Spot on BigWerm
Everytime Fish and Wildlife budget issues are discussed people start calling for more general fund money to support F&W programs. If you want a department even less beholding to hunters and anglers I can’t think of a way to speed that along faster.
It seems what matters is pinning down why the change is being proposed by the DNR. If you have no target or targets to shoot at, it will be tough to knock the regulation change down if that is your goal.
Wouldn’t it be the responsibility of those proposing the change to identify why the change is being proposed?
That’s what is being discussed and questioned here, the need and reason for the proposed regulation change.
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.
Bass Pundit,
I understand how a self proclaimed bass angler might not be concerned about lowering the Walleye harvest limit.
To clarify, the study referenced earlier (Thanks to Riverrat for providing the link) about bag limits and angler satisfaction was published in May of 2001. The idea of reducing bag limits to increase angler satisfaction was floated at a DNR Roundtable around that time and did not find much support among attendees. I don’t know how much perceptions may have changed since then, but that has not been offered as an objective for the current proposed rule change. Actually, that premise for the proposed rule change would have more social science to support it than the vague rational currently offered.
Gary you have been a wealth of information thanks for chiming in.
Thanks CaptainMuskie,
I am just trying to bring some biological perspective to the discussion. This proposal seems to be driven more by emotion and virtue than any sound objectives or biological rational.
The DNR just hosted its annual Roundtable where leaders of Statewide sporting groups, outdoor media and others gather to hear about DNR high priority initiatives. It’s usually the opportunity for research biologists and resource managers to dig into the details and explain the hows, whys, and expectations for any new proposed statewide regulation changes. The statewide Walleye bag limit initiative wasn’t even on the agenda. Seems a little odd, doesn’t it?
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gary Barnard wrote:</div>
Exactly. Walleye stocking is a management tool, just like harvest regulations, to be used where and when useful and necessary.Gary, to be clear, is your stance to leave the limit at 6 statewide?
In your experience, what do you feel would be the Maximum number of walleyes for a daily/possession limit statewide, that would not impact fisheries? loaded question I know. But individual lake regulations would be near impossible to implement do to the fact we just survey lakes every 4 years or longer for most lakes. Monitoring all the lakes more often is not feasible at this time.
I do have concerns for many lakes that are smaller in size, some you may know well that I fish every year. I have seen the increase in boat numbers over the years and I see more and more fish being taken out every year. But I can certainly understand if we are still well within our harvestable surplus. I just hope we wouldn’t wait until we have to make reactionary changes. Your thoughts are very appreciated.
Anyfish,
Yes, my recommendation is to leave the statewide limit at six unless the data indicates some logical reason to change.
I don’t care to speculate on what the maximum number might be, because it’s irrelevant. There is no interest in changing upward and it would be impossible to meet the need and reasonableness requirement for an upward adjustment anyway.
DNR already has authority for special regulations on individual lakes, has for decades, and even has a reduced bag option (3 fish) in the walleye regulation tool box. But if you look at the reg book there have been very few implemented. There just has not been much interest or need from Area Fisheries Managers.
I understand your concern about the sustainability of smaller lakes. Many of those are maintained by stocking so really the entire adult population is “harvestable surplus”. In many of our fingerling stocked lakes we would like to see a higher return to the angler from the stocking investment.
What’s lost in this bag limit discussion is that recruitment (production and survival of young fish) is the biggest driver of walleye populations. Far more important than harvest mortality. While most of the factors that effect recruitment are random, weather related and out of the control of fish managers, harvest from high density population can actually stimulate recruitment by removing recruitment suppression. We shouldn’t just assume that harvest is bad for Walleye populations.
Red lake and Leech are not regularly stocked there were extenuating circumstances that led to both. I’m talking lakes that are stocked yearly, every couple years etc.
Exactly. Walleye stocking is a management tool, just like harvest regulations, to be used where and when useful and necessary.
Gary, I certainly will not get into an argument with a guy with 43 years of experience. But please help me understand why our large, most productive lakes in MN have all been converted to 4(ish) or less limit?
Anyfish,
I am not interested in any argument at all, but am very encouraged to see this thread has turned from personal preferences to a useful discussion on the biological implications, or lack thereoff, of this proposal.
To answer your question, if you dig a little deeper you’ll see that few if any of those large walleye lakes are managed with a stand-alone 4 bag limit. In fact almost every current special walleye regulation lake with a reduced bag has it in combination with some type of size regulation. When effects of these regulations are evaluated the size protection part always accounts for the largest portion of the harvest saving.
Also worth considering, regarding your comparison of harvest impacts on small vs. large Walleye lakes, is that the same bag limit does not function the same on all lakes. Bag limits can only reduce harvest where there is a resonable chance of anglers achieving them, and that only occurs on a regular basis on those highly productive lakes with high walleye densities and high catch rates. If the intent of the reduced bag limit is to improve walleye fishing, wouldn’t you choose a regulation that would impact the poor walleye populations?
Gary, why do you think they are going to make the decision based upon data? Is that just your preference?
Good questions. Yes, it is my preference, but it is also the law.
In the Legislative process (as was tried previously) the regulation could be changed by public opinion, constituents contacting legislators.
This time they are using DNR rulemaking authority which requires that you show need and reasonableness for the proposed regulation change. Need would be established using biological data to show the need for the rule change.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Gary Barnard wrote:</div>
has anyone identified a sound reason for lowering the existing limit or what problem we are hoping to fix?good question. playing devils advocate – do we have any evidence the current limits are “optimal” for lack of better words?
Only about 70 years of lake survey data that apparently does not show any significant downward trend across MN Walleye lakes that can be attributed to overharvest under the current limit.
This limit reduction has been kicked around for about 8 years, plenty of time for biologists to sift through the available data. Don’t you think that if some significant negative trend existed they would lead the proposal with that?
After 90 posts we have learned what number people “are fine with”…..
how many walleyes “nobody needs”……and that a lower limit “wouldn’t hurt anything”…..but has anyone identified a sound reason for lowering the existing limit or what problem we are hoping to fix?
The change to a 4 fish limit will not affect most anglers………., if you have other house members gift them todays limit and go catch another limit for yourself tomorrow.
at the end of the day you can still catch as many as you want.
You have explained exactly why the proposed bag limit reduction is not expected to significantly reduce harvest or improve walleye fishing.
What is the negative impact of a 4 fish bag? Asking all anglers to give up harvest opportunity (regardless of how many achieve it) for no significant gain.
Maybe before tossing around a bunch of hypothetical Walleye regulation options, we should identify what it is we are trying to fix. Generally, that is how regulation changes are made. Is there a problem with the existing regulation? Is that problem affecting quality size, overall abundance, recruitment, spawning stock…..? If so, then select a regulation type that best addresses that specific problem.
The current proposal seems to have skipped step one.
May be so, but no individual angler needs 6 fish. 4 daily, possession is twice daily.
The daily/possession part has already been corrected, but the rest of this statement is a nonstarter in any serious discussion about the daily bag limit. We are talking about a recreational sport fishery, not a subsistence fishery, so nobody NEEDS to harvest any fish at all. That argument does not stop at four, two or even one, so why go there?
