Who's in favor of a reduced panfish limit.

I’ll make sure not to get into the analytics debate with you over in the Twins thread today Phil……You’re on a roll.

philtickelson wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dan wrote:</div>
I think it’s a great idea.

I can’t speak for everyone, but don’t you think, if a change were made, it would affect people so little that nothing about their fishing habits/lifestyle would change? I guess what I’m saying is, unless limits are changed too drastically, it’s really having no impact on people at all. We’re still feeding our families, we’re still having fun fishing. I say without hesitation, reduce that limit.

You are absolutely right about that, a change like this would have a measurable negative impact of zilch on 99.99999% of the MN population, while it may have a positive impact on the future generations ability to enjoy our resources in the future.

Unfortunately, there will be a contingent of people, who will be quite loud, who complain about how they aren’t able to provide a meal of fresh fish for their family. If only people thought or cared about what impact these changes would have to them or others, but they don’t. Bonus points when those people are fishing out of $15,000 ice castles or $70,000 boats being pulled by $50,000 trucks.

I don’t want to start a derail, but this mindset mimics many ‘hot-button’ political issues that people base their entire voting stances on.

Abortion, immigration, LGBT rights, for example are things that will have little to NO impact on most people’s quality of life. Will non-gay people have a negative impact to their life if we allow gay marriage in our state or others? Of course not, it has zero impact on them at all.

But you can be dang sure they will scream and holler and base their entire vote on how one politician stands(or pretends to stand) on those types of issues. Ignoring things like healthcare or issues that actually could impact their quality of life, or the quality of life for the masses. Too many people would rather vote to spite people who are different than them(religious beliefs, race, sexual orientation), than to help themselves or others.

Same thing here:
“We are proposing a rule change to panfish limits that should help increase size structure of <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish across the state and ensure that future generations continue to have the opportunity and thrill of catching and harvesting panfish”

“Oh no you don’t! I’ve been keeping buckets of <em class=”ido-tag-em”>panfish my whole life to feed my family. That’s my right. I’ve been buying fishing licenses my whole life and it’s my right to keep a limit of panfish every single day because the only efficient way to feed my family is not to work and buy groceries but to spend all day on a frozen lake keeping 7″ sunfish. It takes 80 sunnies to feed my family of 15 every day, and there’s definitely no other way to feed them and I and I and I and I and I. I. I. I. I. I. <insert another excuse that tries to rationalize their long history of over-harvesting as them doing it for someone else(ie: their familY), even though everyone knows it’s very thinly veiled, and we can all see it’s really just about them being able to catch and keep as many fish as they want>”

/rant

mahtofire14 wrote:

Unfortunately that won’t work with panfish and walleye, because most people grew up fishing those for their meat and (as this forum has shown) they won’t be willing to give up that right.

I guess I’m curious how you arrived at that conclusion?

It seems most everyone on this site is conservation minded and in my observation there are very very few (if any) posting here saying they only fish to fill their freezer.

gim wrote:

People targeting panfish may have to start changing the way they operate too and just release most of them voluntarily.

In a perfect world this would be great. However, there is still a huge contingent of licensed anglers who reap the rewards of successful fishing posting on sites like this who, shamefully, do not practice any kind of selective harvest. Changing the limits is therefore about the only tool that we can hope for to be reasonably sure that quality fish can be caught in the future.

philtickelson wrote:

“Oh no you don’t! I’ve been keeping buckets of <em class=”ido-tag-em”>panfish my whole life to feed my family. That’s my right. I’ve been buying fishing licenses my whole life and it’s my right to keep a limit of panfish every single day because the only efficient way to feed my family is not to work and buy groceries but to spend all day on a frozen lake keeping 7″ sunfish. It takes 80 sunnies to feed my family of 15 every day, and there’s definitely no other way to feed them and I and I and I and I and I. I. I. I. I. I. <insert another excuse that tries to rationalize their long history of over-harvesting as them doing it for someone else(ie: their familY), even though everyone knows it’s very thinly veiled, and we can all see it’s really just about them being able to catch and keep as many fish as they want>”

/rant

Related to my comment above, I ask who or what kind of people do you associate with?

I’m not saying that “keeping everything I catch” anglers don’t exist at all, but the majority I know, know of, fish with, talk to…fishing groups, at the bar, on social media, on the lake, in the bait shop…most all never speak like this…

“It takes 80 sunnies to feed my family of 15 every day”

What are you talking about? Do you hear stuff like that from the majority of anglers? How many? Any?

I’ve never heard anything like that in recent times, but maybe I don’t get around enough.

I would support a reduced bag limit on certain waters but I’m not convinced yet everything is going to crash. People still catch sunnies today like I did 50 years ago as a kid. And back then we did keep everything we caught.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mahtofire14 wrote:</div>
Unfortunately that won’t work with panfish and walleye, because most people grew up fishing those for their meat and (as this forum has shown) they won’t be willing to give up that right.

I guess I’m curious how you arrived at that conclusion?

It seems most everyone on this site is conservation minded and in my observation there are very very few (if any) posting here saying they only fish to fill their freezer.

I should have worded it “As some on this forum have shown”.

But you did kind of prove my point at the end of your latest post in this thread Andy. It’s a mindset of a lot of individuals that grew up fishing for meat because that’s how it was done. That is what needs to be changed for any of this to work, and I don’t see that happening.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

I would support a reduced bag limit on certain waters but I’m not convinced yet everything is going to crash. People still catch sunnies today like I did 50 years ago as a kid. And back then we did keep everything we caught.

This site only encompasses a small very passionate, law abiding (hopefully), amount of anglers. Get out on the ice and see how many fish are out next to someone’s portable laying on the ice, or get on a social media platform and see everyone posting their piles of fish every weekend, for the whole season.

Obviously it’s not everyone and I think it’s better than it was 10, 20 years ago. But there are still a LOT of people in this state that just can’t handle not being able to keep their over sized limit of meat.

Broad strokes, with broad brushes.

Neither for or against it, without some facts and research that it actually helps. It’s not a guarantee to help and could possibly hurt. Look at pike. We can’t catch and release our way out of everything related to fisheries management.

mahtofire14 wrote:

But you did kind of prove my point at the end of your latest post in this thread Andy. It’s a mindset of a lot of individuals that grew up fishing for meat because that’s how it was done. That is what needs to be changed for any of this to work, and I don’t see that happening.

Okay, maybe we need to dissect some generalizations here. My dad and his generation were the one’s keeping everything they caught, but he like most everyone in his generation are dead now. I was a kid back then but now so much has changed. Myself and most other’s in my generation are long past the “keep everything” mentality. In fact I rarely keep any fish now. So the change has happened and certainly for the good.

mahtofire14 wrote:

This site only encompasses a small very passionate, law abiding (hopefully), amount of anglers. Get out on the ice and see how many fish are out next to someone’s portable laying on the ice, or get on a social media platform and see everyone posting their piles of fish every weekend

A quick comment here is that I don’t just limit myself to this forum exclusively for everything fishing. I follow many other social media platforms as well actually hanging in local watering holes when the beer can start talking and almost never hear people bragging of bringing in buckets of fish.

Again, not saying it never happens but I believe today’s fishing culture is far more conservation minded than it was years ago and we’re already headed in a better direction.

A slot on sunfish is a must. As I read it the big sunfish need to be protected as they are the ones that protect the nest.
Anything over 8-1/2” should go back.
I am not sure about crappies.
I think anything under 10” should go back.
Not so sure about a max size.
I do think the limits should go way down. I don’t think a person should have to feed the neighborhood.

You guys can get it changed. Keep pursuing it.

We got it changed on the river for multiple species of fish started this year. Both MN and WI worked together on this. That’s close to a first with border water states working together.

Glad we got it done.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mahtofire14 wrote:</div>
But you did kind of prove my point at the end of your latest post in this thread Andy. It’s a mindset of a lot of individuals that grew up fishing for meat because that’s how it was done. That is what needs to be changed for any of this to work, and I don’t see that happening.

Okay, maybe we need to dissect some generalizations here. My dad and his generation were the one’s keeping everything they caught, but he like most everyone in his generation are dead now. I was a kid back then but now so much has changed. Myself and most other’s in my generation are long past the “keep everything” mentality. In fact I rarely keep any fish now. So the change has happened and certainly for the good.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mahtofire14 wrote:</div>
This site only encompasses a small very passionate, law abiding (hopefully), amount of anglers. Get out on the ice and see how many fish are out next to someone’s portable laying on the ice, or get on a social media platform and see everyone posting their piles of fish every weekend

A quick comment here is that I don’t just limit myself to this forum exclusively for everything fishing. I follow many other social media platforms as well actually hanging in local watering holes when the beer can start talking and almost never hear people bragging of bringing in buckets of fish.

Again, not saying it never happens but I believe today’s fishing culture is far more conservation minded than it was years ago and we’re already headed in a better direction.

Andy I believe we are arguing over the same thing here. Yes, the meat eater culture is much better than it was. What I was simply trying to state is that I believe it will be tougher to get the panfish and walleye fishermen to adopt this mindset because unlike bass it is a desirable fish to eat and for some reason there are many people out there that HAVE to keep a full limit every time or most times out. Whereas bass fishing is miles ahead in that regard because it is more of a sport fish than a meal opportunity.

The professors I roll with who would also like the panfish and walleye limits reduced blame the states fishing guides for the dnr not reducing limits. They make there money by getting there clients meat, usually a shore lunch and a bag or two to take home . If there clients don’t feel its worth coming to Minnesota to Only go home with five sunny and four walleye they will go elsewhere.

So how does reducing the panfish bag limit on a lake that’s been raped of predator fish help?

I’ve been in favor of reduced panfish limits and slot limits for panfish for decades now. I wish it would finally happen.

We also need to implement HUGE fines that will make freezer fillers finally take notice that the possession limit is real. We need a well-publicized campaign and a really, really harsh fine to get it into freezer fillers heads that it actually is a crime to be over the possession limit, even if you caught them one legal daily limit at a time. I propose $10,0000 and a 5-year ban from fishing in MN.

It’s just sick how the freezer fillers have decimated our panfish populations. And yes, I believe in the case of panfish, a relatively small number of anglers is responsible for a disproportionate amount of the damage. I’ve seen it over and over, the same boats hammering the #### out of the panfish, on the same spot, day after day after day. Double dipping is also rampant and almost impossible for COs to catch people at, pretty easy for guys to limit out in the morning, drive home, and be back for the evening bite and another limit.

Grouse

Gino wrote:

If there clients don’t feel its worth coming to Minnesota to Only go home with five sunny and four <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye they will go elsewhere.

Honestly asking this question. Do people really come to MN on a fishing trip, spend the money to hire a guide just to fish panfish? That seems a little far fetched in my mind….

mahtofire14 wrote:

Andy I believe we are arguing over the same thing here. Yes, the meat eater culture is much better than it was. What I was simply trying to state is that I believe it will be tougher to get the panfish and walleye fishermen to adopt this mindset because unlike bass it is a desirable fish to eat.

Yes, I totally agree with that. Walleye and panfish are what’s on the menu and are thought primarily as table fare. Heck, both are found on restaurant menus although bluegills are more likely to be found in Wisconsin Supper Club menus. And when I see that, that’s my order. No worries (farm raised) but still a treat for those of us that rarely keep fish.

Tom schmitt wrote:

A slot on sunfish is a must. As I read it the big sunfish need to be protected as they are the ones that protect the nest.

Glad you mentioned that, I would opine that it can vary based on the particular fishery but it reminded me of a thread on this forum that I found informative, educational and quite fascinating.

One of many reasons I really enjoy this forum is that a wealth of information can be captured. Here’s a link to that thread, it’s a bit lengthy, but for those that take the time to read through it (if you haven’t already)…prepare to be enlightened.

http://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/pannies_1274639/

After clicking on the link Andy provided and reading through that thread I’d recommend anyone who hasn’t done so already take a look at it, it’s a good read.

At this point I am cynical that even aggressive bluegill regs would bring back big gills. Decades of harvesting the biggest fish I think has decimated the gene stock and eco balance in the majority of lakes.

I don’t think it would honestly matter. People will find a way to fill their freezer. I live on a lake that the crappie limit is 5. That is because they are pretty easy to catch in the spring. I see people every spring fishing day after day, with 5 kids in the boat so they can take home the max amount of crappies. Additionally, all winter long I see the same vehicles on the lake every day taking limits of sunfish. One time I was out fishing, and I heard a guy on a phone calling people to ask them if they wanted him to catch them a limit of sunfish.

Sad

Lots of people on their soap box today. How’s the view?
I love to eat fish. Sometimes I keep a limit. Sometimes im too lazy to clean fish so back in the drink they go. I prefer the larger fish to eat. Walleyes included. I’m not breaking any laws so sue me.

mahtofire14 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gino wrote:</div>
If there clients don’t feel its worth coming to Minnesota to Only go home with five sunny and four <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye they will go elsewhere.

Honestly asking this question. Do people really come to MN on a fishing trip, spend the money to hire a guide just to fish panfish? That seems a little far fetched in my mind….

People from out of the area will hire a guide for anything.
Locals laugh when I tell them what I guide for.

~BK owner of Red Wing Bald Eagle Tours.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

Tom schmitt wrote:
A slot on sunfish is a must. As I read it the big sunfish need to be protected as they are the ones that protect the nest.

Glad you mentioned that, I would opine that it can vary based on the particular fishery but it reminded me of a thread on this forum that I found informative, educational and quite fascinating.

One of many reasons I really enjoy this forum is that a wealth of information can be captured. Here’s a link to that thread, it’s a bit lengthy, but for those that take the time to read through it (if you haven’t already)…prepare to be enlightened.

http://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/pannies_1274639/

This is a good link and there are many other threads on this site that says the same things and studies done. We need to let the big sunfish go.

ajw wrote:

Lots of people on their soap box today. How’s the view?
I love to eat fish. Sometimes I keep a limit. Sometimes im too lazy to clean fish so back in the drink they go. I prefer the larger fish to eat. Walleyes included. I’m not breaking any laws so sue me.

99% of the people responding to this thread are smart and understand that in order to be able to catch the larger crappies and sunfish in their future fishing they’ll need to change what they may be practicing in their keeping today. Knowing that these smart people exist makes my view from where I am at pretty darned good.

I look at any positive change in the panfish limits is like a 1/4% addition to the sales tax. There will be those that maybe don’t care for it so much but that just go on with life and pay it because they know in the end its doing something good for their fishing future. Then there will be those that pi$$ and moan about it and look for any way [most likely illegal][think double dippers] to get around it and let that tiny 1/4 of 1% make their lives miserable….and they’re always so enjoyable to be around so they can expound on things they haven’t a clue of, like why they can’t find any more big crappies and sunfish anymore.

I know one of the DNR Fisheries Managers. He works out of Little Falls district.

He recalled a community forum in which he proposed cutting limits for panfish by half to improve size structure. The purpose of the proposal was to gauge community interest and provide education about the importance of releasing larger panfish, primarily bluegills.

He told me the meeting turning into a very heated shouting match with red-faced old-timers pounding fists on tables over only being able to keep half-limits. He said it was absurd display of overreaction.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
“Oh no you don’t! I’ve been keeping buckets of <em class=”ido-tag-em”>panfish my whole life to feed my family. That’s my right. I’ve been buying fishing licenses my whole life and it’s my right to keep a limit of panfish every single day because the only efficient way to feed my family is not to work and buy groceries but to spend all day on a frozen lake keeping 7″ sunfish. It takes 80 sunnies to feed my family of 15 every day, and there’s definitely no other way to feed them and I and I and I and I and I. I. I. I. I. I. <insert another excuse that tries to rationalize their long history of over-harvesting as them doing it for someone else(ie: their familY), even though everyone knows it’s very thinly veiled, and we can all see it’s really just about them being able to catch and keep as many fish as they want>”

/rant

Related to my comment above, I ask who or what kind of people do you associate with?

I’m not saying that “keeping everything I catch” anglers don’t exist at all, but the majority I know, know of, fish with, talk to…fishing groups, at the bar, on social media, on the lake, in the bait shop…most all never speak like this…

“It takes 80 sunnies to feed my family of 15 every day”

What are you talking about? Do you hear stuff like that from the majority of anglers? How many? Any?

I’ve never heard anything like that in recent times, but maybe I don’t get around enough.

I think it depends where and who you are fishing with for sure. I do a bit of fishing with my FIL down in SE MN, he seems to know everybody in the area and is pretty outgoing, so we end up running into a lot of other fishermen down there.

When a good backwater bite is going on in the winter down there, the buckets are getting filled, many times, mainly by ‘old school’ dudes who have ‘been fishing these spots their whole lives’. I didn’t want to generalize in my rant above, but there is a large contingent of older gentlemen that fill a bucket in the morning, and then show up in the evening, the next morning, the next evening, etc.

“You’ll never keep enough to have an impact on the river, it’s too big”
“They won’t be biting a week from now, so I gotta get em while the getting is good”
“If I don’t keep them someone else will”
“It’s been so long since I’ve had a good meal of crappies, I’m gonna stock up”
“It’s not possible for ME to keep enough fish to really matter, I’m just one person, look how many other people are out here”

I.I.I.Me.Me.Me.

So I wouldn’t say I ‘associate’ with them, but I’ve seen it first hand, and I know it happens all over the state. As much as it sucks to say, some of the older generations seem more likely to carry that mindset. Most on this board don’t fit that mold, cause we are generally a more ‘fishing educated’ bunch on here.

Phil- ironically we are mostly on the same side of this topic. But I can’t endorse the rest of the liberal garbage in your post.

That’s the thing with liberals, they have no idea how their obnoxious views and rants are and how it offends others around them. And yes, in some cases of the extreme tolerance you preach, infringes on others rights.

keep a bucket of bluegills and crappies…..you get crucified. keep a bucket of rock bass and no one bats an eye.

The meat hunters vs the selective harvesters is definitely an age/generational thing. I’m not saying that every old timer is a meat hunter and I’m not saying that every younger person is a selective harvester but there is definitely a trend in age associated with this. I can even see it comparing myself to my parents, and they 30 years older than me.

ajw wrote:

Lots of people on their soap box today. How’s the view?
I love to eat fish. Sometimes I keep a limit. Sometimes im too lazy to clean fish so back in the drink they go. I prefer the larger fish to eat. Walleyes included. I’m not breaking any laws so sue me.

There is a lot to break down there. It’s like you walked past a room and thought you heard people talking about you.

Hey! I have an idea, lets increase license fees, reduce stocking, increase enforcement, decrease the limits and shutdown seasons randomly, make more trails for ATV’s and sideby sides! that’ll show them that we don’t want to people fishing or hunting in this state..We’ll just take their money and tell them we know better…good economic plan…not