MN DNR News

[Johnny B]

I think that we all knew this was coming. After all, you can’t honestly expect the current limits to remain in effect for the rest of time. The walleyes will be next. No big deal.
I personally think that instead of statewide limits, there should be lake-by-lake restrictions in place. I realize the difficulties in trying to implement an individual lake fish limit, but that really would be the best thing.

Kelly actually wandered from the safe confines of the URL Forum That does not happen often!

[Matt D]

This discussion has obviously turned to a debate on crappie limits with URL as a specific example, so I will pose this question along those same lines ...

To those who would argue that they would not make a long trip to fish a lake if they were only allowed to keep 10 fish, I ask: Would you rather spend a day catching 40 large fish out of a high-quality fishery and keep 10, or would you rather spend a day catching 80 small fish, and keep 15? I know my preference, and it does not depend on how many I take home.

To borrow from a favorite author who eloquently philosophized about such matters:
"Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." – Henry David Thoreau

... a quote that hangs on my wall as a constant subtle reminder.
------------------
Best FISHES,
Matt

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

[Guest]

Very good points. Chiro, you are right with the keeping the little ones and releasing the big ones, especially true for Blugill. Very good point!!

Bluegill and crappie should be managed differently though, that is why I am not if favor of a combined limit for the two.

When the DNR had the meetings on this I presented 3 issues/options, all of which take a lot of time and effort and are not simple. Most were not implemented yet, I still believe are good options and can be done in time.

A specific limit for each lake based on recent creel surveys is the best option for sure. It is happening on a few lakes however statewide is not going to happen anytime soon.

Second, have a protected slot on Bluegill to promote the release of fish over 7 inches. To complicated.

Third, protected slot on pike state wide aimed at increasing the overall size. Slowly happening on indidual lakes.

The easiest answer to decrease the harvest of larger fish was to decrease the limits. An easy answer to a greater problem. Will it be effective? In some cases yes. Will it resolve the problems to the extent the DNR hopes? Probably not. There are better solutions but take drastic change. Scott Steil

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

[Guest]

For myself, the limit is not the question. Being single, I seldom take home more that two or three fish for the table, unless I am expecting to feed others.

What chaps my hinney, is the arbitrary way in which the DNR does these things. It is absolutely no different than the Legislature's stance that since we have not had a gas tax increase in 5 years, then why should you folks complain that we are raising it.

[BLACKJACK]

I agree with Toad, the DNR is encouraging the crappie slaughter on URL in order to make their walleye stocking a success. I'd like to see special regs on Red, cut the crappie limit down to 5 or 6, that would preserve the big crappies for many years to come and you'd have the possibility of catching a 14, 15, or dare I say 16 inch crappie?!! I'd drive 4 hours for that possibility!! A limit of 5 would also cut down on the people that live within a 1-2 hour drive coming day after day after day and taking home limits - thats where the majority of the harvest is coming from. But the DNR is not going to be innovative and brave and try to manage a lake for trophy crappies - all they care about is king walleye.

[Guest]

merc, I just wanted to add that you are exactly right about the value of large pike in a system. They are a great predator fish as well as Bass. Those large predator fish do wonders to the balance of a lake or system. That is the key, balance! Scott Steil