MN DNR in the news

[VikingsGuy]

All the lakes I know have extensive rocks and gravel. They still get over fished and a 6-fish limit is an issue.

There are simply too many people (and too much technology).

An interesting question - are walleye fishing numbers (fisherman & hours on the water) actually up in MN? Anecdotally if feels like numbers down from the 80s/90s. A bit like hunting. Fewer overall, but those that do do so more intensely. But I have no idea if my hunch is right.

 

[Gellar]

An interesting question - are walleye fishing numbers (fisherman & hours on the water) actually up in MN? Anecdotally if feels like numbers down from the 80s/90s. A bit like hunting. Fewer overall, but those that do do so more intensely. But I have no idea if my hunch is right.

There are plenty of creel studies done on Mn lakes and generally I think you are correct. I would say the significant amount of pressure increase in the winter is taking a toll on populations.

https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/fisheries/investigational_reports/464.pdf

 

[BrentD]

Id like to see the source on that 270 beyond the explore mn website (talking to myself, not you!) as it’s probably simplified. The fish composition in many lakes was altered substantially before any of us were alive, too.

But I do think Minnesotans are often surprised by how few lakes have sustaining walleye populations and we have a giant put and take stocking effort here.

I don’t see the downside to moving limit down. If RJ is right about the psychology of anglers wanting to catch that limit, it'll result in more fish in the lake and more happy anglers. I go to Canada and catch tons of walleye and have no issue keeping the couple I’m allowed and turning back the rest.

I think there is a failure to communicate. While very few lakes (270, allegedly and in the absence of data at the moment) may be currently sustaining in the face of current fishing pressure, in the absence of fishing and stocking, how many lakes would have walleyes? That is the fundamental question with respect to how many lakes have spawning sufficient for a viable population. The answer is going to be a hell of a lot more than 270, of that I am sure.

So, adding back fishing but cutting the limits to 4 from 6 will increase that 270 to something larger. How much, we do not have data (here on this forum), so we can armchair all we want, but we are just guessing. And for how long, in face of ever increasing fishing pressure and efficiency? Maybe not too long.

 

[NR_Hunter]

Almost all of my walleye fishing is done on wilderness lakes in MN and right across the border in Ontario so I don’t have much experience on heavily pressured lakes. Many of the lakes in the Boundary Waters that don’t get much fishing pressure are not nearly as productive as some of the well known walleye lakes in Northern Ontario that receive a lot more fishing pressure. It seems once you get north of the range of those damn smallmouth bass, lakes will support many more walleyes. Smallmouth gorge themselves on walleye fry and put way more pressure on walleyes than anglers ever will.

I’m not against additional restrictions but let’s not restrict ourselves out of an enjoyable experience. I would like to see a daily limit of 4 walleye with a possession limit of 8. There is really no reason to keep a walleye over 25”. MN seems to allow for anglers to keep a “wall hanger” with their pike and walleye regulations but skin mounts on fish are kinda a thing of the past. Personally I prefer the nostalgia of a skin mount.

I was deer hunting in southeast MN last month and saw a special regulations sign by a small trout stream. The regulations included a slot size and no live bait. When I was a kid we would go dig up some worms, jump on our bikes, and go catch some brookies. That opportunity does not exist for kids that live by the particular stream that I was hunting by. What do regulations like that accomplish? This little stream will never be a trophy stream. Maybe fishing is a bit better for some adults but it’s at the expense of kids or families with young kids.

There are hundreds of miles of trout water in SE MN that allow bait for kids to fish. There are really only a few that artificial only designated streams. I'm probably missing a few, but I think only Gribben, South Fork of the Root, a reach of Camp Creek, Canfield, Trout Run, Kedron, Trout Valley, some the Whitewater Branches and then maybe Hay Creek are artificial only.

 

[seeth07]

@rjthehunter you are hilarious with your MN examples of high pressure lakes and being able to sustain walleye harvests. You realize that every single one you mentioned HAS restrictions that ALLOW that to happen right? Your argument here is completely flawed and WRONG. Notice the trend of protecting the females to sustain the population here?

 

[seeth07]

Winni, LOTW (4 walleye, 2 sauger), Red has a 10 fish limit for most of the lake, Ottertail, etc.

It's almost like the DNR is managing lakes that the fish are naturally reproducing in appropriately. Those aren't the lakes that get affected by the rule change though.

Harvesting higher numbers of fish from non-natural reproducing lakes doesn't hurt their future like it would natural reproduction lakes. It makes room for the yearly or bi-yearly stocking that occurs. Young fish have to eat too.

If all the fish in lake X are stocked, what good would it do to leave them in there vs harvest them?

This same thing happened a few years ago with panfish. They changed the limit to 5 on certain lakes for bluegills and crappies. Most of those lakes went from high producing lakes to small stunted populations of bluegills & crappies. It's a little different when you're the one dealing with it in real time and have experience with these changes vs just reading about it on the internet.

95% was an arbitrary number. I don't know if it's 99% or 75%. It's high though. This is regarding smaller lakes where fish are stocked. People don't realize stocked walleye act differently than natural walleye like you find in the rainy lake, leech lake, mille lacs lake, etc. They relate to weeds when they're stocked fish. Natural fish relate more to rock, sand, and gravel flats. Stocked fish relate less to wind like natural fish do. The average angler hasn't figured that out yet, or is too stuck in their ways. The average angler is stuck in their ways of what used to be. Lindy rigging a sucker minnow isn't effective many places now. The water has become crystal clear in the past 10-20 years with the zebra mussels.

It's not as simple as lower limits = more walleye.

Mille lacs is a great example. They lowered the limits, and the fish began starving. There was too many walleye and not enough baitfish to feed the immense amounts of predators in the lake.

So much good reading here that will prove you wrong in so many ways.

About The Northern Highland Fishery Research Area | A Fisheries Research Legacy | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

 

[rjthehunter]

@rjthehunter you are hilarious with your MN examples of high pressure lakes and being able to sustain walleye harvests. You realize that every single one you mentioned HAS restrictions that ALLOW that to happen right? Your argument here is completely flawed and WRONG. Notice the trend of protecting the females to sustain the population here?

View attachment 348680

View attachment 348681

View attachment 348683
View attachment 348684

Obviously protecting spawning females matters in lakes where natural reproduction occurs... What's your point? MN has a statewide limit that protects fish over 20 inches.

Winni has a 6 fish limit. You're not as smart as someone once told you.

What's the issue that needs to be solved by lowering the limit? Since you're so in the know, please teach someone who doesn't know anything about walleye fishing in MN a thing or two.

What will a blanket 4 fish limit in lieu of 6 fish do for MN? Make sure you take into consideration almost EVERY big lake with natural reproduction has some form of slot or limit adjustment already made.

 

[rjthehunter]

So much good reading here that will prove you wrong in so many ways.

About The Northern Highland Fishery Research Area | A Fisheries Research Legacy | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

Yeah, undeveloped lakes in a state forest definitely covers most lakes in MN... Apples to Cucumbers dude.

Have you ever even fished in MN??? It sure doesn't seem like it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Obviously protecting spawning females matters in lakes where natural reproduction occurs... What's your point? MN has a statewide limit that protects fish over 20 inches.

Winni has a 6 fish limit. You're not as smart as someone once told you.

What's the issue that needs to be solved by lowering the limit? Since you're so in the know, please teach someone who doesn't know anything about walleye fishing in MN a thing or two.

What will a blanket 4 fish limit in lieu of 6 fish do for MN? Make sure you take into consideration almost EVERY big lake with natural reproduction has some form of slot or limit adjustment already made.

So, after repeatedly saying a 6 to 4 switch will make no difference to anything and that 95% of anglers can't get to 6 anyway, why do you care so much? Sounds like from your position it will have zero effect on 95% of anglers, and why should we care about the 5%? Seems like either the change is needed - in which case it would be good - or it has no effect - so why should we get worked up about it?

 

[seeth07]

So, after repeatedly saying a 6 to 4 switch will make no difference to anything and that 95% of anglers can't get to 6 anyway, why do you care so much? Sounds like from your position it will have zero effect on 95% of anglers, and why should we care about the 5%? Seems like either the change is needed - in which case it would be good - or it has no effect - so why should we get worked up about it?

Because it does matter to him personally because he wants to catch and take more fish home with him and/or his clients

 

[seeth07]

Yeah, undeveloped lakes in a state forest definitely covers most lakes in MN... Apples to Cucumbers dude.

Have you ever even fished in MN??? It sure doesn't seem like it.

You didn't even read it. The research area specifically has 5 very unique types of lakes that are prevalent in the region which by the way - includes a vast similar area in central and north east MN. Exact same types of lakes, exact same types of fish and habitats.

 

[seeth07]

Obviously protecting spawning females matters in lakes where natural reproduction occurs... What's your point? MN has a statewide limit that protects fish over 20 inches.

So in lakes that are only producing walleyes via stocking, isn't there a huge impact on reducing the amount of take on them - allowing them to get larger before harvest as well as reducing the amount of money and time required for stocking efforts?

 

[thusby]

Walleye fishing in Minnesota is terrible, just drive 2 more hours into Ontario and you can triple your catch.
Or just learn to eat pike.

 

[seeth07]

Walleye fishing in Minnesota is terrible, just drive 2 more hours into Ontario and you can triple your catch.
Or just learn to eat pike.

Compared to Wisconsin, MN is amazing. Compared to MN. Ontario is amazing.

 

[BrentD]

Walleye fishing in Minnesota is terrible, just drive 2 more hours into Ontario and you can triple your catch.
Or just learn to eat pike.

Or go south to Iowa where there are "lots of walleye" because no one fishes for them...

[/Sarcasm font off]

 

[Gellar]

Or go south to Iowa where there are "lots of walleye" because no one fishes for them...

[/Sarcasm font off]

Maybe lay off the juice for tonight Brent!

 

[NoWiser]

I have zero problem going to a 4 fish limit in this state, but I also tend to agree that the impact will be minimal.

I think the group it’ll affect most are those that have 50 walleyes already stockpiled in their freezer. It’ll be more trips to the lake for them.

 

[rjthehunter]

Walleye fishing in Minnesota is terrible, just drive 2 more hours into Ontario and you can triple your catch.
Or just learn to eat pike.

There's no shortage of walleye in MN... or WI for that matter. If you think the walleye fishing is bad in either state, you probably just aren't good at walleye fishing...

 

[BrentD]

Maybe lay off the juice for tonight Brent!

Actually, this conversation is pushing me hard the other way and towards a Lagavulin Offerman Scotch.

 

[rjthehunter]

I have zero problem going to a 4 fish limit in this state, but I also tend to agree that the impact will be minimal.

I think the group it’ll affect most are those that have 50 walleyes already stockpiled in their freezer. It’ll be more trips to the lake for them.

It's illegal to have more than your limit of 6 in your possession though. I'd give up a fish if they'd let us posess double the daily limit. Big fish fries are made much more difficult when you're only allowed 1 limit of fish in the freezer at a time.