FinnyDinDin wrote:

We are gonna need your zip code included with your post to decide if you are allowed to weigh in on the topic.

I don’t need your approval for anything FinnyDinDin.

This is a chance to voice your opinions on these bills and try to make a difference. If we don’t take the intitiative, we can’t expect someone to do it for us.
The bills are first going to committee and if they make it out of committee, they will go to the Senate for a vote. Let’s try to stop them now.

Contact the committee members and voice your opposition. It will just take a few minutes of your time and a simple email to the committee members.

Here’s the link to the Environment, Climate and Legacy Committee to which the bills were referred.

https://www.senate.mn/committees/committee_bio.html?cmte_id=3130

Thanks guys!

Ripjiggen wrote:

Wast shooting the messenger so to speak Karry. Just feel that might be inaccurate. I just assumed they needed a warrant for a search and seizure of a home. I know they do in other states as I have watched plenty those conservation officer shows.

You are likely correct for search and seizure in a home. I believe the CO that I spoke ot was referring to entering a fish house or something related to witnessing an actual violation in the field. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my initial post.

Good points Bucky. I’ve contacted the author and the coauthors of the proposed bills and asked them what their motovation was to propose these bills but not surprisingly, I got no responses.

I’m told by the DNR that there is support for opening the season with a 3 walleye limit along with the possibility that it will be shut down later in the year and there is also quite a bit of support for a 2 walleye limit initially to help insure fall fishing that feels an initial 3 walleye limit is too aggressive to start with. After internal discussions, the DNR will issue a press release the week of March 10 outlining the open water walleye regulations on Mille Lacs.

Ripjiggen wrote:

The major item in SF 956 is that a search warrant or a court order would be required prior to conservation officers conducting searches and seizures. In talking to my local CO, this would mean that even if they witness violations, there would be cases where they could do nothing but watch because of no warrant or court order.

I have a hard time believing this is an accurate statement.

Like I said Ripjiggin, that’s what I was told.

Bearcat89 wrote:

I’m all game with the search warrant, but I doubt that means if they witness a violation they need a warrant. That doesn’t seem right and I assume the officer had it wrong. But no way should any officer be able to barge in any one’s homes with out a warrant. And if they know full well of illegal activity then a warrant will be easy to obtain.

The second one makes 0 sense so I have no real opinion on it besides it’s another terrible law maker trying to over reach.

That’s according to the CO I spoke to.

Finny,

It’s likely a combination of all of the above, but if in fact netting had the negative effect that some claim, a sustained decent walleye population for the next decade or so should be proof.
That being said, nature can definitely affect a system for 20+ years. It’s not unprecedented.

I think the problems with walleyes in Mille Lacs in the past are due to issues much more complex than just netting alone. The poor walleye fishing at times can be attributed in part to climiate change which affects walleye recruitment by disrupting the timing of ice-off, loss of spawning habitat and clearer water which can be in part attributed to AIS infestation. There are likely other factors at work as well.
It’s easy to blame the DNR for mismanagement and they may have made some mistakes but remember there isn’t a manual to go by to properly manage the Mille Lacs walleye fishery when there are so many variables at the same time and hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it?
It could that there was just a perfect storm of variables that were uncontrollable and unmanageable. Maybe conditions in the lake have now satbilized and the DNR has finally figured a few things out about how to manage Mille Lacs. We’ll see.

Who are you talking about needs their money?
Another fact that seems to get lost in the whole AIS conversation is that lakeshore owners do not own the lake and there is no gray area. Lakes in Minnesota belong to everyone in the state and everyone in the state has the legal right to enjoy them, yes, even the city folk that you wrongly blame for the spread of AIS.

It depends on how you define a successful season. 14-3 is a great season by any standard and bad teams are on every team’s schedule.
The Vikes record next year will in all likelihood not be as good as 14-3 but a playoff run would make it a more successful season by most standards.
We’ll see. Us Vikings fans always hope for the best and expect the worst.

I agree Gary that the better bang for the buck is education and it’s the reasonable cost alternative to wasting money on AIS inspections. One of the earlier posts stated that “I’m all in favor of these launch kids, if 1 rig is found bringing something in, then it’s a success”. Huh? Doesn’t he realize that the battle to stop AIS has been lost and that battle was lost long ago. What kind of success is finding AIS on one boat when how many boats prior to when AIS inspections were started entered the lake contaminated with AIS or how many boats use the lake accesses during the hours that inspections are not conducted? That doesn’t even take into account the theory that AIS may be spread by birds and wildlife.
We all remember the predictions of the end of sportfishing in the Great Lakes when zebra mussels were first discovered as you refer to Gary but mother nature adapts. To my knowledge, sportfishing on the Great Lakes now is as good as it’s ever been for the most part and Minnesota lakes are no different.
There is no way to stop the spread of AIS in our Minnesota lakes either but like the great lakes, mother nature will adapt in Minnesota lakes as well.
The fisheries here in Minnesota in the future may not look exactly like they do today but our fisheries have always been dynamic and I believe they will be just fine. Many also seem to feel that all lakes are meant to be walleye lakes, bass lakes, etc., but in reality that isn;t the case. Every lake is better well suited for some fish species than others.
Fish populations go up and fish populations go down and that’s always been nature’s way, even before mankind was on the scene. It’ll always be that way.
I think that more of a threat to the fish populations in most of our lakes in Minnesota exists from the loss of habitat and pollution from runoff than AIS.
Why not invest the money now spent on AIS inspections in education and focus on some of the problems that can be remedied like habitat loss and runoff?

I have a 797c2 that I’ll sell also. Let me know if you’re interested.

Been there.

Iowaboy1 wrote:

I have sold a bunch of the Carlisle radial trail tires with the D rating,never had any problems.
The Goodyears are a good tire as well.

I’ve been happy with Carlisles over the years. I’ve never tried Goodyears.

I use Scheel’s Walleye Series rods and troll cranks with them alot. I think they’re really good rods for trolling cranks and I’ve been using them for years.
I’ve been using braid to troll cranks now for over 15 years. I’ve never found the need to troll with any any other type of line.
I use 15 lb. Power Pro because it has the equivalent diameter of 4 lb. test mono so that it matches up with Precision Trolling dive curves. Precision Trolling shows the dive curves of most of the cranks that I use with both 10 lb. mono dive curves and a 4 lb. mono dive curves. Many of the dive curves were originally made using both 10 lb. mono as well as 10/4 Fireline and since 10/4 Fireline and 15/4 Power Pro both have equivalent diameters of 4 lb. mono, they are interchangeable on the Precision Trolling dive curves.
At one time I did use 10/4 Fireline but found that it frayed so I switched to 15/4 Power Pro.
I generally tie my cranks directly to the Power Pro but one can also use a leader of some kind if you prefer but it will affect your dive curve slightly depending upon it’s diamter and how long your leader might be (unless it has the same diameter as your main line).
It’s a simple process to use the Precision Trolling App (I still have the original book as well as the app) to calculate how deep your crank is running at the published speed. I’ve been using the Precision Trolling App for at least 10 years and it works and very well.
20 lb. braid will work also for trolling cranks but I find that it’s so easy to use line diameters that match the published dive curves in the app that why not? There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

Neither Gary or I ever said it would solve the live minnow issue since drought, a decline in live bait dealers and AIS issues are all contributing factors.
It may be that there isn’t a single soulution but rather many things that may need to be done to fix the problem.
Sure local bait shops love tournaments when they sell all the live minnows they have in their inventories but if there is a minnow shortage and they don’t have enough live bait for the whole season does it really help them in the long run? You tell me.

Gary was likley making the point that if anglers (especially younger anglers) reading about and observing that tournament anglers don’t need live minnows to catch heavy limits and numbers of walleyes, they may follow suit and the demand for live minnows may eventually decrease as a result. The topics are related.

Common sense is where it should end up and it’s common sense and not not just my view that the mortality rate of fish caught and released in deep water can be high. If you truly care abut the resource, I don’t understand why it’s so hard to quit fishing or fish for other species once you get your limit when fishing in deep water.
This certainly isn’t an anti-fishing view but a conservation view. If we can’t control ourselves, believe me someone will try to do it for us and nobody wants that.

Exactly maybe FFS isn’t a bad thing. Rarely see the top pros on the Cabellas tour using live bait.
Again the live bait issue is an easy fix, but are DNR is to dumb to just fix the problem.
Banning from tournaments will have little to no impact on minnow shortage.
[/quote]

DNR biologists are far from dumb and have legitimate reasons for their recommendations. If you have all of the answers maybe you should apply for a biologist position at the DNR. I believe there are unfilled positions right now.
You’re right, banning live bait from tournaments will have no impact on the minnow shortage but I doubt that Gary was inferring that it directly would.

Bearcat89 wrote:

You guys must hate catch and release fisherman then ?
This makes no sense. And is no different then a guy practicing catch and release. I know if I’m on a hot bite I’m still fishing. Couldn’t imagine all the times I would have missed out on if I couldn’t keep fishing after I kept my fish. But oh well. It’s legal and I will keep the catching and releasing going after my limit, just like the reg book says is fine and legal.

There is a major difference between legal and ethical. Ethics are difficult if not impossible to regulate. Is catch and releasing well over a hundred fish in deep water ethical?

I know that catching and releasing fish in deep water a problem at LOTW but it’s taboo subject and nobody wants to talk about it.
Attached is a from a recent Facebook post on Lake of the Woods Fishing and it’s a tally of the number of fish caught evidently by individuals in a house. I know from the post that they were fishing in water over 30′ deep.
Sure it’s fun to boast and brag but please have some respect for the resource.
Just because a fish can be pushed back down the hole doesn’t mean they’ll make it.
We all know better.

Attachments:

1. 

   475897049_952080370444014_261060354092347902_n.jpg
   

I think that that’s an interesting idea Gary and if tournament anglers show that it’s possible to catch walleyes with artificials, perhaps weekend anglers will follow suit. It’s not with all live bait that there is a concern about a shortage either, it’s just minnows. Crawlers and leeches likely won’t be in short supply this season.
I fished in a artificials only walleye tournament a few years back at Devils Lake and although there was a learning curve, it was an eye opener for me how relatively easy it was to make the transiton to and catch walleyes using nothing but artificials. I’ve used little live bait to catch walleyes in open water since and there are more and more artificals options on the market every year.
Yes, fishing live bait is tradition in Minnesota walleye fishing but there are artificials that that can be used instead of live bait in the majority of circumstances. It just takes some getting used to.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

WOW!
We have a Leader that’s actually leading. Imagine that.

So did Germany’s, Italy’s and Japan’s leaders lead their countries last century.

I think that United States consumers are going to pay a big price for these tariffs. As a quick example, at least in my part of the country, the U.S. imports electricity from Canada mostly from hydroelectic generation. If this is penalized 10% like it has been proposed by Trump, who pays the increased electrical cost related to the 10% tariff (10% on electricity I’ve read)? Whether it’s electricity to power businesses or to heat homes or even to power public utilities, who will ultimately pay the price for the tariff? You and I.
Canadian electricity has been a good value for consumers for years.
Trump just just goes in there with a know it all attitude and screws that up.
And this is only one example.

If one has the proper cables to make it happen, I don’t see why multiple transducers can’t be used. It’s just a matter of how the connectors are pinned on the adapter cables that make multiple transducers work. There aren’t any settings in the control head to set to make multiple transducers work (at least in current models) that I’m aware of and it’s so easy to do it that way that I don’t expect it to be any different in the Explore units.
As far as the head unit is concerned, it dorsn’t know if the transducer signals coming in are from a single transducer or multiple transducers.

The current online license license system still works just fine like it always has. No reason to fret.

big_g wrote:

It has to be… maybe a DEI hire ? Half the mail I got at the cabin had Resident on it, not even our name. I would ask the Postmaster for the facility.[/quote

A DEI hire? Come on.

Anyfish2 wrote:

Are our biologists against the regulation change?
Is this just a bureaucratic decision? because this is a DNR decision and they seem to have made it.

All I’ll say is that fisheries biologists make recommendations based upon factual data and the data doesn’t support a 4 walleye limit statewide. You’ll have to connect the dots from there.

Anyfish2 wrote:

So your argument is, that limits should be set at the highest level, until it has negative repercussions?

Do you think the efficacy of anglers is not increasing?
Our seasons changing has no effect on reproduction going forward?
Livescope, side imaging, and Accurate GPS maps are not putting more stress on walleye populations?

What is the negative impact of 4 VS 6?

No, my argument is that we should let the MN DNR biologists make the decision whether a 4 walleye limit is needed statewide. They’re the professionals and they are some of the best if not the best in the nation. The internet biologists should just let them do their jobs.
The DNR biologists know what’s going on in the fishing world like everyone else and if they have recommendations to make based upon their scientific findings to safeguard and improve our walleye fishery, they’ll make them.