4 Fish Limit Statewide (except Red)

[Dave B]

So those retired persons eat 6 walleyes a day? And the lake would be better off if they only ate 4 walleyes per day for a few weeks?

If they are taking 6 walleyes a day, they are likely poaching and should get a visit from the CO. Are you reporting this activity? We have laws in place for that.

Sure, some people will be impacted, but it is very few, like it or not. Fisherman brag, boast and inflate catches. The best fisherman often dont keep any fish. Most people just bob around in the water and follow the crowds. When I was 14 years old, I came back to the resort after 3 hours on Vermilion w/ 4 eyes (2 in each hand). You would not BELIEVE how much attention I got, it was like the entire resort had never seen a walleye before. My dad and I would frequently catch limits, but for most, it takes a day out w/ a guide.

BobT-I think the fishing today is as good as ever. Maybe it is because of electronics and such, but fish are there in numbers and I dont think we need to be envious of the 30s 40s and 50s. There was an old wives story about walleye's teeth falling out in summer, that isnt a new story. Now, we know how to find them and catch them 365.

Like I said, I am for special regulations to protect fisheries (slots for some lakes, reduced limits and special regs, I LOVE Pool 2 tons if big eyes and zero harvest). However, a statewide law just wouldnt have impact. Reducing harvest on smaller lakes by an handful fish wont make a difference. Just run the numbers and compare to the overall biomass-it is not significant.

IMO, skip the 4 fish and make a 14" or 15" min for walleye statewide.

[Moses2531]

Interesting take on saying the reduced limit will have zero impact... Sorry for those that cant think out of the box, but the reduced limit isnt for the average angler... Its for exactly what some of us are talking about.. The smaller lake that gets hot and has 6 walleyes taken out per guy rather than 4... Its a matter of 2 more spawning size females (18") going back down, how can that even be debateable not to make a change!? Its kinda sad that people and the DNR have just "become accustomed to give and take lakes", is there no pride in pulling a naturally spawned beauty outta a small river or lake that isnt stocked?

[MLaker2]

A persons point of view can change based on where you reside. A metro angler probably fishes more lakes or areas of the state than an outstater might. Given that a lot of metro people have cabins and fish the same waters. Locals are probably more in tune to the harvest, hot bite and double dipping etc that goes on, more aware of the impact of harvest on a body of water over time, as we see it every day all year vs what a metro fisherman might read on these pages or other boards or newspapers, or experience over a weekend.

Don't quote the DNR or think your a biologist, if limits aren't important, then why is Catch and release even mentioned these days. I don't keep what I can't eat relatively soon. Do you say I and others can give fish away as long as I'm legal and it won't have any affect on the resource?

Granted there are a lot of fisheries and a lot of the fishing season where a 4 or 6 limit is not an issue. There are times and places where it is. We have reduced sunfish, crappie and perch limits, its time for a reduction in walleyes as well.

[Northlander]

I would support a 4 eye limit and more restrictive in some spots.

[swamptiger]

I'm in favor of a reduced limit on walleyes and also a slot size on most lakes, unless it's strictly a "put & take" type of lake. This takes some of the pressure off the walleye when there is a hot bite going. Most lakes have more than one species, so anglers can concentrate on something else if they limit out. The big difference nowdays versus 20-30 years ago is that there is a lot more winter fishing going on. I think a 3 fish limit (walleye) is reasonable.

Want to pass a regulation that would really have a positive impact on the walleye population - ban the power auger... I'm old enough to remember when all most people had for drilling holes was the old spoon-type augers and such - believe me, that dampens your enthusiam in a hurry when there's 3 feet of ice...

[Bluegills1512]

Quote:

---

Want to pass a regulation that would really have a positive impact on the walleye population - ban the power auger... I'm old enough to remember when all most people had for drilling holes was the old spoon-type augers and such - believe me, that dampens your enthusiam in a hurry when there's 3 feet of ice...

---

You got that Right swamptiger, then people wouldn't be hole hopping either as much, and would just stay put. Look at the lakes in the B-Dubs and they hardly get any pressure all winter because you have to hand drill your holes and you have to walk every where, last time I checked not many people walk to their favorite walleye spots anymore. The more and more people that get into fishing especially ice fishing because it is becoming easier to do, the more restrictive the rules will be and alot of the lakes in this state will get rules like the BWCA, when you need to apply for a permit to fish a lake or get on a lake or outlawing motor vehicles or augers or electronics, something of that nature will happen, because there are getting to be more people that are into fishing, regardless if the age group of 16-44 is 13% down, I sure as heck don't see it on the lakes I fish.

[chris63]

Go fish!

[hanson]

I still don't get what being a "metro" person has to do with this.

Us "metro" people have arguably the best walleye fishing in the state in the Mississippi River. Hmmm... Pool 2 is catch & release only with a year round open season. Pool 4 is just a quick trip down the road to Red Wing. Mille Lacs is just a quick trip up the road the other way.

Biggest walleye I caught all winter long came out of a Minneapolis city lake.

Biggest walleye I caught last summer came out of Pool 3 of the Mississippi River.

[Dave B]

Dont confuse what I am saying, reduced limits can help, just not reducing from 6 to 4. The DNR's own data shows that you would need to reduce it to 1 or 2 to make a significant difference.

BTW, I have fished a significant amount of time on: Vermilion, Otter Tail, Big Pine, Marion, Rush, Little MacDonald, Crow Wings, Nest, Waconia, Minnetonka, Pool 2 and 4, St Croix, Collinwood, Washington.

[riverrat56]

I'd really like to know where these numbers come from, I mean how can it take the average angler 8 hours to catch a walleye? I have been fishing since I was old enough to walk, so about 16 years now, only 3 or 4 have been serious and spent on my own chasing eyes or crappies. I don't consider myself above average, maybe average at best, but even on poor walleye lakes, I'f I specifically target them were looking at maybe 3 or 4 hours to catch 1 or I give up and fish for a differnt species.

Also how can leaving a 1/3 more fish in the lake during a hot bite not impact the fishery? I'm not saying the DNR is wrong, well ok ya I am saying there wrong. I have no data to back this up other than common sence.

Lowering the limit to 4 would help the DNR save money especially down in the prairie put and take lakes that get pounded when a hot bite breaks out, with 33% more fish left in the lake they would not need to stock as aggressivly.

It's just like pheasant limits, how can 3 be better for the enviroment than 2? How can taking more be better than taking less?

Fisherman satisfaction would go up with a 4 fish limit and that would give the DNR a more positive image with anglers.

[Moses2531]

Exactly right there Riverrat... Common sense

[Scott M]

It was only a matter of time before it became a "I'm a master angler so it can't take that long to catch a fish and it must be easy to get a limit." Whether someone is or isn't, is not the point. The numbers don't lie.

The numbers the DNR has are from creel clerks, the ones that actually watch how long you are fishing and then at the end of the day count and measure your fish. They were collected prior to the numerous bag limit changes that took place in 02-03. No, you may not have ever seen these clerks or been on a lake where they have worked. They are taking a statistical subsample; they will never interview every single person or see every lake's scenario. The DNR's numbers are solid and backed by people that know way more about statistics and fish biology than we do. I am not saying trust everything the DNR says, a little healthy skepticism is good, but they don't get their jobs by speculating or trusting their "common sense." They go with the numbers.

As I said in an earlier post, it just wouldn't be good to broadly fit a 4 fish limit to every lake in the state when some could see it as a penalty on their annual trip to lake x. And has been pointed out, it wouldn't do anything for conservation unless it was lowered to 1 or 2.

If people are still concerned about little lake x in the prairie region of the state, call your local DNR office and ask to see the survey results for the most recent survey and historical surveys. Then you can see for yourself if size and quantity are decreasing as an effect of fishing pressure. Or better yet, call a C.O. on these double trippers.

How can leaving more fish in the lake be worse off for anglers? Well, phrased that way, the question seems obvious, but it's not that simple and shouldn't be phrased that way. The point myself and others are making is that on the whole, statewide, most people aren't taking limits of fish home. So really, very few would be leaving more fish in the lake. That's an understatement. Very, very, very, very few would be leaving more fish in the lake.

The one thing we can all agree on is that it is a good choice to catch and release. From the sounds of it, no one in this discussion is a meat hog, and that is great to hear. Shifting attitudes towards conservation takes time, on the order of generations. Pass it along to those you fish with. It may be the only way to stop those meat runners some of you are talking about.

I think changing the limit, as I have stated, wouldn't do much for actual conservation. Another facet would be perception. There are a lot of people here who are in favor of changing it. That is great, those in favor have great conservation ethics. But what the perceptions of out of state visitors, resort owners, day trippers to the distant walleye lakes? It's a perception problem with them I think.

Thanks for the good discussion and a penny for further thoughts.

[Rost]

I don't think it would hurt anything. Atleast MN should take a look at a few of the lakes individually. Especially with a few of the smaller lakes in SW Minnesota. We had a local lake back home that literally got cleaned out two summers ago. You honestly could catch your 6 walleyes in six casts for about two weeks straight. On this 600 acre lake, there were 50+ boats and about 50 trucks parked along the north shore (taking limits day after day). It didn't take long for this lake to get wiped out.

If a 4 fish limit was in affect, would it have helped? Not sure. It goes back to common sense. During this bite, let's say 160 (6 fish) limits were harvested (roughly 1000 fish). Common sense tells me that if the same people were fishing and took home 4 fish limits, only 660 fish would have been taken out of the lake. I realize I don't have any hard evidence of how many fish were actually taken from this lake, but I do think that the numbers I used were definately possible.

I now live in SD. We have a 4 fish limit with a few lakes that have a 2 fish limit and I really like it. I look back at pictures from my MN days and see the three of us with an 18 fish limit on a stringer and can't help to shrug my shoulders and think, "Geeze! We must have been reaallly hungry back then!"

[minnow_03]

I would be for the four fish limit. It lets you save a few for the frying pan, but would also protect the fish more than the six fish limit. You don't need more than four fish to have a meal.

When I have went into canada, I have only gotten the conservation licence and probabally keep about one a day to eat. Most of the fish are realeased. For me it is not about taking home a cooler full of fish.

[PEATMOSS]

I disdain the idea of a 4 fish limit for walleyes. Seems to me a much better way to enhance the population wouldbe statewide 18-28" protected slot to keep the breeding females in the water.

IMHO Walleyes are not a sportfish, they were meant for the table. Fighting a 2-pound walleye is like snagging a roll of toilet paper , except for the head shake. If I want to fish for sport, I'll go chase bass.

[MLaker2]

6 walleyes, 2 lines per person, 3 pheasants, 6 ducks, 5 geese, 3+ deer, 3 car garage, cottage on a lake, 50" TV, farm fence row to fence row, etc, etc. Minnesota is a consumer society. Moderation is usually best in a lot of situations. Now someone is going to say "What does that have to do with fishing?" But we can agree to disagree.

[Team Otter]

Mlaker2, well said. I enjoyed that.

As for bass putting up a fight, those fish are in the lake for people that don't know how to catch walleyes. Sorry, I had to.

[kaz2611]

im in favor for a 4 walleye limit what im suprised at is seems like everyone is so wrapped up in what the walleye limit should be. have you ever stopped to think about diversity say you catch 4 walleyes and the limit is 6 or you catch 3 and the limit is 4 why not try and fish for another species yes i know not all lakes have all species but most do. I hear from many oh i dont fish for northerns cause they taste like dump or they have too many bones ,or some say i dont like scaling bluegills or crappies and they too small to fillet . theres tons of excuses people have for not wanting to eat anything other than walleyes or perch. define average fisherman is it the person that fishes only a few weekends a year and catches alot of fish or is it the person who fishes only on days that end in y but dont catch alot of fish.fishing is rapidly turning into catching with the advances in technology however you still cant make the fish bite. with the advances in technology i think limits are going to have to be reduced along with more cpr practiced to maintain quality fishing throughout minnesota

[Northlander]

I agree Team Otter.

Hockey is for guys too short and unathletic to play Basketball. Ya I had too.

Sorry Kettleriverkid. Not really!

[harvey lee]

Pound for pound the walleyes are not that high on the fighting list. They are good to eat and thats about where it ends.

[Team Otter]

Go back to the slough hole, I mean Catfish and Sturgeon forums.

[harvey lee]

A 1# sunfish will put up a bigger fight than a 3# eye pound for pound and the list goes on.

[Borch]

What I get a chuckle out of, (well sort of) is how so many people want to manage the entire state based on what the current Mille Lacs limit or slot is. I've seen it so many times over the past 10 years that I can't keep count. It may be a coincidence but I don't think so. When people see the great fishery that is Mille Lacs they want all our lakes to look that way. Just is not going to happen. Mille Lacs is a very unique fishery.

Small lakes containing walleye are generally marginal for a natural walleye spawn. There are exceptions, but as a rule these lakes are managed for put and take by the DNR. Right or wrong I don't know. Also, for those wanting additional length standards there is already a statewide one for one walleye over 20" through out the state. You won't see many minimum slot sizes as the DNR information shows a negative impact on the walleye size overall. Without a lower slot the fish that get kept get spread across year classes due to individual angler preferences. If you set the minumum at 14" almost everyone keeps the 14" fish even though they would normally throw everything under 15" back if there wasn't a minimum length. Sounds crazy but that's what happens.

When the DNR first proposed lowering the limits for walleyes they used the catch rate numbers for their determination. They said so few anglers get their limit that we should lower it so the daily limit was acheiveable. I guess I go fishing for other reasons than getting my limit but I suppose it does apply to some anglers. Didn't seem like a good reason to change at the time and they didn't. Although they did make changes to panfish limits at that time.

I don't have an issue with the 4 daily limit if there is a change in possession. I know several families who will save their catch for Fridays during lent. I like to do a small fish fry with friends every once in a while, or give a package of walleye to a land owner who allows me to duck, deer or turkey hunt on their property. I'm able to do this and stay within the current law and release most of the walleyes I catch and have several meals a year myself. But then again I rarely keep walleyes during the winter months as this is my panfish season. Sunfish and perch taste better anyways.

[Team Otter]

Nice explanation Borch. A blanket slot would definitely be less effective than a 4-fish limit. If the limit was changed to 4 fish, then the possession should go to 4 as well.

[primetime49]

we are trying 4 fish weigh ins this year at 2 tournaments to see if anglers like them.They are also no cull.If the competitive anglers like them than maybe ,just maybe an endorsement would be in place for 4 fish and no cull.We also are trying to be some of persons trying to see if this asked for remedy is needed or wanted by fishermen and if it protects fish.