Walleye limit going down and opener moving up?

[Nate McVey]

This just hit the DNT.......what do you think?

Minnesota state lawmakers will consider major fishing changes

John Myers Duluth News Tribune

Published Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Minnesota lawmakers may be about to mess with some longstanding Minnesota fishing regulations.

A key lawmaker on Wednesday unveiled plans to move the state’s walleye fishing opener a week earlier and impose a statewide limit on walleyes of four, down from six daily.

The proposed changes were relayed in a letter from State Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, chairman of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, to state Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Mark Holsten.

The proposals still must pass both the state House and Senate and be signed by the governor to become law. But they signal some major changes in the state’s rich outdoor heritage.

In the letter dated Dec. 17, Chaudary wrote that “we will be considering legislation to begin [the] fishing opener one week earlier than the present schedule. The benefits of this change include bringing the fishing opener to a date consistent with border lakes and border states, benefit resort activities, and reduce conflicts with Mother’s Day. I believe climate changes have impacted the spring spawning such that much, if not all, has occurred by the existing opener date. This should leave any biological impact minimal to none.’’

If the rule were approved and ready for 2009, the fishing opener would be held on May 2 instead of May 9.

DNR officials were not immediately available to comment Wednesday afternoon.

Chaudhary also said lawmakers will consider a statewide slot limit, or length limit, for walleyes. For example, on some lakes only walleyes between 14 and 18 inches are legal to keep; smaller and larger fish must be set free.

While many of the state’s top walleye fishing lakes already have lower limits and more-restrictive size limitations, this would be the first time those limits were imposed statewide.

Biologists have said that lowering the statewide limit to four from six will do little to reduce the number of fish caught because so few anglers catch even four walleyes per trip.

Chaudhary also informed Holsten that he would support a plan, likely emerging from the DNR, for the state to pay farmers to allow hunters access to their land for free. Many Minnesota hunters have complained of having too few places to hunt, especially game like pheasants.

The letter also expresses support for a new conservation fishing license, similar to an option offered in Ontario, where anglers agree to keep fewer fish each day in exchange for a less-expensive fishing license.

Moreover, Chaudhary raised the possibility of eliminating all license fees for children under age 18 to bolster youth participation in hunting and fishing. National trends show fewer youths are going afield.

DNR officials have said that change would cost the agency $2 million annual in lost revenue.

“I believe the Legislature has the ability to compensate this short-term loss, and that the costs are outweighed by the long-term benefit of recruiting youth who will become adult fee-payers,’’ Chaudhary said. “This is an inexpensive investment in our future.”

Other issues likely to be raised during the 2008 legislative session include raising the limit for pheasants; expanding requirements for the use of steel shot and fishing tackle instead of toxic lead shot; and new rules for fish farming, especially minnows in public waters.

Also expected during the session is an agreement on a constitutional amendment that would allow Minnesota voters to dedicate part of the state sales tax for conservation, fish and wildlife.

DNR officials are expected to reveal their priorities for the coming year at their annual roundtable event in St. Cloud the first week in January.

[Team Otter]

Sounds interesting. I support the reduced limits and slot limits and the earlier season will just be something to get used to. Ice-off dates will be more crucial up north, that's for sure. As for adopting license changes that will result in a loss of revenue, I'll believe that when I see it. They already did that with the portable licenses...

[delta hunter]

I guess I really don't care if they change the limit on walleyes, because I never keep a limit even if I catch a limit! I fish to fish, thats about it.

[Kyle Sandberg]

Whatever they do I hope they do it right. Personally, the four fish limit is fine by me but I hope they make the slot 14- 20 with one over 28 . Just like Mille Lacs. Seems to be working real well out there. Lets hope they make a wise decision.

[solbes]

I agree with K Dawg. Make it 14-19" or 14-20". Most of the walleye I catch are 19-23". I do keep some of the 19 and 20" fish simply because they are the smallest that I usually catch. It's not a huge deal, but the 4-5 walleye dinners that I have a year will now have to come from some other body of water.

Going from limit of 6 to 4 seems to make sense and won't really affect me.

Opener a week earlier makes sense also as the Mothers Day conflict would go away.

I'm not sure about the change to Ontario's policy with keeping less fish=smaller licence. As stated above I only have a few dinners a year, but it's probably enough to pay full price. Would this kind of thing be a honesty policy or what? Conceivably there would be less stocking required if people kept less fish, but I just don't see this policy helping much. I'd rather keep the stocking strong.

[wareagle]

I have no problem with the reduced creel limits or the earlier opener, but I wouldn't support a statewide slot.

We get people calling our office on occasion asking for protected slots on their favorite lakes, usually it is when fishing is good and people are keeping small walleyes (< 12 inches. Since most of our lakes south of Brainerd have no or limited natural reproduction what is the since of protecting these larger fish? Let some of these be kept (I'm a 14 - 17 inch keeper guy). Most walleye anglers or at least the ones that post here claim that they never keep walleye over 20 inches. The regulations now only let you have one over 20 inches in your possession anyway so where is the need? I see the need to protect these fish on lakes that are solely supported by natural reproduction, but as a statewide regulation I don't see the need.

solbes - Don't worry, the stocking program will stay strong. That is usually the only part that seems to get consistent funding if not increases each year. As long as the walleye is the state fish there will be a strong stocking program.

That is just my $.02.

War Eagle!!!

[Corey Bechtold]

I'm all for it! 4 fish is definitely enough. Heck, 3 16" Walleyes feeds my family of 5.

Good luck,

Corey Bechtold

[Slyster]

Its good. NO ONE needs 4 fish every day... 4 fish in one day? If you did that every day you would POISON yourself if you consider the DNR's fish advisories.. with mercury etc... what are the guidelines.. like 4 fish meals per month?

We keep maybe 4-6 fish per SEASON... mostly good sized pike.. but if I do get a walleye.. they are the best.. but even eating out we don't eat fish more than twice per week.. mostly frozen fish sticks or catfish fillets and the like. And I would doubt MOST Minnesotans don't eat much more than that.. unless they are Asian.. I do know that folks from other cultural background love to eat much more fish than most... and they might not like this new law.. I myself prefer steak and burgers. But I don't shoot cows... I am a sport angler... so this law doesn't affect me at all.. nor 'most' anglers. My thoughts.

[Kyle Sandberg]

Food for thought. What if they were to lower the daily limit but keep the possesion limit the same? You would have less fish being taken home and for people like me stock up so when fishing is bad you can still have a meal of fish?

[Mike Walerak]

Before we go and say what we think the slot should be we need to remeber that it should be done on a lake by lake basis. While a blanket slot might work it also might not work depending on the lake.

I like the way South Dakota is set up with a 4 fish limit and 1 over 20". It seems to work fine but there is much less fishing pressure there. We need to take all this into consideration before we propose our own thoughts. It boils down to the carrying capacity of the indivual lake.

As for a 4 fish limit I am all for it. I rarely keep more than 4 anyway.

I am part of the younger generation and the conservation effort has to start with us. If this is passed it will be up to us to support it and encourage others to do the same. The future is in our hands so lets try to do a good job and lead by example.

Lets just pray the biologists have a say in it instead of the legislators.

mw

[slipperybob]

I've haven't caught and kept 4 walleyes...in one trip. Maybe one day, so I can brag that I limit out on my 'eyes.

[croixeyes]

The four fish limit is fine,but I wonder how they would handle boarder water limits and slots.The earlier season will no doubt run into issues up north where they already have years where areas are restricted cause of spawning fish.

[fishcast]

I think the reduction in the limit to 4 would be beneficial. But I think a statewide slot would be in some cases detrimental on certain bodies of water. Slots obviously appear to work real well on certain bodies of water, but like Mike Walerak mentioned, I personally think for walleyes specifically, lakes should be looked at individually based on a number of factors when looking at a slot or minimum.

For an example of how I believe a slot could be detrimental is on a section of the Wisconsin River I have fished by school. If I remember correctly now, the slot you can keep is 15-18" and one I think over 26". In that section of river there are tons of fish but you can't hardly catch any over 14" and most are about 10"(although I have heard there are occasional big fish caught). The season is open year round there, and I am guessing that is gets pounded too hard during spawning times when the fish are highly concentrated and too many people are keeping to many fish as soon as they catch one over 15".

As a result in this case, I find the slot to make the walleye fishing real poor in my mind (unless you are looking to catch tons of dinky eyes). I also wonder how it affects other fish in the system because of competion and how all those small walleyes affects the types and size of the baitfish.

The only way I find the slot beneficial there is if they are trying to keep the walleyes at a good size for muskie bait, cause there are a ton of muskies there too.

[Chode2235]

That is interesting. I typically support slots, but we do raise some interesting questions regarding natural reproduction. I see the reason to protect the breeding stock of the lake, but what if they are not breeding successfully?

I fished with my grandpa a lot in SW Minnesota, near Mankato, and one does have to wonder what the benifit of protecting huge walleyes that are not reproducing is. They probably eat more 10-12 inch walleyes a year than I catch.

Sure they are great trophies, and should be treated as such, and released for people to catch again. But surely there needs to be more active management of those big old sows that don't reproduce.