MN DNR News

[Lowe]

Merc, the 7-8 year life span is an average number, which depends on a lot of factors (type of lake, forage base, etc.) It may hold true for Red, it may not. There are crappies that have lived up to 15 years in Red, but that is probably pretty rare. Maybe the '95 crappies will start dying off because of old age soon, but they sure looked healthy last year.

There's also the other year classes coming up, which were often part of a person's limit last year.

[Guest]

i personally disagree with the new regs,i wont drive to url for 10 crappies,i would rather have minimal slots installed.say 9 inch minimum like the lake i fish on.
or,better yet,like our brothers to the east,
25 total sunfish\crappie totals,mix match.
hard to leave a spot finally producing after
10 crappies to fish for another species...
i am for a slot on northern also but not reduced totals,just my 2cents

[DanB]

I think the new limits are a good thing and I would even be in favor of individual lake management.

MetroJoe - I think that any sensible person would protest the number of times you could fish a lake. I, for one, fish Mille Lacs, Minnetonka, and several other lakes way over 20 times a year. Aside from probably 10 walleyes a year, I keep no other fish from these lakes. We don't want Minnesota to turn into Southern California where some lakes are open to fishing only 20 days a year and a certain number of people are lucky enough to get to fish them. Minnesota has great natural resources, but I do think that evolving management is needed to maintain its quality.

I don't think anyone is going to bash you for keeping one limit or two of fish from a single lake in a year. This does not effect a fishery. People that fill buckets with panfish every day or that ignore limits do, however.

[Guest]

Catch and Release.

merc, the crappie decline that you mentioned when the 1995 class dies off will happen if there hasn't been any successful spawn since then. I have a good feeling there has been. I have no idea how strong of year classes there will be, but I did get some little crappies at the end of last year on Red. Now I getting out of here! Scott Steil

[juddfish]

I have always thought about putting a season on bluegills and crappies. Why not close down the season during the peak spawning time of these fish. I believe that harvesting fish while they are spawning is extremely hard on the population. Everyone knows that panfish ATTACK everything when they are on there spawning beds. my favorite time of the year to C&R bluegills is when they are on there beds. I have also thought about a statewide size limit on crappies instead of lowering the limit. Or maybe even a size limit on bluegills. A couple years back I was ice fishing gills and I walked over to talk to a couple older fellas and here they had a bunch of silver dollar size bluegills in there pail and I asked what they were doing with them and his response was "the cats like em, they dont get any bigger than this in here anyway." I went and grabbed my pail with 4 half pound gills and said yes they do. Does anybody have any other ideas of what might happen in the future?

[Crawlerman]

Juud-- on the flip side-- there are a LOT of lakes with stunted sunnies; a good percentage of the Metro lakes and ponds are. Take for example Crystal. In a survey, the DNR caught 500 in their nets under 5" and only 20 that were between 6-8". If you drop anything over the side of the boat you will see a massive swarm of small sunfish attack what ever it is you dropped there. I Think a max size would be more benefical for bluegills and crappies-- taking the little ones really doesn't affect the population AT ALL in most of the metro lakes.

[Guest]

juddfish,
I respectfully disagree with the size limits on panfish. What tends to happen in situations where guys always keep the "big ones" the lake ends up flooded with "potato chipers". Why not let the bigins' go and clean out the eaters. Sunday I did just that on Blind, released a couple of 12"ers with big shoulders, great brood stock. Instead I took a limit of 7-8" fish to fry up. Just one mans opinion...good fishin'!

[muskybuck]

I don't mind seeing a 10 fish limit. I live in WI now and think that the 25 fish limit of combined panfish lets you take 25 crappies and thats too many. I can tell on Lake Onalaska that if there is a real good crappie bite in the fall its not so good in the winter. They just get taken out. I would also really like to know how many illegal crappies were taken out of URL last winter. I'll bet it would make us all sick. Maybe this move will help offset that a little. One other thing, does the fact that there is still the lower half of the lake not being fished have an effect on the crappies coming up into the Upper part to maybe warrant a the current limit?

[Guest]

i dont care what the limit is.........we need to educate people that dont know about any of the rules.

[Guest]

These changes are far from random or arbitrary.

The data has been collected for many years and much thought is put into it before proposals are made or implemented. Angler input is highly valued and weighed in heavily on the final decision.

By active participation in creel surveys and regional DNR meeting your input is noted.

Be sure to participate and you can count on your input being taken in on these decisions.

------------------
Ed "Backwater Eddy" Carlson..><sUMo>

Backwater Guiding
"Ed on the RED"
(701)-281-2300

[email protected]

http://ed-carlson.fishingbuddy.com

[SpikeRoberts]

Labrat,
I think you are mistaken about this being an "arbitrary" decision. As ScottS and others have alluded to, this proposal has been on the table for a long time and the DNR has held numerous public hearings around the state as well providing a period for written comments from the public. It is not as if they woke up Monday morning and decided to change the limits on Tuesday. If you were unaware of these hearings and comment periods some of the resposibility falls back on your shoulders for not keeping yourself informed of issues that affect us.

[Guest]

Matt D,
I have that same quote on my wall! Still gives me a chill everytime I read it. If you like Thoreau try Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold...it is a must read!

[Toad]

I know we've discussed the Red Lake crappie situattion ad infinitum, but there's a point that I feel we've got to look at. We continue to hear people say things like, 'We might as well harvest all these big fish now, because in a few years the walleyes will take over the lake anyway, in effect eliminating the crappies.' That we continue to use this as justification for the sustained mass harvest of big crappies in this lake really makes me shake my head. Even if it were true that walleyes will eventually force the crappie out of the system through competition by sheer numbers, why not keep as many of the big fish in the lake as possible, for they can be caught again and again. Why not hedge against the future by taking your chances that an adult crappie released potentially means a crappie that produces offspring?

While I'm not usually critical of the DNR, in this case I can't help but wonder why they continue to encourage mass crappie harvest. Fact is, good numbers of crappies lived in the Red Lake system long before the walleye population was decimated. Just as there will be fishable numbers of crappies in Red after the walleye fishery rebounds. As ScottS suggested, so long as suitable spawning habitat exists, which we know it does in abundance, crappies will perpetuate themselves-- even in the face of substantial angler harvest.

Which brings us back to the DNR's rationale for blatantly encouraging mass crappie harvest. I happen to believe that the real reason for their encouraging harvest isn't to simply report that the crappie population will soon disappear-- which they must know won't happen-- but rather to keep crappie predation on expensive walleye fry to a minimum (yes, adult crappies most certainly prey on walleye fry).

I'm glad for the limit reductions. I'm also glad that some anglers share my view of the crappie population on Red Lake. Why fish the lake's crappie population down when we could very likely sustain a world-class trophy fishery indefinitely? The lake and its habitat is diverse enough to easily support good populations of both species. It's a gamble I'm willing to take for the future. Ten years from now, here's hoping we're still talking about both the trophy crappies and the healthy walleye population in Red Lake.

-a friend called Toad

[Guest]

Thanks Toad, I knew you wouldn't be able to stay out of this one. As always, you're right on! Scott Steil

[Matt D]

chiro -- A hard cover copy sits on my coffee table!
P.S. My back's been killin' me, can ya fix me up?!

[This message has been edited by Matt D (edited 12-19-2002).]

[Lunker]

I think the regs are great. I love to eat fish, but I have never once in my life needed to limit out for any species.

[Guest]

about wisconsin lakes: There are different regulations depending upon the number of walleyes "harvested" by the native americans in the spring.
I don't mind your new limits. I will still come up to fish in Minnesota for a long time.
Quality not quantity.

[Guest]

And since when has "Public Input" had anything at all to do with "Scientifically" managing a states resources?

Sorry, but I have to disagree on this one. Round table talks, and public input "are" random and arbitrary. Creel surveys are a part of a good management effort. Attributing any weight AT ALL, to the stories about "All the BIG ones we threw back" IS NOT. I.E. the hook mortality figures that the DNR pulled out of their collective hat for Mille Lacs this year.
So what's next in their "formulated" plan for lakes like Red? Surfing the message boards and giving us a Crappie Hook Mortality figure based on rhetoric?

IT IS BAD SCIENCE period.

[Guest]

The DNR has a much different plan to managing our lakes then the simple solution of reducing limits that start in 2003. One that I actually agree with. However, do to public input they were not able to implement the plans they wanted. To me the DNR had a pretty sound plan but it was to big of a change for many people and they were forced to compromise. The DNR published their findings prior to the start of the comment period on these issues. However, there was a huge outcry from people worried they wouldn't be able to keep enough fish. The result being, just reduced limits for now. Scott Steil

[merc]

I believe the new limit is a good start. But I also believe the regulations on northern are just as important if not more. I fished many lakes that had a nice average size of northern in them and also had very nice sized sunfish. Over the years the northern size diminished substantially and also did the sunfish size due to overpopulaion and stunting of the sunfish.

Lakes with a good balance of northern seem to have a good balance of both quantity and quality of other species as well. So I beleieve the regulations the DNR is putting on many lakes for northern will help the fishing as much if not more than just limiting the amounts of panfish taken.

I have no scientific proof of this but just years of fishing seem to point to this.
Thanks!!!

[Guest]

MetroJoe got the jist of my question. Like I said, not picking on Red Lake or Crappies. sorry Kelly I know that's you're livelihood and maybe not the best example.

MY REAL POINT IS . . .
Why don't special regs work BOTH WAYS???

When a situtation legitimately calls for a special reg to be tighter than the statewide reg, then it should be implemented!

When a situation legitimately supports a special reg which would be more generous than the statewide reg, why shouldn't that also be implemented??

[This message has been edited by GEM EYE GUY (edited 12-18-2002).]

[Steve Foss]

Rick and Eddy:

Thanks for starting this thread, and thanks for everyone else who has chimed in.

I thought I'd considered these questions up one side and down the other in the 35 years I've been fishing. But I always see things in a slightly new way after surfing through one of these controversial threads.

I shouldn't be surprised any more at all the thoughtful responses from other people who fish.

[Poutmaster]

There are definately 2 different types of anglers out there. Those who fish for the sheer enjoyment, and those who fish for limits. As for me, I'd still drive the 6 hour trip each way to experience the qualily of URL crappies even if it was catch and release only! I have no problem with the new limits, and I think they should have even went more restrictive with walleye and pike slots included.

[Pig_sticka]

well if they had a walleye type limit where you could maybe keep 10 crappies under lets say 9 inches, and maybe keep 1-5 over 9. that would be great. for sunnies just make it maybe 15 under 8-8.5 and 5 over 8-8.5 that would help out alot of lakes i think. just some thoughts

[Guest]

I agree that a "Representative Harvest" slot on crappies may be the ticket. A 15 under and a 5 over a certain size, as an example. This would be set according to the creel data of the lake in question.

In order to maintain a top fishery in a system with a booming predator base (like Red Lake) you need a wide range of year class's to keep the trophy fishery healthy.

If you do not ballance harvest you guarantee a species crash, then your screwed. We have seen this time and time again on perch and crappie.

------------------
Ed "Backwater Eddy" Carlson..><sUMo>

Backwater Guiding
"Ed on the RED"
(701)-281-2300

[email protected]

http://ed-carlson.fishingbuddy.com