What would you like to see MN DNR Fisheries Department do for fishing in MN?

Better communication, Lakefinder is great but could be better, it could include reports of winter kill and information about if an access is closed, I understand that most launches are county owned but that is what makes communication challenging.
More resources devoted to restoring walleye spawning habitat and less to stocking.
Face it stocking in most cases is kind of a waste of money, would be much better to have a resource that usually sustains itself. I know some lakes that now have Walleye could not be ‘fixed’ so walleye could spawn, oh well.

I would like to see the walleye limit changed to 4, and the crappie limit set to 7. I also support more expansive slot limits across the board in most lakes. Regulations are important, but personal responsibility trumps all.

I personally like how the seasons are set up.

As others have stated, I too would like to see smaller limits, bigger penalties for those who break the rules to make it too risky to cheat and more enforcement of the rules.

buckybadger wrote:

I don’t think it has a thing to do with bass. Rather, someone catch and release “bass fishing” with questionable intentions could very easily run into walleyes which is a big no no and difficult to enforce. I also think an official “opener” for most species really ramps up sales, interest, and excitement.

I suppose it’s possible the reasoning behind a closed bass season could be to prevent those with questionable intent from exploiting walleye out of season, but I kind of doubt it.

Crappie and perch have a continuous season so targeting them particularly crappie pre walleye opener, what’s the preferred method? Small minnows under floats in shallow water. Pretty much the same locations/methods you’d employ for early season walleye.

I don’t believe bass particularly largemouth tactics would be the same methods that would have you catching mostly walleyes (in season or out of season).

I mostly figured that bass spawn on beds holding on those locations for much longer periods of time making them more vulnerable to exploitation.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
I don’t think it has a thing to do with bass. Rather, someone catch and release “bass fishing” with questionable intentions could very easily run into <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes which is a big no no and difficult to enforce. I also think an official “opener” for most species really ramps up sales, interest, and excitement.

I suppose it’s possible the reasoning behind a closed bass season could be to prevent those with questionable intent from exploiting walleye out of season, but I kind of doubt it.

Crappie and perch have a continuous season so targeting them particularly <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>crappie pre walleye opener, what’s the preferred method? Small minnows under floats in shallow water. Pretty much the same locations/methods you’d employ for early season walleye.

I don’t believe <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>bass particularly largemouth tactics would be the same methods that would have you catching mostly walleyes (in season or out of season).

I mostly figured that <em class=”ido-tag-em”>bass spawn on beds holding on those locations for much longer periods of time making them more vulnerable to exploitation.

Does it make them more vulnerable, yes. But you are sight fishing basically from about 20 ft away. Catch, unhook, release, and you WATCH them go right back to their bed. I don’t personally buy that reasoning (although I understand it) because of what I’ve seen personally and how the rest of the country does it with success.

When it comes to the accidental walleye theory that many bass anglers believe is the reason, it doesn’t have to make sense to the DNR. Of course most bass techniques (especially during the early Spring when spawning occurs) won’t catch walleye. But they don’t care. Its the “possibility” that they use to keep the season closed.

Let’s be honest here, how many more days would it give a bass angler to fish if it opened before the traditional opener? A week? Maybe more with an early ice out? One would have to look at historical ice out dates on a specific lake to gauge it. Certainly on a big lake like Mille Lacs the average ice out date is about a week before opener so you might get one extra trip in.

I bass fish a lot from May – October and I’m neutral on the idea of expanding the season. I don’t think that having it closed protects the spawning period because they spawn and sit on beds after the season has already opened. So that argument holds no water. Whether targeting them on beds is good or bad is another topic. I don’t do it, but not necessarily because I think it’s detrimental – but because I have almost no experience doing it and have no interest. For now I’m fine targeting panfish a couple times until opener because even pan fishing is better than not fishing at all.

I remember for the longest time when a bass couldn’t even be targeted until the last Saturday in May. At least they can be targeted on the traditional opener now. Beggars can’t be choosers.

Tom schmitt wrote:

Many of the comments revolved around lower limits, mine included.
Arguments against revolve around a big fish fry.
My wife and I eat a lot of fish when we have a fish fry.
We have found 10 8″ sunfish is apretty good meal for the 2 of us.
1 18″ to 20″ <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye is a meal.
6 11″ <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>crappies is a meal.

Question for all how much fish do you need for a meal?

Fish frys are the devil

Attachments:

1. 

   20210102_183533.jpg
   

2. 

   20201228_181654.jpg
   

gim wrote:

Let’s be honest here, how many more days would it give a bass angler to fish if it opened before the traditional opener? A week? Maybe more with an early ice out? One would have to look at historical ice out dates on a specific lake to gauge it. Certainly on a big lake like Mille Lacs the average ice out date is about a week before opener so you might get one extra trip in.

I bass fish a lot from May – October and I’m neutral on the idea of expanding the season. I don’t think that having it closed protects the spawning period because they spawn and sit on beds after the season has already opened. So that argument holds no water. Whether targeting them on beds is good or bad is another topic. I don’t do it, but not necessarily because I think it’s detrimental – but because I have almost no experience doing it and have no interest. For now I’m fine targeting <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish a couple times until opener because even pan fishing is better than not fishing at all.

I remember for the longest time when a bass couldn’t even be targeted until the last Saturday in May. At least they can be targeted on the traditional opener now. Beggars can’t be choosers.

If I remember correctly it was about 3 weeks last season. The year before ice was off early too. The world is only getting warmer so I honestly think it will be earlier and earlier.

mahtofire14 wrote:

If I remember correctly it was about 3 weeks last season. The year before ice was off early too. The world is only getting warmer so I honestly think it will be earlier and earlier.

I agree, overall it will likely become earlier and earlier. It depends on where you and how big the lake is I guess. In 2018 it was a record late ice out.

A lot of people want the limits cut and I get that if you fish alot. But the tourists that come to MN want to bring fish home to eat. If the bag gets tighter then they will go else where.

3 lines too.

buck-slayer wrote:

A lot of people want the limits cut and I get that if you fish alot. But the tourists that come to MN want to bring fish home to eat. If the bag gets tighter then they will go else where.
3 lines too.

To hell with the tourists lol. Minnesota has far more “destination” waters than any other state in the area. People are going to come whether their take home limit is 6 or not. Do people choose not to go to Ontario because they can only bring 2/4 home? Absolutely not. They go to catch fish. They’ll stop coming to MN once theres no fish here to catch.

Preserve the resource. Not the opposite. My greedy self would like to see them lower walleye limits to 3, protective slots for spawning fish, and increase out of state licenses to a bit more than surrounding states. I would, however, support increasing the # of lines to 2.

– More Enforcement
– Lower Panfish Limits
– More “Special Regulations” Lakes
– Catch and Release only for Mille Lacs and Mississippi River Smallmouth

Being able to use 2 lines in summer would be nice. I liked the idea of paying an additional fee in order to use a 2nd line. Maybe an extra $10 or double the regular cost of a fishing license?

Keep possession limits the same for walleye, crappie & sunfish but cut daily limits in half. Would be similar to what south dakota does. Would help motels & local restaurants also being people driving further are encouraged to fish multiple days in order to get their possession limits.

additional funding from extra line fee could go towards additional CO jobs to help with enforcement. i agree on most lakes there is no enforcement do to lack of CO availability. With no enforcement changing limits wouldn’t even matter.

Ok, I’ll throw in..leave the limits alone..they are fine..too many people worried about “trophy Fish”..how about we raise them to eat them and provide sport rather then some get rich scheme by the tourism business. Stop piling tons of money into the black hole of AIS enforcement..make work program for college kids and teachers during the summer. Limit the amount of power/influence Lake Shore Associations appear to have in the management of Public water and public landings…everyone pays for them..not just because people happen to buy property on a public lake and want to enforce some kinda HOA..allow two lines even in the summer, you can only keep so many fish anyways, what’s theharm? Increase stocking of small water ie, potholes, etc. STOP the tiling and remove old tiling not in use, allow the water to be where it wants to be. Don’t need anymore enforcement, there are plenty of Karens and Carls out there already..

I would like to see a few things from the DNR.

Lower bag limits state wide and make more areas or periods of the fishing season strictly catch and release to help with fish populations.

Increased enforcement from CO’s.

If further funding is needed for these two things then increase the cost of fishing licenses. Compared to other hobbies that cost of access (minus gear) is extremely cheap considering a fishing license allows you to fish most of the year.

“Do people choose not to go to Ontario because they can only bring 2/4 home? Absolutely not. They go to catch fish. They’ll stop coming to MN once theres no fish here to catch.”

Love this line of thinking! Is it already to late to react to the winter harvest now that ice angling is so popular? Once again, reacting versus being proactive…

fishmantim wrote:

Ok, I’ll throw in..leave the limits alone..they are fine..too many people worried about “trophy Fish”..how about we raise them to eat them and provide sport rather then some get rich scheme by the tourism business.

Nobody here is worried about trophy fish. They are sick and tired of catching 5-7 inch gills because 95% of the lakes are stunted for panfish. It’d be nice to have more than one or 2 8 inch gills come out of the hole on a day of fishing. There used to be 10 inch gills all over the state. Now many lakes it’s tough to find a nine let alone a ten. That’s why people keep calling 9 inch gills “giants”. Same with the perch.

Overall size structure is way down. That’s what everyone wants back.

mahtofire14 wrote:

Nobody here is worried about trophy fish. They are sick and tired of catching 5-7 inch gills because 95% of the lakes are stunted for panfish.

Same with walleyes. I like being able to keep fish but I’d rather be able to catch and keep 2 decent fish than 4-6 14″ dinks.

Kurt Turner wrote:

“Do people choose not to go to Ontario because they can only bring 2/4 home? Absolutely not. They go to catch fish. They’ll stop coming to MN once theres no fish here to catch.”

People go to Ontario because they’re buying good fishing. I have many people asking me to go to Canada… my answer is a simple “no, why would I travel and pay for fishing I already have right out my front door”

I always find it interesting that anglers, when given the opportunity to provide suggestions to their DNR, many times suggest various regulation changes that they perceive will improve the quality of their fisheries.

Yet in the next breath, these same anglers will complain about how tedious and confusing the fishing regulations have become.

Buffalo Fishhead

When MN anglers were recently polled in the 2 largest Facebook groups (Fishing Minnesota an Ice Fishing Minnesota) and given a choice of 7 popular yet controversial topics/issues one of them clearly separated themselves from the rest.

Add a 2nd line.

Based on the numbers, next in line was more stocking, but honestly, it wasn’t even close.

3000 votes and 1500 chose 2 lines as their top priority.

See attachment for results

Attachments:

1. 

   135810999_10157871088109290_565581632803615923_o.jpg
   

2. 

   134722147_10157871088234290_5726193881214321839_o.jpg
   

3Rivers wrote:

3000 votes and 1500 chose 2 lines as their top priority.

I believe the suggestion of 2 lines instead of one during the open water season did actually come up in a recent legislative session. I can’t remember when it was but it was one of several “controversial” items that were rejected. They also wanted to ban the use of all lead fishing tackle and ammo on public land/water, which was also rejected.

I’m in favor of…
– More CO’s
– Increased frequency of lake surveys
– Increased stocking
– Lower statewide limits on walleye (although I don’t think this would be necessary if current laws were enforced more)
– Walleye size restrictions on natural reproduction lakes only
– Lower statewide panfish limits or possible slot limit
I would think the first 3 could be accomplished with the increased revenue from license fees if the current participation trend continues.

Joe Jarl wrote:

I’m in favor of…

I would think the first 3 could be accomplished with the increased revenue from license fees if the current participation trend continues.

You bring up an interesting aspect to this. The added revenue they will be seeing from this years license fees. However I suspect it will go towards walleye stocking and walleye investments only…..

mahtofire14 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Joe Jarl wrote:</div>
I’m in favor of…

I would think the first 3 could be accomplished with the increased revenue from license fees if the current participation trend continues.

You bring up an interesting aspect to this. The added revenue they will be seeing from this years license fees. However I suspect it will go towards walleye stocking and walleye investments only…..

Not sure where the funds go, but I’m also considering licenses on wheelhouses, boats, jet skis, atvs, utvs, etc. All of which have seen record sales. Would be interesting to know what the revenue increases were for 2020.

Joe Jarl wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mahtofire14 wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Joe Jarl wrote:</div>
I’m in favor of…

I would think the first 3 could be accomplished with the increased revenue from license fees if the current participation trend continues.

You bring up an interesting aspect to this. The added revenue they will be seeing from this years license fees. However I suspect it will go towards walleye stocking and walleye investments only…..

Not sure where the funds go, but I’m also considering licenses on wheelhouses, boats, jet skis, atvs, utvs, etc. All of which have seen record sales. Would be interesting to know what the revenue increases were for 2020.

Completely agree.

For those asking for lower bag limits across the board…. would you also limit the amount of Catch and Release fishing a person could do ?

Anonymous wrote:

Find me someone more full of himself on this site than this guy. Its constant

Silly boy
My statement means fishing is right here, a great fishery, called the Mississippi.
Why travel somewhere else to catch a walleye!!

Feathers wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tbro16 wrote:</div>
Find me someone more full of himself on this site than this guy. Its constant

Silly boy
My statement means fishing is right here, a great fishery, called the Mississippi.
Why travel somewhere else to catch a walleye!!

You do realize people fish for species other than <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye right? Can’t imagine you catch too many lake trout, brookies, muskies, trophy pike etc on the sippi. Lots of other reasons for Canada such as scenery, accommodations, adventure, different style of fishing, etc. I’d get bored to death fishing the same river over and over. Variety is the spice of life.

Canada originally brought up in regard to walleye and walleye limits. My comments are segregated to that alone.

I agree with you in all other aspects.

Allow 2 lines..Also they should quit allowing lake associations to spray lakes with chemicals/herbicides/pesticides.No more homemade sand beaches and destruction of shoreline habitat and vegetation.And quit with all the road salt and other chemicals on the roadways that end up in the lakes and rivers.They want people to care about invasive species they say are ruining our lakes and rivers but then turn around and allow chemicals and road salt to be deposited in them.