Limits

[TBone1]

This may have been brought up in the past on this board, but I think MNDNR should seriosly consider tighter limits and slot limits on all MN lakes. With the ever increasing preasure on our resources this should be on everyones mind. There is no need to keep 6 walleyes, that is enough to feed the whole freaking neighborhood. I know that some people dont get limits everytime out and some people are just out for the sport but I also know some people who , when they get on fish they will fish the dump out of them day after day. I believe this should be lake specific, as we are doing with Mille lacs ,Winni and a few others. What are your thoughts?

[Jason Boser]

I say keep limits the same and use the money they get from license and stuff to keep stocking the lakes with fish. keep em full

Jason

[musky hunter]

As a general rule we need more slots. Perhaps we should have a universal slot everywhere but certain waters would deviate to meet local conditions. But nowhere in my opinion does anyneed to keep 11" walleyes (worse than the cormorants) or put 23" walleyes in the pan.

[Rost]

I've seen this post a few times before and cannot say enough how rediculous a 6 walleye limit is! Sorry, I don't want to offend anyone, but it's true! I lived in MN catching walleyes for my first 23 years. I now reside in SD and clearly see the light. I don't understand how the MN DNR can keep it legal for a guy to come home with six 23 inch fish either

[james_walleye]

My sentiments exactly Musky, its a yearly occurance on the lake i open with too see people putting 11" eyes up and down their stringers.

By the way where do you hunt muskies at? Winnie at all by chance? Im just getting into muskie hunting and we spend a week up there every year and im always open too tips.

[musky hunter]

Hey James, truth of the matter is, I'm a better walleye hunter than a musky hunter. I have only fished Cut Foot Sioux once for muskies and only caught a few smaller pike. Most of my muskies come out of the St. Louis River. The biggest came in Lake Superior off the pier, the only Lake Superior muskie I ever heard anyone catching.

[LocalGuide]

I say we should of made it a possession of 5 a few years ago and now change it to a possession of 4. I think 4 is where its at. That is plenty of walleyes for one person and even a family of 4.

A slot wouldnt be bad, but a state specific slot would mess up some lakes Im guessing. For slots you would have to go one lake at a time with different slots on different lakes.

[james_walleye]

Ok im going too pose a question for you all. A statewide slot, 20-28" fish must go back. Plenty of room too keep fish, not too restrictive, but it does protect the females for the most part. ( i would like too see a tighter one yet but i know it probably wouldnt go over well statewide.) So why wouldnt a 20-28" be just fine statewide? It surely wouldnt hurt any fishery in the state would it? It might not help some lakes like it might help others, might not help some lakes at all even. But it would surely help some lakes that could use it right now. Someone shouldnt have a problem lettting some 20"+ eyes go because on 99% of the lakes in MN if you are getting 20+" eyes you are getting some 15", 17", 18" eyes too keep right?? So you go home with 3 nice 15" eyes one day and not 4 because you had too throw that 23" fish back, that shouldnt be a problem. I just cant for the life of me find a reason too not put a somewhat tighter restriction on statewide rather than 1 over 24". My arguement is a 20-28" slot would not harm any lake in this state, it can only help a lake. What fisherperson in their right mind would be opposed too something that would most likely make their favorite walleye lake even better?!!

[beer batter]

I'm with Jason Boser on this. The government is streched enough on telling everyone what they can or can not do. Keep it as is and leave the power to the people. Most people I know don't keep walleyes over 24 inches anyways.

Reason I pass on Mille Lacs and other slot lakes is just for that reason. I don't want to worry about getting fined if my measurement was off because the fish was flopping around while I measured it.

[gunflint]

Here we go again. First of all let me say that I have never been accused of being in my right mind.

It's my belief that the biologists at the DNR know what they're doing better than the laymen do. At least in most cases. I wonder what kind of impact a large (out of proportion) population of walleyes in the 20 to 28 inch range would have on the other fish species in a given lake. Particularly if the large population of bigger preditors (walleyes) was influenced by man as opposed to nature.

I peronally don't keep many fish over 20 inches and I don't know many who do. But I'll go along with what the professional biologists believe is the best policy.

[musky hunter]

Hey Beer Batter sounds to me like you'd like to have it all ways, big fish and lots of them for everyone too. Problem is, there is only so much to go around. So either we collectively agree to reasonable restrictions or become satisfied with small fish. How we do that is up for debate. But I'm convinced we have the capability to deplete our fishing resources fast. Just look at Rainy Lake, fishermen complain of the difficulty of catching fish small enough to be in the slot. Yet not too many years ago you couldn't get an 'eye over 14". I submit the lesser of the two evils is the slot, because you can actually CATCH a big fish in Rainy, even if you have to throw it back. So we have to name our poison, and if slots are the reason I can catch fish even if I have to release them, that's what I'll vote for every time. And the evidence is stacking up overwhelmingly that the slots work.

[MRWALLEYE2005]

I too think there should be a minimum of 12 inches for walleyes and 1 over 20 inches. There should also be lengths for panfish so they dont hurt a lake when there biting. Id like to see 9 inches for the smallest sunfish or crappie, anything smaller than that is too small to keep anyways.

[TBone1]

The way I'm thinking is lake specific slots but typically nothing less than 14" and maybe one over 20" and a max. of a 4 fish limit but like I said it would be lake specific. There is no need to fry up a bunch of Walleye over the 20" mark. Also the picture in the Star Trib today of the Walleyes caught near Hack. in the 1960s is the reason we need some tighter regs.Those days for the most part are long gone and it is sad to see. Good luck to everyone this weekend T

[Fish'n guy]

I like the 6 fish limit on walleyes!!!! The DNR stocks the lakes according to the fishing pressure or the population of walleyes in the lake. Just don't keep those 12" and smaller fish.

GOOD FISHIN!!!!!!!!!

[Blackduck]

4 fish day/possesion, keep 14"-19", 19"+ to 30" go back in the water. Keep 1 over 30" if you want to mount that trophy. In my opinion a walleye isn't a trophy until it hits 30". That's just one man's opinion.

[MRWALLEYE2005]

Right on Fish n guy. 6 fish limit of walleyes should stay, the surrounding states have a 4 or 5 fish limit but this is the state known for walleye. I think a reason they dont have a statewide minimum on those species could be to get the younger kids to catch there first fish and they want to keep every fish and try to get them involved with fishing and pay the dnr money for licenses in the future. I think most of the lakes are in good shape, the dnr stocks accordingly and if people keep the little ones there will still be plenty in the lake to catch.

[koWALLEYEski]

no doubt about it. The 6 fish limit is perfect for minnesota. Like someone else posted the dnr stocks the lakes with more than enough walleyes for everyone to catch years to come. All we need to do now is to get rid of the stinking cormronts. They seem to break the 6 fish limit.

[james_walleye]

Unfortunately you just cant leave "power too the people". Its the reason we have a 6 fish limit and 1 over 24" right now. Having a good number of fish over 20" doesnt make anything disproportoinate. Their SHOULD be a good number of fish over 20", thats the problem, most lakes their isnt when their should be.

[Guest]

I dont understand why people keep the 12-14 eyes.Throw the smaller ones back and then you will have plenty of 16-20 eaters and a few nicer ones,just like panfish,throw back the bigger and the small ones and eat a few in the middle.People cannot police themselves so the DNR has to try and do it for you.If everyone would keep a meal,and throw the rest back we wouldnt have any problems with limit issues.Police yourself.

[island guy]

A hot button issue if there ever was one. I don't think I've ever heard of a really good answer. Too many variables. Two things I do agree with. We don't need a 6 fish limit. Another is that we need to police ourselves. Very small fish and larger fish should just go back in the water. I've seen a big change in anglers over the years. I think most of us do the responsible thing as we have become educated to this fragile resourse.

For myself, I rarely keep a walleye. I love fishing for em but feel there are tastier fish to eat. I usually have my ultralite along and nab enough bluegills for a meal if I'm hungry for fish. For me, bluegills are the very best fish to eat. If I'm on a lake with few gills, then I'll take home a meal of walleye. That's just me. I certainly have no problem with keeping walleyes for a meal if that is what a person wants.

[eyepatrol]

I'll just put my 2-cents in and leave it at that.

First, I've got no problem with either the 4 walleye limit or the 6 walleye limit. Why? Because usually I don't catch that many in a day anyway! But seriously, I could live with a 4 fish limit, wouldn't bother me a bit.

Secondly, I for one am a true believer in slots. I've seen it work, and where it worked is, from my experience, Northwest Bay of Rainy Lake. We've fished that lake for years and had such a hard time catching walleyes. If we got 2 in a day, wow, that was a good day. After they put the slot limits into place, what an explosion of fish! I mean, we're catching fish from 14" up to (and sometimes mostly) 25" and a couple 29"er's. Now days, we go out and catch 30-50 walleyes a day just having fun. One year my boat landed nearly 400 walleyes in one week. And, it only took about 4 years for the population explosion to occur. Now, one thing I DON'T AGREE with on this part of Rainy is the 1 fish per person per day limit. I think it could be 2 or even 3, but I wouldn't go over three. 2 fish per person per day is probably great plenty.

So, with that being said, I'd be in favor of a slot, be it lake specific or statewide, wouldn't matter to me. I only keep the 14" - 18" fish anyways. And so, in my own, non-biological minded opinion, I'd put a slot such that you can keep 'em from 14" - 18" with one 28" or larger. 4 fish or 6, again, that doesn't matter to me.

[island guy]

Basscatcher

Good info. Rainy is a lake where slots have worked. I've got a friend with a cabin on the lake and up till recently he would go elsewhere to fish. Slots worked on rainy. He now has great fishing.

I still see too many posts thinking DNR stocking is the solution and as long as they keep it up we'll have plenty of fish. NOT true! While stocking is a very important part of the equation, it is not the answer. My family lives on a lake with little natural reproduction. It's stocked every other year. A few years ago, word got out that the lake was hot. For two months night slip bobber fishing was the thing. There would be a dozen or so boats out each night with 2-4 people per boat each catching limits of 5lb. fish and larger. In two months time, you could rarely catch a fish. It's still that way. FISHED OUT!!! Too many people believe there is a infinite number of fish in a lake. Just not true. It is a fragile resourse.

Keep fish for supper. No problem. But use your head. The smaller lakes in my neck of the woods will not survive night after night of pulling limits out.

[TBone1]

The problem with keeping the 12" walleye is that I believe these smaller fish are eating machines and are more vulnerable, heck you can get them to bite on a booger . And no one can convince me that they need to keep 6 walleye. Even 6 at 14" you have more than enough to eat. and the idea that the DNR stocks more than enough is one thing but to have a true quality fishery with a good chance for a trophy I believe there has to slots and smaller bag limits.

[bracket]

Quote:

---

I also know some people who , when they get on fish they will fish the

dump

out of them day after day.

---

This is common to the practice of guiding. Find active fish one day and go back two times a day for days or until the pattern changes. Pound the sh!t out of them day after day after day. I know that people who do not guide do the same. It just bugs me when I talk to others that have hired a guide and then spoke about the numbers and size of fish they kept.

I would like to see a 4 fish limit and a MUCH higher fee for a guiding license. This buy a 20 dollar license and then rape the resource all summer long has to stop. I would like to see a 1,000 fee for guides and that money going back to the resource. I know many guides who charge 400/day and guide 7 days a week. This equals out to about 2800/week or 10000/month minus gas, bait and wear and tear. So giving them the benefit of the doubt, they clear about 6-7000/month! A 1000 license fee would be a drop in the bucket!

Come on DNR, start putting some pressure on those that take advantage of the current system.

[EYEHUNTER10]

Why the bickering I'm cleaning walleyes right now no shortages on fish just the time to fish them. People are too buzy these days to make it out during the peaks and miss out on most of the fish, and the weekend warriors destroy the fishing for each other in general throw in a few water skiers wet jets and speedboats, chances are most of the fish will stay in the lakes again this year too I'm not worried at all. The big lakes like waska or milleaccs, ottertail are the ones that have day in and day out traffic and deserve a slot. Oh yeah don't forget the cold fronts, mother nature protects her young any way she can.