MN DNR News

[Rick]

Thanks to Ed Carlson

MINNESOTA DNR NEWS #51 – IN THIS ISSUE December 17, 2002
New statewide fish limits approved
DNR proposes snowmobile rule changes
DNR offers a variety of books
DNR issues warning that aerated lakes can pose dangers

DNR NEWS – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For more information, contact Steve Hirsch, Fisheries operations manager, (651) 297-4918.

New statewide fish limits approved
New limits for crappie, sunfish, lake trout and catfish will take effect on the 2003 fishing opener next May, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources announced today. The limit changes will affect all inland waters and the Minnesota-Canada border waters.

Daily and possession limits will be reduced for three species, with crappie limits going from 15 to 10, sunfish from 30 to 20, and lake trout from three to two. The daily and possession limit for catfish will remain at five, but only one over 24 inches and two flathead catfish will be allowed in the total limit.

The limit changes are the result of extensive biological analysis and public input that began about two years ago. Most Minnesota game fish limits have remained unchanged for the last 40 to 70 years, yet fishing pressure and technology have increased dramatically during that time, according to Ron Payer, director of the DNR Fisheries Division.

“Our limits have been in place for so long that whatever rationale there may have been for them has been lost,” Payer said. “We wanted to do an extensive review to see if limit changes could help improve fishing.”
DNR data showed that lake trout harvests have been above recommended levels on many waters in northeast Minnesota and the average size of crappie and sunfish has been declining statewide. The new limit on lake trout is expected to decrease the statewide harvest by as much as 30 percent on average and will help maintain lake trout populations at a higher level.

The crappie and sunfish limit changes are expected to reduce harvest by only 3 to 4 percent, but the harvest reduction could be greater on lakes with exceptional fisheries. The changes could help stabilize the declining trend in average size for those species.

Limit changes were also considered for northern pike, walleye, brown trout, and largemouth and smallmouth bass. The biological analysis showed that statewide population trends for walleye, brown trout, and largemouth and smallmouth bass were stable or increasing. As a result, limit changes were not proposed for those species.
“We will continue to look for opportunities to improve fishing for walleye, bass and brown trout with special regulations on specific lakes and streams,” Payer said.
The analysis did show a decline in the number of large northern pike, but most anglers rejected a statewide slot limit during the public input process. The DNR decided instead to propose special regulations for northern pike on a number of lakes around the state, which received support from anglers. This proposal is being finalized and details will be announced soon.

“We had to balance the interests of anglers who wanted more drastic changes with others who preferred no changes,” said Payer. “We learned a lot in this process and had a great dialogue with anglers. One conclusion most of us reached is that we will need to review fish limits more often in the future.”

For more information, contact Mike Letourneau, DNR Enforcement Division, (651) 296-4677.

DNR proposes snowmobile rule changes
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is seeking public comments on planned rule amendments and repeal of obsolete existing rules on snowmobile registration and operation.

The proposed rules reflect current statutes, practices and cultures. Most of the proposed changes are technical in nature and don’t represent significant changes to existing practices. The proposed rules might be of interest to snowmobilers, law enforcement agencies, dealers, manufacturers, and those who paint customized registration numbers on snowmobiles.

The proposed changes:
· clarify and standardize snowmobile speed limits
· update requirements for sleds, trailers, towed devices, and operational equipment and lights
· provide for a point-of-sale electronic registration or reporting by changing rule language to allow for a paperless system
· update snowmobile registration display specifications
· update registration of all snowmobiles currently in use
· update accident reporting requirements
· remove specific dollar amount for participation in the DNR’s Snowmobile Safety Training Program in favor of fee language in statutes
· eliminate diagrams and specifications for traffic or regulatory signs in the rules in favor of a reference to the same information contained in a DNR reference manual
· update rule language to improve understanding of what is regulated and the impact on users.

Questions, comments or requests for a draft of the proposed rules may be submitted to Michael Letourneau, Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4047; e-mail [email protected]; phone (651) 296-4677; or fax to (651) 296-3727. Comments on the proposed rules must be submitted no later than 4:30 p.m. on Friday, Feb. 7.

For more information contact Nancy Huonder, Nongame Wildlife Program, (651) 297-8040.

DNR offers a variety of books

Looking for a special holiday gift for a nature lover? The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources offers a variety of books on topics ranging from bird feeding to woodworking to nature appreciation. Among the newest offerings is “Restore Your Shore CD-ROM” that assists in planning lakeshore habitat.

Books by Carrol Henderson, the DNR’s Nongame Wildlife Program supervisor, are top sellers in Minnesota. His writings include “Wild about Birds: The DNR Bird Feeding Guide,” “Landscaping for Wildlife” and “The Traveler’s Guide to Wildlife in Minnesota.”
“Lakescaping for Wildlife & Water Quality” is a collaborative effort by Henderson, Carolyn Dindorf, who is an award-winning soil and water conservationist, and Fred Rozumalski, a highly acclaimed landscape architect and ecologist. The lakescaping book offers alternatives to planting lawn all the way to the lake, which Henderson says is extremely detrimental to wildlife and lake water quality.

“The Traveler’s Guide to Wildlife in Minnesota,” authored by Henderson, Andrea Lee Lambrecht and the regional wildlife biologists of the Nongame Wildlife Program, will interest birders, nature lovers, photographers and families. The Traveler’s Guide features 120 special places to find wildlife around Minnesota, with colorful photos, easy to read maps, and useful information about each site.

Lakeshore owners and gardeners will appreciate “Restore your Shore,” the highly interactive CD-ROM that guides users through the process of protecting a natural shoreline or restoring a degraded shore with a natural buffer. It offers a feature that allows gardeners to create a customized plant list from an extensive searchable database, which has photos of more than 400 plants native to Minnesota.

Many DNR books can be ordered from bookstores and online booksellers. They are also available from Minnesota’s Bookstore at 117 University Ave., St. Paul, MN 55155. The store is open Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The books can be ordered by calling (651) 297-3000 or toll free 1-800-657-3757, or order online at [email protected]
For more information, contact Marilyn Danks, DNR Ecological Services, (651) 296-0777.

DNR issues warning that aerated lakes can pose dangers

Approximately 250 Minnesota lakes with public accesses will have aeration systems operating on them this winter. Private hatchery operators also use aeration systems, usually on small lakes without public accesses. Caution is urged when going onto any ice-covered lake, particularly at night. However, special care should be taken when using the ice on aerated lakes, according to Marilyn Danks of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

“Open water areas created by aeration systems can shift or change shapes depending on weather conditions,” Danks said. “Leaks may develop in air lines creating other areas of weak ice or open water.”

Aeration systems help prevent fish winter kill by adding oxygen to lakes. They also create areas of open water and thin ice that are significant hazards to ice anglers, snowmobilers, skiers and other lake users.

The majority of aeration systems, which generally operate from lake freeze-up until spring, are located in counties in southern and western Minnesota.

A DNR permit is required to install and operate an aeration system. Permit holders must publish public notices, post warning signs and inspect systems at least once a week. Liability insurance is usually required of private parties operating aeration systems in protected waters.

Two types of signs are used to post aerated lakes: "Thin Ice" and "Warning" signs. Permittees maintain warning signs at all commonly used lake access points in order to caution people that an aeration system is in operation. Thin ice signs are posted at 100-foot intervals to mark the perimeter of the thin ice and open water area. These signs are diamond shaped with an orange border and white background with the warning "Thin Ice" in bold print. Some municipalities have ordinances that prohibit entering into the area marked thin ice and/or prohibit the night use of motorized vehicles on lakes with aeration systems in operation. These local regulations are often posted at lake accesses.

For more information about aeration, call a regional fisheries office or call the DNR Information Center at (651) 296-6157 or toll free 1-888-MINNDNR (1-888-646-6367).

The following is a list of lakes where aeration systems will likely be in operation this winter. Where there are other lakes in the county with the same name as the aerated lake, the nearest town is indicated in brackets. Names in parentheses are alternate lake names. Those names followed by an asterisk are newly aerated lakes.

REGION I (NORTHWEST)
COUNTY LAKE
Becker Big Cormorant
Bijou
Blauert Pond
Five
Lime
Little Cormorant
Melissa
Wolf

Beltrami
Crane
Ewert's Pond

Cass
Eagle
Leech
Loon [Pequot Lakes]
Meadow

Clay
Blue Eagle
Lake Fifteen

Clearwater
Pine

Douglas
Long

Hubbard
Petite
Wolf
Marshall
Unnamed [Florian Reservoir]

Otter Tail
Adley
Big Pine*
Club
Fish
Lida
Little McDonald
Lizzie
Marion
Nelson
Paul
Pelican
Perch
Samson
Tamarac*

Polk
Badger
Cable
Maple
Pope
Johanna
Pelican
Signalness

Stevens
Hattie
Todd
Fawn
Horseshoe

Wadena
Stocking

REGION II (NORTHEAST)

Aitkin
Cedar
[McGrath]
Minnewawa
School House

Crow Wing
Nisswa
Platte
Pine
Lena

REGION III (CENTRAL)
Anoka
Centerville
Coon
Crooked
Golden
Ham
Martin
Moore (East & West)
Peltier
Shack Eddy

Carver
Eagle
Susan

Dakota
Alimagnet
Blackhawk
Burr Oak
Carlson
East Thomas
Fish
Hay
Heine
LeMay
Manor
Marion
Rebecca [Hastings]
Schwanz
Thomas

Hennepin
Arrowhead
Bass
Crystal
Gleason
Hadley
Hyland
Indianhead
Irene [Tom]
Mitchell
Murphy
Penn (Lower Penn)
Powderhorn
Rebecca [Maple Plain]
Red Rock
Round
Snelling
Sweeney-Twin
Wirth

Kanabec
Knife

Ramsey
Beaver
Bennett
Birch*
Como
Island
Otter*
Owasso
Pleasant
Silver (East Silver)
Silver [Columbia Heights]
Vadnais
Willow

Scott
Cedar
Cleary
McColl*
McMahon (Carls)
O’Dowd
Thole

Sherburne
Ann [becker]
Birch
Fremont
Jones
Masford
Unnamed [Fawn]

Stearns
Becker
Dullinger
Marie (Maria) [Kimball]

Washington
Battle Creek (Mud) [Woodbury]
Benz
Cloverdale
Goose
MacDonald
Pine Tree
Sand
Shields
Sunset

Wright
Ann [Howard Lake]
Augusta
Crawford
Dean
Little Waverly
Louisa
Mink
Somers

REGION IV (SOUTHERN)

Big Stone
Artichoke
East Toqua
Long Tom

Blue Earth
Crystal
Ida
Loon [Lake Crystal]
Lura
Mills

Brown
Clear [New Ulm]
Hanska
Sleepy Eye

Cottonwood
Bean
Bingham
Cottonwood
Double [North & South Basins]
Mountain [Mountain Lake]
Summit

Cottonwood/Murray
Talcott
Faribault
Rice
Freeborn
Albert Lea
Fountain
Hickory
Morin

Goodhue
Pottery Pond [Red Wing]
Winona
Jackson Clear [Jackson]
Independence
Little Spirit
Loon [Jackson]
Pearl
Round

Kandiyohi
Crow River/Monongalia [New London]
East Solomon
Elizabeth
Foot
Long [Willmar]
Mud (Monongalia) [New London]
Ringo [spicer]
Swenson [Pennock]
Unnamed [Tadd]
Unnamed [upper]
Wagonga
Willmar

LeSueur
Clear [Lexington]
Gorman
Greenleaf
Mabel [Kilkenny]
Silver [Elysian]

Lincoln
Benton
Dead Coon
Hendricks
Shaokatan
Stay (East Stay)

Lyon
Clear
Cottonwood
East Goose
East Twin
Lady’s-slipper
Rock
School Grove
West Twin
Yankton

Martin
Big Twin
Budd
Buffalo [Trimont]
Cedar
Fish [Trimont]
George
Hall
Sisseton

McLeod
Marion
Swan [silver Lake]
Winsted

Meeker
Jennie
Star
Thompson

Murray
Bloody
Buffalo [Currie]
Corabelle
Currant
Fish (South) Fulda
Lime
Louisa
Sarah
Shetek
Wilson (North & South Basins)

Nobels
East Graham
Indian
Kinbrae
Okabena
Ocheda
West Graham

Pipestone
Split Rock
Renville
Allie
Preston

Rice
Circle
Cody

Sibley
Silver [Henderson]

Steele
Kohlmeier

Waseca
Elysian
Loon [Waseca]

Watonwan
Kansas
St. James

Yellow Medicine
Tyson
Wood

[Guest]

I'm all for it, lets keep the fishing great here in MN. Meat hogs, ego barons, blow hards go ahead and stay home...I'll catch and release your limit for ya!

.....and now let the chiro bashing begin!

[This message has been edited by chiro (edited 12-17-2002).]

[Guest]

Consider yourself bashed!

[Crawlerman]

Well.. I can see the reuced bluegill but 10 crappies? That's a little tight. The limit of 15 is just enough to get a good fry out of; 10 might be enough for two people one time if extra stuff is cooked up. I think it should be the same as Wis. regs-- combining bluegill and Crappies into one limit of 30. And I can defiantly see the good point of a "trophy size" for cats.

[Guest]

Works allright for me.You can still get a meal for the family and if you want more you will just have to bring the family along!

[Guest]

fishhead
Well said!!

Up on Red lake 15 crappies fill up a five gallon bucket,more than enough for the family fish fry.

[hawgTime]

I think the DNR is doing what they think is necessary to presevre and maintain the fishery and that's aways good in my book.

hawgTime

[This message has been edited by hawgTime (edited 01-11-2003).]

[Steve Foss]

One reason 10 crappies doesn't sound like very many is most crappies on most lakes we catch run from 7 to 10 inches. If fewer are kept, more will grow to 11 to 13 inches, like the ones on URL. And 10 13-inch crappies are are plenty. You can feed three fishermen one meal on one limit of those sized crappies, as long as you have something else to eat with it.

I also like the lake trout limits. While lakers taste great, I don't guess going from three to two will hurt much. I've done lakers lots on open water, which is a great sport fishery, and from what I hear (and hope to experience this winter) lakers under ice are the ultimate hunting experience, which sounds more like sport than freezer-filling.

I'd have preferred to see a statewide slot on pike, with the limit staying the same but only one pike over 30".

The main message I get from these limits is: Let them grow bigger.

Sometimes, resorts and guides complain that stricter limits kill their business. That certainly was the complaint a few years back at Northwest Angle, when Ontario lowered the boom on non-resident anglers fishing walleyes in Ontario waters. Lots of NW Angle resort owners screamed foul, and a group of owners even threatened to withdraw from the United States.

But surveys and the fishing market show that anglers will travel a long way and pay a lot of money for a trophy fishery, that they're paying more for the experience than to pack a cooler with fillets, and stricter limits generally produce more larger fish after they're in effect for a number of years.

And at least one Angle resorter switched emphasis from stacking fillets of walleyes to catch-and-release musky fishing, much to his improved business.

I say that, as long as you can keep enough fish for a good feed (and one fisherman shouldn't be able to keep enough fish to feed 10 people), then that's good enough.

And so, let the catfish bashing begin.

[juddfish]

Well 15 crappies on red lake dont fill a 5 gallon pail but not far from it I think that fishing in minnesota is excellent with the limits we had before! If you put your time in on a particular lake you will catch fish! Well with the lower limit it just means more catch and release! Thats more fun anyways! Let some of them big ones go and they will be trophies next time you catch them. I think we will really see the affect of this lowering of limits in about 5 years and we will all be glad the DNR did this. We will be catching more and larger fish. I like having less fish in the lakes its more of a challenge! I think the DNR is doing an excellent job with the limits and there stocking of fish! I know there will still be good fishing when I someday have kids.

~Juddfish

[Guest]

To quote the most famous fisherman alive today.
"Minnesota is the state where fishing is barely legal."
WOW the man is not only the greatest fisherman most of us have ever known, looks like he may also be a PROPHET. This statement is becoming more true every year.

Okay if some lakes need special regs to protect or improve certain fish populations. (and I agree some do!). Why don't we see special regs the other way ??? I.E. the 10 fish crappie limit is probably a good idea in ALMOST the entire state. But we can't have it at 15 for Red Lake and 10 for the everywhere else in the state?
Not picking on Red Lake or crappies, just an example. There are other lakes with other species where a similar example may valid. But the only place I know of that has a special reg for more liberal limits is L.O.W.

Now to quote Chiro . . .
"Let the Gemey bashing begin."

[This message has been edited by GEM EYE GUY (edited 12-17-2002).]

[Matt D]

To be honest, I'd tend to see it the from the opposite perspective. With a second-to-none crappie fishery on URL, it would seem a prime candidate for a 10 fish limit. Have you seen how many houses are on it in a given weekend lateley?! Lower limits may help sustain the quality of the fishery ... of course the walleyes are on the rebound and we'll see what happens. Just a thought.

------------------
Best FISHES,
Matt

[Cyberfish]

::::Bashing Gemeye::: wack! bad gemeye!!!!

[ackotz]

I'm so glad to see so many fisher"people" who feel as I do, that the new limit isn't going to affect fishing at all.
It's still about the catch, the camaraderie, the sunsets, etc. It would be nice to see crappies like you see at Upper Red Lake, all over the state...and with application and self-imposition, we can attain that.

Now, we know there are the guys who say "screw the new limits", and these are the people we have to turn in (as poachers) to the DNR. I don't mind them funding their causes through violators...
Don't be afraid either...poachers don't care about you, so don't feel an ounce of sympathy for them...

[Steve Foss]

I like the idea of having lots of specific limits tied to individual lakes as a management tool, but here in NW Wisconsin I can tell you I feel it's gone too far.

Each lake you go to, you have to enter at a public boat landing, because if you don't, you run the risk of not seeing the signs that are only posted there that list the special regulations for that particular lake.

You have to scour the regulations booklet for hours before planning a simple ice fishing trip, because so many lakes Iike only allow two walleyes kept, for example, and on at least one of those lakes, only one of the two can be OVER 14 inches.

Like I said, I don't begrudge the DNR a great management tool, and I'm no meat stacker, it just gets to be a little much sometimes. Minnesota has kept that to a minimum. Sure, I can only use two lines, but in almost all lakes, I can keep a nice limit of 'eyes.

[Steve Foss]

Ooops, another dam duplicate post.

[This message has been edited by stfcatfish (edited 12-18-2002).]

[kelly-p]

chiro,
I'm in your corner with you. It looks to me like GEM EYE GUY wants to come to URL and fill his bucket and ignore the future. That's what happened to the walleyes in URL,,, too many filled buckets and not enough thinking of the children coming behind us.
10 minutes have passed while I went back and looked at GEM EYE's profile and then looked at the homepage listed. Strange, this is a person that is for fishing with children. That is great and there should be more of that but at the same time in this age of flashers, GPS's, glow jigs and all the other things we now use to make catching fish easier he is opposed to lowering the limits to ensure that we leave something for the children? To me it looks like a major conflict of interest.

------------------
Waskish Minnow Station
218-647-8652

[kwkfsh]

I whole heartedly agree that we need to care for the future of our fisheries as to much pressure over just a couple of years can effect it far into the future. Each summer I guide in Alaska on the Alaska peninsula. This is very remote and gets very little pressure from anglers. The arctic char fishing is there is incredible, a person can catch 100 or 200 fish from 2-6 lbs a day without even trying. It is fishing that is just as good as fishing could ever possibly be. The supply of fish seems endless. None the less I only allow single hook barbless lures and no retention of any char. We will keep maybe half a dozen injured fish a season for the table. On most of these rivers we are the only group of anglers to fish them ever. I realize that for the fishing to stay this good we have limit our take. Should this fishery ever decline I would not want to live with the fact that it was of my doing in any way, shape, or form.

[Cyberfish]

But Kelly, isn't the future of URL Walleyes, not crappies? If I am wrong on this, please let me know. When I fish other lakes, all crappies over 12 inches go back, and I usually keep mabye 6 to 10 for a meal or two.
When I go to URL I keep a limit of the biggest ones I can get (if I can catch em that is )Because I heard many times that all the crappies are gonna be gone in a few years anyways even if not caught, because of old age, and there are no new year classes to replace them due to walleye predation.
I respect your opinion, and if you think there is a long term future for red lake crappie fishing, I would gladly release the bigger fish and take home just enough for a good meal . I will also talk some sense into Gemeye haha (remember Gemeye, you gave us bashin' permission !

Best Fishes

Cyberfish ><>

[Lowe]

There are at least 3 different year classes of crappie in URL, all of which have grown to a point where they will be able to hold their own with the walleyes. With the huge numbers of crappies present right now, it's a pretty safe bet to say there will be other crappies coming up through the years. Red will almost certainly revert to a primary walleye lake, but that isn't for certain - there's a decent chance we could have crappie fishing on Red for quite few more years.

I think everyone needs to remember that the people who live up there witnessed what overharvest does not only to a lake, but also to a community. We should listen to them - even the clumsy ones who break their toes answering the phone.

By the way, the big 13"+ crappies on Red are about 7 1/2 years old, and they could live into their low to mid teens. There's also two other year classes of crappies younger than that group.

[Guest]

Well Kelly-p,
I guess my attitude is if your against tighter limits you are probably fishing for the wrong reason. I fish to FISH, NOT TO FILL THE FREEZER, thats just a bonus and much more economical to go buy some nice flakey white Talapia at the market. I heard a guy in the office yesterday complainin' bout the Mille Lacs Limits he said "now it just means that I have to spend even more time on the water to fill my limit" ****, folks isn't that why we fish...to spend time on our beautiful lakes??? It is guys like that I wish I could catch poaching and place the tip call while standing in front of them!

Wheeeeeeewwww, I feel better.
From the posts I am seeing I feel really reassured in the future of outdoor activities in this state. Honestly I thought they would be the opposite because it seems that all I hear up here is anti limit, I can keep as much as I want attitudes...thank god that attitude isn't state wide!

[Guest]

I really didn't want to get into this one so I will keep it short. Since this has turned into a Red Lake convesation I will stick to Red Lake.

Obviously Red Lake is able to provide successful spawning habitat for crappies. Therefor, as long as there are spawning age crappies, they will attempt to spawn. There are a lot of factors that go into the success of a crappie spawn (weather, cover, predation, etc.)

With the huge population of crappies in Upper and Lower Red Lake there should always be a good population of crappies in Red as long at they are not overharvested and as long as there is a successful spawn occasionally.

With that said, lowering the limit is the best thing for the lake. You have not seen fishing pressure until you have been to Red Lake. I would hate to see the estimated annual crappie harvest on that lake every year. Because the walleye population is now on the increase, you and see a decrease in #'s of smaller crappies coming up, as the spawn gets preyed upon. To balance this out, harvesting less crappies will allow more spawning fish to remain in the lake. The lower crappie limit is needed to counteract the increase in predation.

Again, it all goes back to what it takes in a lake to have a solid crappie population. With the increase in predator fish (walleye)something will need to balance this out. A decreased limit will help by keeping more spawning age fish in the lake.

I realize this contains a lot of assumptions. The arguement that most fish will die of old age before they are havested is somewhat true, however those are not you prime spawners.

Now they just have to protect those pike somehow and we will continue to have a world class fishery. I will quit now! Scott Steil

[deadeye]

I have one thing i still don't have answered, why don't they figure out what to do with the portable houses. i think they should ask the ice fishermen what to do about the portables. i personally think they should only have to have a licence if they are left unocupied. as to the limits, the crappie limits are probably a good thing, i would still like 15 fish to eat, but if the size is better 10 will be fine. the lakes in the minneapolis area ae a good example, i have gone out there and caught 100 crappies but only five or six of them were big enough to keep. i would like to keep less, bigger fish than have to try to fillet a bunch of tiny fish.

[merc]

I was told by a DNR employee that the average crappie lives from 7 to 8 years with a few living longer of course. If this is true then Red Lake fishing will start declining after this year because the majority of the fish are from the 1995 hatch. Anyone have any different info? Thanks!!

[Crawlerman]

On portable Ice Houses-- I understand the need to get them liscened.. but putting your full name and adress or DL # on them in 2" letters-- that's a little ridiculous! The DL # is like 19 digits! Hard to put that on a one man shelter! If they want to do anything on the outside they should do a simple 5 or 6 digit number like with boat and snowmobile reg. Looks like I'm not even going to bother doing that to the one man Fish Trap copy I have-- I'll only use that on small intercity-residental ponds that are not checked by the DNR or something. Might get a 2 man with the numbers and such on it... but what happens if you try to sell the shack and used a marker or something to write your DL # on it with? A reg # that could be transfered to another owner would make life much, much easier.

[This message has been edited by Crawlerman (edited 12-18-2002).]

[metrojoe]

Sounds like some of you should have gone to the meeting.
Some of the decisions made by the DNR were based on input from anglers.

Ease up on GEM EYE.
It sounds to me from reading his post that he favors a lake by lake approach instead of a state wide limit. Plus he was only using Red as an example.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I only get maybe 1 or 2 opportunities a year to go to lakes like Red or LOW.

When I do go, I'm there to catch a limit to bring home and put in the freezer. I don't think I should be roasted for that kind of attitude.

If I can't catch any fish I can keep then whats my insentive to drive 5-6 hours to fish?

Maybe instead of changing the limit on the number of fish an angler can keep, the DNR should limit how many times an angler can fish the lake in a year.

How many people do you think would protest that?