4 Fish Limit Statewide (except Red)

[swedishpimple]

Who is in favor of a 4 walleye limit statewide. It seems to be working in Ontario both on Lac Suel and LOW. The fishing on LOW seems way better now. Fewer fish plus slots really do seem to work.

What do you think?

[fiskyknut]

I don't think the 4 fish bit on the LOTW has been in place long enough for any real discovery.

Fishing on the LOTW way better now? As compared to when? The early 80's? Last summer was fantastic and surely the new 4 fish reg had nothing to do with it as it's so new. You ask me and I'd have to say the fishing has been great here since the mid ninties. Ebbs and flows thru the years with some better than others. I'd say the new slot here more so than the 4 fish rule is whats gonna see the lake get even better.....For BIG fish that is anyhows.

[gunflint]

I would like it left up to the DNR, it's what they get paid for. I don't like the idea of amateurs (including myself) attempting feel good legislation. That could lead to things like banning lead, allowing owners of lakeshore property to destroy shore habitat,etc.

[riverrat56]

I'd be for it, 4 walleyes is deffinatly enough for a meal for 2 people, well unless they just spent the whole day catching said walleyes and forgot a sandwich.....

I think it would raise angler satisfaction as well, saying you caught a limit 2 fish sooner, since with alot of anglers limits are what its all about.

If you want to take home more fish bring someone else with. Maybe keep the possession limit at 6 but daily at 3 or 4? I guess all it could do is be positive for the fisherys.

Limits aren't all that common for most anglers, especially not when the bite is tough, but when a lake, especially a small lake gets hot and everyone flocks there. For that bite, when limits are the norm, your looking at a 1/3 less fish leaving the lake.

I'd be for it though, also at the same time I will keep what the law allows me to keep, I feel no guilt harvesting 6 walleyes when I am able to.

[Moses2531]

All for the 4 fish limit statewide... The DNR gets paid for it and I am an amatuer, but no ones ever given me a negative to reducing the limits... I really hope this gets changed someday!

[solbes]

I guess I disagree with the one size fits all approach. I think some of the larger lakes can handle the pressure of 6 walleyes per day, but a lot of the smaller lakes can't. I've seen a boat with 4 guys pull 24 walleyes out of a small lake. This is good for the freezer, but bad for the lake if it's a regular occurrence.

Fresh fish taste so much better in my mind, so I usually keep only what I need for one meal anyway (which isn't very often). Everyone has a different view on this though and I can still respect the guys who do it differently.

[hanson]

Quote:

---

I think some of the larger lakes can handle the pressure of 6 walleyes per day, but a lot of the smaller lakes can't.

---

As odd as it sounds, can the larger lakes handle the 6 walleyes a day?? Mille Lacs is down to 4 with an ever moving slot limit. Upper Red is at 2 but for other reasons. These large, walleye factory lakes are the ones that receive a ton of fishing pressure, both open water and more and more ice fishing pressure. These are also the lakes folks don't feel bad for keeping a limit of fish out of. There is a different mindset when an angler heads to a large destination lake, and that is taking what they can home. Just food for thought.

[BobT]

I can't help but think about when I go to Canada. The fishing pressure on the lakes I frequent is virtually non-existant by comparison to around here and the catch limit is lower.

When I fish up there I can throw just about anything at them and get results, good results. It is not uncommon to boat well over 100 walleyes a day ranging in size from 12" - 29" and these are fat and heavy, not the skinny runts we have here.

Naturally the lake structures are different and so the biology is probably different but just about anywhere I go I can see evidence of the fishing of days gone by. Lake Osakis had a reputation for large walleyes in large quantities at one time. What has your luck been like lately? I can see photos of some of those catches and it puts today's results to shame.

Yes, I believe lower catch limits are beneficial in most situations.

Bob

[fishin58]

I Believe in three statewide and also a slot of 14-18 and one fish over 28 for a trophy fish, but even then, take lots of pics and measurements for a replica to be made. Let em grow!

[eyepatrol]

I'm okay with whatever the limit is, as long as it is 2 or more. Because if it's 1 and I kept 1, then I'd be done fishing for 'em for the day. Since it's just me and my boy who eat fish, keeping 2 15" - 16" 'eyes is great plenty for a meal, or 1 around 18".

I think 4 would be fine though. Allows people to take home or share fish with loved ones, and is still enough fish IMO to attract tourism. Less than 4, and resorts might see business decrease a little (or a lot?).

[hanson]

Quote:

---

Less than 4, and resorts might see business decrease a little (or a lot?).

---

I'm guessing less than 4 would be A LOT! URL would be a great example. Lots of guys don't think its worth the drive for 2. I tend to disagree but my opinion of that lake is much different than the majority of folks I believe.

[eyepatrol]

And see I'd say the trip is MORE than worth it to URL 'cause of the numbers you can catch in a day. That's the FUN part! That's what I'd be there for. Taking a couple tasty fish home or having a meal in the cabin would just be a bonus for me.

[Eric Wettschreck]

My family eats a LOT of fish. Which, for me is a bonus cuz that means I get to go fishing. I know there are a lot of CRP guys out there, that's cool. I normally throw back walleye that would be in a slot, anyway. 15-19" ers however, are goin in the frying pan.

If the DNR biology guys say 4 fish limit, then so be it. I'm a boilermaker not a biology dude. I'm real good at welding pipe, not growing fish.

[Fish&Fowl]

No matter what change comes about, there will always be someone getting in a big uproar about it. When the 4-fish limit was put in place on Rainy, all the resorts said how much business they would lose and said no one would come up to keep 4 walleyes.

Today there are more boats on the lake than ever, and anything from hotels to campsites are usually full. Fishing on Rainy is as good as it's ever been in both size and numbers all thanks to slot limits and limits on the number of fish. Four fish is eight fillets. Why would one person need more than eight fillets each day? If you want more then get some more people out fishing with you!

[eyepatrol]

Quote:

---

Today there are more boats on the lake than ever, and anything from hotels to campsites are usually full.

---

I think that's a testament to the management of that lake and the natural resources encompassing it. There's more to the area than just the fishing, but if it's fishing the people want, good management practices such as those implemented on Rainy are what will keep the people coming back and/or more people coming up. The quality and quantity of fish in Rainy is awesome, and I think that's what really attracts the people (among the other ameneties).

[Team Otter]

I'd support a 4-fish limit on 'eyes across the state.

[swedishpimple]

I see value in a lower limit due to the year round pressure so many lakes see now and the adancement in technology. I am 28 and in my lifetime I know I have seen more and more fish houses on the lakes in the Bemidji area. The permanent houses take their share of fish, but when you look on websites like this and see the pictures of the guys catchin the fish, they are all in portables. When I see swarms of portables moving from place to place I know they are on the fish and not the beer. The mobility of winter anglers now has allowed them to target more fish and stay on them. This seems to be true on big and small lakes. Once you find them, they can be sitting ducks with quality of the graphs and cameras now.

When the 6 fish limit was started the "Grumpy Old Men" kind of guys were what everyone is like.

Now we have "fish-pigs" like Hanson out there...he he...Good thing he throws them back so I can catch the scraps.

[Scott M]

Guys won't drive a long way to catch 2 walleyes they said about Red. But effort was at an all-time high (Yes I know they probably came for crappies) this year. What is often overlooked is how good the fishing is on lakes with special regulations for size quality or quantity of other fish. It's the nature of the beast; population goes down for one fish, it goes up for another (crappie on Red is the obvious example). So most people will drive a long ways to fish lakes with special regs, but maybe not for the species with the reg on it.

However, a 4 fish limit statewide would have little impact on actual conservation of fish, if that is the goal of the regulation change.

From the DNR's HSOforum:

Quote:

---

On average, most anglers don't harvest anywhere near the limit. For example, 96 percent of walleye anglers fishing on a given Saturday will keep two or fewer walleyes. Biologists have traditionally argued that lowering the walleye limit from the current six down to four walleyes or even three would have no effect on the vast majority of anglers and thus would make no dent in the total harvest.

---

That quote is also followd up by the effects of multiple days of fishing and how lowering bag limits could have an effect in that instance, but even if you go from 6 to 4 you still will have problems if you get too many meat hogs on a hot bite.

[fishin58]

That is exactly the case for a lot of the smaller lakes I fish in Ottertail and Douglas Counties, I have Seen a 300 Acre lake with 50 boats on it, each guy takin his limit because he is such a great fisherman, or so they think, these lakes need to be protected just as much as the big premiere walleye Lakes, Everyone will always say they ony keep what they need, but when these lakes get hot... some how this reasoning skill gets thrown out the window. That is why I am all for a 3 fish limit, if a guy needs to eat more then that, I would say he has an eating disorder. If the guy says he needs to feed his family, well make it a team sport, I believe 3 people can fish out of any size boat, and if my math is correct that is 9 walleyes not 18, 9 walleyes now that is a lot of meat for any person or family. I love fishing these lakes because they do hold fish for the most part and 51 weeks out of the year the fishing is slow but its private. I love catchin fish and I would like to see them protected. I do not like to driving all over the country to find that premiere lake. I don not have the time or the money. Minnesota is the Land of 10,000 lakes lets protect them.

[BobT]

As far as guys willing to drive long distances for 2 walleyes consider that of the 10 guys in my group that drive 420 miles into Canada every year 8 of them only purchase the conservation license which is a 2 fish limit.

Of this group I drive an additional 185 miles from Osakis to Cloquet and another member drives from somewhere in Iowa. Yeah I know, we already give him plenty of dump about moving to Iowa and becoming an Iowegian.

I think they (resort owners) totally misunderstand the picture. It's not the fish for their freezer their clients are after, its the quality of the trip.

Bob

[Scott K]

I go on several fishing trips up north, 200-300 or more miles everytime, I cpr, I have more fun releasing the fish to catch another day. So I drive that far and dont keep any! Its the sport of it for me. Im not knocking anyone for keeping their catch of their limit, that is up to them. I will keep a meal a few times a year, but if I kept every fish I caught to eat I would have my freezer filled, and it goes to waist. I used to bring fish home all the time clean and throw in the freezer, then I would notice when I clean out my freezer once a year I was throwing out alot of fish! So I only keep what I am going to eat now and that is only a couple times a year. I dont freeze fish any more. I am in favor of a 4 fish limit, it would increase the quality of all of our lakes!

[Dave B]

So few fisherman catch more than one or two walleyes that changing the limit from 4 to 6 will have zero impact. THAT IS A FACT.

You could make the limit 10 and it would only impact a handful of fisheries.

The average fisherman catches one walleye every 6-8 hours statewide. So they would need to fish for an entire long weekend to catch a limit.

I am all for regulations that help to maintain a fishery, but I am against more laws that make people feel good but have no impact.

[BobT]

I very much hear you and understand where you are coming from except one possiblity.

Is that average based on the hours fished for walleye per person for an entire year? If so, it may be slanted to some degree. Consider what that average might be in the months of May and June. I'm sure it is quite different. I know my personal results are.

I just can't help but believe that the catch limit doesn't have an effect when one compares to the fishery of today to the 1930s, '40s, and '50s. Also remember back then they didn't have half the tools such as electronics and other gear or management practices such as catch limits, slots, and stocking.

I'm sure that water quality plays a role but even so, areas where fishing pressure is lower tend to show better results. Just seems to jump out at me.

Bob

[MLaker2]

DB I see you are from the Metro, I don't follow that DNR mantra that limits don't affect fisheries. 1. Most of the major fisheries have reduced limits w/ slots, 2. Western prairie lakes are hugely impacted by fishing pressure during hot bite periods. There are a lot of retired fisherman out here that will fish a hot lake daily. 20-30 trailers at an access per day for 2 weeks in early summer decimates our 500-1500 acre lakes. Look at what happens in NE So Dak. 3. Good walleye lakes can be fished out. In the 80's I had a freind who was an area fisheries biologist. They watched a big year class come thru Minnewaska, them made it to 16-17", they took the baitfish down, became aggressive biters, after one summer and winter they basically disappeared. This also happens on Reno regularly.

I am convinced the DNR mind set is that walleyes are a put and take resource and they don't care much about when or how the harvest takes place. If you want to just catch fish, fish bass.

[Scott M]

ML2, I see you are from Glenwood. I am presently located in the metro, although I don’t know what our locations mean for either of us.

Will a reduced limit really do anything to stop the retired group you are talking about, if people just keep coming back to the hot bite?

Good small walleye lakes can be fished out (like the 500-1500 acres lakes you describe). But again, the state can’t legislate for greed. Those meat runners are going to get their fish no matter what, so why penalize the whole state?

Quote:

---

Most of the major fisheries have reduced limits w/ slots.

---

Well, sort of. Red, Leech, and Mille Lacs have slots with reduced limits. They also are recovering fisheries and harvest has to be measured to a quota because they are partially controlled by tribal interests. Kabetogoma and Vermillion fit your description. They have both slots and a reduced limit. Cass and Pepin don’t have either slots of a reduced limit, Winni has slots only, and Lake of the Woods and Rainy have completely different limits (with special slots) since they are border waters. Confused yet? As anyone can see, there are a lot of reasons for all those regulation. As far as the big lakes, we are talking about lakes where the majority have slot limits, but only half have both slot limits and reduced bag limits. To say that having both slots and bag limits curtails harvest is dead on, but it also means that many times you won’t have a fish to fry at the end of your days on those lakes. I would be all for statewide slots to protect spawners (as most of those 17-26” slots are intended to do), but that wouldn’t always be a correct fit for every lake in the state.

Quote:

---

I am convinced the DNR mind set is that walleyes are a put and take resource and they don't care much about when or how the harvest takes place.

---

You’re either onto something or you’re on something. You either hit the nail on the head because the DNR reacts to their constituents who want walleye in every Tom, Dick, and Harry’s lake (It’s almost as if people want the DNR to stock the fish in their coolers!), or you’re way off because why would the DNR consider genetics, lake composition, spawning habitat, etc. before stocking walleye. They probably don't care when or how you harvest the fish, as long as you are within the letter of the law. In your neck of the woods (OK, now I see why we list locations! ), there might be lakes where there is very little natural reproduction. In those cases, you would be dead on, it would be just like a walleye put and take system, or at least a put grow and take system.