Proposed walleye limit change?

[james_walleye]

Maybe this has been discussed already, i apoligize if it has. I was in Mexico last week and im reading the last couple outdoor news that i had saved for reading material and i read 3 different letters to the editors about the proposed walleye limit change from 6 to 4 fish. All 3 letters basically stated if the limit was changed that they didnt feel it to worth their time to walleye fish anymore. My reaction to these replies? I feel sorry for people like this. I feel sorry for someone who gets so little out of a fishing expierience that having to possibly keep 2 less walleyes to bring home would keep them from going. Does the time spent with your son/daughter, father, family, buddies, you name it, does it mean that little to these people? If simply the keeping of 6 walleyes rather than 4 is that important, than these people are really missing out on what its really all about. And personally i look at what 4 nice 15-16" walleyes puts on the table and i think, wow thats a lot of meat for 1 person to eat. And if its not enough for your family than why not get them involved in the catching? 3 people in the boat you can keep 12 fish in you feel the need. Is that not enough?? Like i said though, i just feel for these people. I think its sad. And i guess the way i look is these people are that gung ho about feeding the family and that the expierience obviously is low on the priority list than its just plain alot cheaper to hit the local market. Why waste a saturday on the water when you could accomplish the same goal in a half hour trip to the local market. Or maybe im the one who is off?

[Team Otter]

Well said JW. I'm on board with your comments.

I support a state-wide 4 walleye/angler limit.

[PerchPounder]

I am all for the 4 fish limit and two lines per angler all year but if those will ever change who knows.

[fishn4kids]

The reality of this is, unless you're a pro at fishing walleye, how many of us actually go out and catch our limit each time we go fishing. Not me. I fish for the simple facts that it gets me away from the stresses of life and the fact of my kids love to fish. It's not the amount of fish i bring home but the memories I have made fishing with my wife and kids and knowing my kids will grow to love the outdoors as i have. Besides, there are other fish in the lakes that taste just as good as walleye.

I'm all for 4 fish/angler.

Duane

[jumboperch]

I'm all for the 4 fish limit. If people really are going to quit fishing because of the change, then less traffic at the access.

[polarsusd81]

I have been a supporter of the 4 fish/person limit on eyes since before it was even seriously brought up. I would love to see the limit at 4 statewide. Like James said, 4 15" eyes puts a heck of a spread on the table.

There are always going to be naysayers though, those that say they only go for walleyes once or twice a year so they think they should keep 6. If they fish that little for them though, I would think that catching 4 would be harder to do than they lead on to.

[james_walleye]

Although i think a statewide slot would benefit many more of our MN waters i wouldnt argue the change to a 4 fish limit. It sure can't hurt lakes thats for sure, it could only help. I think the DNR definately realizes the need for tighter statewide restrictions and that they are working toward that statewide slot. Its a gradual thing. It started with the 1 over 24" and now 1 over 20" and the possibility of a lowering of the limits. Slots will not work magic on all lakes. Slots are not needed on every lake. I realize there are lakes in the arrowhead and gunflint trail that dont need a slot because they see little pressure. But i can't help but believe the majority of walleye lakes in this state would benefit from a slot. I know there are people out there that oppose a statewide slot. I guess my question is why would walleye anglers oppose something that would most likely improve the walleye fishing on your favorite lake? I guarantee the slot will not hurt your favorite lake, it can only help it. I think some people just dont want to be told they have to put a 23" walleye back in the lake. They don't care about how putting that fish back might help the health of the lake.

[Bearfan1963]

 Originally Posted By: fishn4kids

It's not the amount of fish i bring home but the memories I have made fishing with my wife and kids and knowing my kids will grow to love the outdoors as i have.

Ditto

[Rost]

We have a 4 fish limit here in SD and I enjoy fishing just as much as I did when I lived in MN.

I remember the days my younger brother and I went out and kept our limit of 12 eyes. We'd come home and take pics of the slaughter. One picture in particular, about makes me sick to look at now. We had a (what was then legal) stringer of 12 fish all of which were between 21-24 inches and fat! I swear we had a 35-40 pound stringer that night. Geeze, that was rediculous.

[paceman]

I am probably in the minority but I am not in favor of the 4 eye limit. I love to fish and I and my family love to eat fish. 4 good eater walleyes is good for one meal while we can stretch 6 fish into two meals. Sure I don't keep 6 very often but if i want to I can. I work long hours in the summer and don't get out as often as others. Lowering the limit won't effect my fishing at except for what I bring home. I will still go the same as I do now. and that is whenever I can.

[PerchJerker]

I recall one letter from ON where the writer said a 4-fish limit wasn't worth his time. He also said he only gets out a couple times a year. While I empathize with him, I think most people fish more than that and would favor a 4-fish limit. I make multiple trips to Red every year and that's a 2-fish limit and I never considered not going there because of the limit.

My feelings are that neither a 4-fish or 6-fish limit is likely to do much overall on a state-wide basis. I strongly support individual lake management, I know it's more complex but I think having slot limits and keep limits that supercede the state regulation is the best way to manage indivudual lakes that are high pressure or unique for some other reason. I hate the idea of imposing a state-wide slot and keep limit, I think that for every lake it helps there is at least 1 lake it will harm.

And I would love to see 2 lines per angler allowed in the summer

[Bassboy1645]

Im all for the 2 lines!!! On the river or thrugh the ice it is not as efficent as ppl think. in fact its alot to keep an eye on! But its great to fan cast a shallow reef and have a bobber planted on the side or the top...it allows to find a pattern faster...color or rig as opposed to jig.

I wouldnt mind a four fish limit or a state slot! I generally do pretty good and I keep my six fish now if i get them but i eat the 14-19inchers. anythign bigger isnt as good to me. I fish just about everyday in the summer and four fish wouldnt bother me at all! the reality is on average i get 2-3 eyes on a normal day. A good day i get a limit or more and excellent days i cant keep my bait in the water. cold fonts or storms come and and I cant catch my own butt if it was handed to me. fishing even alone is about the experience....Nothing like an orange glow sunset on a hot breezy day wearign nothign but shorts sunglasses and a fishing rod....

[mwal]

I'm against changing the limits across the board for no biological reason. The DNR stated that changing from 6 to 4 wouldn't change anything biologically then why do it? Some people feel better if they get a limit!!!!. We do not need our resources managed in a touchy feeley manner. We are slowly loosing our hunting and fishing rights. When you start managing public resources by legislation and not fact you start to erode everything. Next some Senator will decide that its unfair to use live bait or deer hunting should all be about big racks etc. How about turning all trout water to flies only? This plays into the antis hands. They will stop hunting and fishing by legislating. ANd our in fighting will finish us off. Wonder why not as many young people hunting and fishing. Make every adventure a complex mess of rules etc.

Mwal

[Bluegill1510]

 Quote:

We are slowly loosing our hunting and fishing rights. When you start managing public resources by legislation and not fact you start to erode everything. Next some Senator will decide that its unfair to use live bait or deer hunting should all be about big racks etc. How about turning all trout water to flies only? This plays into the antis hands. They will stop hunting and fishing by legislating. ANd our in fighting will finish us off. Wonder why not as many young people hunting and fishing. Make every adventure a complex mess of rules etc.

I couldn't agree more Mwal, and I'm in that younger generation category and I love to hunt and fish...But the detering of common sense and the motto we need more rules and regulations just turns people off to get into fishing and hunting in my generation. I use to like fishing Red and Mille Lacs but now I hate going there, because of all the rules, same can be said about state and public land and I really feel like sometimes they are trying to turn you into a criminal because you like be an outdoorsman, fish, hunt, or even go for a walk in the woods and find a shed or 2 or piece of driftwood you want. If our rights to even fish or hunt are restricted when I get into my 40's or 50's then I might as well stop now! (I won't though) Heck I'd go as far as to saying just fill in the swamps, ponds, bulldoze all the trees and prairie and fields and build more malls, stores, banks, sky scrapers, light rail stations, streets, "our up north" lakeshore cabins , and eye soar home developments in our state. Thats what everyone wants anyways to turn our state into a hub, or another NYC. Maybe Im wrong but our environment is hurting and it has to do more than "changing the walleye limit to 4, or state wide slot or moving the opener up 2 weeks." But when thats all politicians think about makes you wonder why our resources lack funding,and land isnt set aside to be undeveloped. I really think the walleye limit to 4 and moving the opener up is just a big smoke screen to get the statewide slot passed. The politicans did it a few years ago and snuck in the change from 1 over 24" to 1 over 20" without any debate or hearing form the public. Thats my rant, sorry but thats how some young people see it, and the more opportunties taken away from us when our rights are restricted.

[Farley]

 Originally Posted By: james_walleye

I guarantee the slot will not hurt your favorite lake, it can only help it.

I think we need a few more years of research before we can come to that conclusion. There has been a slot on Kabetogama for years, probably one of the first with a slot. It has improved walleye fishing so far from what I can tell, but I wonder what would happen to a lake like Waconia, or Minnetonka that gets tons of pressure every week almost to where fishing actually puts a dent in that year class that is legal to take. Seems to me if you only take 16-18"ers out then that year class in those lakes will suffer big time down the road and in 6 years everyone will wonder where all the biggins are.

I'm no biologist but that seems like what would happen in my eyes.

As far as lowering the limit, if they did it I wouldnt lose any sleep over it but I dont see what the fuss is about. Is there a shortage of walleyes that I dont know about? What is the reason?

[james_walleye]

This was said about Mille Lacs and Winnie when the slot was proposed on those lakes. We will wipe out total year classes. It hasnt happened. Every year when we go to Winnie we catch more and more 20" plus fish. Mille Lacs is self explanatory. And this is my rebuttle to this whole arguement. Take Minnetonka for example and use the 14-18" fish. Minnetonka has no slot right now. How many 14-18" fish will be caught and released on this lake this year? They wont be. Now put the slot on the lake. 14-18" still being kept like they normally would be but now that 20" has to go back. You still will get a crop of 14-18" fish that make it through to 19" and so on. The slot just allows for the fish that make it through to be protected allowing for a better spawning biomass. The great part for anglers is that this means more fish making it to "trophy" status.

As far as being overregulated by the DNR? I agree that if there is no biological reason to move the 6 fish limit to 4 that it doesnt make much sense, but it still wont bother me if they do it. And i agree these politicians need to leave it to DNR biologists. As far as other regs? I mean come on there has to be regs to preserve our resources. How long does it take to check a MN fishing reg book or to simply ask a baitshop what the current regs are on Mille Lacs? Fisherman need to take some responsibility. To sacrifice what might be good for our fisheries so that fisherman dont have to take a mere few seconds to check out what regulations might be in place for a certain fishery? Come on now. There has always been regs to do this and if some lakes or our entire state needs a reg put in place to preserve this than why would be complain? If regs need to be tighten which one would think would need to be the case as technology is helping more and more people catch fish, than tighten the regs to preserve the fishing so future generations can enjoy our resources. If moving the 1 over 24" reg to 1 over 20" reg helps preserve our fisheries than great! And I dont think the DNR needs to get our input on whether or not to do any of this. They need to do what needs to be done to protect Minnesotas fisheries.

[chasineyes]

How about instead of spending all the time and money on meetings, gatherings, legislation, etc.,. we would just dedicate more money for OFFICERS!!! There is no way they can monitor the lakes in the state. If I have a cabin on leech or winnie and I night fish who in the [PoorWordUsage] is going to know what I'm taking or not. And I'm not talking about taking 100's of fish just the occasional "slot" fish that the rest of us are suppose to release. Enough with the endless rules. Then again we've become accustomed to having big brother take care and monitor us.

[Farley]

James-

I see your point, but I think its tough to use Mille Lacs or Winnie for a comparison because of thier size. That is what I was getting at in my first post. I would think the numbers of walleye in Mille Lacs is far far greater than the number in any other lake around here or in the state for that matter. Just because the slot works on already great walleye fisheries doesnt mean it would work good on some of the smaller lakes because some of the smaller lakes, and I mean small lakes, can easily get a whole yearclass fished out if word gets out and the lake gets bombarded. I guess what I would like to see, even though it's probably not practical with the amount of money our DNR gets to police the recources, is for these smaller lakes maybee to have a limit of 2 or 4, let the lakes like Mille Lacs and the better walleye fishieries that can sustain a 6 fish limit keep it. I know that would be too hard to pull off but I think special regs for each lake is what, if anything, needs to be done.

Oh, and I cant believe we still cant use two rods in the open water season. IMO that should be the first reg they change.

[Bassboy1645]

Blue gill and Mwal....Im sorry I disagree with your statements. I am the next generaation of up and coming professionals who deal with this type of thing. As I have learned through shcool and real life examples( visible here even) There will always be a group of ppl not sastisifed or unhappy with the decisions made. There are three aspects to consider about any decions dealign with natural resources. Social, political, and scientific. Socially many ppl agree with the propsed change, a few dont juding by whats being said on here. A statewide survey and hearings have alreayd been discussed and we should have more to hear from as many views as possible. Scinetifically You can never have enough research. although lookign at the ealry years of the slots we cnotice a definent increase in quality of the fisheries. regional variations may exsist no doubt. not to say the will happen though or not to say that they wont happen. Politically there are lawmakers and govt officals who speak on the behalf of the public, non governmet orginizations(NGO's), and the professionals themselves. the people who are professionals in this matter do their job becasue they care. They arent going by guesses and thoughts. They have strong evidence that supports the changes. Its not about rules and regulations to eventually kill the oppertunities we are blessed with though the antis see it as such. personally I am choosing to hopefully presue a career in forestry or wildlife because I care about the future of my sports. If i wanted butt loads of money I could be a doctor or a lawyer. But instead im settling for less pay to be outside and try to work with everyone on issues for the betterment of our natural resources...No offence to any of you guys..

[james_walleye]

I see what your saying Farley. I guess the way i look at it is no matter what the body of water, if a 16" walleye is caught whether there is a slot or no slot, its going on the box. If the 15-16" walleyes go nuts on a 700 acre lake, those fish are going in the box no matter if there is a slot or not. So if a year class is going to take a severe beating its not going to matter if there is a slot or not. At least a slot would protect the bigger females from going in the box as well.

[Moses2531]

Drop the limit to 3 on 'eyes and put a closed season on Crappies so bucket fulls of 8-9 inch fish dont keep leaving the lakes! I dont like tons of rules and regulations either, but at some point it has to be awknowledged that there are more and better fisherman on the water these days with less and worse common sense

[L_Cappo]

ppl keep 8-9 inch crappies??? wowsers

[sdstatekid]

A statewide slot limit on walleyes would take the biology out of fisheries biology. In the place of biology is politics. Each lake is different, yeah there are several classes of lakes where the lakes in the classes are very similar, but they still are not identical. Although slots "can" work for these different classes just based on class, each lake needs to have it's own study and recommendations due to this study. Slots are excellent for some lakes but in others than can cause "stacking up" right below the slot and cause stunting. If this is put into effect i think there will be consequences on the many lakes that are not right for slots.

[james_walleye]

I'll put it this way, im my opinion the walleye fisheries in this state in general would be much better with slots than without slots. I don't know of any lake that would be hurt by having 20" plus fish have to go back in the lake. Thats all there is to it. It does not hurt a lake to put 20" walleyes back in it.

[sdstatekid]

If you are talking about just 20" plus fish going back in the lake i am all for it, i believe that is what the regulation is now, 1 over 20 inches, any more they go back. The problem i have is when the legislature passes a '4' or 6 allowed in possession when they must be between 13" and 17" or 14" or 15' to 19" or 20". Thats when i have a problem because if you are going to apply a slot limit to all lakes in the state you might as well tell the DNR to get rid of all of their fisheries biologists.