WI Conservation Congress Questions Could Effect Your Fishing

For Walleyes on the Mississippi River. At least on the Wi side of the river.
I haven’t heard if MN would follow suit.

http://dnr.wi.gov/About/NRB/2017/Jan/01-17-4B1.pdf

The Mississippi River Questions start at Q 13.

Sorry, I can’t copy and paste.

Do you favor a 3 fish limit of walleyes over 18 inches from March 1st through May 31st.
This would not effect the rest of the year and would not effect the current size or number of sauger limit.

************
Do you favor a 5 fish limit with one over 28″ from March 1st through May 31st. No walleyes being kept between 18 and 28 inches.

This would not effect the rest of the year and would not effect the current size or number of sauger limit.

Please open the link to the PDF file to read the actual language of the questions.

I will add that we must keep in mind that there are other portions of the Mississippi River other then Pool 4 that border WI. This would effect the WI waters down to Dubuque IA Pool 11.

Interesting, I think 3 over 18″ is the best option. Its a lower limit and it gives those smaller fish two years to spawn.

That is my very surface level answer. There are so many factors in the discussion.

I like the 5 fish with no walleyes between 18 and 28. I don’t keep a lot to eat anyway, but I try not to keep fish over 18 when I do. I see an awful lot of 20-24″ fish going home with people, that would at least take the guesswork out of if you should or shouldn’t keep them.

I fish Petenwell which has a 20-28″ protected slot, and has for years. There are a ton of slot fish on that system, and they’re a blast to catch. If you’re a meat hunter, it’s probably not as good. Personally, I’d rather catch more big fish.

I would be ok with either proposal. Both would only help the fishery become more sustainable.

I’d even go as far as taking it down to 3 or 4 fish, with none between 18-28.

The current bag limit for the border waters is long overdue for an adjustment to protect the resource.

I completely agree with doing something during this time frame. Anything is a start.

Now if they could also get that cat limit down from 25 also!

I take heat all the time about my stance on bag limits. I am all for dropping the limit, even lower than proposed…all across both states. All the talk about C&R, but no bag limits to ‘encourage’ it…Only downside to dropping bags lower would be that tournaments could get turned into CPR…but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just something to work around.

So, do I have this right? If not, feel free to correct me. Proposal 1 states letting all walleyes go less than 18 inches as they feel that is best for allowing females to spawn. BUT, in proposal 2 they want you to keep walleyes less than 18 inches—- is this not an oxymoron?

Make it catch and release all thruout the spawn for both species. Guys can still fish and the resource is protected–Come on WDNR, is it REALLY THAT HARD?????

The saugers are just starting to come back – thought by many caused by past excess harvest of 18″ plus saugs. Why were they ignored???

I don’t see why they don’t just acquire the same slot as Iowa & Illinois. It protects the major spawners all year long in lieu of just in the spring. In the long run there is a lot more fish for all types of fishermen.

Evan Pheneger wrote:

Interesting, I think 3 over 18″ is the best option. Its a lower limit and it gives those smaller fish two years to spawn.

So, most likely the 3 over 18″ would be females…..and we would want them out of the system in the prime of their life? How about 2 under 14″ and 1 over 17″? More likely to harvest more males that way

We can’t do anything about it here on the website. We can make people aware that there is protection needed.

Not up on pool 4, there are unlimited fish up there. If you want a voice in the matter vote April 10th.

Also where have all the big Sauger gone over the last 10 years. They are not there in the numbers, they are gone. Maybe protection needed there?

Don’t complain here. Go to your spring meeting April 10. Enough people voice a bitch for enough years, we’ll get it right.

Bob that’s how WI does it.

The Wi Conservation Congress…
Our mission:
The Wisconsin Conservation Congress is the only statutory body in the state where citizens elect delegates to advise the Natural Resources Board and the Department of Natural Resources on how to responsibly manage Wisconsin’s natural resources for present and future generations. The Congress accomplishes this through open, impartial, broad-ranged actions.

The vision of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress is to strengthen and enhance our ability to gather and convey the wisdom and influence of Wisconsin citizens in the formation of natural resource policy, research, education, and conservation.

MN has Species Workshop Groups. Citizens that normally have experience in a species from fishing them and not a biologist background.

But more to your point, MN makes rules from public opinion as well at times. Depending on the issue and what side a person is on, that can be a good or bad thing.

docfrigo wrote:

So, do I have this right? If not, feel free to correct me. Proposal 1 states letting all walleyes go less than 18 inches as they feel that is best for allowing females to spawn. BUT, in proposal 2 they want you to keep walleyes less than 18 inches—- is this not an oxymoron?

Make it catch and release all thruout the spawn for both species. Guys can still fish and the resource is protected–Come on WDNR, is it REALLY THAT HARD?????

The saugers are just starting to come back – thought by many caused by past excess harvest of 18″ plus saugs. Why were they ignored???

OMG I have to agree with Jeremy on this one I would like the river closed to match the inland fishing regulations or have a catch and release works excellent in my book AND include Saugers.

If you are interested in change, try e-mailing these guys:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] (Edit: Corrected address BK)

Let them know your thoughts.

They are part of the Lake City Fisheries department.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Bob that’s how WI does it.

The Wi Conservation Congress…
Our mission:
The Wisconsin Conservation Congress is the only statutory body in the state where citizens elect delegates to advise the Natural Resources Board and the Department of Natural Resources on how to responsibly manage Wisconsin’s natural resources for present and future generations. The Congress accomplishes this through open, impartial, broad-ranged actions.

The vision of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress is to strengthen and enhance our ability to gather and convey the wisdom and influence of Wisconsin citizens in the formation of natural resource policy, research, education, and conservation.

MN has Species Workshop Groups. Citizens that normally have experience in a species from fishing them and not a biologist background.

But more to your point, MN makes rules from public opinion as well at times. Depending on the issue and what side a person is on, that can be a good or bad thing.

BK,
Do you recall if the Wi DNR is bound by the recommendations of the Conservation Congress questions? My impressions were the DNR used that information as an “advisement” or recommendation only. Whether or not a change in policy is made is up to the discretion of the Wi DNR.

Not sure if I have that correct.

tegg wrote:

My impressions were the DNR used that information as an “advisement” or recommendation only. Whether or not a change in policy is made is up to the discretion of the Wi DNR.

Yes, just like the Species Work Groups in MN. Advise but nothing that says they have to do anything…which is the easiest action to take.

tegg wrote:

Do you recall if the Wi DNR is bound by the recommendations of the Conservation Congress questions? My impressions were the DNR used that information as an “advisement” or recommendation only. Whether or not a change in policy is made is up to the discretion of the Wi DNR.

Not sure if I have that correct.

That is correct. The DNR is not bound by any recommendations made by the Conservation Congress. Including anything that you vote for in the upcoming spring hearings/meetings.

This is interesting. I am somewhat surprised by the two options as they seem to contradict each other a bit. I like the idea that at least it is being talked about / considered. I want to try to get involved or at least talk to the group behind this proposal to see the “Science” involved. I have always thought protecting those 18″ plus fish was most important and never considered a slot to allow only harvest of 18″ plus fish. I am assuming that arrangement would manage the water to provide more #’s of fish and not be concerned with trophies. I am certainly not against that, I just have never thought about it that way.

I posted this in the other thread going as well. It fits in both threads.

Here’s the MN DNR Walleye Searcher presentation from 2014 talking about 2013.

The whole presentation is very informative, but I ask you to take a look starting at Page 34 “Group Questions”.

Attachments:

1. 

   waesearchers-2014-w-Nicks-notes-1.pdf
   

Someone posted that decisions should be made from science.

What does the DNR do when “science” says one thing but popular opinion says another?

The people that don’t like people fishing the spawn, shouldn’t.
The people that don’t like people keeping fish over xx inches, shouldn’t.
The people that feel the limit is too high, should keep less.
The people that feel 25 flathead catfish is too high, shouldn’t keep that many.

Why?
Because the “science” says the (pool 4) fishery can handle it.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Someone posted that decisions should be made from science.

What does the DNR do when “science” says one thing but popular opinion says another?

The people that don’t like people fishing the spawn, shouldn’t.
The people that don’t like people keeping fish over xx inches, shouldn’t.
The people that feel the limit is too high, should keep less.
The people that feel 25 flathead catfish is too high, shouldn’t keep that many.

Why?
Because the “science” says the (pool 4) fishery can handle it.

Finally a post of reason. (hurts me to say that BK! )
In speaking of just P4, there is no reason now for a change. This area is closely studied and monitored. If you aren’t catching as many fish as you used to, move! Try something different. The fish are there and they are on to you!!

Keep in mind the whole river is not pool 4. Sure pool 4 may be awesome and the fish may be able to sustain the numbers. That doesn’t mean this applies to every pool on the river.

riverruns wrote:

Keep in mind the whole river is not pool 4. Sure pool 4 may be awesome and the fish may be able to sustain the numbers. That doesn’t mean this applies to every pool on the river.

Yes, I tried to point that out a number of times.
Isn’t there a slot someplace around Pool 7?
What is it and how’s that going? Anyone know?

Each Pool has it’s own opportunities of course.

What concerns me about the WCC’s questions is that it doesn’t separate out Pools, it just talks about the river…all of it. That’s not right either.

IMHO, regs during the spawn for almost all fish species is not taken seriously enough-this to include netting and spearing on bodies of water that is being done as well.
Seems most regs are put in place in more of a “reactionary” way than a “proactive” way. Fishing has changed. We can find the info we want in a moments notice via the net, we all have better electronics, gps, much better equipment, etc. which allows more people than ever before to be consistently more efficient at catching more fish. Sure, you can say (as of the immediate “right now”) pool 4 can handle it–but for how long? Even if the DNR does not “see the change”, we anglers are sensing it. Does not take a fisheries degree to see pressure on pool 4 has increased. Would rather see some “proactive” regs come down the pike rather than see it continue to tumble.

Making it catch and release thruout the spawn for walleyes and saugers (heck, even do same as Fox River -one fish over 28) would secure the fact of a viable fishery for decades to come. The fisherman would still come.

Why?
Because the “science” says the (pool 4) fishery can handle it.

Well for the first time I believe the science provided by the MN Dnr this year (not the 2014 report provided above) showed a weaker system than we have seen in the past although it was not alarming yet. And although I have not seen the “Science” the Wisconsin DNR used to come up with their info to propose some sort of restrictive harvest there must be something that is raising their eyebrows to at least take a look at this.

Again, I do not have all of the information to make an educated decision on this but I would like to learn more. To be honest, the reports are very difficult to read and I would really like to sit down with a small group so we can bounce questions off of the fisheries guys. I, unlike some, am open to hear the facts and willing to admit I am wrong if they can prove to me without any doubt that there is no issue or concern for the future of the fishery.

mike_utley wrote:

If you are interested in change, try e-mailing these guys:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] (Edit: Corrected address BK)

Let them know your thoughts.

They are part of the Lake City Fisheries department.

Done.

If everyone on this forum alone who supports a slight change to keep the fishery sustainable would share their thoughts with these people – I think progress would be made. It only takes a few minutes.

4seasonsport wrote:

Well for the first time I believe the science provided by the MN Dnr this year (not the 2014 report provided above) showed a weaker system than we have seen in the past although it was not alarming yet.

When you say “weaker system than we have seen in the past” are you basing that from now back to 1903 when the first study was done or 1968 when the first creel study was completed near the dam or what?

The MN Walleye Workshop was looking for applicants last year, check with Nick for the next time they are accepting applications.

For more immediate info, the DNR office is right down there in Lake City. Nick is always willing to sit-down and explain the numbers to people that don’t understand them. He’s the guy with boots on the ground and is very approachable!

[email protected]

I was referring to recent history, say the past 20 years on average. Again, I admittedly said I have not studied these thoroughly and had them explained to me in detail. I have spoke with Nick briefly and do plan to do so more at length. How does the MN DNR see no issues (in some eyes) and the Wisconsin DNR is now seeing some signs for concern. I am not arguing with anyone I just don’t understand how there can be differences when they are dealing with the same fish.

I also am looking at this as preventative maintenance and insurance for our future. How about a 5 year experimental regulation to see what could happen? They do these often, then we could all stop guessing.

4seasonsport wrote:

Why?
Because the “science” says the (pool 4) fishery can handle it.

Well for the first time I believe the science provided by the MN Dnr this year (not the 2014 report provided above) showed a weaker system than we have seen in the past although it was not alarming yet. And although I have not seen the “Science” the Wisconsin DNR used to come up with their info to propose some sort of restrictive harvest there must be something that is raising their eyebrows to at least take a look at this.

Again, I do not have all of the information to make an educated decision on this but I would like to learn more. To be honest, the reports are very difficult to read and I would really like to sit down with a small group so we can bounce questions off of the fisheries guys. I, unlike some, am open to hear the facts and willing to admit I am wrong if they can prove to me without any doubt that there is no issue or concern for the future of the fishery.

To be fair they did say to not put too much into last years study because they feel they just had a poor net year because all species of fish were down.

There are 2 empty seats for the WCC this term in Pierce County. They would love to fill these seats this year. Come to the meeting April 10th and have someone nominate you!

Thanks for that info Walleyenimrod!

I’m guessing you would want WI residents.

Chris,
The way the WCC works (please correct me WN) is each county has a WWC group.
First Step: Concerned residents come to them and talk about their concerns.
Second Step: If the County group feels you have a valid concern (for whatever reason) the resident makes a written request.
Step Three: It’s voted on at the county level whether it’s to go on to the State level.
Step Four: The DNR looks at the results for it’s popular public opinion.

So just because there are questions on the State form, it doesn’t mean the WI DNR is concerned about the fishery. Remember it was the WI DNR that opened up the continuous open season against MN’s wishes. I’m not implying the WI DNR does not care. It means they feel the river (Pool 4) can handle it.