number of fish. This would be a self imposed size limit based on each individual lake . If a lake produces large fish you can take a limit of fewer fish and if the lake produces small stunted fish you can take more,removing more small fish. An example would be, say the sunfish limit would be 6 pounds of fish, you could only keep 6, 1 pound fish but if the lake produces 1/3 pound fish you can take 18 and doing so would improve the health of the lakes by taking fewer big fish and taking more small ones.This can be set up for all fish base it on the average size of the fish in the state and the current limit gives you a poundage can give you a poundage for a species of fish. This way the one over 20 inch or what ever the size can go away. The DNR has a chart that tells the weight based on how long the fish is so carrying a scale is not needed. Just my opinion but i think it would be the better system and help the lakes and not need a list of different lakes with different regs. I think it would work. thanks for commenting.
Now you are asking people who can’t count to have math skills.
When I go fishing, I try to take only what is needed. Hate to hull a scale to weigh my fish and a tape measurement to measure it to make sure it legal… Why can’t it be left alone and manage on a lake by lake basis. I love the idea of trying to promote selected harvest but when you slam the books and say, instead of 10 crappies, (for example) it going to be 5… how is 5 10-12″ crappie enough for a fish fry when u have a family of 5. Im a big guy, I need my protein…
to Dutchboys last comment
how is 5 10-12″ <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>crappie enough for a fish fry when u have a family of 5. Im a big guy, I need my protein…
Take your family fishing and have them catch a few to add to the fish fry. Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach the man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
People complain every year about more complicated regulations, slot sizes included. Now when there is talk about lowering limits, people want it to be on lake by lake basis, thus over complicating the regulations even more.
I thought it was…
Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach the man how to fish, and you can get rid of him for the entire weekend. 
The large majority of MN lakes that are fished often are stocked with walleyes. And the large majority of those lakes would never have eyes if left alone. And the large majority of lakes that are self-sustained already have special regs imposed bc they cannot in of themselves put out a 6 fish limit to everyone.
Should detail out when I say “fished often”, means the more popular and metro/greater metro areas of Mpls, St.Paul, Duluth, Rochester, St.Cloud, etc. Theses lakes get hit hard and constitute the majority of angling hours. The thousands of lakes that are in remote MN that might see a dozen or so anglers simply do not enter the argument.
If a guy needs protein, get a supplemental shake.
Since the last few generations screwed up the economy enough, can us younger folk at least get some fisheries that are better than the last? Can anyone honestly say they see the status of most waters getting better with regs as is?
Which economy did the last few generations screw up? I’m 60ish and if my generation screwed things up we will be the same generation to fix it. The government is responsible for the economy. Most government decision makers are in their 2nd half of life. The millennials will get their chance to screw things up and then fix them. But they haven’t done anything yet.
Can anyone honestly say they see the status of most waters getting better with regs as is?
Umm absolutely yes! The Big Lakes have all overcome significant threats in the last 20 years, and are getting better every year. The small lakes from Fargo to Duluth are doing better than ever imo, and provide the opportunity for a MN 6 fish limit or trophy. The metro lakes are not, and never will be able to put out a 2, 4 or 6 fish walleye limit every time out for everyone. Nor should they imo, catching a limit of walleye in a metro area should be a challenge. Even with that said, there are PLENTY of opportunities within 20 minutes of the Twin Cities, Duluth and St. Cloud (metro areas I’m familiar with) to catch a limit of crappie or panfish in short order. In fact I did so, just last night. Maybe I’m just an optimist, but to think our fisheries are not improving is having blinders on imo.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
