from 6 to 4 for walleye limit

[rockhardinmn]

Crankin,,, this is not ment as an attack upon you. Why is it if you dont agree with someone they feel it is an Attack upon them?.All i did was toss in what i seen as a fault in your numbers.There is an old Phrase about opinions i am sure you have heard before that i wont put on so it needs to be edited
I dont see how you cant use the numbers spawners produce.Lets Say that out of a million eggs 1 female produces,250,000 hatch.Out of the Hatch 1/2 of those get to fry size= 125,000.Then 1/2 again that will make it to a catch able sizes for a number of 62,5000. I will State again that these numbers are made up cause i dont know any actual numbers
I do agree with you on protecting spawning females.On the other hand that does add to the number of fish being puit back into a lake.

PS> Crankin,,, After Reading what you said about attacks in your last paragraph i hope you dont think that i was attacking you at all. i do think i may have misunderstood it when i wrote the above

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

[crappie jigga]

rockhardinmn
I read that a female walleye produces somthing like 50,000 eggs, NOT positive on those numbers but it's close.
Anyway, out of all those eggs not many survive to be a catchable fish, somthing like 20 or thirty.. Very few actually become adults..
The problem is, in MN very few lakes will naturally reproduce the amount of fish it needs to sustain itself with current fishing pressure... That's why the DNR has to stock, stock, and restock year after year...
That's why I think if we dropped the limits and imposed a slot it will protect the smaller fish, AND the bigger piggy's...
We would be forced to keep better quality fish...

[jparrucci]

Beaverlakeman..I still can't believe that 3 walleyes feeds a whole family. This issue is the one that really gets to me. I CAN EAT 3 WALLEYES BY MYSELF. And saying that if you cut the limit to 4, and then went out the next day and caught another limit for a big meal, that would put you over the current possesion limit, which is 6. Do all of you think we should reduce the possession limit also? How about cutting the daily limit to 4, and increasing the possession limit to 8? I think I could live with that. If the limit drops to 4 and the possession drops to 4, maybe I'll just fish everday and eat walleye everday. That should make some of you happy. Eat all the walleye I can to protest this stupidity. This is insanity thinking we should be dropping this. The sky is not falling. Me keeping 6 walleyes from ONE fishing trip a year is not going to hurt the walleyes in a large northern lake. If all of you want to keep less fish, go for it. Not much fun for me when I put in a week of fishing and only have one meal of fish to show for it the rest of the year. I'm sure most of you who want to drop the limit also wouldn't mind letting the Native American tribes net more fish. Protect the lakes that need it...otherwise leave the rest alone. Most lakes in this state are very health. Check the DNR netting reports, many say in the most recent reports that its the highest levels they have ever seen for walleyes...those lakes sure are in trouble....

[Diggs]

What about this idea? Lakes that are not naturally reproducing we put a heavy restrictions on, say two fish for instance. Then for those natrually reproducing lake,that sustain there own population we leave it at six.
I personally feel that the dnr should do more lake by lake limits. I also would not be opposed to closing lakes from time to time to let them find there natural balance. Which im sure you all have seen there are alot out of balance. In addition the dnr also puts walleyes in lake that are not really walleye lakes. Wouldn't that money, time and effort be better used to promote the proper fish in that lake. Just some ideas. Feel free to slam them or promote them...

[Dave B]

Some info from the DNR, read this and see if you believe that lowering the limits to 4 will have an impact. Now lowering the limit to 1-sure. But to 4, I dont think so.

First:

Limits of fishing success
Didn't catch a lot of walleyes last Saturday? The fact is, most anglers don't catch even on keeper-sized game fish on a typical day of fishing. That's not because the fishing is poor; it's just the nature of fishing.

On any given day, 95 percent of walleye anglers harvest two or fewer walleyes. This generally hold true on every walleye lake in Minnesota and across the U.S. For example, 1992 was considered the best year in modern history for fishing on Mille Lacs, one of the top walleye lakes in the United States. Yet even during that banner year, 76 percent of anglers there on any given day did not catch a fish.

It's not such a bad thing that anglers don't always or even regularly catch their limit. There simply aren't enough fish. For example, we estimate that Minnesota has roughly 18 million walleyes over 14 inches long (general keeper size). Approximately 27 million angler days are spent fishing each year. If every angler caught and kept just one walleye on average per outing, the state's entire keeper-sized walleye population would be wiped out before the year was over

Second:

In the 1990's, in an effort to stock more efficiently, we scaled back our walleye fingerling stocking. These reductions convinced some anglers that walleye populations in Minnesota's stocked lakes were declining.

On average, walleye populations in stocked lakes have actually been increasing (see chart). But walleye numbers on some lakes did drop, raising public concern. In 1999, using additional funding from the state legislature, we began the Accelerated Walleye Program. Over the past two years, local fisheries managers have carried out the program to:

increase acreage for natural ponds used to produce fingerlings by roughly 5,000 acres
increase by 23 percent (88,000 lbs. In 1999 to 108,500 lbs. In 2000) the pounds of fingerlings produced from state rearing ponds, despite poor rearing conditions caused by mild winters
increase walleye fingerling stocking quotas on 90 lakes
increase walleye population abundance goals on 58 lakes
solicit public input on 141 lake management plans
purchase walleyes from commercial growers to supplement our production.
Issue: We are committed to finding lakes that will benefit from increased stocking and to stock more walleyes there. However, years of evaluations and research have proven that increased stocking won't improve fishing on every lake. That's why a main component of the accelerated program is to evaluate the stocking we do.

Fisheries managers will continue to review historical lake survey information and meet with local anglers to determine which lakes have the best potential to produce more walleyes. And fisheries managers will evaluate how well increased stocking works on those lakes to see if its worth continuing to stock at higher levels

[crankineyes_1]

rockhardinmn -

I was saying that I was glad to be able to have a discussion when only the topics were argued, not attacking the person. I am not offended in any way.

Dave B -

Ok, couple things i disagree with... 95% of fisherman catch 2 or fewer??? I am not saying the DNR didn't really say that, but I don't believe it. Besides, they tend to lump all fisherman into their studies. Ex. your post says 27 million angler days. I gaurantee you that this is a total number, not specific to walleyes. There are many other species that a large portion of fisherman target. We would be ignorant to believe that everyone out there is fishing walleye.

Crappie Jigga made my point on the other subject I was going to cover. The natural reproduction (in SD where I know the facts, not sure on MN) is very very poor. In fact, the results are listed out on their HSOforum for many lakes. Very few of them have satisfactory natural reproduction. They are restocked vigorously to keep up with anglers. Taking a spawing female will have less effect than taking 6 fish out of a lake in my opinion. (I still restrain from doing so).

Take a minute and check out the net/creel results for some of your favorite waters, I really think you will be surprised at the information. It also will give you a great resource for helping predict good waters to fish and help eliminate others.

[This message has been edited by crankineyes_1 (edited 04-09-2004).]

[This message has been edited by crankineyes_1 (edited 04-09-2004).]

[Dave B]

You can argue that people lie on creel surveys if you want, but I would say that most probably boast. They cant lie when the DNR sees an empty livewell.

If you include all the novice shore fisherman, people that rent boats w/ out electronics or any skills, casual fisherman, I would be surprised if it was any LESS than 95%. Put 2 guys in a boat for 6 hours and you think that 10% or more take home 3 or more walleye? Sit at a landing somewhere and ask them.

Now it might be only 30% of the people here that take enough of an interest to go to a HSOforum to gather info before hitting the water, but not the average fisherman (of which we have over 1 million in MN). There are maybe 10,000 MN users online tops? That is 1% of the fishermen in the state.

[honker23]

There has been a lot of interesting things said here....many numbers, but it's the numbers we are debating, so that's good.

Changing it to 4 in my opinion will not affect much more than making people aware of this issue, which would be good.

I agree many people fish without ever catching 6 eyes a day. The exceptional fisherman that do are for the most part responsible anglers and release many they catch. The natural reproduction issue is also important. I've been told by CO that most if not all lakes south of mille lacs have 0 natural rerpoduction, so the only reason to release a female vs male would be at a chance of catching her again.

All in all I think each lake should be managed separately, but we often don't have the resources for this, so drop it to 3or4.
By the way I am impressed if jparucci can eat 3 16-18 walleyes himself, I can't hold a candle to you!

[walleyehawk]

How about this for a solution.

Those that think the limit should be four, keep four. Those that favor six, keep six. Since so many appear to favor four, they will be making an impact on the fishery

I think alot of people throw back a number of fish. I know I try to.

But I agree with the folks that say rarely do they hit their limit. And since hitting the limit is rare, the real effect of the change would be minimal.

The only time a limit is an issue for me is weekend trip. But I like the option of bringing home siz if I want to.

[crappie jigga]

crankineyes1

I know you might find this hard to believe but, in MN it isn't uncommon to go out and NOT catch a thing in an entire day of fishing... I realize it sounds like hogwash but, indeed it is true....

I don't expect you SD folk too understand what were talking about over here in MN because, you live in SD and you can close your eyes, point to a lake on a the map, go there and catch fish into the double digits...

Wonder why that is????
Oh yah, that's right!!! SD has a 4 fish limit and slots on their fish!!!!! (Too protect them of course)

There is always that excuse, that there's not near the fishing presure in SD, well I have to disagree on that one too, everytime I fish in SD, the lakes are swamped with people from MN and SD, and YET! everytime I fish there, I catch more fish in 1 day than I would catch in a week of fishing in MN...

I have an idea!!
Anyone that disagrees with the lowering of limits and slots on fish... Take a trip to SD and do some fishing on just about any body of water...
Check out the presure it recieves, and remember all the fish you catch, than come back to this forum and tell us what ya think... There just might be a change of heart on this topic....

If you see it first hand, then you'll be able to see the potential that MN and all of her lakes have to offer, but just can't muster the way things are currently managed...

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

[can it be luck?]

Dave B,....Good stuff.
I dont care what the targeted species is, In Minnesota, 27 million angler days.......That's a heck of a lot of people and fishing!!

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

[This message has been edited by can it be luck? (edited 04-09-2004).]

[snaggletooth]

To all of you that say you are giving fish away to people I think that is wonderful-- BUT did you check if they have a license?? If they don't then they are illegal. Can't have any walleyes in the freezer without a license. So if you are catching your limit and then giving them away-Stop. Catch 2 less and use the 4 for your own nourishment. Not to be a bad guy but it is the truth. Or another solution to this is have a fish fry for people you have been giving the fish to. Then they can still enjoy the fresh fish and you can enjoy the happiness you provided them. Just a thought.

[snaggletooth]

I don't understand all this talk of a slot. Slots for lots of photo ops. I don't understand. I understand that you protect little fish and big fish and can take only the "right" size fish. But-the reason most people fish is to catch a fish or lots of them. I don't care if they are little or big-just as long as I catch some. I don't keep a walleye if it is over 24" and under 14" but if I do happen to get one and it is gill hooked and bleeding then what. Throw it back for the real commercial fisherman in this state, the Pelicans and Cormorants, so they can have a free meal. I don't think so. A big fish may be terrible to eat-and a little fish may have hardly any meat on it but it is still a meal in a humans stomach rather than a slimy birds.