Walleye bag limit lowering…..

Kyhl wrote:

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.

BigWerm wrote:

Umm absolutely yes! The Big Lakes have all overcome significant threats in the last 20 years, and are getting better every year.

Because of aggressive stocking and special regulation…

agree with scegura 100% without stocking and regulations youd see lakes trending the other direction. My Personal bias has always been loosen a slot lower the limit. have people get there fish and get off the lake or catch and release quickly not catch ten fish poke, prod, stress them and toss them back and keep going for more to get one in the slot.

Joe Scegura wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>

Umm absolutely yes! The Big Lakes have all overcome significant threats in the last 20 years, and are getting better every year.

Because of aggressive stocking and special regulation…

Agreed, I was answering his question, as I interpreted it to mean he thought fishing was getting worse.

Feathers wrote:

Which big lakes have been stocked?

Correct Red and Leech were both stocked heavily after their crashes (not currently as far as I know). Now they have lower limits and special regs so they hopefully don’t have a crash again.

Stocking is ridiculous for the most part. If a lake cannot support walleye naturally, then so beit, its not meant to have walleye. The one exception being lakes where natural reproduction has ceased or declined do to man.

I wonder how the DNR water habitat restoration projects have been going? To me it makes more sense to do projects like that.

mplspug wrote:

Stocking is ridiculous for the most part. If a lake cannot support walleye naturally, then so beit, its not meant to have walleye.

Here I told myself I wasn’t going to post in this thread at all

I’m going out on a limb here and say that the majority of the “walleye” lakes in MN are stocked.

I know in the Alexandria area there are millions of walleye stocked in a 100 some lakes. There are only 4 lakes that I know of that are natural walleye lakes in this area.

Please enlighten me why it’s ridiculous to get the most out of our lakes? It draws millions of dollars to our state?

Am I really debating this with someone from Florida?

Feathers wrote:

Which big lakes have been stocked? Red was stocked after the crash to reestablish a population for a quicker turnaround but no longer gets stocked. Leech, Mille Lacs, Red, and LOTW are not stocked as far as I know. Winnie receives some fish but that is because they are using fish from Winnie for the hatchery on cut foot. Someone can correct me if I am wrong on this.

There are plenty of naturally producing <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye lakes close to metro areas that are not stocked that will benefit greatly from decreased limits. There are also plenty of stocked lakes that would benefit.

I hope to see more reduced limits and more special regulations to improve our fisheries. Some of the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish slots and reduced limits on lakes in the western part of the state are working great.

Mille Lacs was stocked with 10 million small fry in May of 2016.

What I don’t get is on one hand we hear that less people are fishing these days and there is all this concern about how to get more people doing it. But then we hear that limits need to be lowered. How can both be? I don’t agree that electronics is increasing catch rates. You can see all the fish you want on the graph, but there is the tasks of getting them to bite. I do think that there are more people ice fishing now than in the past. I am just astounded at how many wheelhouses are out on certain lakes now on a nice Saturday. But I don’t think this is adding to catch rates either since fishing is always tougher and slower on the ice.

It seems like a lot of the over-limit cases in MN are from people coming from other states. I still cannot believe how many people make the drive from places as far away as Indiana to northern MN. And if they are making that trip and spending over a grand at a resort, no wonder they try to fill the coolers. Good luck trying to combat that behavior.

As for MN residents caught with over limit, it’s likely a lot of old guys who are used to how things used to with high limits. I also think that people of all ages are STILL not aware that the limits now are POSESSION limits. I admit to not being aware of the change until years after it was changed. It’s so different from the limit rules that were in place since the beginning of time. Hard to get used to.

Some of my best, consistent panfishing year after year is actually a metro lake. I go up north to different lakes every summer but no lake consistently provides keeper crappies and sunfish than this lake. It’s the best kept secret I have. My point in this is that I don’t think over fishing is the reason for low fish or small fish size in all lakes. Just like with what is going on with Mille Lacs, the reasons behind all of this is so complex. There are so many factors involved.

At the Roundtable the DNR could offer no biological, scientific, economic imperative to lower the bag limit for Walleyes. The presenter for the walleye workgroup went on and on about how bad wheel-houses were and how they were destroying the fisheries. I suspect the argument about Wheel-house is the same thing we have heard for years “get off my lake”. I assume he only wanted permanent fish house (which in all probability would be owned by folks living on the lake. Resort’ers like the idea of a smaller bag, then folks staying with them can tell their friends “I got my limit every day”. Minnesota is geographically a difficult State to have a one-size fits all bag limit. But the DNR is so afraid that anglers will complain about too many regs, too many size rules that they try to manage accordingly. If deer hunters, waterfowl hunters, trappers can handle complex regulations is the DNR thinking that anglers are very bright? Can’t chew gum and fish at the same time?

They can have a one size fits all. Reduce the limits but make them all lakes statewide. That makes the occasional license buyer and the vacationers from out of state have regulations they can easily understand. Then you can sell special tags allowing additional fish on certain bodies. These special license would have to be known so the buyer would know they are buying a special permit license for certain bodies of water only. Example would be a regular license allows 2 walleyes statewide. Then a special permit license allows a 4 walleye limit on 50 (50 as a example only) bodies of water. These lakes can be changes yearly if they wanted.

It’s true electronics can’t catch the fish. However they can make a 10,000 acre lake fish like a 1,000 acre lake for novices. By accident there will be more fish caught.

JMO

$2 million or $99 million? How many million are spent stocking?
How much of those millions can directly attributed to people coming here specifically to target walleye on lakes with no natural reproduction?

I’m not 100℅ against stocking. I do think there is a lot of waste and it could be scaled back and their may be better ways to spend the money.

One time we discussed this and someone from Rochester said there are no naturally reproducing lakes in the area and they would have to drive a long way to walleye fish. In that instance it makes sense to designate a large lake for stocking.

I was at the roundtable one year and listened to a guy bellyache they were not stocking enough in his region or cut it back too much. I think he was from the iron range. Really? You can’t find a good lake there with natural reproduction? To me the whole stocking program became more about who in the public was the loudest and most selfish.

To me it seems we’d be better served trying to create renewable lakes instead of trying to chase the ball with what amounts to put and take.

Which brings me back to my main point/question, how has the aquatic habitat programs been performing?

What is the goal of such a broad brush stroke across such a diverse fisheries?

Factually and scientifically how is lowering limits going to achieve whatever the goal is?

Is it more fish?

Bigger fish?

Imo anglers are getting dumber. They are expecting unrealistic results out of their electronics, rods, tackle and flock to hot bites vs finding their own. Yeah they hit the obvious spots off their mapping software, but blind pigs and acorns I guess.

I have no problem with lowering limits across the board if the objective is clear and spelled out very specifically off some sort of faulty resource manual. If it’s all socially based off what the general public thinks will magically fix their angling ineptitude, I ain’t for it at all. Personally for me I think fishing is way better than it was 20 year’s ago, again just opinion and it’s subjective to my own perception of my own perceived reality. If we regulate off of feelings, perceptions, public opinion, etc it will help with nothing factual. But at least we could pat ourselves on our own backs and feel good about it.

The difficult part about all of this is that one rule doesn’t fit all bodies of water or all fisherman.

The guy who likes to catch 3-4 big fish will want a dramatically different management of a lake than a guy who wants to take home a meal of fish. Likewise, different lakes can support dramatically different biomass than others.

The majority of us, caring enough about catching fish to go to a website, probably catch more than 90% of the fisherman out there. A lot of fisherman can be on a lake all day and are lucky to harvest one walleye.

So who do you manage a lake for? Who makes that decision?

Dutchboy wrote:

They can have a one size fits all. Reduce the limits but make them all lakes statewide. That makes the occasional license buyer and the vacationers from out of state have regulations they can easily understand.

This argument always confounds me…What the heck is so hard to understand? If the lake has a slot or a special limit is it really scaring people away? RR

mplspug wrote:

Stocking is ridiculous for the most part. If a lake cannot support walleye naturally, then so beit, its not meant to have walleye. The one exception being lakes where natural reproduction has ceased or declined do to man.

I wonder how the DNR water habitat restoration projects have been going? To me it makes more sense to do projects like that.

Stocking lakes that walleyes do not reproduce naturally in, helps spread the fishing pressure off the lakes that do reproduce naturally.

roosterrouster wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
They can have a one size fits all. Reduce the limits but make them all lakes statewide. That makes the occasional license buyer and the vacationers from out of state have regulations they can easily understand.

This argument always confounds me…What the heck is so hard to understand? If the lake has a slot or a special limit is it really scaring people away? RR

I think the state should set statewide limits, again it spreads the fishing pressure out.
For instance if there is one body of water that has liberal slot limits and a hot bite, people will flock to that body of water and continue fishing until the numbers start falling then they will head to the next hot bite.

It’s pretty unfortunate that we are chasing the bite on large lakes as we speak. I do not like specific slots on specific lakes.

The next large crash to occur on a walleye lake IMHO will be Lake Vermilion, once again you are starting to see increasing numbers of large walleyes caught on that lake. And the DNR is trying the circus of changing slots to limit the number of Pounds of fish caught and released.

HMMMM where has this happened before? Red? Leach? Mille Lacs?

Sound familar, Rainy? LOW ?

And, Do you Know that the ND Game and fish is stocking Devils Lake.

jeff_huberty wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mplspug wrote:</div>
Stocking is ridiculous for the most part. If a lake cannot support walleye naturally, then so beit, its not meant to have walleye. The one exception being lakes where natural reproduction has ceased or declined do to man.

I wonder how the DNR water habitat restoration projects have been going? To me it makes more sense to do projects like that.

Stocking lakes that <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes do not reproduce naturally in, helps spread the fishing pressure off the lakes that do reproduce naturally.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>roosterrouster wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
They can have a one size fits all. Reduce the limits but make them all lakes statewide. That makes the occasional license buyer and the vacationers from out of state have regulations they can easily understand.

This argument always confounds me…What the heck is so hard to understand? If the lake has a slot or a special limit is it really scaring people away? RR

I think the state should set statewide limits, again it spreads the fishing pressure out.
For instance if there is one body of water that has liberal slot limits and a hot bite, people will flock to that body of water and continue fishing until the numbers start falling then they will head to the next hot bite.

It’s pretty unfortunate that we are chasing the bite on large lakes as we speak. I do not like specific slots on specific lakes.

The next large crash to occur on a walleye lake IMHO will be Lake Vermilion, once again you are starting to see increasing numbers of large <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes caught on that lake. And the DNR is trying the circus of changing slots to limit the number of Pounds of fish caught and released.

HMMMM where has this happened before? Red? Leach? Mille Lacs?

Sound familar, Rainy? LOW ?

And, Do you Know that the ND Game and fish is stocking Devils Lake.

They’ve stocked devils many, many times. years where there is not significant runoff in the ditches and drainages there is little to no successful reproduction. People even fish during the spawn there (gasp).

Attachments:

1. 

   Capture-2.png
   

ajw wrote:

They’ve stocked devils many, many times. years where there is not significant runoff in the ditches and drainages there is little to no successful reproduction. People even fish during the spawn there (gasp).

Devils does not see the fishing pressure that most of the Large natural walleye producing lakes receive here in MN.

Yet it still needs to be stocked?

(Gasp)

my point is that it is a put and take fishery and that there isnt anything wrong with that.

ajw wrote:

my point is that it is a put and take fishery and that there isnt anything wrong with that.

I get your point

My piont is that stocking lakes is the only way to keep up with the demand. No lake can reproduce naturally and sustain the pressure of over fishing.

jeff_huberty wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ajw wrote:</div>
my point is that it is a put and take fishery and that there isnt anything wrong with that.

I get your point

My piont is that stocking lakes is the only way to keep up with the demand. No lake can reproduce naturally and sustain the pressure of over fishing.

Mille Lacs kept up just fine for many many years…Until they allowed one race of people rape the lake of its resources with nets. Mille Lacs is a breeding factory. The only reason it was stocked last year was because of the Natives…IMO…RR

This isn’t about mille lacs and Indians. You’re a couple months early.

mplspug wrote:

This isn’t about mille lacs and Indians. You’re a couple months early.

NEVER to early for that argument!

I started fishing regularly again about 5 years ago when my work schedule included less travel. Something that surprises me is the lack of enforcement, not the lack of regulation.

By lowering the limit honest people will be honest and adhere to the reduced limit. But when it comes to getting anglers to take less fish, I don’t think lowering limits will solve the problem. Its those folks that consistently get away with pillaging that are emboldened by not getting caught filling their freezer.

Don’t get me wrong, I sympathize with the COs out there trying to keep up. They have ridiculously huge areas to cover. Take a look at the DNR’s 2016-2017 biennial budget, only 10% goes to enforcement.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/fy16-17-biennial-op-budget.pdf

That 10% is not just for game and fish, that 10% slice also needs to cover enforcement of: recreational vehicles, natural resource commercial operations, environmental protection, and public safety.

If the limit is lowered, it’s of no consequence to me. I just don’t think it’ll be all that effective without more folks out there enforcing the limit.

Do most people believe that the very small percentage of limit offenders cause large scale damage?

Freezers are only so big folks.

Woodshed wrote:

I started fishing regularly again about 5 years ago when my work schedule included less travel. Something that surprises me is the lack of enforcement, not the lack of regulation.

By lowering the limit honest people will be honest and adhere to the reduced limit. But when it comes to getting anglers to take less fish, I don’t think lowering limits will solve the problem. Its those folks that consistently get away with pillaging that are emboldened by not getting caught filling their freezer.

Don’t get me wrong, I sympathize with the COs out there trying to keep up. They have ridiculously huge areas to cover. Take a look at the DNR’s 2016-2017 biennial budget, only 10% goes to enforcement.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/fy16-17-biennial-op-budget.pdf

That 10% is not just for game and fish, that 10% slice also needs to cover enforcement of: recreational vehicles, natural resource commercial operations, environmental protection, and public safety.

If the limit is lowered, it’s of no consequence to me. I just don’t think it’ll be all that effective without more folks out there enforcing the limit.

Good post and spot on.

nhamm wrote:

Do most people believe that the very small percentage of limit offenders cause large scale damage?

Freezers are only so big folks.

I do not believe that the gross violaters are statistically insignificant. But when one gets pinched for a ridiculous amount over the limit, it makes the headlines and we all hear about it. I do believe that the average angler out there trys to follow the laws. Mistakes get made, bad decisions get made, but for the most part, i believe people try ro abide.

In my house, i can have 36 walleyes in the freezer. That inludes MN and canadian limits for my family. 36 is a lot of fish. I have no problem stockpiling a little for a big family fish fry and still staying well within the law.

nhamm wrote:

Do most people believe that the very small percentage of limit offenders cause large scale damage?

Freezers are only so big folks.

What makes you think the percentage of limit offenders is small? Considering that the DNR spends about twice as much on administration as it does on enforcement, I think there are quite a few not getting caught.

If my wife would quit buying all that crappy grass fed beef, that won’t form a decent burger, I’d have space for an obnoxious amount of fish in the chest freezer.

I wouldn’t oppose lowering the limit. Like I said, it’s of no consequence to me. The only limit I generally keep is a pan fish limit. I just don’t believe strict regulations work without consistent enforcement.

seeing a lot if buckets on pool 2, I think it is common on some waters

Think of how great it would be to have a 4 fish walleye limit! I mean,, “Hey I got my limit!” from more guys while still leaving 2 fish to swim for the next guy. And lets be honest, it’s not like panfish where you can go 9 days in a row and catch your limit.. For the most part walleyes take a little work and Don’t always bite!