MN DNR in the news

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

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.
At this point I might just pour some scotch too! Haha
 
Whatchya got?

I think we should propose that the entire state should catch and release walleyes only and nonresidents are not allowed (borrowing from the Idaho non-resident elk thread).
I actually went for something a little nicer than yours… collectors edition in fact IMG_8474.jpeg
 
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.
got his ass!
 
Jeez, it's been 24 years since I lived in northern MN and we used to talk about how the limit was too high and no one should be keeping huge walleyes, slot limits would help, etc...

Put smart biologists in charge of the agencies, listen to what they tell you and always put the resource first.
 
Jeez, it's been 24 years since I lived in northern MN and we used to talk about how the limit was too high and no one should be keeping huge walleyes, slot limits would help, etc...

Put smart biologists in charge of the agencies, listen to what they tell you and always put the resource first.
Holy sh!t! Get the gallows ready, lite the torches! How dare you think of the resource first!

As a kid we would camp on the islands in voyageurs National park every summer, multiple times a summer. It was never a problem to catch walleye, but they’d be 12-15” fish. they introduced the slot limit and a few years later you couldn’t catch keepers because they were all to big. I think the slot was 13-17” were keepers and 17-24 had to be released.
 
South Dakota has a 4 fish, 1 over 20" per day rule and a couple of the lakes they are building up the population and quality of have a 2 fish, 15" minimum, 1 over 20" rule.

They have done an exceptional job with their fisheries.
 
My take--haven't talked to fisheries folks about it yet--but last year there was pressure from legislators and an upstart fishing group to lower the limit. At the time pretty sure the word was it wouldn't have much impact. But technology is scaring folks--especially the side scanning stuff. Not just another piece of tech, even pros are saying it helps them hammer the fish and find those they wouldn't have known were there.

Personally much rather see them ban that new tech than adjust the limit without good evidence it will make much difference. But politicians have some clout...
 
My take--haven't talked to fisheries folks about it yet--but last year there was pressure from legislators and an upstart fishing group to lower the limit. At the time pretty sure the word was it wouldn't have much impact. But technology is scaring folks--especially the side scanning stuff. Not just another piece of tech, even pros are saying it helps them hammer the fish and find those they wouldn't have known were there.

Personally much rather see them ban that new tech than adjust the limit without good evidence it will make much difference. But politicians have some clout...
The sooner Active Target, Panoptics and Livescope are banned, the better fishing will be for us sub-par anglers.
 
My take--haven't talked to fisheries folks about it yet--but last year there was pressure from legislators and an upstart fishing group to lower the limit. At the time pretty sure the word was it wouldn't have much impact. But technology is scaring folks--especially the side scanning stuff. Not just another piece of tech, even pros are saying it helps them hammer the fish and find those they wouldn't have known were there.

Personally much rather see them ban that new tech than adjust the limit without good evidence it will make much difference. But politicians have some clout...
I am always amazed at the problems the 1% make. 95% of folks could have Elon Musk AI gear and still not get a limit the 4 times a year they fish with their kid or buddy. And then there is the 1% who pound the water all season long and claim to catch thousands per year and have hundreds in their freezer. In hunting and fishing, I would find ways to clamp down on the hyper activity/catch/take of the 1% and leave the 95% alone to do the best they can (which isn't much). This goes for the "I have 9 big game tags this year guys" too, while some average Joe can't get one tag to take his kid.
 
I am always amazed at the problems the 1% make. 95% of folks could have Elon Musk AI gear and still not get a limit the 4 times a year they fish with their kid or buddy. And then there is the 1% who pound the water all season long and claim to catch thousands per year and have hundreds in their freezer. In hunting and fishing, I would find ways to clamp down on the hyper activity/catch/take of the 1% and leave the 95% alone to do the best they can (which isn't much). This goes for the "I have 9 big game tags this year guys" too, while some average Joe can't get one tag to take his kid.
Find ways to clamp down on the hyper activity/catch/take?

Are you implying I'm keeping too many fish or not respecting a resource?
 
Find ways to clamp down on the hyper activity/catch/take?

Are you implying I'm keeping too many fish or not respecting a resource?
Not personal to you, I know little to nothing about you. So, not implying anything about you. But I am saying the average casual "hack" fisherman and hunters will rarely create too much pressure on the resources. It is folks who are all in that push the systems and fight the regs.
 
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,986
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top