from 6 to 4 for walleye limit

[crappie jigga]

muchowja and crankineye1
You both hit the nail on the head....
I don't understand why some folks don't get it... I realize there is more to it than just lowering the limits, but it would be a great start...
4 fish
16" to 20" slots, one fish over 20"
Adjust certian lakes accordingly to what they need....

Here's a good story for ya'll...
I fish a lake called Lake Benton, it's roughly 2800 acres in size.. 3 years ago the walleyes really took off and for about 2 weeks straight, there were roughly 100 boats that would launch and load every day... Keep in mind these fish could NOT keep their mouths shut, they were hitting anything that moved.... I would bet that 80% of the boats got their limit (2 people per boat)..
Not to mention the double dippers and the shore fisherman...
80 boats X 2 people equals 160 Limits X 6 fish equals 960 fish/day X 10 days equals 9600 fish...
If the limit would have been 4 fish, there would have been another 3200 fish still swimming the next day..
If you could only have 1 fish over 20" that would mean even more fish would have been released to catch another day..
If there would have been a slot on the lake even more would have been released to catch another day.. It's pretty simple math!

If anyone doughts that story contact anyone that fishes near Lake Benton.. Trust me they'll remember it...

Sorry for the rant!!

[jparrucci]

Time for someone to be the voice of reason. Dropping the limit to 4 from 6 would have next to no effect on the status of the fisheries. For all those in favor of reducing the limit to 4, how about increasing the possession limit to 8? I hear alot of talk about 4 walleyes feeding a whole family, and I think you people have to have some pretty small appetites. I can easily eat 3 or 4 15 inch eyes, with a side of potatos. (I'm only 155 pounds, before somebody makes a fat joke.) Maybe some of you fillet your fish differently? Do the eyeballs and fins taste good? For those of us that don't get out often, dropping the limit would mean I would probably only get a meal of walleyes on opening weekend, and one meal for the rest of the year. Glad I don't have kids who like walleye yet. Plain and simple, if there is a lake that is harvested excessive or in danger of it, then use smaller limits or a slot limit. Doesnt WI have a 6 fish limit with 12 in possesion? Last time I fished there we did just fine off the dock on a lake I had never fished, and there was plenty of other fisherman on that lake, so it's not like it didnt recieve pressure. Large lakes in the Northern part of the state are not going to see that kinda pressure in even my lifetime (I'm 24) as long as people arent slaughtering the spawing females in the spring. The sky is not falling. A one fish over 20-24 inch rule statewide is good, anything else that reduces the walleye limit on the majority of lakes is just gonna make people feel better, not improve the fishing. I practice catch and release most of the time (I'm not about to eat river walleyes). I'm sure some of you are gonna have some good reponses to this.

[crankineyes_1]

Crappie Jigga - Did you have fun this weekend? I saw you guys drive by, but never got the chance to say hi. If you see Jer, tell him Donny Moore says hi, then listen to the stories start to roll.

[crankineyes_1]

jparruci -

Point #1 - I could care less about the guys that go once or twice a year and take home 6 fish. These are not the ones that are hurting the populations. Just because you fish once or twice a year doesn't mean that is what the majority of people do. People need to quit being selfish about taking a couple more fish home and look at the FACTS. Look at it this way.

100 boats on a lake for a 2 day weekend. Let's say that only 25% of them catch their limit. 25x6=150 x's 2 days=300 fish taken by only the 25% of the fisherman that caught their limits.

Now take the same scenario with a 4 fish limit 25x4=100 x's 2 days = 200 fish. You just saved 100 fish in weekend. It is VERY realistic that 25% of fisherman catch their limit.

NOW, take 2 people per boat and double those numbers and you have just saved 200 fish in a weekend.

You cannot argue these facts.

[This message has been edited by crankineyes_1 (edited 04-07-2004).]

[Dave B]

You are missing something. The DNR states that on average a fisherman in MN catches a walleye every 4 hours. So on any give day, average Joe fisherman will need to fish for 24 hours in a day to get a 6 fish limit. Now I like to fish, but I am rarely on the water for more than 10 hours in a day.

You cant set limits for the state of MN based on 2 weeks of a hot bite on your favorite lake.

If you believe that 4 is a better number, why not 1 or 2 or 3? Why is 4 so magical. The DNRs own numbers state that lowering the limit from 6 to 4 will lower the harvest rate by 2%. On the one or two days when an average fisherman runs into a good bite, or is on a weekend trip for once or twice a year, should he be limited to only 4 fish so that we can have 2% more fish in the water? That makes no sense.

I cant say that your numbers are wrong, but I can say you number are not representative of actual fishing conditions statewide. Most fisherman cannot catch a limit of fish. And the ones that can, likely release 95% of those fish. Also-how do you know that the extra 50% of fish that were harvested in your example did any damage to the fishery? If there are too many deer in a region, cant hunters take 3-4? Is that wrong too?

[can it be luck?]

WI. has a WIDE VARIETY of limit laws. The ceded territory, which is almost all of N. WI. has postings at launch sites as far as limits and size restrictions. Depending on the harvest by Native American's under spearing and treaty rights, bag limits vary year to year. Many lakes have a 2 or 3 fish limit. The last few years the DNR has implemented laws which allow anglers to keep only 1 fish over 14"s and the other 1 or 2 fish under 14"s. Prior to the new changes WI. used to have a pretty much state wide 15" minimum on walleye. I don't know if the fishing will improve or decline since this is all in it's infancy yet, but I do know that decent walleye fishing can be real tough as far as size, numbers can be very good though. I'm not real big on the new size restrictions, but if it improves the quality of the walleye fishing.....I'm all for it! It's frustrating to catch 100 14" walleye in a day year in and year out without hardly ever catching any legal 15"ers. I'd always think, "Well, next year those 100 14" walleye will grow and I'll catch 100 15"ers"....I've waited many, many years and have yet to see them "grow", hopefully the new regs will start to make a differance.

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[crankineyes_1]

Well actually in your case of the deer, they can shoot more deer in an area with higher populations. You can get double-doe tags, or they run depredation hunts in areas with higher numbers of deer. Not sure about MN, but in SD the number of tags available in each county are directly related to the population of the deer in that area.

I realize your points on a hotbite and such, but MN has the luxury of having more waters than we do in SD, but if you think that it will not catch up to your fisheries, I feel you are wrong. Just my opinion. As for the number 4, I was just using that because that was the number that was posted in the original post. In my opinion, each fishery should be better monitored and regulated independantly, not as a whole. Some lakes may be able to easily handle a 6 fish limit, while some can only handle a 2 fish limit.

[jparrucci]

I'm just trying to make the point that a statewide 6 fish limit is not the right thing to do. If there are bodies of water that need special regs to protect the walleye, I am all for it. But a 4 fish limit is going to hurt more than it will help. All it is going to do is keep people like me from getting a couple of meals, and its not like the people who are keeping more than their limit are going to stop no matter what number you make it. These hot bites you guys talking about, and people pounding the same lake day after day have to be over their possesion limit. Even I can't eat 6 fish a day for a week straight. How about serious Draconian punishment for those caught with excessive fish? If somebody intentionally keeps more than their limit, and it is excessive (say like 30 walleyes in the freezer), how about we do some mandatory year in prison, then another year spent working for the DNR, doing community service working with the stocking program? I think HUGELY sticter punishments for poaching would help the fish populations much more than a 2 fish limit reduction. I could go down to the river right now, drop in a gill net and get 1,000 walleyes, and I would only get a slap on the wrist, but stricter punishments are a thing of the past in a liberal state like this, we would rather "rehab" someone.

[Rost]

No, a lot of us are not over our possession limit. Actually, I give atleast 1/2 of the fish I keep away.

Bottom line here: Some people may only catch and keep a few limits per year. But that does not mean others aren't catching and keeping much more than that. It is very simple, if I go to the lake and can only keep 4, that means I am leaving 2 fish in that lake that would otherwise be dead. This concept multiplies as Jigga explained. (You da man jigga!)

[crappie jigga]

DaveB
Wouldn't it be cool if you could go out fishing and catch 3 fish/hour vs 1/hr.. I'd bet if there were a few more fish in the lakes your chances of catching 3/hr would increase.. Force the limit takers too take less and leave more..
What do we fish for? I'm guessing the answers here are going to be, for fun, to relax, spend time friends/family, etc., etc.

What would be more fun? Catching 10 fish in an afternoon and only being able to keep 2 or catching 3 fish and keeping 3...
Well were not going to see those 10 fish afternoons anytime soon in this state because, we don't have the numbers of fish other places do, because they keep getting yanked out of the lakes faster than the DNR can restock them...
Why is that? You ask...
I'll tell ya, because the motto here is keep anything ya catch, but please only take 1 over 24"'s, Thank you for the money, have a nice day... :confused

Not sure how it works in other parts of the state, but most of the fisherman wether they are great, avid, or terrible fisherman do NOT release 95% of their fish..
If that were the case you'd be fishing 34 consecutive 12 hour days/ to keep 5 fish...(6 fish/24 hour time period) Maybe, but NOT likely...

I don't mean to be a smart A$$ here but
As for the deer example:
The last time I hit a walleye w/ my pick-up it didn't do much damage..(my insurance man was happy).. The last time my neighbor farmer Joe, caught that sneeky little, corn and bean eating walleye in his fields, he wasn't to upset..
I don't remember the last time I saw a school of walleyes starving and dieing of diseases because of over population...

As for my favorite lake being pounded..
There are 8 lakes with'in 20 miles of my home town.. I remember with'in the last 10 years it happening to Wood, Benton, Coon, East Twin, and Shockatan... That's 5 out of 8... It happens more than ya think.....

Sorry for venting...
Maybe I'm wrong here, but something should change...

[otterman]

I'm for it. Lowering the limit will help keep the population up and make people think a little more about what they keep. So the little ones can go back

[backlash 1]

I am 100% for a 4 fish limit, or basically whatever it takes to improve the walleye fishing! The reason I go fishing is I kinda like it when something gets on the end of my line!! And if there are no more fish, they're really gonna be hard to catch. As far as the meat aspect of it goes, it's a lot cheaper to go to Moreys.
I live about 5 mi. from the gov access on Gull lake, last summer there was at least 3 times on weekends that I couldn't find a parking place, had to leave and go to another lake. Way to much tournament pressure(but that could be another topic)

[Guido]

screw the limit and get a slot!

[can it be luck?]

I agree with most here. I'm all for changing the limit from 4 to 6. Not only do fish taste great, but I like to catch them too! The DNR does a fine job maintaning the fisheries with studies, surveys, stocking, habitat improvement, regulations, license fees, etc., etc., etc. Hats off to the fisherman that help out with over population and stunting the waters by maintaining a balanced fishery.
......Hey wait, it's already 6 fish! Well then, on some of the more productive lakes the limit should be 8!
If it's all about feeling the pole bend and the fight of many fish........Take turns with your buddy in the front yard, pulling his line and jumping around like a crazed fish! That way you can save LOTS of money for your commercialy netted, trash tasting, walleye that lay around on some nasty store shelf for God knows how long. That's right, support commercial fishing by giving them YOUR money for new boats and nets. I say all fisherman should catch their own fish and BOYCOTT COMMERCIAL NETTING!!!! Pitch in guys! Save the fish!!!
PS: I wonder how many other fish die just so you can have your fish dinner.
Loaves and Fishes to all.

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[rockhardinmn]

Leave the limits alone ,, Manage the lakes that need it. Manage others as trophy lakes. All cutting limits will do is Give the CO"S more tickets to hand out.
I have a real problem with how some are useing numbers in there arguements for lowering the limit. I feel there is a couple of numbers that were left out.The first one is " How many eggs does 1 prime female produce?" The other is the number of fish were stocked.Granted there is a mortality rate in both numbers.Remember that you can make about any set of numbers say what you want them to .
I feel that the main thing that needs to be taught is better fishing ethics.
First one would be the pratice of "culling".I feel you Make the choice of what you Keep right when you catch it. YOu dont go thru the live well after you got your limit and toss the smaller ones back. By fishing this way you are taking fish of different year classs and not hurting a single one .
One other would be to take care of the fish you just caught. This means cleaning them too. If you were lucky enough or good enough you have your limit. So now you have some choices: Eat the ones you just got. Shore lunch Anyone? Giving Fish to the little ole lady or man down the street says alot about a person also.
If we are all being honest about what we are realy catching on here, then there certainly is some lakes in trouble.I know there is not many who fish even remotely close to the number of hours that i do.My wife has learned that it is common for me to be 5 or six hours( sometimes alot) later than the expected time i told her i would return. I know the body of waters i am fishing well.I do do very well for the types of fish i target.Friends and people who live around me get pleanty of fish to eat.I never have over what my households limit is (which is 4).I do have certain sizes of fish that i prefer to keep on certain lakes(remember smaller fish have lower toxin levels). If there is a bait everyone else is useing , i will switch baits to see what else they will hit.I have been accused of being a roaming tackle store before
Bottom line is that fishing is supposed to be enjoyable and fun.Going out to put a meal on the table is to much like work for me

[davemeyer]

I have caught a limit of walleyes maybe 15 times in my life and I fish alot(I'm not that skilled). I don't see people taking a limit with them, so it is not that big of deal if they did change it. The biggest impact i have seen on keeping fish in the lake instead in the freezer would be slot limits. I am surprised how many fish I catch that are in the 18-24inch range.I don't think that anyone needs to take home more than four walleyes with them. Plus if they lowered it, maybe our goal of consistantly catching limits would actually be achievable.

[Dave B]

I want to clarify something, I am not fundamentally against lowering limits. However, lowerering from 6 to 4 has been studied and determined to have no noticable affect on harvest. To be effective, you need to lower the limit to one or two. And even that would only lower the harvest by 20-30%.

Remember something else-if you want to double to triple the biological mass of walleye, what fish are you going to remove from the fishery? Crappie? Bass? Northern?

[Havin' Fun]

Crappie Jigga,

Realistically, not much could have been done for Lake Benton. There are lakes from time to time that "turn" on. But they do this for a reason. These fish bite better than any other time due to:
1. lack of bait
2. overabundance of fish...which leads to lack of bait

Both of these are signs of an "unhealthy" fishery. Example was Mille Lacs the past 4 years. Several years of no bait fish=lots of fish biting. Now too much bait fish=no fish biting.

If you had a four fish limit, yup your daily limit would go down, but people would be back the next day, and the next....and the next...and so on until the bite dies off. This is the case with every "hot" lake in Minnesota. Lake Benton, Mille Lacs aren't the only lakes this has happened too.

The DNR can't and won't manage each lake year by year, or month by month like Mille Lacs because they can't do it.

Instead of putting so much into another law, or another restriction on the fisherperson....we all need to work to educate each other the importance of selective harvest and catch and release. This is the future of our sport.

[crankineyes_1]

Ok, we could go round and round on this subject, but I guess I am happy that most of you see that something needs to be done...whatever that might be. Personally I think a slot and lowering limits would help. To those that stated they hate to see using numbers like myself and Crappie Jigga did, I have to believe you don't like seeing those numbers because you simply cannot argue them. Dave B, it has been studied extensively in South Dakota and has been proven to work. I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Many other states have also proven that lowering limits and/or adding slots is a great way to control harvest rates.

After all that, I know that a few knotheads on a web discussion board are not going to change the world. But it is discussions like these that do indeed educate other people and I think that doing so is extremely important. I do not want to argue with people over the subject, I think we all just want to know what the best way to preserve our resources is. Hope to see some of you on the water.

[This message has been edited by crankineyes_1 (edited 04-08-2004).]

[B. Amish]

Just another quick question. For those of you who are debating this topic, how did you feel about the reduction of the panfish limits? Do you think that reducing the panfish limits helped fishing or hurt people who were trying to get out once or twice and get a meal.

DO you think that comparing panfish to walleye is possible when talking about limits?

[This message has been edited by B. Amish (edited 04-08-2004).]

[Fisher Dave]

Nothing like trying to * re-stir * the pot.

I'll be out catching limits before you guys quit debating this.

[musky hunter]

Neutral: I say it's dependent upon the particular system you are fishing on and the pressure upon it. Fish limits should be set based on science, not polls. Perosnally, I like the slot limits. Folks are getting used to the 15-18" walleye as the ideal eater. If lowering a limit makes my fishing better, I'm all for it. I usually release most of my fish unharmed.

[beaverlakeman]

dont know if this has already been said, but here goes.

the changing from 6 to 4 is a great idea. Not only will there be more fish left to breed, but also will give those 2 extra fish a chance to get much bigger. Plus, 6 walleyes?? come on, that is 2 much fish for a meal.. i have a family of 3 and i have yet to cook more than 3 walleyes for a meal.

catch yer 4 fish, filet them up cookem the same night cause we all know fresh fish is the way to go. then those other 2 fish aint in the freezer gettin freezer burnt.

thats just my 2 cents. if you want another meal or your gonna have company over and want a big fish meal, take 2 days and catch 8 eyes, and your good to go...

I personally think the reduction is a very good idea. set the limit to 4, then with the lake with outrageous numbers of eyes, which are very few in mn, then raise it to 6 on that particular lake, or whatever.

I also believe there should be a slot that goes with the reduction.. I remember stories my grandpa told me about how unbelievable the fishing used to be in his younger days. Why is it not like that today? Maybe the limits have been to high. Maybe if the limit would have been 4 many years ago we would have a much better fishery?

I remember when a person could keep 6 pike also, and no one hyped about it when they reduced that to 3. why is that? Could us newer generation of fisherman/women be greedy? Who NEEDS 6 walleyes a day? i certainly dont. what if they say we are going to put a law in effect for 1 season that every lake is c&r?? There has been a great reduction in the quality of walleyes than they were 30 years ago. And with the a reduction to 4 walleyes from 6 we might see the great fishing in 10 years that there used to be 30 years ago.. Maybe i just dont get it?

enough of that..
keep your lines wet and tight

[This message has been edited by beaverlakeman (edited 04-09-2004).]

[rockhardinmn]

Crankin, the only problem i have with you useing the numbers is that i feel you didnt use them all.What does a prime spawning female fish have for eggs in them? A million? I realy dont have a clue myself,but you cant leave out a number that is so large from just one fish is my opinion Crankin.
Oh And Fishin Dave i been getting my Craps allready the whole while this has been talked about

[crankineyes_1]

rockhardmn -

I left out spawning females because you have a closed season in MN during the spawn. It shouldn't be an issue. Now, the walleyes will start to generate eggs again in the late fall and winter, but the angling pressure is not as high as in the spring and I believe that MOST people are getting the concept of releasing females when possible.

It would be impossible to protect every fish, but limiting the harvest rates either with smaller limits, or better slots would seem a sensible idea.

I am impressed with people on this board compared to others. People "attack" an idea and not the person that shared their idea. Makes for some fun discussions.