2006 Walleye REGS debate

[ddsbyday]

I would like to know which law maker brought forth this ridiculous legislation. I have never called a legislator before but when I find out who it is I will. I will call them. We all need to call them. Call them to the carpet.Expose their name. I would venture to guess they will be a consultant for a casino when they are finally thrown out of office. Everyone of you young guys that think more regulations from the gov. is a good thing will be trying to explain to your grandkids that at one time not long ago a person could swim and even fish in the lake. They are now trying to tax you to even look at one from your house. Believe me sportsman are just that. Crooks,poachers,thieves will not care what you write in your little rule book. One last rant. WHERE do you think those walleyes in the store come from????

[Rost]

Actually, most "walleye" you get at the store or restaurant is ocean perch. It tastes just like a fresh water walleye.

[john.wells]

Quote:

---

Actually, most "walleye" you get at the store or restaurant is ocean perch. It tastes just like a fresh water walleye.

---

I disagree- there was a big deal about labeling with fish about a year ago-people were marketing zander as being walleye and got a healthy reprimand. From what I know, there are still big commercial netting operations in Canada and elsewhere for walleye, as well as fish farms supplying the markets.

[First Ice-Mike]

Seems to me its us "young guys" and some older guys for that matter that are helping preserve our fishing for future generations by supporting and practicing a new age of fishing - Some people just need to catch up with the times and realize its not the 70's anymore. You can't just go out and keep fish without any regard to size or numbers anymore. People are acting like there is a slot from 17-30 inches being implemented. If the older generation would have figured this out back in the hay day maybe our fishing would be better today. We're taking steps to insure successful fishing for the next generation. Too bad those steps weren't taken to insure our fishing by the generation before us. There are some "older guys" that have stepped up and helped lead this new way of fishing and they should be commended and people will hopefully continue to take their lead. I still don't understand why people think they need to keep more than one fish over 20" - thats a pretty good sized walleye. I'll keep eating my 16-18 inchers and throw the bigger ones back - works fine for me (and most people.)

FI

[gunflint]

Whoa there youngun,

This has nothing to do with preserving the walleye fishery for future generations, This has to do with wide sweeping laws that are needed on some lakes but not needed on all. According to my journal I fished over 130 times last season and kept 6 walleyes. So I would be carefull about accusing those of us who are against a "one law fits all" possition of being fish hogs.

It just might be that we are just as concerned with the future of walleye fishing as you are but don't agree with the way to go about it.

The law now says that you can keep one fish over 20 inches and that's it. I have to accept that. No one asked for any feed back on the idea, nor did they seek scientific data. Do you think we will ever get it back to what it was? Even if the evidence proves that it would be allright. Not in this day and age of regulating everything to death.

Here's what I see happening at least to me. This fall when I start fishing deep, a much higher percentage of fish won't survive the release. (These are the fish that I keep by the way)These fish are generally larger fish. Unless I quit fishing after 1 fish there will be nice walleyes in the 20 to 25 inch range that I'll have to (by law) leave floating on the water and keep tryin for a 19 incher or less. The thought of this turns my stomach.

One idea might be, not to fish after turn over. And that my friend is the long term goal of what's behind more and more restrictions. So you might say that I don't care about the future of walleye fishing. I say that I can see the begining of the end of it.

[Rost]

You may be right John, perhaps it has changed. My uncle, who is a chef for a restaurant told me this a few years back.

I certainly did not want to offend anyone with my view on this matter. And what you read was simply MY opinion. I can respect the fact that others will look at things differently. That is why we live in US! We are free to express how we feel publically on these forums.

That's the beauty of FM

[Stenzel]

If throwing back 20+ inch walleyes is going to save the future I would be for it but your kidding yourself if you think that.

We all know that fishing today isn't like it use to be. Do you really think if we threw back 20 years ago we would have more today? Let's call it for what it really is, the pressure on lakes is greater than ever and will continue to grow. This is the DNR's knee jerk reaction again to keep people interested and the money flowing. In 10 years when the numbers are down again because this didn't work they'll come up with another gimmick. I bet it's a safe harvest limit based on a magic formula that no one will see or understand and the season will close early when the number is hit. Look for Mille Lacs type regs state wide.

For once I would like to see some scientific proof that this will work. I won't hold my breath because in most lakes it won't. Look at your favorite lake on the DNR lake finder. Look at a majority of the lakes for that matter that have walleyes stocked in them. Read it closely... MOST say little to no Natural Reproduction. So what good does it to throw back a female fish of any size? If everyone stopped fishing and the DNR stopped stocking for 30 years, how many lakes would have walleyes in them?? NOT MANY

I didn't hear to many complaints about the way it was, WHY DID we change??

[kunk]

If you go into the DNR HSOforum, the first thing they list in their description of the walleye are the thick fillets. I fish for all kinds of species. When I want to fish for sport, I go for bass, northerns, or muskies. When I want a fish meal, I fish for walleye or panfish. While I agree that the limits and slots on walleye are necessary, when they get so strict that the walleye becomes only a sport fish, I won't be contributing to the economy of northern Minnesota anymore. I can catch nice bass and northerns much closer to home.

[james_walleye]

Fishing today isnt what it was 20 years ago? Your right in most cases. But why dont you go fish a lake like Winnie which has had regs in place for only about 6 years. I fished it before and i've fished it after and that lake is about as good right now as it has ever been for numbers and size. This could be the case on many lakes. Throwing back 20+" walleyes will NEVER hurt a lake, it can only help a lake. Back too fishing not being what it was 20 years ago, what does everyone think the fishing will be like in 20 more years if regulations dont change? Technology gets better, more people catching more fish. The fishing gets nothing but worse without regulations. What do you all propose too be done instead of tighter regulations too just preserve what we have, much less try too make it better. Our fishing taking a constant downfall but we arent suppose too implement anything too curb the downfall. Are the lakes going too magically just get better?? For every lake that doesnt need stricter regs theres more than 1 that does need them too just preserve what we have, not just make it better. Yeah the gem of a lake that sits in the gunflint trail that sees virtually no pressure probably doesnt need tighter regs. But what about the southern or central MN 1,200 acre lake that has natural reproduction and has 250 boats on opening weekend and over 50 boats on it every saturday and sunday all summer. Should these lakes not have regs too protect them because theres a bunch of lakes up north around Leech and Winnie and Vermillion that dont get any pressure on them that probably dont need tighter regs? Basically what it comes down too is there are lakes in the state that wont benefit from tighter regs, but also wont be harmed by them. There are alot of lakes in this state that would benefit greatly from tighter regs and without them are going too continue going downhill over time. This idea alot of people have of an outing somewhere only being a successful if you bring a livewell of fish home has got too change. Why isnt it just as much of a success too keep a couple 16" fish while releasing that 23" fish as it is if you keep the 23" fish. Im surely not saying everything has too go back, just the right fish going back.

Maybe i should just go become a bass fisherman, they got it right. The bass fishing in MN is as good as ever because people actually put some fish back knowing the good they are doing instead of keeping them all like they used too.

[ddsbyday]

I'm sorry but bass just do not taste good to me. However I do not like pinapple either. The lake I fish has very little natural production. Everything is there but rock and gravel for spawning. If the dnr wanted to save money and increase the creal rate they would allow private parties to create a spawning area. That to me would mgmt. I would be willing to bet there are other lakes like this around.

[ASMOLEY]

Maybe the DNR should just stop stocking thoses lakes with little or no natural reproduction.

[Team Otter]

Things being mentioned such as natural reproduction, stocking, selective harvesting, more people, better technology or anything of the like (the list goes on and on) all matter but any time you're releasing fish over 20", you're not hurting anything, you're only helping if not preserving a situation. I am completely in favor of the new regulation and I would also support a reduction in the walleye daily limit in MN from 6 fish to 4 fish.

[ccarlson]

ddsbyday,

Your idea is a good thought but walleye will only use existing spawning areas.

It is possible to "improve" existing spawning areas by dumping rock but you can dump all the rock or gravel you want in new spot and they simply won't ever use it for spawning.

Many existing spawning rock piles fill with sand due to shoreline erosion. Once the cracks and crevices of the rocks fill with sand, the walleye will still lay eggs in the rocks but the eggs suffocate and do not hatch successfully.

Asmoly,

Most walleye lakes are stocked so that would be quite a cut back in the number of walleye fishing opportunities that you would be suggesting. When you hear statistic that say "most" walleye caught are the result of natural reproduction and not stocked, the statistics are skewed because those natural fish they are referring to are coming from the big walleye factory lakes such as Mille Lacs, Rainy, Lake of the Woods, etc that do have natural reproduction. Because of the number of anglers that utilize these lakes that have such shear size, most fish are counted in creel surveys come from these lakes therefore producing the statistic.

I'm not saying every lake should be stocked because they shouldn't. But, stocking is an important factor in maintaining walleye fishing opportunities across Minnesota.

ccarlson

[DEADhead]

Quote:

---

Most walleye lakes are stocked so that would be quite a cut back in the number of walleye fishing opportunities that you would be suggesting. When you hear statistic that say "most" walleye caught are the result of natural reproduction and not stocked, the statistics are skewed because those natural fish they are referring to are coming from the big walleye factory lakes such as Mille Lacs, Rainy, Lake of the Woods, etc that do have natural reproduction. Because of the number of anglers that utilize these lakes that have such shear size, most fish are counted in creel surveys come from these lakes therefore producing the statistic.

I'm not saying every lake should be stocked because they shouldn't. But, stocking is an important factor in maintaining walleye fishing opportunities across Minnesota.

---

I'd like to know where you are getting this info from?

A lot of posts on here seem to rag on the DNR for changing regs based on a "gut feeling", but hardly any of the ressponses posted here regarding this topic have had any scientific basis whatsoever. Many of the complaints on the issues here against the DNR are unfounded; i.e. many of the fisheries management issues that people are unsatisfied with are not part of the Fisheries Management plan in place at the DNR. In case anyone was wondering, roughly 900 of our state's lakes are stocked with walleyes. Most of them are in Southern MN, and are lakes with little or no natural reproduction. The harvest of 'stocked' walleyes ranges from 5-15% of the total annual state harvest of 3.5 million walleyes. Fishing is not 'worse' than it was 20 years ago, there is just more pressure on lakes, and a higher concentration of anglers and high tech equipment. Population studies on walleyes over the years have not indicated a decrease in populations. Anyone who was at the Fishing Roundtable in St. Cloud last month and saw Pete Jacobson's presentation on walleye stocking would agree with these arguments. Of course, the critics, e.g. Sternberg, et. al., did not like seeing the hard data, and still disagreed with the findings, and I guess that will always be the case.

Good luck fishing and tight lines!

[ccarlson]

DEADhead,

First of all I agree with you that the DNR often times takes a bad rap for things, many of which are just plain made up or spread through uninformed rumor mills in the general public. Sure there are things we or they could do better but it's easy to judge since we don't actually do the job.

I'm not not real sure where your dispute of my statement lies but I'll try to clarify my point on where I get the take on numbers. As the co-founder of the Brainerd Lakes Area Chapter of the MN Walleye Alliance, our chapter has learned that we must work together with the DNR in a positive way. The Brainerd DNR office would back this statement. I have worked for about 7 years with the DNR on ways we can improve walleye fishing in our area. I have learned a lot from them and I hear a lot of people with ideas that seem good but aren't feasable after you see how things really work (like the spawning area idea).

My basis for the statements about skewed statistics is not something skewed by the DNR, it is skewed in how we, as anglers in MN, interpret the data. We hear the DNR say that "most walleye harvested in MN are the result of natural reproduction, not stocking" (paraphrasing a statement I have heard many times by the DNR which I don't dispute). Many anglers take that to mean that stocking does not work and that perhaps we shouldn't waste money on stocking.

What we need to realize is that there are X number of lakes managed as walleye fishing lakes in Minnesota. Many of the highest yeilding walleye lakes as a total for MN are large, naturally reproducing walleye lakes such as Mille Lacs etc. According to the DNR, these lakes with naturally reproduced fish produce the MAJORITY of WALLEYE harvested in MN which they should since they are large and receive the most angler attention. Still, out of the total NUMBER of LAKES managed for walleye, the majority of them are managed through the use of fry, fingerling or fryling stocking. Take these lakes out of the walleye fishing world in Minnesota and you would be left with a handfull of good walleye lakes that were always good walleye lakes without stocking (large wind swept lakes), a few more lakes that would maintain a smaller number of walleye (these are the lakes such as Gull or Pelican which have some natural reproduction but not significant enough to produce good fishing opportunities) and then you would have the lakes that the walleye fishing opportunities would dissapear from what had been an established walleye fishery although through means of stocking.

I think if this happened you would see increased angling pressure on the natural lakes and a decline in the quality that they could sustain as a result.

Stocking is not a cure all to the walleye world in MN but it does produce good quality fishing on many lakes and helps promote the sport, tourism and the economy, and helps to distribute the angling pressure across the board.

Of course walleye stocking needs to be used with good biological sense, not strictly political power. Many good small crappie lakes, for example, may not do well with walleye stocking and the crappie fishing may suffer if we try to make it a walleye lake. Of course most of us would like to see good diverse fishing for all species.

I hope that clarified my statement. If not, please let me know.

ccarlson

[DEADhead]

Quote:

---

Sure there are things we or they could do better but it's easy to judge since we don't actually do the job.

---

Actually, I do "do the job"...

Quote:

---

I'm not not real sure where your dispute of my statement lies but I'll try to clarify my point on where I get the take on numbers.

---

My comments were more based on some of the other arguements made on this post, not specifically yours. I agree with a lot of what you were saying; I was just wondering how you came to that conclusion. Seeing as how you're the co-founder of the Brainerd Lakes Area Chapter of the MN Walleye Alliance, that explains it all.

So I assume you work with Tim? Is the Walleye Alliance ever involved in any habitat projects?

[Stenzel]

DEADhead, what's your postion on the 1 over 20 rule state wide? Do you think it will make that big of a difference or is this another perception thing the DNR is trying to do? I've argued the fact before, why can't the DNR release a statement on this issue explaining why they are doing it? Where is the data supporting this change? Is this another Sternberg deal that you know of?

[james_walleye]

The 1 over 20" isnt going too have a huge affect. I think its all in weening us into a stricter statewide slot. I think seeing how successful the slots have been on lakes like Winnie and Rainy, how can you not wonder about how it will help hundreds or thousands of other lakes in this state. If you fished these lakes before the slot and now after and seen the quality of fishing go through the roof theres no way you cant be in favor of seeing more of this type of regulation. The DNR isnt going too come from 1 over 24" too a statewide slot of 17-26" walleyes all go back. But its coming at some point in the future, slowly but surely.

[DEADhead]

Quote:

---

what's your postion on the 1 over 20 rule state wide?

---

to be honest with you, I'm a trout man, so walleye regs aren't as important to me as it is to some of you. I'm used to catch and release and don't keep much fish so slot limits and one over rules don't mean much to me.

But on a professional level, I don't think it can hurt the resource. I think it is naive to say that not harvesting fish over 20" won't have an effect; the one walleye over 20" per day will help reduce overharvest. I also would reccommend a 4 fish bag limit as well.

Personally, if I decide I want to fish for walleye, and then keep fish, I probably won't be keeping much over the 18" range, just because the smaller fish taste better, and have a smaller accumulation of mercury.

As far as why the regulation was made, I don't know. The Policy section of Fisheries deals with most of the rule changes. The Area Managers give their fish management reccomendations to the Regional Manager, and it moves on from there. Apparently this rule change was institued by the legislature, and who knows how they came up to the conclusion. My guess is that some of the walleye groups (or Sternberg) lobbied the legislature and influenced the rule change.

I think with any regulation change you are going to see people up in arms. Time will have to tell whether or not this will be successful.

[Mark Christianson]

Thank you for your professional input DEADhead!

[ddsbyday]

Thank you for the reply. When the dnr says little or no natural reproduction I am hoping that it is at least little. The lake I fish is an oligotrophic with several areas of current. I realise that the eggs would get choked out because of sediment but I think more because of bottom content than shoreline erosion. The majority of the shoreline is steep banked and the lake is narrow. The dnr just started stocking again so walleyes are starting to be catchable. The problem I have with the 1 over 20 rule is that after 20 years of fishing this lake I can see the rare occation when I hit the pattern and actually catch a couple of 21s. I enjoy fishing this lake even though it is not generally productive(which explains the low pressure). I refuse to play bumperboats so I can catch and release 20 fish in a day. I do understand that each lake has its own ecosystem. This particular lake could be helped with enhancing existing spawning areas. Since there are some dnr people monitoring this post,could you tell me where I would go to present my suggestion.

[james_walleye]

No doubt the 1 over 20" cant hurt anything. The reason i dont think it will be a huge factor is that in most cases you have 2 or 3 guys in a boat and if they decide too keep walleyes over 20" they can keep 2 or 3 anyway, so the damage is still done.

[DEADhead]

Quote:

---

could you tell me where I would go to present my suggestion.

---

first you need to say where the lake is, then I could give you the Area Supervisor's number and you could start there. I will say this though, spawning reefs are on their way out; by saying that I mean, the DNR has gotten away from dumping stuff in lakes in the recent past . You mainly see Lake Associations paying a contractor to do the work (with DNR approval of course!).

As an aside, you will probably likely see the one over rule for walleyes exist for some time, due to the fact of the 'once in a lifetime' catch potential for the weekend angler. Also, while fish management had been going to a lake by lake basis for fish management, hints recently from upper management had been suggesting the more streamlined approach, hence the blanket regulation for walleyes in 2006. There also had been buzz about too many regulations, and the regulation book being too long and too confusing, hence the compacted reg book version for 2006.

[Moses2531]

I would also be in favor of reducing the limit from 6 to 4 walleyes... There are other ways to eat these days

[james_walleye]

I would also moses, 4 eyes is still plenty.