glenn57 wrote:

That meet would be a waste of time. With the current administration it falls on deaf ears

Glenn your correct. Gov Walz has said there will not be a wolf season as long as he is in office. A former Assistant Director USFWS said this when I shared the Gov comments ” It is too bad Minnesota has a wolf population that should be managed, and he is in support of it. We have Western States experiencing excellent success with a hunting season to manage the wolf population. Other game populations ex: deer and elk directly benefited.”

I feel the DNR needs to focus on what is right for the resource instead of warm and fuzzy feel-good socially acceptable programs pushed by the Gov Tim Walz. The Minnesota DNR has, last report 40 vacancies within the department. Wondering why? Might be a good idea to look into the hiring practices, deeper. When I asked one of the MN DNR Dept Heads why this is happening. No clear answer was given. Could it be DEI…..?

In our household it is just my wife and I. We both like wild game and fish. We keep a small stash of fish, walleye, panfish, salmon and lake trout. The only time we would have a limit of 12 walleyes is fall and spring to tide us over until fishing season is open again. Otherwise with the availability living in a lakes area, catch what we want to eat for a fresh fish meal. The concern I have is the fashion in which this proposal is moved through. It did not pass the legislative process. Now rule making process is the last step before a law judge.

Bass Pundit wrote:

Changing the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye limit will have zero effect on me other than I could potentially not keep as many fish as I would have otherwise. Being able to keep fish isn’t important to me. If I do catch a walleye, it will likely be coming home with me unless it is what I deem too big or out of Mille Lacs with the restrictive limit and slot.

What I have gathered from reading this thread is that the main reason for the proposed change is to give anglers an easier-to-achieve goal, which will, in theory, boost their satisfaction level. That reason is good enough for me. If there are 10,000 satisfied fishermen because of the change and 1,000 or 5,000, or 9,999 disgruntled ones. Yes, they have done the right thing. It is only wrong in my mind if it is an even split or more disgruntled anglers than satisfied ones. Talking about the wisdom or lack of it biologically may make you feel good, but it is missing the point of the change entirely. If you oppose the regulation change, you need to hire a reputable public polling agency and commission a poll on the subject. I would presume the DNR has already done that, and you are not going to like the results you get. If the DNR has not done its due diligence and the polling reflects that the change would be a loser for them, you will probably open their eyes and win the argument.

Hear ya
More limits resulting in a talking point for tourism, guides and others promoting fishing in Minnesota. University of Minnesota did a poll. The question was skewed to imply reducing the limit would improve walleye fishing. Then asked if pollsters would approve of the limit change. The results were split down the middle. Are anglers ok with it even though it will not improve walleye fishing? As you pointed out a majority would be for it and that number might be higher than one might think. Some have said guides would benefit being able to get a limit quicker allowing more clients within a day. I don’t agree this would happen. Guides I know are booked for a segment of time getting limit early would be either mean more fish caught and released or changing to a different species until the segment of time is used up.

Tim a very good observation. Yes I have found that crappie in larger well-structured lakes as you mentioned have less dramatic swings. There are some very good comments from everyone on this thread that are appreciated

Matt, What is important is solid year classes, spawning habitat, weather and food available none of which can be controlled by regulations or bag limits. Additional concerns is aquatic invasive species which are in 8% of Minnesota lakes of which 3% is zebra mussels and warming of our walleye waters. None of these negative factors and the result can be controlled by bag limits, the walleye population will adjust because of them. So in actual terms harvest would benefit in these situations balancing the numbers to the forage and habitat available.

Glenn, I am Gary Korsgaden Let me clarify I have a interest in the outdoors since a child. Never been an employee of the Minnesota DNR. I live south of Park Rapids, Minnesota. My history includes fishing guide, sporting goods representative, a couple of outdoor radio shows and weekly/daily outdoor news columns. Have written for INFISHERMAN, FISHING FACTS, and FUR-FISH-GAME and have done a number of fishing seminars. Taught a fishing school in several communities. In the past ten years became a committee member of the MN DNR Walleye Workgroup and the Large Lake Group Lake of The Woods Committees. My last writing assignment was with GAME AND FISH MAGZINE, a 5-part series discussion covering the variety of fishing that exists within the State and the MN DNR FISHERIES involvement to their success. Hope you can see how my path would across with Minnesota DNR Fishery Biologists and Area Managers as I sought their input on fishery issues within the State. Appreciate the interest and hope it explains how I came to this point.

All I heard about core is they had warranty issues, not taken care of….

Glenn57. What I was stating was the comment from a Senator I know. As far as the fisheries side of things feel top notch, excellent at data collection, test net surveys and understanding what to do when stepping in to help a lake. As far as the many openings, those that have left comment negatively to the politics. Field researchers I speak to tell me the statewide 4 walleye bag limit will do nothing to the help the resource.

Jimmy, without harvest they could be. Minnesota doesn’t stock panfish in their lakes.

I am going to level with to what transpired on the 4-walleye bag limit. When I first became a member of the Minnesota Citizens Walleye work group. Heard about the statewide 4 walleye limit proposal, and it seemed reasonable to me. My answer was “If the Minnesota DNR can provide data that showing it would better the walleye populations and fishing within the State am all for it”. During the meetings that followed kept asking for the data, it still was not produced. So, for that reason, am against it. This effort is driven in large part from the Commissioner’s office. The rationale it is ok, change the limit if the public says its ok in an effort to be pro-active and as the Head of Fisheries stated publicly. As the past as shown when a walleye lake within the state experiences problems. The Area Fishery Managers can take action and use what is necessary to resolve the problem. During my tenure on the Committee repeatedly asked for lakes felt to be in peril, t and needed help, that request was never answered. Area Fisheries Managers are split on the proposal. The Minnesota DNR lost a respected Area Fisheries Manager due in part to this. A Minnesota Senator I have close contact with tells me the MN DNR department is a mess. Has anyone heard any updates about the 40 or so vacancies within the Department are they being filled?

The diary of my logged information also shows that not all lakes have the ability to produce large sunfish or crappie. In the private lakes with limited harvest of crappie or bluegills, stunted populations of crappie and sunfish existed. Assuming harvest obviously was important. But did see years in the private lake, when the crappie and sunfish were caught, cycled through keepable sized. Crappies and sunfish were rarely thrown back, the larger fish for frying and the smaller ones for pickling. We need to remember harvesting of fish is good for the resource. What we are seeing today, a trend of being critical to harvesting fish which is a scary slope to slide down in my opinion. Fisheries biologists have shared with me that crappie and bluegill are difficult to manage, hard to get assessments on size or qty.

I agree with you Captain Muskie Gary has been a wealth of knowledge with his 43 years of experience on this topic. Let me point out that other Area Managers and fisheries experts like Gary have expressed their objection to the statewide four fish regulation, proposed, with letters and sit down meetings with Brad Parsons Head of Fisheries and I can only assume the DNR leadership has heard them also. The 4 walleye Statewide limit still moves forward.

As important this issue is to Minnesota’s anglers and the States outdoor heritage am wondering why MNFISH is silent. Wishing they would look into some fisheries data and take a stand.

PMB….a majority of those winter crappie trips were in the basin, crappie naturally found in winter. 20′-30′ FOW. Is where these fish continue to be found today so that is where I would start. Crappies move around the basin chasing small minnows. Be sure to be set up by 4PM shortly before sunset and after and into the dark no light time the crappie would come through all night long. One rod set with a jigging style lure the other a “ant hattie” orange or glow with small crappie fathead lightly hooked through the back dorsal so the minnow is free to move a light bobber around the hole. The motion of the bobber became more violent, signaling the crappie is around ready to snap up the minnow. I have found the shallow areas, crappie locales different based on weed types but not far away. Hope this helps.

Captain Musky you nailed it. Thank you…

Regarding the guide’s license it has been on the agenda and discussed at previous Minnesota DNR Walleye Workgroup meetings. It was on the last fall’s meeting agenda but was briefly mentioned only. Some have suggested a guide’s license” handled outside the DNR. With parameters and fees put together by the guides and approved by the Minnesota DNR. Would MNFISH work towards creating a licensed guide program? A topic that is on a lot of angler’s minds these days and a large undertaking.

Am ok with Minnesota boat license fees…..we have it pretty good in Minnesota

I really like Steve Fellegy’s article and am a high end rod guy with some presentations and others mid-low range. Let me share a couple of examples:

Nightcrawlers and leeches live bait rigging: one of my favorites is a 9′ Sage custom fly rod blank with a Tennessee Cork handle, which allows me to balance my reel on the rod. The action is moderate, which is perfect as the pick up is realized with a dip-bow in the rod tip, the reel in a closed bail position. When the bait is picked up I drop back then pull back to set the hook. Due to the moderate action at the pick up the fish never feels it. Again I fish closed bail with these baits. Open bail my experience the fish will feel when the finger lets the line go and drop before the hook set in small salmon egg style hooks

Minnows live bait rigging I like a 7’0″ to 7′ 6″ medium light extra fast action. A high end rod like a St. Croix Avid-Elite. I feel putting that tip out there it helps to have a extra-fast action to feel the minnow, a bite and get a good hook set.

Jigging Raps: I like a 6’9″ to 7′ rod medium light extra fast action. Allows for a good snap on the rap and hook set and feel.

The high end St. Croix Rods like 8’6″ walleye tournament series weighs 3.11 ounces compared to the same low end rods which weigh in at 7.1-8.0 ounces. Light weight rods balance very well, have less fatigue on the hands, wrists and are more sensitive.

Trolling crankbaits and spinners less expensive rods works well, the bite is detected by the dip-bend in the rod. Actually prefer telescoping rods.

I side drift steelhead on the Northshore, I like to have both feel of a medium light extra-fast action tip and the tip that dip or bows to the bite. So a more expensive rod is my choice

For trolling suspend walleyes during the cisco bite I like 12-14′ rods, these range in price of $50.00 to $75.00 and the bite is detected by the tip bowing back, the rods are in holders. Spread the baits without the use of planer boards.

A rod worth a look is the Thorne’s Elliot Rods. The synthetic rod handle and light blank and Thornes’s ability to balance a rod so well and use even lighter blanks then St. Croix is a plus. Some of these models weight less then three ounces.

One more point about long rods 7′-6′ to 9′, they add sport, forgiving and while cumbersome at times I like to for back trolling. Particularly when working around a fishing partner in the seat towards the bow on turns. I feel a longer rod can be a advantage on the clear water lakes I fish and fish light pound test lines such as 4#-6#. Casting leeches for example, easy with a soft swing, rarely flip the bait off the hook.

Landing fish with 8′ or longer rods, do what fly fisherman do. Simple pull the rod straight up and back the fish will end up just below in range of short handled net. Ever see a stream steelhead fisherman with a long handle net? Watch them net a fish with their long rods, will see what I mean

Last point my reels, do not weigh over 5 ounces, wider spools for casting or when quicker line pick up is desired and narrow spools for the live bait rigging rods.

Thanks for reading…

Spoke to a Senior Engineer at Garmin today. Got some very good insight into the application with the PS-31. Thanks for trying to help out.

Stay tuned

With the ps-30 the side view is to be 14′ on both starboard or portside. What transducer features do you find best for fishing so far on the transom.

The PS-31 will give farther distance on live view forward. Any thoughts and why for either of these two

PS-30 or PS-31

Perfected a technique I call ‘pushing a night crawler and a spinner.” Using a 14’ rod with a small bait cast reel and monofilament line. Use a 2 1/2 oz, 3 oz or 4 oz pencil weight with the spinner and a crawler on a 8 foot, leader. Point the rod tip straight forward off the bow set in rod holders mounted to the floor on pedestals, on the live vu you can see the weight and the crawler and spinner. Instead of pulling your pushing it and the sinker will drop back towards the bow of the boat and stay in the forward view of the ps-31 live view transducer. Note the heavier the sinker the more vertical of angle off the bow. Easy to adjust to keep in the fish zone when one can see the sinker. Fun to see the fish come up and smack it or if they turn and go away change color or blade until the right one is found.

Better hook sets too as the flex in rod bend backwards is stout and sets hook well mostly top of the mouth of the fish

Very deadly..don’t find many walleyes that will resist a juicy crawler and spinner put right on their noses.

I have been working on catching suspended fish for a lot of years crappie and walleye. Pinpointing location has a lot to do with cone angles of the transducers. Up until now The Vexilar Edge is the best piece of electronics for pinpointing exact locations of fish with dual transducers. Incorporating side by side, one wide and the other narrow on the same screen, for example see fish on the wide angle transducer and not on the narrow know immediately the need to adjust to one side or the other. Wide for scanning a area the other narrow for pinpointing exact location. In deep water with a wide cone angle transducer your bait could look to be close to the fish but in actuality double digit feet away from them, dependent on depth they are. When trolling suspended fish, before panoptix 2d sonar would show the fish but many times too late to get the baits on them. Now with live vu forward anglers can see forward where the fish are and direct a pass right on them. With live vu down see the reaction to the jig like when vertically jigging. it should be noted too that suspended walleyes, as I have seen with my setups, drop down when and boat passes over head.

It was once thought suspended fish were neutral feeding fish. I have found them at times to be very active feeders, but with a lot of choices. The attached photo shows a nice walleye working its way up to feed on bait fish hanging off bugs. One slide shows a comparison on my Lowrance HDS 12 Gen 3 and the other slide fish chasing ciscoes relating to bugs

FYI in both of these outings I took walleyes, one trip 6 and the other 8 but three were too large.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_0897.jpg
   

2. 

   IMG_0903.jpg
   

3. 

   IMG_0895.jpg
   

4. 

   IMG_0904.jpg
   

Been working with both the Panoptix PS-31 and PS-30 Transducer. I have mounted the PS-31 for example on one boat just off center portside pointed back on the transom, then I set the angle at 40 degrees starboard (remember the transducer is forward orientated so if pointing backwards need to set to sweep starboard side if you want portside coverage) I set at 40 degrees do it will sweep from zero 40 degrees to the portside. Which if back trolling the area the boat operator is fishing or area boat is moving to. On the other boat I have a PS-30 and Ps-31 the 30 on the transom and the 31 on a terrova for scanning.

The Ps-31 shooting forward is great for staying on a contour trolling crankbaits for example.One can stay on the exact depth much easier.

Sorry about the multiple pictures of the same photo

#910 PS-31 at a 40 degree angle showing portside back off transom boat is in 28′ sweeping to the top at 10′, 70′ horizontal distance. As I move along 40 degrees portside’ could be a plus back trolling knowing what is ahead of you or behind you as you go backwards.

#901 PS-30 showing suspended walleyes

#768 PS_30 suspended walleye chasing a my jig which I caught

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_0910-1.jpg
   

2. 

   IMG_0901-1.jpg
   

3. 

   IMG_0768-2.jpg
   

4. 

   IMG_0910.jpg
   

5. 

   IMG_0901.jpg
   

6. 

   IMG_0768-1.jpg
   

7. 

   IMG_0768.jpg
   

Here you go works pretty well. Thinking of making a bracket that will push the transducer and allow it to be up above lip of transom to pick up a forward angle under the lip of the ransom. This set up does produce a slight rooster tail.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_0618.jpg
   

2. 

   IMG_0617.jpg
   

3. 

   IMG_0635.jpg
   

Struggled with the same spend the bucks and sell my terrova instead.
Do what I did add a bow mount lift. What I like is the terrova is always reading the GPS when deployed comes in handy, for example setting up a track working trough an area with the main power engine,and going back to it with the I-Pilot Link on the Terrova.

When deployed with a bow lift, the trolling motor is in a vertical position, push a button and you can lower and raise it. It is always reading the GPS when deployed and recording the track. Simply deploy once at the boat ramp, and stow before going in for the day.

Cost is a huge plus too. Don’t get me wrong the Ulterra is nice but a bit more spendy.

You may not see the advantage of the bow mount lift but offers a cost effective alternative and be added anyone with a existing terrova.

Works well with a additional transducer on the terrova too.

http://www.bowmountlift.com/

Brian Klawitter wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Rivergills wrote:</div>
I guess that was my point. As a sportsman/woman we need to do our part in fish management. The DNR is not the one doing the fishing.

Best post in this thread!!

Agree exactly as anglers be better stewards of the resource.

First the DNR spends its time managing people, unfortunately. As far slots for walleyes I go along with them if the lake has natural reproduction capabilities/habitat. Allowing the larger fish to go back creates a situation in which more spawning female fish can survive. Thus increasing natural reproduction with larger number of breeders in the overall population. Enhancing natural reproduction and numbers. I guess the next question would be is slots a good idea for lake walleyes where walleye reproduction is little or nonexistent. I would say no as this would be a considered a put and take body of water. Slots are bad if left in place too long in any body of water. We could see it happening on Leech down the road.

Found thanks IDO

Been using one for three seasons no issues.

We have seen so far lake groups using AIS to stop, prevent or slow the following.

1) Stop a already successful musky stocking program or expansion there of.
2) Stop or slow public access improvements on a number of lakes in the state
3) Close secondary access’s in the state.
4) Limit tournaments
5) Discourage lake hopping or fishing several lakes in one day
6) Not to mention disruptive behavior at township meetings as a example.

Did I miss anything.

http://www.brainerddispatch.com/news/3913745-crow-wing-county-board-wapoa-limit-boat-landing-hours-approves-2016-ais-prevention-plan

They are not giving up limiting access….